Sitting of 4 March 1997

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

    KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 March.

    LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on local authority capital expenditure plans for 1997–98. [17001]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The Government forecast that local authority capital expenditure in England in 1997–98 will be £6.2 billion.
    Mr. Burden: On the day that Birmingham city council meets to set its budget, will the Secretary of State congratulate Birmingham on being the most solvent council in the country, having reduced its debts by 5 per cent. in the same period as the Government have doubled the national debt? Secondly, will he explain to the people of Birmingham why the Government have cut the capital allocation to Birmingham by some 50 per cent. and education funding by 80 per cent? Why do the Government seem determined to stop Birmingham's children being educated in schools that have had all the necessary repairs?
    Mr. Gummer: It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to talk about education in Birmingham, given its scandalous history of education spending by Labour and the way in which money that should have been used for education was spent elsewhere. Birmingham's basic credit approvals for 1997–98 are the highest of the 392 authorities in the country. The hon. Gentleman should accept that his party has made a commitment that there will be no extra money, so if he wants an explanation to give to the people of Birmingham, he had better seek it from the shadow Chancellor.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that large numbers of local authorities could lay their
    694
    hands on funds for capital expenditure if they transferred their housing to housing associations and paid off their housing debts? Does not the fact that Liberal and Labour-controlled local authorities hang on to their council houses like Stalin hung on to agriculture say something about them and their political parties?
    Mr. Gummer: The fact is that, under the new regime that we have put in place, in 25 Birmingham wards the local authority could spend 100 per cent. of its capital receipts if it went down the route that my hon. Friend described. Birmingham would have every opportunity to spend more if it opted for large-scale voluntary transfers as we would like and the tenants have agreed.
    Ms Armstrong: Has the Secretary of State read the report prepared for his Department by York Consulting on capital challenge? Does he agree with one of its basic findings that capital challenge has skewed the decisions away from basic needs, so that authorities have been unable to address the basic needs of their communities, but instead have had to respond to the Government's lottery? Will the Secretary of State meet local authorities to discuss the matter before the Government reach a decision? Will he take that basic finding of the report into account?
    Mr. Gummer: As we commissioned the report, we shall take its findings into account and discuss them with local authorities, as we promised when we started the pilot programme. What is more, Birmingham received £5.7 million under capital challenge. Local authorities that go in for capital challenge decide their own priorities. The hon. Lady wants me to continue with a situation in which we, instead of local authorities, decide where they should spend their money.
    Mr. Garnier: As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is so worried about local authority capital expenditure, will my right hon. Friend tell the House about the level of local authority capital debt across England and Wales, whether that has some affect on the public finances, and the Labour party's answer to the question?
    Mr. Gummer: Birmingham's problem in those circumstances is that, if the Labour party came to power and did what it said it would—release capital receipts—Birmingham would receive no money, because it has no capital receipts. Indeed, Birmingham would receive less money from capital allocations because, as local authorities that do have capital receipts spend them, the money available to be spent on capital would be reduced—unless Labour were to decide that it would increase public spending. However, Labour has said that it would not increase public spending. It cannot have it both ways.

    Royal Docks (Newham)
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's plans for the continued administrative operations and financing of the royal docks in the borough of Newham. [17002]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): English Partnerships will complete certain projects in the royal docks when the London Docklands development corporation winds up, in March 1998. The LDDC is discussing with Newham successor arrangements for its other legal responsibilities.
    Mr. Spearing: Apart from the legal responsibilities of the London borough of Newham, are there not significant costs in maintaining the royal docks' magnificent marine facilities—which happen to be in Newham, but which provide services for all of London? In particular, the Victoria dock project for young people provides facilities for sailing, rowing and canoeing, and the magnificent 2,000 m Olympic rowing course would be available not only to residents of the south-east but to everyone in the United Kingdom, and perhaps also to citizens of Europe and of the wider world. If there are difficulties in maintaining those expensive facilities, does he not think that some provision should be made so that an unfair burden is not placed on those who live adjacent to the docks' facilities?
    Sir Paul Beresford: We are aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. I can assure him that, certainly in the short term, English Partnerships will assume many of the responsibilities and that Newham will assume some. We are currently in discussion with those two organisations, on the basis of an asset-liability package. He will also be aware of the Royal Docks Management Authority. We anticipate that, in the long term, funding for it will come from service charges to developers of the area.

    Earth Summit II
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to involve non-governmental environmental organisations in the planning for the British contribution to the Earth summit II in New York in June. [17003]
    Mr. Gummer: The NGOs' involvement began with an Oxford seminar in June 1996, and continued with a Government consultation paper which was issued at the end of December. Comments on the paper are now being considered. We are in close touch with non-governmental organisations and have invited them, local government and businesses to join the United Kingdom delegation to the event and to the two preparatory meetings.
    Mr. Smith: As the Minister is unlikely to be available in April for the final planning meetings for Earth summit II, what plans does he have to give more responsibility to NGOs and local authority delegations to press the United Kingdom's case? What action will he take to ensure that banks are meeting their Rio commitments? According to this week's Green Alliance report, they are failing dismally.
    Mr. Gummer: We are keeping NGOs closely involved, as we have throughout. We are of course including Friends of the Earth—which, on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, appears to have been excluded from his meeting.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will he
    696
    confirm that Friends of the Earth is playing an important part in planning Britain's contribution to the second Earth summit? Does that not stand in stark contrast to the extremely petty action of the Leader of the Opposition, who has banned Mr. Charles Secrett, executive director of Friends of the Earth, from attending his meeting with other environmental chiefs, simply because he had the temerity to write an article criticising the Labour party's environmental record?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have found that Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other organisations are particularly important in giving us advice. I have excluded no one from the discussions that we have had. I am sorry that the Labour party—which knows so little about the environment and has had so few meetings on it—has, now that it has called such a meeting, decided to exclude one of the most important organisations. Friends of the Earth has shown great independence of mind in criticising the Labour party.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: One of the issues that concerns the NGOs in relation to Earth summit II is the continuing problem of relations between the United Nations' environmental work and the World Trade Organisation, which remained entirely unresolved at the Singapore meeting. Is there any progress on that?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that it is fair to say that the problems are entirely unresolved. It is clear that the international environmental commitments that we have entered into cannot be overthrown by decisions of the WTO. We are seeking to ensure that proper protection of the environment continues and that any argument between the two can be resolved. Britain will continue to play a creative part in that.
    Mr. Meacher: As reducing carbon dioxide emissions will be such a crucial issue at Earth summit II, why did the Secretary of State cave in last night at the European Environment Council by tamely accepting a much lower level of cut than is needed? How can he pretend to green leadership in Europe when he offers only a 10 per cent. cut by 2010, whereas Germany and Austria have offered a 25 per cent. cut and the Labour party is committed to a 20 per cent. cut? Is not his problem that the Conservatives' hostility to public transport, which is environmentally friendly, and his recent cut in the funding of energy efficiency, far from helping to find a solution to global warming, have made it a lot worse?
    Mr. Gummer: Every comment that the hon. Gentleman has made is wholly wrong. Britain has taken the lead and has brought other nations on board. We were the first country to go for a commitment. We are the only country in Europe to be able to cut our emissions to below 1990 levels before 2000. The Labour party is committed to spending more money on coal-fired power stations, which would increase emissions. The Labour party has the worst environmental record of any socialist party in Europe and is a laughing stock among all its neighbours. All the other Ministers at the Council of Ministers, including those from Germany and Austria, complimented the United Kingdom on our leadership and wondered how we managed to play such a role with a Labour Opposition so uncommitted to the environment.

    Local Authority Services
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about replacing local authorities' services with cash allowances. [17004]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): None that I am aware of. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received a number of representations in connection with the community care direct payments scheme.
    Mr. Thurnham: The Government say that they are in favour of more choice and opportunity. Why do they deny community care direct payments to 700,000 pensioners? Surely it is nonsense to say that town halls cannot cope with it as an optional scheme.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are often pressed to introduce programmes on a trial basis and to extend them once we have ascertained that the trial works effectively. The scheme applies to people under 65. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will follow it closely. The option of extending it remains open if it demonstrates its value.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many local authorities are unable to carry out the tasks that they are meant to perform, such as collecting rents, renting out houses to new tenants and collecting council tax? Will he therefore be wary of giving additional burdens to councils that are so incompetent at carrying out their existing duties?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The scheme involves giving money to people so that they can acquire services or equipment, short-circuiting the normal bureaucracies. It is a cost-effective way of giving choice, flexibility and speed of response. As for the fulfilment of basic managerial functions, it is worth remembering that a 1 per cent. improvement in council tax collection rates across the country would be equivalent to £80 million to spend on local services.

    Rented Housing
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new rented housing starts he estimates will be made by (a) housing associations and (b) local authorities in 1997–98. [17005]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): We estimate that the Housing Corporation will grant approximately 26,000 approvals for new rented housing association homes in 1997–98.
    Mrs. Jackson: I am not sure whether the Minister was present when his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, told the Select Committee on the Environment on 10 January last year that he considered that 60,000 new starts in the affordable rented sector was "quite robust". The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the actual figure is less
    698
    than half that. I am sure that his colleague did not want to mislead the Environment Committee. Was it simply incompetence on the part of the Department in not meeting its own targets?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady is right in that I was not present in the Environment Committee, but she is also wrong. If she studies the evidence, she will see that our target was 60,000 lettings, not new starts. She knows that we meet housing need in a variety of ways besides new starts, including tenants buying their own homes and the releasing of existing houses for new tenants. The target is 58,000 to 60,000 new lettings over the year—which we shall achieve.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I say how right my hon. Friend is to emphasise the role of the private rented sector in meeting housing need? In that regard, will he and his Department have a careful look at the notorious activities of Hillingdon borough council in using public money through the Housing Corporation to promote housing association developments on green chain and public open space such as recreation ground in my constituency—a move that is bitterly opposed by local residents?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right. The private rented sector has an important role to play in meeting housing need. It has been very good that, since 1988, there has been a major revival in the private rented sector due to deregulation, which the Labour party bitterly opposed at the time but which has been a great success. My hon. Friend is also right to say that it is important that we protect our green belt.
    Mr. Beggs: More and more elderly people and more and more disabled people like to feel that they are capable of living in their own homes. What advice are the Government giving local authorities and housing associations on an estimated reasonable percentage of new starts that should be adapted from the beginning to meet the needs of disabled people?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We give guidance through the Housing Corporation which, as he will know, has a role in overseeing the housing associations in ensuring flexibility in their programmes to provide for old people who want to stay in their own homes—something that we regard as very important.
    Mr. Raynsford: Let me remind the Minister that, 20 years ago, in 1977. under a Labour Government, we started 81,000 council homes and 26,000 new housing association homes. Does he recognise that, in this last year of a discredited Tory Government, he cannot even forecast a single council start and can forecast only 26,000 housing association starts—exactly the same number as Labour achieved 20 years ago, minus the 81,000 council homes? Is not the fact that the Government have allowed the house building programme for social needs to fall to the lowest level since the end of the second world war an appalling comment on their neglect of their housing responsibilities?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are meeting housing need. I take his contribution as a plea

    699
    for higher public expenditure. He wants to go further. He should know that his idea of releasing council receipts amounts to higher public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman and his party have not done their sums correctly on this issue. Such an idea counts towards higher public expenditure.
    There is another problem for the hon. Gentleman. Contrary to what he was telling listeners in the London area over the weekend, there is no correlation, no matching, between housing need and capital receipts.
    Mr. Raynsford: There is in London.
    Mr. Clappison: Well, let me tell him that, in London, the three authorities that have the highest council receipts are Enfield, Merton, and London City. By contrast, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth have very few, and Southwark, Newham and Hackney have none at all. If that is the hon. Gentleman's idea of social geography in London, he has a very poor grasp of geography—almost as bad as his grasp of mathematics in not realising that his idea amounts to higher and higher public expenditure.

    Local Authority Housing
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum allowed for local authority credit approvals for housing investment in 1996–97; and what are the figures for each of the past three years. [17007]
    Mr. Curry: The totals are £789 million, £1,014 million, £893 million and £869 million.
    Mr. McAvoy: When so many people are homeless or living in substandard accommodation, why are the Government cutting local authority capital investment programmes even further? Is it not time that the Government released, or started to consider releasing, the set-aside capital receipts, to boost local authority housing investment and help ordinary people?
    Mr. Curry: It is interesting to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) asking a question about investment in English housing. I suppose that he is getting his practice in, because, if the Labour party came to power, he would not be able to ask questions about Scottish housing. The hon. Gentleman's proposals run into the sand in three or four ways. They would involve public expenditure, no matter how the books were rigged. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), has said, the need and the receipts do not match each other. For example, the extent to which Malvern Hills can invest is probably limited. There would have to be a massive redistribution and that would need primary legislation. The hon. Gentleman will not tell us how much he would spend, when he would spend it, or when he would legislate to spend it. The proposal is not worth a row of beans, let alone a row of semis.
    Mr. David Shaw: Why is it that so many councillors believe that the capital receipts are sitting in some bank account, when local authorities have already taken them into their accounts and spent the money? It seems to be Labour councillors who believe in that mythical situation
    700
    and who do not understand that the commitment by the Labour party to spend capital receipts would involve an extra £5 billion to £6 billion public expenditure on the public sector borrowing requirement.
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party seems to think that the receipts are in an old sock under the mattress, but they are being used. They have been redirected into housing and housing revenue accounts, because otherwise rents and taxes would have to go up. That is a formula that Labour will not recognise. It is not a free option: it is an extremely expensive option. The Labour party would fiddle the accounts or betray its promise, and the latter is more likely.
    Mr. Fraser: Has it not occurred to the Government that the less we invest in social housing, the more we pay exorbitant levels of private housing benefit, keep people in the poverty trap and push up unproductive public expenditure? Is that not nonsense as Government policy?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman could no doubt make out a case for increased public expenditure across the range of public services. His colleagues could make a case for an increase in spending on education or on health, but if the Government gave in to all the demands for increased public expenditure, the economy and interest rates would get out of control and we would become less competitive. We would then find ourselves in the position of too many of our continental partners, who cannot run their economies.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against refusal by local authorities to approve opencast mining applications have been (a) heard and (b) successful since the changes to minerals planning guidance 3 in 1994. [17008]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Some 34 opencast coal appeals have been heard since MPG3 was revised in 1994 and, of those, nine have been successful.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister accept that the present minerals planning guidance means that many local authorities are accepting applications, rather than going to appeal, often despite the wishes of local communities? Is he aware of the huge Windsor opencast site that threatens my constituents in Morley and people in the constituencies of Normanton, Batley and Dewsbury? Is it not true that the only way in which constituents can be sure that that application will not plague them for 15 years is for a Labour Government to be elected, so that our 10-point plan for opencasting can be implemented and local communities can resist developments that they do not want?
    Mr. Jones: I note from that last remark that the hon. Gentleman is committing the Labour party to deciding planning issues before an application has even been submitted, much less determined by a local authority, considered at an independent inquiry by an inspector or reached the Secretary of State's desk. That

    701
    goes to show that the Labour party cannot be trusted with any judicial or semi-judicial system. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that all those issues have to be considered on their merits by local authorities and by the Secretary of State and that a balance has to be drawn between environmental and economic considerations.
    Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the site and is well aware of local opposition in Batley and Spen. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) is wrong to say that we need a Labour Government to refuse permission: it is up to Labour-controlled Kirklees council.
    Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend clearly says, the mineral plannings authority is a Labour-controlled authority.

    Local Government Finance
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce changes to the formulae for the standard spending assessments. [17009]
    Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to begin discussions of standard spending assessments for 1998–99 with representatives of local government. [17010]
    Sir Paul Beresford: The 1997–98 formula is set, and discussions on the 1998–99 formula will commence later this year.
    Ms Hodge: Can the Minister explain how he and his Department can preside over a scheme that adjudges Westminster the fourth most deprived place in the country, while Barnsley, which has had 18 pit closures, lies 326th? Will he confirm that the way in which the deprivation indicators interact with the overseas visitors allowance means that more than one in 10 of the visitors who go to the Ritz or the Hilton are considered by the Government to be in overcrowded conditions, and therefore attract extra grant for Westminster? Is that not a tremendous funding fiddle for the few—the very few—Conservative-controlled councils?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I am not as au fait with the Ritz as the hon. Lady obviously is. She has been involved in local government for many years, so she should know better than to come up with such gobbledegook. If the 1997–98 needs assessment for Westminster, in comparison with Liverpool, had been treated as Labour treated the 1979–80 assessment, Westminster's SSA would be £25 million more than it is; in other words, under those terms, Labour would have given each man, woman and child in Westminster £126 more.
    Ms Corston: Will the Minister admit that, far from there being new money for education next year, many local education authorities will face a cash cut in central Government funding? Bristol city council will have to cut its spending by £4 million next year, leading to staff cuts and larger classes. Will the Minister admit that it is Government policy to hike up the council tax, so that ordinary families pay more and get less, and that blaming it on Labour councils simply will not work?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady's local authority is becoming a unitary authority and the Labour councillors,
    702
    while talking about cuts, are planning a party to celebrate. They are raising their own pay by up to 66 per cent. and building a new £1 million council building. I understand that it is to be quite a delicate building, with turrets that have been described as reminiscent of a French chateau. Perhaps the councillors should get their act together and concentrate on providing opportunities for the people whom they should be serving.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that settlements for many areas, and especially Lancashire, have been more than generous for items such as education, largely as the result of pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament, in the face of opposition from incompetent county councils? Where does he think that the money that is being asked for by leaders of Lancashire county council will come from, when the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have said on the record that there will be no more money for local government?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend who, along with other Conservative Members from the area, not only pressed the Government for money but encouraged local authorities to try to produce better value for money. That is the action that authorities must take now.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend accept that the most objectionable feature of the formula for most people is that it cannot be easily understood? Does he accept that the doctrine of the Trinity is a kindergarten subject compared with local government finance? Can he offer any hope of enlightenment in the future?
    Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps I should offer to take my hon. Friend by the hand and give him a little guidance before we set the standard spending assessments for next year.
    Mr. Dobson: Why will not the Government accept that what is needed is a fairer system than the present one, which so featherbeds Tory Westminster that millionaires in Mayfair pay less council tax than more than 7 million council taxpayers in other parts of the country>—including, for example, in Coventry, where everyone with a house worth more than £40,000 pays more than a Mayfair millionaire? Do not Ministers realise that the present system is indefensible, which is why the incoming Labour Government will change it root and branch?
    Sir Paul Beresford: That sounds like a doctrine of gerrymandering. The hon. Gentleman is talking about changing the system root and branch. He does not accept that it has been worked out carefully or that it is accepted by experts—but then he does not accept experts. He also fails to accept the meaning of the word "efficiency". If, in terms of its SSA, Camden were as efficient in 1996–97 as Westminster, his local residents would save £420.34. Harlow residents would get £48.73 back, Islington residents would get £520.04 back and Barking residents would get £293.06 back. I fail to see any understanding of the word "efficiency" on the part of the hon. Gentleman.

    Environmental Crime
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the conclusions of his recent seminar on international environmental crime. [17011]
    Mr. Gummer: Our recent seminar was very successful and will help the UK to continue to take the lead in combating environmental crime. We are working with our partners in the EU and beyond to intensify our efforts.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the smuggling of hazardous materials and CFCs is on the increase? What action was planned at the conference? What does he propose to do to combat this crime, which is of great concern to our constituents?
    Mr. Gummer: We are certainly tightening the arrangements between the countries of the EU and within this nation, and this country has the most forward-looking system. But we want to ensure that we cover the areas of trafficking, most of it from the former Soviet Union.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the diesel motor engine detrimental to public health? What is the state of the Department's research on the subject?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that that has much to do with environmental crime. Our air quality programme is better than that of any other country. We will get rid of both summer and winter smog within the next 10 years, so that once again we will be in the forefront of clean air policy.

    Standard Spending Assessment (Rural Areas)
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the assessments of the needs of rural areas in the standard spending assessment formula. [17012]
    Mr. Curry: We reviewed it last year and we have no plans to review it this year.
    Mr. Greenway: That reply notwithstanding, does my right hon. Friend agree that the resources allocated to most rural district and county councils are substantially lower than those given to metropolitan councils? The Labour party can whinge and moan all it likes about resources for London boroughs, but does it not have a lot to learn from smaller councils about efficiency and managing on low resources? When can people in rural areas expect the same funding for their schools and other services as urban areas have had for years?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend represents a rural community, as I do, and he knows that we reviewed the system last year and were told that it was about right. In the circumstances, we maintained it; but it is absolutely true that too often metropolitan areas do not recognise that delivering services to sparsely populated areas is an expensive business. I will make sure that we continue to assess their needs objectively and meet them.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Why do Conservative Members point at us as though Opposition Members do not
    704
    represent rural areas, when many of us do? Does the Minister realise that part of my constituency, from Wanstead Flats to Epping Forest, is very rural? What recognition do we get for adding to people's delight at being able to visit rural areas? What has happened to the cattle of Wanstead Flats?
    Mr. Curry: I have visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although not in an agricultural capacity. If he wishes to visit my constituency, I would be delighted to show him around; he might then understand the difference between countryside and countryside.

    Local Government Finance (Warwickshire)
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the amount of standard spending assessment allocated to Warwickshire county council in each year since 1993. [17014]
    Mr. Curry: Warwickshire county council's SSA has increased from £267 million to £279 million since 1993–94. During that period, there have, of course, been changes in the responsibilities of county councils, in particular in relation to police and to community care.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive answer, which clearly shows that spending on education will rise and that spending on the fire service will go up by about £800,000, or 8 per cent. Despite those substantial increases, does he agree that it is time the outdated, clumsy SSA procedure was abandoned for something fairer and more intelligible?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that every local authority that makes representations about its SSA thinks that the system is unfair to it, and that whatever proposals it has are justifiable on entirely objective criteria. We have to find a system that we can keep up to date and that distributes resources effectively; we then need efficient local government.
    Mr. Olner: The Minister knows that Warwickshire is a very efficient authority, as the district auditor has said. The Minister also knows that over the past three years Warwickshire has had to go over cap to provide its services. Will he assure us that when the authority sets its budget this year, and has to go over cap again because the Department has not taken into account the education disregard, the Government will allow it to do so?
    Mr. Curry: When a local authority sets a budget over the cap, it can explain its reasons to the Government. We take them into consideration in determining whether to accept the higher budget or to require something lower. The same will happen again this year.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the consultation process to determine the 1998–99 standard spending assessment. [17015]
    Sir Paul Beresford: We propose to invite representatives of local government to discuss possible changes in standard spending assessments for 1998–99 in the usual way.
    Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister make it clear during that consultation that if Nottingham were funded on the same basis as Westminster, band D council tax payers would not pay £809 a year but would get a rebate of £661?
    Sir Paul Beresford: That is a possible question, but one could also ask why Nottingham cannot be as efficient as Westminster and save its band D council tax payers £135.47.
    Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a problem with SSAs in respect of tourism? Is he aware that there is a difficulty with standard bed nights, with visitor bed nights and with day visitors? When Torbay's local authority gains unitary status, will he at least reconsider the criteria on which day visitor numbers are counted so that they can be included with visitor bed nights?
    Sir Paul Beresford: As ever, I shall consider all sensible suggestions. My hon. Friend's suggestion seems as if it may be one that we may examine carefully.
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on inequities in the current funding formula for local government; and if he will make a statement. [17016]
    Sir Paul Beresford: What one authority considers an inequity, another often considers entirely justified.
    Mr. Simpson: I understand how difficult it must be to have Mayfair and Park lane and the poverty associated with those areas in one's borough, but is not the unfairness of today's formula the fact that the real benefits tourists in Britain are the rich in the Ritz? They are the ones whom the Government's tax subsidises, at a cost to almost every other local authority in Britain and every other council tax payer.
    Sir Paul Beresford: What the hon. Gentleman forgets is that the factor that he criticises in respect of Westminster, if adjusted, would necessitate a similar adjustment for Chester, York, Cambridge and Durham. He should recognise that, contrary to what has been suggested by Labour Front Benchers, one cannot gerrymander the system.
    Mr. Congdon: Rather than whingeing, would it not be better if local authorities got on and managed their services better? In that context, will my hon. Friend encourage local authorities to place more elderly people in the private sector and hence save nearly £750 million a year, instead of discriminating in favour of their own homes?
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—like many of us, he has to live with Croydon council. Many Conservative councils have overcome the difficulty that he describes by using the private sector, being imaginative and using lateral thinking.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17031]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if the negotiations in Northern Ireland result in a devolved assembly, Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland should continue to be able to speak and vote in this House on matters affecting England, Scotland and Wales? If he does agree with that, why would it not be a threat to the Union?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the powers that are likely to go to a Northern Ireland Assembly with those proposed for a Scottish Assembly. As he knows, they are not remotely comparable.
    Mr. Soley indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but they are not comparable. That is why his corollary is the wrong one.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great successes of the past 18 years has been the strict control of immigration, which has much reduced racial tension in this country? Will he condemn the proposals, even by new Labour, to abolish the primary purpose rule and to grant immigration rights to the extended family? Does he agree that that will increase racial tension and create resentment even among sections of the Asian community?
    The Prime Minister: In the past 18 years, we have seen the most extraordinary changes and improvements in race relations in this country. I think that is immensely important. I am certainly not going to lend my voice or my policy to anything that would damage that improvement.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister deserves credit for that answer.[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must come to order. Mr. Jamieson.
    Mr. Blair: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree, following the past 48 hours, that it would be better for the Secretary of State for Health to concentrate on dealing with the crisis in the national health service, rather than adding to the crisis in the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has done a great deal to improve services in the NHS, and he has also tackled many social service matters that required

    707
    examination and improvement. I think that he has been an outstanding Secretary of State for Health, and I believe that many people who are treated in the health service these days appreciate the improvements that have occurred.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister at least accept the evidence contained in a report due to be published on Thursday? A survey of 300 accident and emergency departments across the country shows that many are in acute and chronic crisis and that many simply cannot make do. The survey says that the problem has been made worse by the Conservatives' internal market reforms.
    If the Prime Minister is to stumble on in office until 1 May, would it not be better for Ministers to use that time not playing games about who the next Tory leader will be but showing real leadership and tackling the problems facing the country?
    The Prime Minister: Over the past five years, as we have tackled the problems facing the country, we have had nothing but opposition from the Labour party. Whatever fresh proposition was put forward—whether for health, education or controlling public spending—we could be certain that the Labour party would oppose it, and it did.
    The fact is that we are creating a modern health service fit for the 21st century. Instead of carping about the health service, it would make a change if the Opposition offered some constructive proposals because, as yet, we have seen none. They say that they oppose bureaucracy, but they opposed us when we abolished the entire regional health tier. They say that hospitals are underfunded, but they will not match our pledge to increase funds. They say that they would increase efficiency, but they would abolish our reforms and set up a new tier of bureaucracy. The very last thing that the national health service needs is an ideological Labour Government causing chaos and disruption.
    Mr. Blair: The very problem that the health service has had is an ideological Tory Government causing difficulties. That is why we have 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. If the Prime Minister believes his case on the health service, education and other issues, let him have the courage of his convictions and put the matter to the country now.
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly be taking our case on the health service and other matters to the country. I look forward to discussing the reality of what has been done in the health service.
    It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that he seeks to improve the health service. The Opposition opposed national health service trusts, which are delivering better hospitals; they opposed fundholders, which are transforming primary care; and they attacked managers despite the fact that, before the reforms, no one could tell anyone where the money was going in the national health service.
    The Opposition also attacked compulsory competitive tendering, despite the fact that it is saving millions of pounds that can go to patient care; and they are committed to a minimum wage, without saying how much it would cost the health service and whether they would fund it.
    708
    The Opposition will not match our pledge to increase funds in real terms for the health service in each successive year of the next Conservative Government.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that accidents involving NHS employees are costing £154 million a year, according to evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee only a few days ago? Will he therefore ask the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that the guidance given by the national health service executive to hospitals is put into practice? That would lead to great savings from fewer accidents; that money could be redeployed to acquire more nurses, more doctors and more services.
    The Prime Minister: We are certainly keen to ensure that the money goes to patient services. That is happening increasingly now that we know how the money is being spent in the health service—before our reforms, we did not have that information. Of course I shall ask my right hon. Friend to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Ashdown: When last week the Prime Minister instructed members of the Conservative party to start the fight back immediately, did he expect them to take him quite so literally? Lord Tebbit attacks the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord McAlpine seeks to duff up the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary seems to want to take on the whole Cabinet. In deciding how to deal with these delinquents, has the Prime Minister ever considered making use of secure accommodation and electronic tagging?
    The Prime Minister: If that is an indication from the right hon. Gentleman that he does support measures such as electronic tagging, I am pleased that in some areas he is moving towards the Government's policy.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the proposition propounded by the post-war Labour Government that constitutional measures should always be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. That has been the constitutional position in this House. It is the way in which matters have normally been handled. I cannot conceive that anyone would wish to change that long-established tradition.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17032]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Is Lord McAlpine correct to say that the Prime Minister asked him to collect a very large sum of money and that the person concerned turned out to be a Greek shipping tycoon, a very dubious character who had supported the Greek military dictatorship? Do the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General feel any responsibility for the fact that stolen money—and it is stolen money—from Asil Nadir is being used by the Conservative party for its election campaign? Should not all those matters be referred to the Nolan committee?
    The Prime Minister: The Labour party has just been canvassing for resources in the United States, presumably from overseas donors. It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman, of all Members of the House, propounding the idea that it is acceptable to take money from Americans but not from people of other nationalities, were it to be offered. If he is concerned about funding, he should concern himself with the funding of his leader's office and his deputy leader's office, and with the trade unions buying votes in the Labour party.
    Mr. Luff: Is it not all really rather simple, when properly understood? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has the most successful economy of any major country in Europe? Are not the Government determined to protect the interests of the United Kingdom in Europe and to protect the unity of the United Kingdom and its interests and influence throughout the world, and would not all that be put at risk by the Labour party's policies?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The most important element of the economy's success is the fact that success and growth yield the resources to fund the services, such as education and health, that we wish to improve but which could not be improved without an improving economy.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17033]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Jackson: Following the very decisive statement by the voters of Wirral last week, will the Prime Minister
    710
    take the opportunity today to redeem his long-established reputation for indecisiveness and tell us whether the election will be on 1 May?
    The Prime Minister: I warmly congratulate the new hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on his success, but I would advise him not to unpack his bags.
    Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rate of unemployment in every constituency in Wales is lower than that in Germany and France? Does he agree that if the United Kingdom were to copy the European social model, as the Dollies opposite would have us do, unemployment in Wales would double?
    The Prime Minister: The levels of unemployment have fallen dramatically across the United Kingdom over recent years, as a result of the policies that we have followed. For example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), they have fallen by 25 per cent., and by 36 per cent. in the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Unemployment has fallen by 31 per cent. in Sheffield, and by 40 per cent. in Sedgefield. On the back of that, one would expect the Opposition to agree that the policies that we have been following create jobs, whereas the policies that they are following have created unemployment across Europe.
    Mr. Insley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17034]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the attack by Lord Tebbit on his Deputy Prime Minister, whom he described as
    "tasteless, tacky if not dishonourable, and self-centred"?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister replied for himself quite adequately on that matter.

    NEW MEMBER
    The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
    James Keith Chapman Esq., for Wirral, South

United Kingdom Membership of European Union (Research)
3.32 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to carry out research into alternatives to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.
The future of our people in Europe will be determined by the age-old principle: united we stand, divided we fall.
The British are ambivalent about Europe. Nothing that has yet been proposed will resolve their feelings. Indeed, the referendum that has been proposed will tell us only that we are divided, which we already know. We need solutions to the dilemma. Most of all, we need real changes in Europe that can harness the support of all the people in our country. We owe it to those whose livelihoods depend on Europe to ensure that we achieve the changes in Europe that would bring more of the country alongside them.
How do we scale the mountain necessary to persuade our friends in Europe that we need change, and that their venture, European unity, is likely to crumble to dust unless they address and resolve some of our difficulties with European development?
The only way to move mountains is with power, and the only power that we have among the 15 members of the European Union is ultimately the strength of our arguments.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Valedictory speech.
Mr. Booth: It may be a valedictory speech, but it is an important one.
The first step is to find the national argument that can win all the support of Britain—and the unity of the nation is vital. Those two aspects must go together, and my Bill is one part of the argument: a piece in the jigsaw to win. I seek to support our leaders when they argue our case for change in Europe. Officials in the Foreign Office agree that, if we are to negotiate changes to answer legitimate complaints, we need to strengthen our negotiating arm. This is no time to groan; it is time to be constructive on Europe.
Our problem is not Europe itself. Our problem is that we were not there in 1957, as part of the foundation of the venture, and it has been made worse by the fact that policies have been made and directions taken since then that have made the problems chronic and the solutions therefore more difficult to find. I do not share the view that there is no solution, however; I believe that we must find a solution.
The problem is not about sceptics. In a sense, there is no such thing as a sceptic: there are only people who complain, and yet find no answer. My modest Bill is my contribution to what I believe to be one of the most important debates that the House has had in 700 years. I seek to strengthen the hand of our leaders in two ways—first by giving them a strong card to play, and secondly by increasing unity behind the Prime Minister in his quest to promote a partnership among free nation states. Negotiation, even between friends—even in a family of nations—can be tough. I make no apology if
712
my proposals sound tough; if on occasion it is necessary to be cruel to be kind, it is sometimes also necessary to be tough to achieve harmony.
My Bill proposes that the Government should research viable alternatives to our membership of the European Union. Others may be suggested, but I happen to believe that there is only one that would be in keeping with the worldwide horizon of the British people—the development of global free trade through the World Trade Organisation. That would make regional trade arrangements, such as the European model, a stepping stone to world prosperity, and greater prosperity beyond that. When I went to Geneva to research the matter earlier this year, I was satisfied that the WTO would, in the end, have the strength to give Britain a viable alternative to the EU.
How can that help us? Why does a viable ability to leave the EU without damaging our economic interests strengthen our negotiating power? There are two reasons. First, I do not believe that there is a Member of Parliament who has not been faced with the argument that the train has left the station, and that we have no choice but to stay or else become Norway mark 2. I believe that the one chance of a new start in Europe is to demonstrate that our whole regional exercise in Europe could, in the next decade or so, be shunted into the sidings by global free trade and global arrangements. Making their arrangements more effective could be seen by those in Europe as vital to avoiding relegation to the second league.
Secondly, we sell ourselves short all the time. Our partners in Europe have strong reasons to keep us in their sphere of influence. We are their export market: in every case, we are just about their principal export market. Two years ago, Germany exported £6 billion more to us than we exported to it. It needs us in Europe, and we should use that card. Rather than promoting our departure, it is likely that my proposal will cement the ties that we have in Europe, through a stronger negotiating position and the ability to reflect the changes required by our people. If Europe can deflect itself from various policies that we find irksome, everyone will win.
There is no time in this short speech for me to list the changes that are needed, but the European Court, the common agricultural policy and fisheries policy would be on my personal shopping list. I stress, however, that I am not presenting the Bill to promote our departure from the EU. On the contrary, I am presenting it to say that those who often appear deaf to the British point of view should listen to our plans. I am presenting it to be constructive and positive. We must show our friends—yes, friends—in Europe that some change will assist them too, because it will buttress a common venture. I believe that the tide of freely expressed anxiety—the tide demanding change—will sweep away even the finest ambitions unless Britain is in Europe, to play our part and to contribute our version of common sense. Rhetoric helps no one, but successful negotiation among friends certainly does.
I commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Bob Dunn, Sir Ralph Howell, Sir Sydney Chapman, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. David Amess and Mr. David Lidington.

UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERSHIP OF EUROPEAN UNION (RESEARCH)
Mr. Hartley Booth accordingly presented a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to carry out research into alternatives to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 128].

Local Government Finance (Scotland)
3.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997. which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1997–98 (HC 272), which was laid before this House on 13th February. be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Grant in aid of building works at Dunblane Primary School and Grant in aid of Local Authority revenue costs resulting from the Dunblane tragedy (HC 273), which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
Mr. Kynoch: This afternoon, the House has its annual opportunity to debate the Government's financial settlement for Scottish local authorities. It is an important day—a day when I would have expected the Opposition Benches to be filled. I note, however, that they are singularly empty at present. I trust that greater interest will be shown as time goes on.
I realise the quandary that the Opposition are in this afternoon, because a poll in The Herald this morning shows a 6 per cent. drop in support in Scotland for the Labour party; and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has at last realised that cutting administration and bureaucracy is an area that should be considered. He proposes to do that in the health service, but what has he done in the months and years past, in local government? Absolutely nothing. Yet his party controls local government in Scotland. The Labour party has said that there is no more money for local government, and Labour Members are here to debate that issue with us. We have said that there is plenty of funding for local government.
The purpose of the debate is to approve a package of legislation that deals with Scottish local authority funding. I propose therefore to begin by briefly introducing each element of the package.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I seek a straightforward explanation. Why is the Minister withdrawing £350 million from Scottish local authorities, and threatening some 17,000 jobs, which will increase council taxes and council rents? As Scotland will subsidise the United Kingdom by some £12.5 billion over the next five years, why is he doing that?
Mr. Kynoch: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would come up with something better than the old story of surpluses. Unfortunately, he is unable to understand the budget deficit between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1997 is accompanied by a report that sets out in detail the way in which the figures have been arrived at. It has been

715
subject to extensive consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I shall be happy to expand on any points of detail that hon. Members wish to raise.
The next order before us is the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, which is also accompanied by an explanatory report. The figures have again been calculated on a basis agreed with COSLA. Overall, the order provides for the payment to local government of a net sum of £2.73 million.
The Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1997–98 is the second such report. The proposed grant payments for 1997–98 ensure that the 10 councils will be protected for 50 per cent. of their mismatch. The report provides for the payment of special grant totalling £14.19 million next year, £6.97 million of which will go to Glasgow city council.
Lastly, hon. Members will see that we are also seeking their approval for the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on grant in aid of building works at Dunblane primary school and grant in aid of local authority revenue costs resulting from the Dunblane tragedy. We estimate that the first of those grants will amount to £2.091 million, and the second to £2.073 million. The report sets out how we have determined the amounts of grant that will be paid and their purpose. It is the product of close liaison with the council since the horrific events of last March. The report requires the formal approval of the House, which I hope it will obtain in a way that spares the community undue further attention.
So much for the detail of our proposals. I expect that, as in previous years, the overall local government finance settlement rather than the specifics of the orders and reports is likely to dominate the debate. We shall doubtless hear the usual, totally predictable complaints. Opposition Members, COSLA and virtually every local authority constantly complain that Scottish local government is underfunded, and that next year's settlement will require councils to cut expenditure.
It bears repeating as often as those claims are made that nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to all the talk of cuts next year, next year's settlement allows every single council in Scotland to increase expenditure compared with the current year. It also bears repeating until the message has hit home that the overall settlement provides for an increase of more than £140 million, or 2.2 per cent., in local government expenditure. That is before any account is taken of the scope for efficiency savings.
At the same time, the level of Government support for that expenditure has been increased by more than £60 million, which is £46 million more than local government expected to receive, when it considered its planned expenditure for next year as outlined last year.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister has given local authorities, such as Glasgow city council, new burdens of additional expenditure for the police and for community care.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman came to see me last Friday, with representatives of Glasgow city council. It was an interesting meeting, because Glasgow city council receives £21 million of mismatch funding, partly through
716
the self-finance mismatch funding scheme and partly from the almost £7 million that it receives in supplementary top-up, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced last year. Glasgow said that in this year's expenditure, it would be able to pay off a deficit of£9 million. That means that Glasgow city council has£10 million extra expenditure that it can incur while staying within its capping limit, plus £9 million that it seems to have accumulated, so that it can pay off a deficit this year. Therefore, the council has the possibility to increase its budget by some £19 million. Of course, that does not stop the council, because it says that it still has to make further cuts of some £80 million. That shows that it is looking to increase its budget by some £99 million. At a time when inflation is running at between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent., that budget increase would be in excess of 10 per cent. That is unreasonable.
Glasgow has had a fair deal. When Councillor Gould came to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year and pleaded for some extra help to buy time to get his expenditure into line with revenue, Councillor Gould knew perfectly well what was going to happen to the funding of Glasgow city council this year. I give him credit for the fact that he seems to have been able to pay off a deficit this year. It appears that he seems, if what he says is right, to have managed to get his expenditure into line with budget, so I fail to understand why he is seeking to increase his budget now by more than 10 per cent.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The Minister will recall the detailed discussion that Glasgow Members and city council representatives had with him on Friday. I am sure that, if he recalls that discussion, he will remember that, although there was a £9 million surplus this year, that still leaves the council with an £80 million deficit and having to sack up to 2,000 workers and cut services accordingly. Does he still think that Glasgow is trying to spend more money? It is struggling to avoid spending far less and wrecking services.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady has not been listening to what I have said about Glasgow city council. My point is this. It appears that next year it is seeking to spend almost £100 million more than this year, but when I mentioned at the meeting some of the information that I had received as a result of asking Councillor Gould about his councillors' travel arrangements in the past year, I noticed that certain hon. Members rose very quickly to their feet.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Rose.
Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend mentions the word "rose". That could lead me to give some of the details. Hon. Members heard me say that, when I looked through the analysis of councillors' visits to conferences and trips abroad, I found that two councillors went to Rostov-on-Don for the Rostov city days event—what that has to do with Glasgow I fail to understand—
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: In a minute. I did not mention the hon. Gentleman, but I was referring to him, and I shall give way in just a minute, because he may be able to justify those trips, at a time when Glasgow city council is

717
advocating significant cuts—his words, not mine—in service delivery. There were two trips to the Rostov city days event, one to St. Petersburg for a symposium on cultural policy in Europe and another to an international rose exhibition in Rome. Lastly, I fail to understand why a councillor from Glasgow city council went all the way to Hong Kong for a meeting of the International Badminton Federation, when the council is talking about cutting services.
Mr. Martin: The Minister was referring to me and to the comments that I made. He should have been fair, because I invited him to have a debate on the Floor of the House about trips abroad, so that we could talk about some of the trips that Conservative Members go on, which are so strange that the Privileges Committee has had to examine them. I speak as a Member who has not been abroad in this Parliament. I say to the Minister: hold a debate, when we can talk about everyone's trips abroad. It is a scandal that the Privileges Committee has had to examine hon. Members who have brought shame on the House.
Mr. Kynoch: I understand the hon. Gentleman trying to divert the debate from what I was talking about, which is what is going on in Glasgow city council, but it might interest him to know that I have made two trips abroad in the past 18 months. From one, I brought back 4,300 jobs after inward investment by Chunghwa Picture Tubes and. from the other, 500 jobs were created at the Lexmark company in Rosyth. I believe in spending money wisely, in the interests of my responsibilities. I find it difficult to understand the expenditure to which I referred, at a time when Glasgow city council is asking its electorate for a 22 per cent. increase in council tax and talking about cutting services.
If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) does not like to hear about foreign trips, I refer him to the fact that Glasgow city council proposes to spend £500,000 celebrating the centenary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. How does it plan to do it? It proposes to be environmentally friendly and pour red dye into the Clyde. What on earth that will do for the good citizens of Glasgow, I fail to understand. In addition, it has spent £810,000 on 28 cars for the council and about £500,000 on legal costs, trying to bust the conditions attached to the Burrell bequest. That is quite inexplicable from a council that is seeking to cut services to its council tax payers, but it is only to be expected from the prospective candidates for the tax-raising Parliament that Labour and the Liberal Democrats wish to set up after the election, if, God forbid, they ever come to power.
Mr. John McAllion: As the Minister is comparing trips abroad with cuts in public spending at home, how does he justify the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland going to Atlanta to watch the Olympic games, after imposing one of the worst ever housing settlements on Scotland and making more vicious cuts in housing expenditure? What connection is there between the Olympic games and housing in Scotland?
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman failed to remind the House that my hon. Friend is also the Minister responsible for sport in Scotland, and one of his functions is to ensure good and successful sporting activity. The meetings that
718
he held in Atlanta contributed to his current thinking about the future of sport in Scotland. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman, who I thought was a football fanatic, would appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend was taking a healthy interest in his subject.
What badminton in Hong Kong or a rose exhibition in Rome had to do with Glasgow city council, however, I fail to understand.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that had the Minister responsible for sport in Scotland not gone to Atlanta to support Scottish competitors in the Olympic games, all hell would have broken loose among the Opposition? We like our Ministers to represent Scotland at major sporting events, as I did at the Commonwealth games.
Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he is a former Sports Minister and was once a successful rugby player, he knows only too well the need for the best possible information about sport.
I do not wish to be diverted too far on the issue of sport. Let me return to Glasgow city council.
Mr. Tony Worthington rose—
Mr. Kynoch: If it is on Glasgow city council, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Worthington: I really must appeal to the Minister to treat the matter with great seriousness. We have lost hundreds of jobs throughout Scotland, services have been cut and there have been massive increases in council tax. If we have a successful economy in Scotland, why can we not afford the same services this year as last year?
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman talks about treating the matter seriously. I consider it to be exceedingly serious, and that is why I have had meetings with councils and with right hon. and hon. Members. 1 am disappointed by the fact that it was apparent at those meetings that hon. Members had not understood the councils' intentions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should know that if we did not have capping, as is Labour policy, Glasgow city council would not be asking for a 22 per cent. increase in council tax. The council would go to council tax payers and ask for a 62 per cent. increase. That is a disgraceful way in which to run a council—it is attempting to increase expenditure by more than 11 per cent.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Minister really understand local government finance? It is obvious that he does not understand the city of Glasgow, which has been eroded and become riddled by years of Conservative government, crime, drugs and homelessness. Medical reports such as the Black report show that the infant mortality rate in Glasgow is the worst in Europe. That is the Government's record. The Minister does not understand finance. In his letter to the provost, he wrote about "aggregate finance", "specific needs" and "needs and resources elements". He aggregated those elements, and it cost Glasgow millions of pounds.
Mr. Kynoch: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view, because he showed a singular lack of

719
knowledge of local government finance when leading the delegation that met me last Friday. The facts of life are that Glasgow city council may well have the problems that he mentioned. However, he fails to recognise the fact—although it is staring him in the face—that the Labour party has been in control of Glasgow city council and has created those conditions, because it cannot prioritise spending in the best interests of council tax payers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: Conservative Members are responsible, and they attempt to ensure that taxpayers' hard-earned funds are spent wisely, to achieve cost-effective service delivery within local government.
Dr. Godman rose—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: I give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Madam Speaker: Order. Too many hon. Members are attempting to intervene at the same time. Only one hon. Member should be on his feet at a time, and that is the Minister, unless he gives way.
Mr. Dalyell: If I have heard the Minister wrongly, forgive me. I thought that, in his outburst, he referred to busting the conditions of the Burrell bequest. Would this be an appropriate moment to ask what the Government's policy is on the very difficult matter of the Burrell bequest? Are the Government really in favour of "busting" its conditions?
Mr. Kynoch: As I understood the position—although I shall attempt to clarify it—the conditions attached to the Burrell bequest are a responsibility of the trustees, not of the Government. However, I am concerned that Glasgow city council is attempting to break the conditions of the Burrell bequest and, in doing so, incurring expenditure of up to £500,000 of council tax payers' funds. If that is the case, I question whether that is funding well spent, at a time when Glasgow is—
Dr. Godmans rose—
Mr. John Maxton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: I should like to move on, but I am happy to see such healthy interest on the Opposition Benches. I shall give way.
Mr. Maxton: I wonder where the Minister gets the figure of £500,000, whereas the council says that, at the maximum, it is £90,000? That is the sum. Why is the Minister trying to tell us that it is £500,000 when it is not?
Mr. Kynoch: I very carefully said "up to £500,000", and I hope that the figure—if anything—would be
720
significantly less. The councillors who came to see me with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) clearly should be attempting to spend council tax payers' funds and central taxation in a wise manner, so that their council tax payers have good delivery of service. At that meeting, however, when we analysed the request, they made it clear that what they effectively wanted was £50 million more, to be given to Glasgow city council. They already have £21 million more, through the two mismatch schemes.
Would hon. Members representing areas covered by the other new local authorities in the former Strathclyde region—East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire—be happy for an extra £50 million to be taken from their funding, to go to Glasgow? That is what the Glasgow councillors were arguing to me. They said that the distribution of funds did not favour Glasgow adequately and that more money should come from those areas outside Glasgow.
Dr. Godman: Clause 4 of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill places additional responsibilities on fire authorities to deal with emergencies at sea. What discussions have there been between the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport about that additional burden to be placed on our fire authorities? Was there any discussion about the funding of training of firemen for the extra duties and the provision of extra equipment?
Mr. Kynoch: The grant-aided expenditure on fire has been increased considerably. There are always discussions with the authorities to ensure adequate funding.
I allowed myself to be slightly diverted by the detail of Glasgow. I wanted to conclude by saying that local government has been treated favourably in last year's public expenditure survey.
Mrs. Ray Michie: I was waiting for the Minister to move on from talking about Glasgow. How does he account for the fact that Argyll and Bute council is facing £8.5 million of cuts as it tries to meet the commitments inherited from Strathclyde regional council? Some £3.5 million of those cuts are in education. We are facing the closure of three more schools, two of which are on an island. Why can the Minister not help Argyll and Bute?
Mr. Kynoch: I am able to do something for Argyll and Bute. The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been disagreement among the local authorities about the disaggregation of the former Strathclyde budget. The Scottish Office has always said that it was for the local authorities to decide about that distribution. After a lot of effort in trying to persuade West Dunbartonshire council to accept an independent arbiter—a point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) when he came with a council delegation to see me—I am delighted to say that the arbiter has worked incredibly quickly and has come up with a figure, which I believe has been agreed with Argyll and Bute and West Dunbartonshire. Argyll and Bute should be able to spend more than £500,000 extra this year within its capping limit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce that officially to the council later this afternoon.

721
At the recent meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose, my right hon. Friend challenged any Opposition Member who thought the settlement inadequate to say which Scottish Office programmes they would cut to give more to local government. Predictably, Labour Members ran a mile to avoid answering. They could not answer, because the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has decreed that there will be no increase in public expenditure, and therefore no extra expenditure in Scotland on local government.
I understand that the hon. Member for Hamilton, who will be opening for the Opposition, is now considering how to redistribute funding. I should delighted if he is really talking about getting his Labour councils to start looking at making themselves more cost-effective, and spreading local authority expenditure away from the centre, the bureaucracy and administration, and out to the front-line delivery of service, because that is what we believe in. We believe in cost-effective delivery of service.
Perhaps the Labour party finds it easier to act simply as a postbox for the misleading claims that local authorities are being compelled to cut services—without examining what is really going on. Labour Members have doubtless been briefed by councils and COSLA on the scale of cuts—as they call them—that they claim will have to be made. I should, however, be pleasantly surprised to find that Labour Members had examined such claims at all carefully. I have examined the claims very carefully indeed. As I said, I have also had the opportunity to discuss the claims face to face with a number of council representatives, including those from Glasgow and Argyll and Bute, which revealed an absolutely fascinating fact.
Councils are claiming that they need to increase their spending by about £500 million this year, just to stand still. That is half a billion pounds on top of any efficiency savings that they can make, or an increase of 8 per cent. on current spending, at a time when inflation is only about a third of that. If capping were not in place, that £500 million would mean an increase in the council tax in Scotland of no less than 42 per cent.—by mostly Labour-controlled councils. Yet the Labour party believes that if it ever came to office, it would not put up taxes. The Labour party is the party of spend and tax, as we are seeing in local government in Scotland. Its assertion is an extraordinary one, which I cannot believe any sensible person would take at face value.
Mrs. Fyfe: As the Minister's words a moment ago showed that he disbelieved the claims made by councils, is he telling us that he is predicting that there will be no redundancies in Glasgow in the provision of essential services?
Mr. Kynoch: Glasgow city council must face up to facts; that is the long and the short of it. The hon. Lady does not of course understand. I assume that exactly the same distribution of central funding, through a formula agreed jointly in the distribution committee between COSLA and the Scottish Office, would be in operation should the Labour party ever come to power.
I have sought to find out whether COSLA wants to change the method of distribution. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the president of COSLA, asking whether he agrees with the desire of the
722
hon. Member for Hamilton to have an independent look at the distribution of funds from the centre. The hon. Gentleman is in total opposition to COSLA, because COSLA' s president said that he was more than happy with the distribution committee.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went a stage further and suggested that perhaps it was time to take the responsibility for the distribution of funds away from the distribution committee; perhaps a totally independent body should consider distribution, so that people in Glasgow and hon. Members who represent Glasgow could feel that the process was independent. Yet COSLA, which is largely made up of the Labour party in Scotland, says that it is happy with the distribution. There is the most incredible split in the Scottish Labour party, which is only too apparent in local government finance.
Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that, last year, Glasgow council made cuts of £68 million and increased the council tax by 25 per cent.? Does he further agree that, this year, in order to meet the Minister's capping level, it will have to increase its council tax by another 25 per cent., sack 2,000 employees and cut some services by 10 per cent. and some smaller services by 15 per cent. and 20 per cent?
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten what happened last year, when Councillor Gould struck a deal with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The deal was that my right hon. Friend would guarantee to give extra funding to Glasgow and other so-called mismatch losers if they agreed to bring expenditure into line with revenue. It is up to the councils how they organise their funds. Last year, Glasgow's budget was some £843 million, and the council could prioritise its spending within that budget, to ensure good service delivery.
Last year, the councillors talked about cuts, but again they increased expenditure over the year before. The hon. Member for Provan fails to recognise, from what the councillors told me on Friday, that they are able to increase expenditure on service delivery by some £19 million this year. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but officials were concerned by the questions that I asked at the meeting. The councillors told me that they would not be in deficit at the end of the year. Indeed, they said that they would be in surplus, so that they could pay off £9 million of budget deficit inherited from the former Strathclyde council. That means that they spent some £9 million less on service delivery than they expected, so they probably have a flexibility of £9 million within their capping limit, which can be added to the £10 million increase, giving some £19 million. The long and the short of it is that Glasgow has had a good settlement. Glasgow must recognise that for years, under a Labour administration, it has prioritised its expenditure out of line with the people's needs and has not ensured good service delivery. It is time that Labour Members recognised that.
I have yet to have a satisfactory explanation from councils or from the Labour party, of why councils should need the enormous increase that they want. By the councils' admission, the increase would not be used to enhance or improve the services that they provide—it would be used to stay where they are. That is hardly an attractive sales pitch. I can conclude only that they have a spending wish list and that talk of cuts is simply deplorable scaremongering.

723
I have heard tales of councils varying their claims of expected council tax increases. Edinburgh made the most ridiculous claims not many weeks ago, but it is now talking of a council tax increase of some 3 per cent. The stories are scaremongering and nothing more. Certain councils have created unnecessary alarm among the more vulnerable members of the population, and that is sad. I condemn that, because it does no service to the cause of local government.
Mr. Eric Clarke: Does the Minister remember that I brought a delegation of Midlothian councillors to meet him? He disagreed with our claims about the way in which the money was redistributed by COSLA, but the reduction of £3 million in grant aid to Midlothian is a fact and is equivalent to a 16 per cent. increase in council tax. Nobody challenged our figures at the meeting—merely the way in which they were calculated.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman brought a delegation to see me, and I welcomed our discussion. I pointed out to the Midlothian councillors that they were permitted to increase their expenditure, within the capping limit, by some 3.17 per cent. this year. That takes into account the public expenditure policy on pay and salaries—that awards should be funded from efficiency improvements—so councillors have 3.17 per cent. more to spend on services, and there is absolutely no reason for cuts. The hon. Gentleman is a Whip, so perhaps he should ask his colleagues on the Front Bench what funding they would give local government if ever they came to power.
Throughout all the discussions of the past weeks, Opposition Members have complained about cuts and insufficient funding for local government, as they have done year on year on year, yet this year there has been a strange silence from the Opposition Front Bench. That silence was leaked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) when he said to people at a party meeting in Dundee that they might not believe it, but Labour was going into the next general election campaign advocating no increase in expenditure.
That may be a major problem for the Labour party, but I cannot help that. We have given increased funding to local government, which occupies about 37 per cent. of the Scottish Office bloc. Once again, I challenge the hon. Member for Hamilton to say what he would give to local government, and where he would take it from, if he were on Government Benches.
Local government benefits from reasoned, realistic, informed debate. I hope that we shall have that this afternoon; from the interventions that I have taken so far, I find that difficult to believe, but I live in hope. To shed more light on the matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I commissioned the local authority current expenditure study, which was published last month. Copies of the report were sent to all Scottish Members. Hon. Members have now had time to study what my right hon. Friend rightly described as a major and important piece of work.
The study was carried out entirely independently of Government, by Coopers and Lybrand and Pieda. After going to great lengths to ensure that it was comparing like
724
with like, the report concluded that spending levels across a wide range of services were higher—in some cases, very much so—than in England or Wales.
The report completely destroys the myth that Scottish local government is underfunded. One of its many interesting points is that the much higher spending levels have been consistent over the past 10 years, despite all the claims by Opposition Members that the Government have starved Scottish local government of resources.
Critically, the consultants question the extent to which issues that are often cited as "explaining" the much higher levels of expenditure in Scotland, such as sparsity, deprivation and unemployment, are genuinely significant. Opposition Members may want to think seriously about that before launching into this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government are committed to a second-stage study, the main objective of which would be to get behind the figures that have been published and explore further the reasons for higher spending by Scottish councils, and to consider the relative efficiency of councils and the quality of service that they deliver.
Mr. George Robertson: This is ridiculous.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman says that it is ridiculous, but it shows the wide gulf—
Mr. Robertson: The Minister has been speaking for 42 minutes.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman says that I have been speaking for 42 minutes, but I have been taking interventions from Opposition Members. He would slag me off if I did not take interventions from hon. Members who want to ask about their councils
Mr. Robertson: It is only a three-hour debate.
Mr. Kynoch: It is a three-and-a-half-hour debate. The hon. Gentleman is trying to divert attention from what I am trying to say.
We challenge the Labour party to say whether, in the unlikely event that it were to form the next Government, it would also proceed with the second-stage study. It seems reluctant to do so. I ask again whether the hon. Member for Hamilton would do it. Perhaps Opposition Members would prefer not to lift the lid on local government spending, for fear of what they might find. Council tax payers will doubtless draw that conclusion.
I repeat that reasoned, realistic, informed debate benefits local government. We have recent examples to prove it. The serious and thoughtful representations from a number of councils led us to review the capping limits set for 15 relatively low-spending councils, which argued that it was unfair that they should be permitted only the same year-on-year increase in capped expenditure as high-spending councils. The councils that argued for an increase in their capping limits accepted that the additional costs would have to fall on their council tax payers. That change in capping limits would push up council tax levels and local authority self-financed expenditure by £10 million.

725
As we tirelessly try to explain to Opposition Members, that increase in public expenditure can be afforded only by making offsetting reductions in other expenditure programmes. We have explained our intention to reduce the level of local authority capital consent that will be issued for next year, by some £10 million. That will come from a supplementary allocation later in the year.
A further reasoned and realistic proposal put to us concerns the so-called "spend to save" scheme. We accept that some authorities face difficulties in adjusting their existing spending patterns to what can be afforded, while protecting the front-line services to which we all attach priority. At the suggestion of COSLA, we have agreed to grant councils additional flexibility within the total resources available to them, to allow them, if they so wish, to use some of their capital provision to secure savings on their revenue budgets. No new resources are available for that purpose, but it will give councils more room to manoeuvre in setting budgets. Officials are discussing as a matter of urgency the practicalities of that with councils that are interested in the scheme.
These measures genuinely help local government—unlike the constant repetition of tired and implausible claims about cuts and underfunding. The measures recognise the reality of public expenditure—that more for one programme means less for another. Altogether, the settlement for next year is very favourable. I challenge the Labour party—which has ambitions to form the next Government—to say whether it would increase the settlement and, if so, where that additional money would be found. If, as I suspect, Labour Members remain silent on that, I must ask whether—in line with their past practice following such debates—they plan to divide the House on the orders. If so, why? Yet again we shall see the inconsistency in the logic of the Labour party in Scotland. For my part, I commend the two orders and the two reports to the House.
Madam Speaker: I call —[Interruption.] I call Mr. George Robertson.
4.26 pm
Mr. George Robertson: The Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and I were stuck on the 10 o'clock Edinburgh shuttle for some three hours today. Clearly, we have been forgotten down here in the interim.
I start by welcoming the special grant report that has been tabled in relation to Dunblane primary school. I fully support this order and the moneys that have been made available. The order is a reflection of a tragedy that occurred almost a year ago, which united this House. There were unavoidable costs attached, and let us hope that those are never to be incurred again. We fully support and agree with the moneys provided to cover those costs.
I cannot say the same for the rest of the Government's plans for local government. One of the more disappointing aspects of this important debate—in which we are considering local government on the edge of a general election—is that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not open it. His predecessor had the guts to come to these debates most years, and did not put up some clone in his place. This is the key local government debate of the year, and the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper
726
Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—the Secretary of State's predecessor—did not desert the battlefield when it came to defending the indefensible policy of the Government.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is perfectly capable of putting the case for local government. The difference between the situation when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was Secretary of State for Scotland and now is that, in his day, the Labour party was arguing for more money, and was not supporting the Government.
Mr. Robertson: I do not think that that is sufficient excuse. The right hon. Gentleman is not capable of defending the Government's indefensible position on local government. People outside the House will reach the right conclusion.
I will state our position on local government and local government expenditure, but it is for the Government, in their dying days, to tell us why they have allowed this situation to develop, and why they promote this settlement. The Minister, whom the Secretary of State seems to trust, has signally failed to do that. Despite taking 47 minutes of a three-and-a-half hour debate, he gave no explanation of why local authorities across Scotland have been put in such a position, or why council tax payers must pay the penalty.
The Secretary of State fiddles, like some tartan Nero, on the eve of a general election, while communities across Scotland suffer the consequences of his settlement. That is another example of the arrogant complacency that has been the hallmark of his period in office, which has meant that he has barely risen a fraction in the opinion polls, despite our momentary drop.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the disappointments of these debates is the way in which he talks down to Conservative Members and uses personal abuse? He should stick to the issues. Is it not a greater disappointment to him that the majority of Scottish Labour Members have not turned up? Perhaps they are all on foreign trips.
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a pity that we resort to personal abuse; then personally abuses people who are not even here. That is the sort of consistency that we have enjoyed from him during his brief period in the House.
This is an important debate about what the Government propose this year for local government. As local government takes up almost half the Scottish Office budget, it is a subject of more than average relevance to the House and to Scotland.
Not one independent commentator on local government in Scotland agrees with what the Minister told the House. They all agree that council tax bills will go up way above inflation, that compulsory redundancies will be forced on councils, and that there will be real and painful reductions in services across Scotland: all because of the Government's grant settlement for this year. I doubt whether the Minister expects anyone in Scotland to believe his fiddled statistics.
Mr. Kynoch: I challenge the hon. Gentleman again to say how much more he would give if he were in government. How much, and from where?
Mr. Robertson: I will deal with that precisely later. No incoming Government could repair in their first

727
18 months the damage of the economic failure of 18 years of the Conservatives. I make no pretence about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I have made it clear that we are not likely to find extra hidden caches of money left behind by the Government when they lose power. We have to accept the spending limits that have been laid down for the current year.
Mr. Bill Walke rose—
Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait while I answer the Minister.
We will have to live with the totals, but we will have wholly different priorities. We will put extra money into education in Scotland by abolishing the nursery voucher scheme and providing places for all four-year-olds in Scotland. By abolishing the assisted places scheme and reducing class sizes for the first three years of primary education, we will put extra money into education in Scotland. Through other means, we will find more money for the education system of our country, because that is vital for our future competitiveness. It would be wildly irresponsible to do that when the statistics are not available.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government on the basis of figures that they provided from the Red Book and other sources. Government is about determining priorities. What are his priorities? Which budgets will he reduce to increase other budgets? He should remember that we have not all been in the House for a short time. Will he say just what he can do? I do not mean palliatives such as the little bits and pieces he mentioned. In real money terms, what changes will he make?
Mr. Robertson: No wonder the hon. Gentleman wants to know—the Conservative Government will not tell the people of Scotland anything about what they would do if they won the next general election. One would think that the election had already been won—that Labour were the Government and the Conservatives were the Opposition. The Conservatives no longer have any responsibility, any ideas or any clue about what they will offer the people of Scotland in future.
Where did the Secretary of State manage to find £500,000 for one opted-out school, which just happened to be in his constituency? He told us last year that they were strapped, that there was no extra money to help local government and no extra money for education or for the health service, yet halfway through the year £500,000 was spirited up.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: If the right hon. Gentleman will sit down and wait for a minute, I shall. One of his great problems is that he seems to be incapable of listening—he always wants to be telling. The Secretary of State might be better off, on the edge of an election, if he was capable of listening to the Scottish people instead of lecturing them. Now let him ask his question.
Mr. Forsyth: I was hoping to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me. He asked where the money
728
for the opted-out schools came from. There is a Budget line for it—it is all published, and the hon. Gentleman can see our priorities. If he wishes to have other priorities, he should say where the money will come from, and stop pretending that the information is not available to him. When he says that he will abolish nursery vouchers, that is extra money for local government-an extra £30 million in year one. Where is the hon. Gentleman going to find that extra money he is promising? If he is not promising extra money, why is he opposing the settlement?
Mr. Robertson: We are opposing the orders tonight so that the Government can go back and look again at their priorities. The Secretary of State says that he found the £500,000 for the one opted-out school in his constituency from a specific Budget line—of course he did not do that. When, in the Scottish Grand Committee, he threw a document across, it was a generalised figure of £24 million for education in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman is able to do that, just as the Conservatives during their tenure in the Scottish Office wasted £1 billion on the poll tax. In the straitened circumstances in which they insisted they found themselves, the Government were able to waste—lose in a black hole£1 billion of taxpayers' money on a failed experiment in local taxation whose residue is felt even today.
The Government have managed to lose or waste billions of pounds on the privatisation of the railways; £30 million was wasted on Health Care International—
Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finishing reciting this catalogue of waste for which the Government are responsible, I shall be happy to listen to how his party will pay for everything on every account.
The Government lost £30 million on an investment in a private hospital at Clydebank.
Mr. Kynoch: Those are last year's figures.
Mr. Robertson: Last year's figures—last year's waste and last year's mistakes. Yes, but they were all found within a Scottish Office budget, and when we come to power, we will scrutinise that budget with great care to see where savings can be made and waste prevented. What about the £1 million that the Government are going to spend on advertising the voucher scheme that almost no one in Scotland actually wants? Where will the money come from to enable them to push that scheme down people's throats on the edge of the election?
Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Angus, but I stress to the House and to failed Tory Ministers that they were responsible for that waste—they were able to find that money. We will change the

729
priorities within the Scottish Office budget and within every other budget in the land, and people will notice right away where our priorities are.
Mr. Welsh: I want to ask a specific question. Would the hon. Gentleman wish to continue the policy of the self-financing public sector pay awards?
Mr. Robertson: We intend to finance pay awards next year out of the existing settlement—my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has made that absolutely clear. The Scottish National party believes that anything may be financed. I wonder what sort of settlement the hon. Gentleman would impose. Clearly, SNP councils have had to live with the existing budgets.
I return to the local government settlement, and to the deceit and the fiction of the Government's case. We are used to the broken promises and lies about taxation from this Government. The fact is that, even according to the Government's figures, permitted expenditure this year will rise by only £75 million, or 1.4 per cent—and that is before new burdens placed on local government by central Government and Parliament are taken into account. We have yet to deal with the deception regarding the cost and the savings of local government reorganisation, and the self-financing awards have yet to take place.
The Government's case is simply not true. As I said, no independent commentators in Scotland or elsewhere will support the Government's contention that more money is being made available in real terms to local government in Scotland. Councils must finance new burdens out of this year's settlement.
Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should sit down. We shared a cab today, but that is all that I am willing to share with him at present.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: You have to give way.
Mr. Robertson: We are back to the old "kissing cousins" relationship between the two extremities of Scottish politics. However, the people of Scotland will continue to choose the middle ground. Even in today's poor opinion poll, we are 20 per cent. ahead of the party of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and 30 per cent. ahead of the Government. That says it all.
New burdens have been imposed on local government. It must finance the installation of seat belts in school transport. The landfill tax from last year's Budget has produced huge burdens for local authorities across Scotland. Increased burdens have arisen from care in the community and support for carers legislation passed in the House. Extra burdens have been imposed by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Higher contributions are required from local authorities for police and fire employees. Those additional burdens have been imposed upon local government in the past year, and they will not be funded by the Government.
Mr. Kynoch rose—
Mr. Robertson: I have given way to the Minister twice. He spoke for 47 minutes in a three-and-a-half-hour
730
debate. Many of my colleagues wish to speak also, so perhaps he should sit back and listen rather than talking all the time.
Mr. Kynoch: Chicken.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members will recall that "Erskine May" asks us to conduct debate with moderation and good temper. The debate seems reasonably good-tempered at present: let us keep it that way, and possibly improve it.
Mr. Robertson: I hope that the Minister will take that rebuke on board.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a rebuke: it is a reminder that is addressed to all hon. Members.
Mr. Robertson: The fact that the Secretary of State did not come to the Dispatch Box today will be noted all over Scotland. The people of Scotland recognise the importance of the local government settlement this year.
On top of the burdens that have been heaped on local government but not financed by central Government, the Government have decided to impose their own priorities on local authorities. Despite the Secretary of State's fine words last year during the Dick Stewart memorial lecture about local government having more power, authority and autonomy, he decided to top-slice the budgets this year and impose his priorities on local government first. Some £103 million has been top-sliced for police, fire services and education.
Mr. Forsyth: Security in schools.
Mr. Robertson: I do not disagree with some of those priorities; I simply point to the contrast between the Secretary of State's claims that local government should have greater autonomy and his decision to top-slice the budgets in advance. He knows that that will mean cuts in other local government budgets. We should recognise that the Secretary of State's fine words about local government autonomy boil down to his making more choices off his own bat in areas where others previously had the right to take decisions, to make mistakes and to stand by them at the ballot box.
Another deceit at the heart of the local government settlement is the pretence that local government reorganisation has brought significant savings. Not one person in Scotland believes that daft claim. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy established a joint committee to examine the cost of reorganisation. They asked the Government whether they would care to be involved, but, significantly, the Government said that they would not co-operate with the study.
That independent study found that the Government have under-estimated the cost of local government reorganisation by some £200 million, resulting in a hole of £50 million in this year's local government settlement. Only a few years ago, the Government set out to gerrymander a wasteful, unnecessary, unresearched and under-prepared reorganisation of local government. It was inevitable that that botched reorganisation would cost

731
money, and they now expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for that gargantuan and enduring Tory folly. That £50 million hole as a result of local government reorganization—which the Government pretend is a saving—lies at the root of certain problems facing councils today.
The reorganisation has created particular problems for some councils. Councils such as City of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, Dundee, Argyll and Bute and Borders have been left to swing in the wind as Ministers fail to recognise the consequences of reorganisation. In some cases, those consequences have had brutal effects on services—and they will have an even worse effect on council tax payers.
Ministers stand back, as though they had nothing to do with the reorganisation or the disaggregation of staff and budgets, and allow those councils to swing in the wind. It is a total abdication of responsibility by Ministers, who pretend that they had nothing to do with creating the new local government set-up: it is almost as though a pure accident of fate created 29 mainland councils in Scotland. All the consequences are ignored, as the problems pile up—problems that were created simply by the way in which the reorganisation affected local government financing.
We stand for partnership in local government, not provocation. We will replace the destructive confrontational approach of the present Government with a constructive partnership with local government in the public interest. We shall not be easy on councils next year as we try to sort out the debris of the Government's economic stewardship. Eighteen years of damage inflicted on government, particularly local government, cannot be resolved in the first 18 months of a Labour Government, but there is the prospect of a better future for local government.
We will tackle the problem of council tax collection—a legacy of the poll tax—and we will give councils the extra powers they require in order to ensure that the money is collected. We shall ensure that value for money is the criterion, not simply cheapness of product; that is why the crude competitive tendering that the Government have stood for over the years will be swept away and a better, quality-based system put in its place.
We shall set up an independent review into the relationship between central Government and local government in Scotland—a partnership review, which will allow all these things to be examined, and if that means that we are considering the distribution formula or the way in which that formula is organised, I expect that COSLA will want to participate in considering how it can or could be improved.
These are ways in which we shall make progress in our relationship with local government if we are returned at the election in only a few weeks' time.
In the meantime, it is, I fear, an unfortunate fact that the present Secretary of State has a grudge against Scottish local government. He clearly wants revenge, as does the Conservative party, on a local government structure that the Conservatives gerrymandered for their own interests but which did not deliver a single Tory council to them two years ago. That is the only possible explanation for this year's punitive settlement, and for the
732
parade of fraudulent propaganda about extra money for local councils, which every member of the Scottish public knows not to be true.
I believe it was two weeks ago last Saturday that the Secretary of State for Scotland told BBC radio's "Newsround" programme that he wanted to give more power back to local councils, and that he had even prepared a devolution to local government Bill, of which nothing has been heard since. No one believes him on the Bill or on his intentions about devolving more power to local government. He has become the enemy of local democracy, whether at council or Scottish level.
However, the real tragedy, I fear, about this vengeful confrontation is that the victims of the Secretary of State's prejudice will not be the Tory Ministers who will bite the dust in the next few weeks, but the vulnerable people throughout Scotland who depend on local government services—on home helps, care assistants and those who work in local government—and the millions who will pay a hefty price in their council tax bills for the Government's dismal economic failure.
Those people who will suffer, those people in local government who will lose their jobs, and those people who depend on the services of local government, will certainly remember the Government—but they are unlikely ever to forgive them.
4.51 pm
Sir Hector Monro: After 21 minutes of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I must say that I preferred 42 minutes of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
We had 21 minutes of cliché, riddled with perorations that kept mounting and falling away, and then it was the usual story—when the hon. Member for Hamilton is asked questions, he is always going to answer them but never does. Whether the subject is local government or the tartan tax or anything else to do with government in Scotland, he sits on fences watching them crumble beneath him, and never answers. He never gives a clear answer; even in the effort that he made in the Sunday newspapers to clear up the tartan tax, he sat on the fence and dodged most of the issues, and he knows it.
The performance of the hon. Member for Hamilton this afternoon was most disappointing. I want an answer from him—if not from him, perhaps from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) later. The hon. Member for Hamilton sweeps his hands around and says, "We shall change the budget," but the only things that he was prepared to say he would change were vouchers and the assisted places scheme. Where will he get the other hundreds of millions that he says will sort out the problems of local government in Scotland?
The hon. Gentleman speaks about partnership and not confrontation. Is he looking forward to meeting the parents of the children who will lose vouchers or assisted places? Is that partnership? It is confrontation of the most evil kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Parents look after their children's education, and if they have the opportunity of an assisted place or a voucher for nursery education, they will grasp it with both hands, yet the hon. Member for Hamilton says that he will sweep it away, in dictatorial fashion. There will be no chance for parents who want their children to have a better education. He is a pathetic figure, sitting on that Front Bench.

733
I noted today, when I was sitting listening to 21 minutes of peroration that never reached an end, that it was almost exactly this month 45 years ago that I was elected to a local authority—in a four-cornered fight, in case the hon. Member for Hamilton thinks I got in under the counter.
In many ways, local government has not changed. Throughout my years as a county councillor, we were asking, "Why can't we have more money to improve our services?", but we knew that we had to produce the money by good housekeeping, good husbandry and keeping down expenditure. The challenge was not how to increase local taxation but how to reduce expenditure. That is the challenge for local authorities. They always ask, "How can we spend more?" when the challenge is, "How can we spend less if we are to look after the interests of our many constituents in the local authority?"
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing for the people of Dunblane; it is absolutely right, and I support that move entirely. It reminds me that the Government were so helpful at the time of the major disaster at Lockerbie, when we lost 270 people in one evening.
It is profoundly disappointing that, although COSLA was set up to try to bring the best out of local authorities, it seems only to use its Labour majority to hammer the Government, day in, day out. I should like COSLA to make a much more co-operative effort to find the right formula—the rural authorities are, obviously, highly critical of the formula agreed by COSLA—for the distribution of the block grant.
Labour councillors, independent councillors, Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat councillors and so on are not correct when they say that there are cuts everywhere, because it simply is not true. The statistics show that there are increases of £140 million—2.2 per cent.—and that cannot be converted into cuts, however one wants to jiggle the statistics, including this and excluding that, and then say, "It isn't fair." Ultimately it must be recognised that the Government have provided more money for local authorities, and that there is not a cut in their resources.
I shall mention the Labour party once more. It is not good enough—[Interruption.] Good Lord, the hon. Member for Hamilton has gone already. [Laughter.] Oh, he is back again. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Hamilton to sit there, and stand there later, and not tell us how he intends to give more to local authorities, when his Front-Bench spokesman, the shadow Chancellor, says that there is no more for local authorities. That may be why his public opinion poll rating has plummeted today, and perhaps that is why he is so crotchety and unhappy sitting there on the Front Bench: because he knows that, once the poll begins to slide, it is very unlikely to stop.
I shall briefly mention what has been happening in Glasgow. I notice from the report given to us by the chief executive that there were 203 conference attendances by Glasgow councillors, costing in total more than £110,000. We all know that some councillors must attend some conferences. That is the way that government and local government work: I accept that, especially if one is in charge of a major city like Glasgow or Edinburgh, one must fly the flag for Scotland and for those cities. But there is a limit. Most of us would say that the Glasgow figure was in excess of what is required. Aggregate
734
external finance per head for Glasgow is £181—by far the highest figure on the mainland. Glasgow had a case to answer, and it has not communicated it very well so far.
I shall now discuss special responsibility allowances. Of course certain members of every council must have special responsibility allowances. However, when 739 of the 1,235 councillors get special responsibility allowances, one feels that it has gone over the top. Councillors should examine the matter carefully. Certainly, convenors, vice-convenors and chairmen of committees must have such allowances, but that does not mean that 50 or 60 per cent. of the council should have them.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for seeing representatives of my local authority, Dumfries and Galloway, and I was pleased that under the new arrangements, he was able to increase the capping limit by £784,000 to £159.2 million. That is a welcome increase to the council's resources, although it is recognised that there will be an increase in council tax.
I was pleased to note an increase of £3.2 million, or 2.2 per cent., in aggregate external finance. The AEF per head for that council is £140, which is the seventh highest figure out of the 29 mainland authorities.
I highlight the fact that Dumfries and Galloway council has had an increase in its resources and in its capping limit. Councillors should not go around crying wolf and complaining that they have had to make dramatic cuts because of the Government's limit on resources. The council has set its own budget £10 million above the figure that the Government consider appropriate expenditure. That budget is being cut, not the money that the Government have given the council for distribution. I hope that councillors will stop giving the impression that the Government have dramatically cut council resources.
Councillors must not mislead their council tax payers. Last year, I thought that, in the budget strategy statement that went out with council tax demands, the council had been a little economical with the truth about where the cuts had come from. The statement did not highlight the fact that it was the council's budget, not the Government's, that had been reduced.
I have received a stream of letters from my constituents, especially on education. Perhaps they did not realise that, in its block grant, the authority has great flexibility, and can decide spending priorities. I am worried that music education, school buildings and library services all seem to be suffering, although the Government have encouraged greater spending on education, just as they have ring-fenced spending on the fire service and the police. In the block grant, I hope that there will be provision to ensure that elderly folk are properly looked after, with regard to transport and retirement homes.
It is for councillors to set priorities within the block grant, which, I emphasise again, has been increased this year. They may have a point when they say that the COSLA formula may not be in favour of rural areas. That should be re-examined. I hope that there will be no redundancies. The majority of council staff can be retained within the present budget, although I know that the council is making every effort to reduce expenditure.

735
I put some blame on COSLA for the level of payment to officials. In my authority, with 150,000 inhabitants—150,000 voters would be easier, in terms of statistics—no fewer than 48 officials earned more than £40,000. I know that that has been adjusted, as was clearly necessary.
In view of the budget that has been set, an increase in council tax is inevitable. I shall be disappointed if it cannot be held at 11 to 12 per cent. That is far above inflation, but it is the best that can be hoped for. I hear rumours of a 15 to 20 per cent. increase, which would be unacceptable. I hope that the council will take the matter seriously, especially as the amount of uncollected tax stands at £8.1 million.
I put on record the impact that Labour might have on business rates, which are extremely important in rural areas such as mine. The Secretary of State has acted to assist business rates over recent years.
I am glad that we have been able to keep capital expenditure at a good level, so that contractors and other local business men will benefit from it.
My hon. Friend the Minister repeatedly asked Labour Front-Bench Members how they would change the finances of local government without increasing taxation. The tartan tax, which would not go very far, would be singularly unfair to the Scots people. How will it be done? The Scots people are entitled to know before the election what form of taxation or adjustments to the budget will be introduced by Labour to finance local government in Scotland.
The Opposition are highly critical of the present system, but they have not given one iota of consideration to what they will do, other than scrapping vouchers and dealing with assisted places. Those constitute a drop in the ocean, out of the huge budget of the Scottish Office. The Opposition are failing the country by not revealing what they will do, so that everyone can gang up and vote against them when it becomes clear that their plans are unacceptable.
5.5 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The director of finance of Glasgow district council told the Minister on Friday that it was all very well for the Minister to say that Glasgow had more money, but in respect of police and fire services and the nursery voucher scheme, more burdens have been put on the city of Glasgow. In real terms the capping limit is down by £2,683,000, which means that Glasgow is getting less than it got before. The Minister should take that on board.
I heard the Minister comment on Friday about trips that councillors made abroad, and the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) also referred to the matter, but not for any vexatious reason. The Minister is the Minister for Local Government, and at any time he can call Glasgow or any other local authority to account. He started making public utterances only when the matter was raised in the press.
I am not here to question the wisdom of any of those trips, but I want to put it on record that every councillor in Glasgow, especially those who met the Minister on Friday, has behaved honestly and worked according to the legislation. No one should imply otherwise.
Mr. Kynoch: That is not what I was suggesting. I suggested that it was a strange prioritisation of
736
expenditure for councillors to go on those trips at a time when they were trying to make massive cuts, as they call them, and reduce jobs. Prioritisation is the responsibility of government, whether national or local.
Mr. Martin: I was worried that in his public utterances the Minister had implied that the councillors had acted dishonestly. If he thought so, he as the Minister responsible should be able to call anyone in local government to account.
For the first time in my parliamentary life, and for the first time, I think, in the lifetime of Parliament, following the activities of certain hon. Members, we have been required to employ the services of Sir Gordon Downey, because hon. Members have not conducted themselves as the House would expect. If anyone wants to hurl stones, he should look at our own problems. I speak as a Member of Parliament who is not one for travelling abroad. I am deeply ashamed of the fact that we had to bring an outsider into the House to regulate our affairs. Perhaps we should examine our own priorities.
The £9 million deficit of which the Minister spoke was left by Strathclyde regional council, an organisation that he disbanded—against the advice of the vast majority of hon. Members who lived in the region or represented seats there. Glasgow cannot go to Strathclyde council and say, "We want our £9 million", because the Minister has disbanded it. The Glaswegians would have had £9 million in the current year had it not been for the Minister's decision.
The Minister went way over the top when he said that the councillors were only scaremongering. Ninety-day notices have been sent to every employee in the city of Glasgow. Is that scaremongering? Because the councillors must act in accordance with legislation laid down by the House, people are in danger of losing their jobs. That is far from scaremongering. If it is scaremongering, can I tell the home helps in Dennistoun, Possil Park and Springburn that they will not lose their jobs? Two thousand decent men and women may have to go down the road unless we can persuade the Government that more funds should be put into our city.
I hope that the Minister will stop attacking local government, which is in the front line of our caring services. Without home helps, many old people would go from one day to the next with no human contact—without hearing words of comfort from another human being. Our old folks' homes in Glasgow are second to none. They were not built last week or the week before; they were built up through the dedication of men and women in local government. Those people gave their all to local authorities: they worked during the day, and went to council and tenants' association meetings at night. They got rid of places such as Forest Hall, which used to be a workhouse.
When I was a young councillor in Springburn, that old workhouse—set up under the old poor law—was still there. That it is no longer there is to the credit of Pat Trainer, a union official and councillor who was one of my colleagues. Some of my hon. Friends know him. His life's dream was to see Forest Hall destroyed, and replaced by three old folks' homes. How can the staff in those homes, which are second to none, continue their dedicated work if they risk losing their jobs? The great law-and-order party tells us that it will give more money

737
to the police. What is the point of lifting young delinquents off the streets if we are closing youth and community centres? That is what we are doing now, because of the Government's decisions. We are giving more power to the police. When we were youngsters, the police always told us that the best thing that we could do was keep off the streets and not get into trouble. How can policemen say that in this day and age?
We have lunch clubs enabling elderly people to get out for half a day, giving their carers some respite and time to draw breath. Those clubs are now going to close.
The Minister knows the city of Glasgow. Indeed, he was there last Friday. He will be aware that there are no green fields in the city; it is surrounded by other local authorities. Some of those authorities are, quite unfairly, feeding off Glasgow's services, and are not prepared to put anything into our city. The Minister will say, "But I meet members of COSLA, and they reach a collective decision. They all feel that the formula is fair." Every time I meet councillors from outside Glasgow, they say that Glasgow is a special case because thousands of people go into the city to work and then leave at night—including a good many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). I hope that he will fight the cuts, because some of the 2,000 people who are going to lose their jobs come from his constituency.
Every councillor whom I have met has said that Glasgow is a special case, but none of them is prepared to say the same when they get together in organisations such as COSLA. Anyone who knows Glasgow and its problems must accept that it needs extra finance. The Minister is doing a disservice to men and women who have dedicated their lives to local government, and I hope that he will reconsider.
5.15 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) spoke mainly about the city of Glasgow. As the House knows, he speaks from a base of enormous personal experience and knowledge of local government in that city. I shall return to one or two of his points, but first let me tell him that, if the Scottish Labour movement regards Glasgow as a special case, the solution is in its own hands. It runs COSLA; it has the dominant majority on the distribution committee. No formula to change the figures has emerged from that dominant body, however.
The first Opposition speaker today was the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has slipped out of the Chamber. I make no complaint about that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, the hon. Gentleman seemed a bit ratty today: he was not at all his normal sunny self. I do not know whether that was due to the company that he kept this morning or to the opinion polls—
Mr. Gallie: He is always like that.
Mr. Stewart: No, he is not. My hon. Friend is unnecessarily critical of the hon. Gentleman.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was ratty because he was rattled by my hon. Friend the Minister. My hon. Friend asked him about the silence of the Opposition Front Bench, and he remained silent on that key point throughout his speech. Surely it is not unreasonable for
738
those in local government in Scotland, and Conservative Members of Parliament, to say to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, "We are within a few weeks of a general election. You hope to become Secretary of State. Will you tell us—not every detail but in broad terms—what you would actually do?" The answer is fairly clear—for there was an answer: there is going to be an independent review of relationships between central Government and local government in Scotland. "Vote new Labour. Paradise regained. Another quango." That is a message to have them rolling with enthusiasm to the polling stations on election day: a new vision for Scottish local government.
It was unworthy of the hon. Member for Hamilton to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that there was something wrong in his opening the debate, rather than the Secretary of State. I recall opening such debates myself, when Opposition Members consistently made speeches, year after year, in which they said that the end of the world was nigh. The same message—"This local government settlement is the worst thing that has happened to the people of Scotland since Flodden"—came from the Opposition Benches year after year after year. Every year until now, Opposition Members have said, "It will be all right. Wait for a Labour Government." The message is different this year, however. It is, "If you get a Labour Government, we will not change the figures at all." In fact, as the hon. Member for Hamilton did not admit, the figures in the second and subsequent years would be worse, because the Opposition plan a Scottish parliament with no net increase in public expenditure. Where would the money come from? It would have to come from local government.
Mrs. Fyfe: Has the hon. Gentleman ever made an estimate of the benefit that the residents of Eastwood gain from Glasgow services while contributing not a penny to them?
Mr. Stewart: The residents of Bearsden and Strathkelvin will be very interested to hear that attack from the Labour Benches, which was unanimously supported by Scottish Labour Members who are present. The Labour party believes that the residents of Bearsden and Strathkelvin are all parasites. Let that message go throughout Bearsden and Strathkelvin. Of course they are not parasites, and nor are the residents of Eastwood.
If the good people who run the city of Glasgow believe that people are getting services for free, I would not stop them charging for their libraries, galleries or whatever. I would be in favour of charging. Let them stop complaining, because they have £21 million of mismatch money. That is other people's money. It rightfully belongs to the people of Strathkelvin, Bearsden, East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire and elsewhere.
Mr. Gallie: Does not at least 65 per cent. of local government funding come from general taxation? Therefore, do not the residents of Eastwood probably contribute more than their fair share?
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is being modest in that figure. The real figure is some 85 per cent. It would not

739
be difficult for me to make a case saying that East Renfrewshire is grossly over-subsidising Glasgow. It is a fact—
Mrs. Fyfe: Give us the figures.
Mr. Stewart: I will give the hon. Lady an important figure if she will just pin her ears back. Aggregate external finance per capita for the city of Glasgow is 80 per cent. above the English average—that is money from the general taxpayer—so let us have none of this nonsense about Glasgow not getting a fair deal from the Government.
The hon. Member for Hamilton implied fairly clearly that Labour would not change the overall settlement, except for assisted places and nursery vouchers. As I have said before, the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) for pointing out in detail what Labour's assisted places pledge means in terms of the figures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries rightly and properly talked about the argument. There would be one extra teacher per constituency—a wonderful pledge. Labour would also abolish nursery vouchers. I know something about nursery vouchers, because East Renfrewshire was one of the pilot authorities for the scheme in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), the Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland, should go into the "Guinness Book of Records", because he introduced the nursery voucher scheme—a major Government initiative—and nobody is complaining about it. Not a single resident of Eastwood is complaining about the scheme. It has been an enormous success in a Labour-held authority, but it would be swept away by the ideology of the Labour party.
I hope that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will confirm my understanding of the figures for East Renfrewshire council. I understand that the permitted increase in expenditure is some 7.63 per cent. and that the grant-aided expenditure is up 6.79 per cent., before allowing for the mismatch adjustment. Those figures seem perfectly reasonable, if not generous.
I shall say a word on the trips-for-votes controversy, as hon. Members from Glasgow seem a bit edgy about it. Nobody is suggesting—or has suggested—that Glasgow councillors have done anything financially improper. On the point about roses, it is reasonable, however, to ask, why councillors did not just get into one of their 27 or 28 limousines and go across the boundary into Eastwood, where, of course, we have blue roses. Looking down the list, I can see that they went all over Europe to look at roses—Rome, Dublin, Belfast, Paris, Geneva. I do not complain about that, but they cannot say, "We have the worst financial crisis in history," and, "We are wholly underfunded by the Government," and at the same time go around the continent looking at roses. That results in a certain lack of credibility about their initial posture. That is a valid criticism. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, it is a question of priorities.
Mention was made of the shadow Chancellor and what he said. Paradoxically, he has done Scottish local government a favour, because too many people are misled by Opposition Members, who say, "It's all right folks.
740
Wait for a Labour Government. There will be a new nirvana. Money will be pouring from everywhere for you. All will be resolved." That will not happen. If that means that there is greater concentration on financial reality, it will be in the interest of Scottish local government. It will be in the interest of those who work in Scottish local government, those who pay for Scottish local government and those who receive the services of Scottish local government.
5.26 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: This is a terrible debate. The temptation to blame others for what is going on is strong. Indeed, we are all guilty of it. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) rightly said, people's jobs are at risk, schools and residential homes are being closed and pools are being shut. I do not know who is to blame, but anybody involved in what is going on would be disappointed if they listened to the debate.
All hon. Members know that the Government set total spending limits and grants. They also set overall and local expenditure. If the Red Book three-year public expenditure survey allocations are adhered to—whether by a Labour or Conservative Government—local government will have to change fundamentally.
If Governments insist that local government save money year—on year-we are in the fourth year of funding salary increases from efficiency savings—it will have to consider displenishing in its entirety all community care provision in residential care homes. It will have to consider moving out of local education authority service provision and leave schools to manage themselves. Local authorities will have to consider full-scale privatisations to such an extent that they will become nothing more than contract-fixing bodies.
It is possible that that could happen and the world would not end, but if my constituents were given a choice between what I have described and finding the appropriate finance I am pretty confident—I can speak only for my area, as I do not know about Glasgow—that they would be willing to spend more to get properly funded services. I stood in the sleeting rain on Saturday morning in Jedburgh square, where 1,500 people were shivering in the rain. They were incensed that, on Thursday, the local authority will probably shut their swimming pool. Young people will not have a pool in which to swim, and worse still, doctors will not be able to recommend therapeutic services for elderly people who now receive new treatments in fitness centres instead of taking pills. Youngsters who used to go to the pool on a Friday night will be thrown out on the streets. People are incensed that, for want of £100,000, that facility is to close.
Jedburgh has a sizeable community: it is one of the largest towns in my constituency. The people of Jedburgh cannot just get on a bus and travel to another pool. Even if there were a bus, they would have to travel miles to get to a pool and back, and would take two days to do so.
Local government finance is supposed to enable local authorities to provide a generality of services that are standardised throughout the country. Small authorities may have special circumstances and special problems, because they start with low baseline budgets and cannot find the efficiency savings that the Government require them to make. It may not be the end of the world, but this

741
year, for the first time, Scottish Borders council will close pools, rural schools—not for educational but for financial reasons—and residential homes. That will not only hurt those who will lose their jobs or access to the services, but cost more in council tax.
People in my part of the world are bamboozled. They do not know how this has come about and whom to blame. The system is opaque, defying attempts to work out whether the local council is doing the right thing. All people know is that they are suffering: their kids are suffering, and their old folk are suffering. On Thursday, decisions will be handed down by the local authority which will cut the fabric of society to the bone, and people will resent that.
The general election is approaching, and I am quite open about the fact that I believe that local government is underfunded by about £150 million for the coming year. My party has said that extra money should be raised, especially for education. When the general election comes and I am going about my business as a candidate in Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I will proudly get on to soap boxes and ask people to pay for education. People at demonstrations that I have attended—I shall be taking part in more of them at the weekend—will cheer me to the echo.
That is my assessment of the political situation. No one is asking for profligacy or waste, and no one is defending what is going on in Glasgow—I do not know anything about people taking trips, incidentally. All I know is that, with a budget of £100 million, my local authority has been put into an impossible straitjacket from which there is no escape, and people in south-east Scotland are hurting.
Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to an extra £150 million for local authorities, which is more than 1p in the pound on income tax in Scotland. He has also said that the Liberal Democrats would raise 1p in the pound specifically for education. Does that mean that they want to raise income tax by 2p in the pound? Education is only part of local authority expenditure. Higher education must be paid for as well, and I presume that some of that 1p for education would be spent on higher education.
Mr. Kirkwood: The Government have charged us to say where the money will come from, and I am trying to quantify what is required to achieve a sensible settlement for local government next year. Given the figures available to me, my assessment is that £100 million or £150 million is required to provide services of the same high quality as in the past.
My party voted against the tax cuts, without which £2 billion more would now be available. If the Scottish share of that were put into the local government budget, it would provide a 3 per cent. increase, which would amount to between £150 million and £180 million. I would have to persuade the public that that is necessary if they want the services. If they want to have lower taxes and to pay for taxis to take them 40 miles to a swimming pool because the pool in Jedburgh is likely to be closed on Thursday, that is up to them. As a Liberal Democrat and someone who is trying to make sense of the local government settlement, I think that not enough money has been provided.
742
Education is a priority for Liberal Democrats—I suppose that it is a priority for everyone. We cannot duck the fact that we have had a good education system in Scotland, because we have invested more in it, and I want that to continue.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. He suggested that his party would provide extra funding. Has he studied the Coopers and Lybrand and Peida report, which shows that local government in Scotland is well funded across the board? We should seek improvement and value for money, not throw more money into local government.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am as keen as anyone to obtain value for money and efficiency savings. I look forward with enthusiasm to engaging in the argument on the Peida report. I can give the Minister two examples off the top of my head. The local authority in Northumberland may receive less per head than the Scottish Borders council, but many of the development workers with the local development commission are not taken into account. It has park rangers coming out of its ears, and they are not taken into account in the local government settlement for Northumberland. So long as the Peida report covers the professionals who deliver the services and obtains a true, costed comparison, I will happily meet the Minister any place, any time, to discuss the nitty-gritty.
Of course, I want efficiency savings: we must ensure that we get value for money. But people would be more enamoured of what we are doing if we provided the proper resources. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to the new responsibilities that Parliament has given local authorities. Professionals north of the border estimate that the financial burden for community care in the next financial year will be £123 million. I accept that the Government have made allowances for that in the settlement, but the Scottish Office provision is £55 million, which is nowhere near £123 million. Those professionals are not irresponsible party politicians: they are trying to make proper provision under the legislation that the House passed. We give them half the money required to do that—Parliament must stop doing that.
I sponsored the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which was introduced by a Labour Member. Professionals estimate that it will cost £50 million next year. What have the Government allowed? Zilch, zero, nothing. It is unconscionable to put layer upon layer of responsibilities on the shoulders of local authorities and expect them to provide services out of fresh air. The contention that local authorities in Scotland have saved up to £60 million is merely accounting acrobatics: the figure is nothing like that, and everybody knows it.
The settlement is one of the worst that I have known since I was elected to the House in 1983. I am faced with difficult meetings. I have to respond to a petition containing 3,000 names that were collected in 10 days in Duns, which will lose its educational centre. We are losing swimming pools and sports centres, which keep the kids off the streets. The meeting about the Jedburgh pool was the most difficult hour and a half that I have spent: we all got soaking wet, but we were proud to do so if it made any difference and made the Government think again about the closure.

743
The Burnfoot project has been in existence for 17 years and has a proven track record. The community is proud of that facility for rehabilitating difficult children: it has been used as a model in other parts of the region. Why is it to be closed? Because the local authority has new responsibilities under the Children Act 1989, for God's sake. That Act is supposed to support kids such as those who will be thrown out the door of the Burnfoot project. It is the economics of the madhouse. In addition, Foulden school is, relatively speaking, a brand new building; its doors are going to be shut and the windows boarded up for financial reasons. That will take the heart out of the local village community. The building will be left to moulder and fall to bits, and loan charges will continue to be paid. How does that make sense? How is that to be explained to people whose kids—primary school children—are going to have to get on a bus and go 15 to 20 miles to and from school?
Those decisions are not being taken lightly by Scottish Borders councillors. They are being made because they have absolutely no alternative. They have a budget of £100 million. There is no fat left. They have no flexibility. Half the budget is for education. They are having to make swingeing cuts in services, to reduce jobs and to lower investment, and they will end up with higher council taxes.
This system of local government finance, of raising only £15 out of every £100 yet being accountable for all expenditure, is no use, has had its day and should be swept away. We need not just reviews of the relationship between local and central Government, although that would help, but a root-and-branch reform so that local councillors can truly represent the interests of their council tax payers and be held to account at the ballot box.
My party has suggested proportional representation, which will make it much more difficult for councillors to hide behind rotten boroughs, and regular elections year after year. If we started thinking in those terms, we could remove the caps and leave local council tax payers to hold the council to account if it is being profligate.
5.41 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: That was an interesting speech. Some important aspects of local government were covered. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) may find that some Conservative Members think that councillors and local government should be held more to account locally, and that the best way to do that is through financial accountability. I do not disagree with that. One of the advantages of the pressures that exist at present is that we may at long last take an in-depth and serious look at how local government is structured, funded and held to account.
People can always, as they do, blame central Government because the bulk of the money—85 per cent.—comes from central taxation. There may be merit in removing revenue raising completely from central Government and letting local government raise it all locally. We might then find that Glasgow and elsewhere would take an entirely different view of how the 85 per cent. funding is distributed.
The plain truth is that, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities formula, pain is being felt in all sorts of different ways. For example, no real account is taken of
744
the substantial increase in population in my constituency. People want to live in my part of the world, which is not surprising. They want to leave the big cities and to move into country areas, where the quality of life is good. As long as we can contain the numbers, education and all the other facilities will remain at a very high standard, but we may reach a point, and we are getting close to it, where the numbers will make it much more difficult to maintain the quality of services, particularly in education, that we have enjoyed in my constituency.
I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) that the comments about people travelling related to doing so at public expense. If people have travelled from this place—the hon. Gentleman drew attention to that—it is important to distinguish between that which is public expenditure and that which is not. I trust that his comments were not directed at the Sir Gordon Downey aspect and at the Select Committees.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I never mentioned the Select Committees.
Mr. Walker: That is what I am saying. I trust that the hon. Gentleman was not talking about Select Committees. He should read his speeches afterwards. He brought together two different activities in a way that devalued the standing of the House—that is how I understood him. If he disagrees, that is fine, but it is not the first time that he has lumped things together to make a point. He does not always understand that people outside do not have the knowledge to break down the differences, as we do in this place, and that can do terrible damage. If he is really concerned about the reputation of this place, as he claims, he should think carefully about the way he lumps things together—that is the only point I am making.
Mr. Martin: I think I have hit a nerve.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows my views about seated interventions.
Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman ever wants to make any comments or observations about me, just try it—that is my advice for him. I make many overseas visits that I pay for. I have no qualms about that. What is more important, I take my family with me—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I trust that the House will remember my earlier guidance. Perhaps we could now return to the subject in hand.
Mr. Walker: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Innuendoes are made about the values and qualities of this place. The hon. Gentleman likes to give the impression that he is the only one who cares. I suggest that the vast majority of Members care, so he should be careful when he makes sweeping assertions.
I should like to know from Labour Front Benchers where the money will come from for the Scottish Parliament. I understood the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to say that no more money will be available for local government, because this is the settlement that Labour will inherit, so where will the money come from? He could not tell us what the priorities were going to be either. The speech by the hon. Member

745
for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was important because it drew attention to the fact that people ought to know what the priorities are, which I agree with, and what they are voting for, which I also agree with.
Mr. Thomas Graham: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have had 18 years of Tory government and that, in my area of Renfrewshire, the Tories have been wiped out. There are only two left on the council, which the Tories used to control. They have been wiped out because of the bad Tory policies implemented by the Government. The people there want decent education, decent home help services and decent transport. That has all come under terrible attack by the Tories in the House.
Mr. Walker: I have news for the hon. Gentleman: I am a democrat. I fully accept the wishes of the people as expressed at the ballot box. If anything I say or do gives offence, I pay for it and it is proper that I should. It is worth remembering that many Scots are what I call thrawn. They might not find any future Labour Government to their liking and the vote for the other parties in Scotland might suddenly and dramatically increase. That was the experience in the 1960s and 1970s.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) rightly says that the Conservative party has been in government for 18 years. We are held accountable, as we should be. At the general election, we will face the electorate on the basis of having been in office for 18 years. I have watched the smiles on the faces of Opposition Members at previous general elections. At almost every election since 1979, they have assumed that somehow the Labour party would make a dramatic recovery. When it did not materialise, I had to look at the same faces again after the election and they got longer, gloomier and glummer.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are very interesting reflections, but I am not too sure how they relate to the business in hand.
Mr. Walker: They relate to the debate in that it concerns 18 years of local government expenditure in Scotland. This evening we are debating the current settlement. When one compares local government expenditure, supported centrally and raised locally in Scotland, with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly England, it is obvious that other areas are quite capable of providing services. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that we have to examine all the figures and compare like with like rather than extrapolating from a selected few, but it is clear that the problems do not stem from a lack of money, as substantial sums are being spent.
Perhaps local authorities should consider becoming enablers rather than providers. Some may say that that would lead to job losses, but it would be a diversion of jobs from one sector to another. If Marks and Spencer expanded a store and employed more people, but Woolworths closed part of a store and employed fewer people, there would be a transfer of employment between companies that provided the same service.
The same is true of local government. The inquiry into care in the community in Tayside supports the principle that I hope the House will accept—that, if possible,
746
the same quality of service should be maintained. Tayside achieved a saving of £200 per head per week. If the same saving were made in other sectors, many more people would gain. What matters is the advantage to those who require the service. After all, we are all in the business of providing services for individuals who need them. That applies equally to Marks and Spencer, local government or anyone else. The individuals who require the service are often forgotten.
I am particularly concerned that the increase in population in my constituency has stretched the education budget and that cuts in languages and music lessons are proposed. Naturally that is a cause of local concern, as people want the teaching of those subjects to be maintained.
I should like Ministers to say that COSLA's formula is not sacrosanct and that there are ways of reviewing and revising it. Population increases in large rural areas such as my constituency should lead to a review of the 85 per cent. of the settlement that comes from central Government.
This year, for the first time in years, local government will have to stand up and be counted. Local authorities will have to tell the people of Scotland why they cannot maintain service provision although their budgets have increased in real terms. The answer is that certain assumptions and projections were made about the changeover, many of which have now proved to be flawed and to require attention. With that in mind, we have to accept that there will be increases in council tax, but the money should be directed at the services that most concern local people, such as education.
I have a question for my hon. Friend the Minister. As the Government have allocated a certain sum to police budgets, what happens if the local authority joint police boards decide not to spend it all? The police would not get the advantage of the increased funding which the Government want to provide and the public welcome, so what would happen to the money?
Mr. Kynoch: To save time later, let me answer my hon. Friend. As the police receive a specific grant that is paid against claims from local authorities, if a local authority does not spend the grant, it loses the benefit.
Mr. Walker: I expected that answer, for which I thank my hon. Friend. If the police grant is not demanded or taken up, the police and the local community lose out and the council gains nothing. We should press councils to make the police a priority. People in North Tayside will want to question the two local councils about the attitude that they have adopted.
Opposition Members seem to be looking forward with relish to the general election. They should never count their chickens until they are hatched.
5.54 pm
Mr. Eric Clarke: I am also disappointed by the debate. It is a bit like a poor-oot at a wedding—money which is flung out of the car when the bride leaves. It is a poor-oot in Edinburgh. There is a scramble for the money and if anyone does not grab enough, it is hard luck.
We are talking about people's jobs. Care in the community has become a joke. It has been foisted on to local authorities without the appropriate financial backing. At the end of the day the most vulnerable people suffer: the young, the old and disabled people.

747
A great deal of anger is directed at councillors in Midlothian. I was a councillor in Midlothian for 16 years and I agree with the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). In the days of county councils, councillors stood by the rate. They were elected or not by the rate. We provided facilities within a sensible budget. We did not have central Government dictating to us. I agree that there should be more accountability. When we have a Parliament in Edinburgh we shall work out a more democratic formula for local government.
There has to be proper reform, not the botched up reforms that we have had in the past that killed off and replaced regional authorities. That is the problem in Midlothian. The Minister agreed to meet a delegation from Midlothian and welcomed us in a formal and reasonable way. I cannot criticise him for that, but the result was a different story.
Midlothian made a case for more money, but was told that the formula was worked out along hard lines. We told the Minister that the formula that led to the mismatch and other problems was calculated on an unacceptable basis and he agreed, but when the case reached COSLA's steering committee, Midlothian lost out. The steering committee voted almost unanimously for the formula to continue although we had proved that Midlothian would lose out not just this year, but next year.
What does it mean? I shall read out two questions from Midlothian to the Minister:
"Is the Minister aware that his settlement means a year on year reduction of £3 Million in the grant paid to Midlothian and that this factor alone means a £115 or 16 per cent. increase in Midlothian's council tax?
The formula based assessments have proven to be invalid in that three secondary indicators which remove £2.3 million of grant from Midlothian have failed the statistical test for the second successive year. Is the Minister suggesting that Midlothian Council should cut services to the residents of Midlothian to match up to the indicators which have been proven to be invalid and should have been dropped?"
Midlothian and other authorities have statutory duties. They cannot walk away from them, so what should they do? They are currently giving notice to all their employees.
Like the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), I get rather angry with people who personalise their politics. I do not personalise mine. I do not make personal attacks; I try to be nice. There comes a time, however, when people have to be told the facts of life.
I get angry when people try to discredit Labour and to say that Labour-controlled local authorities are mismanaged, spendthrift, globe-trotting and all the rest of it—because it is just not true. One cannot argue—[Interruption.] I am talking about the people whom I represent in Midlothian, and I defy the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say otherwise. I am talking about Midlothian, and I do not accept that, in one way or another, it is being mismanaged.
Council administrators and employees are very angry. The faulty formula by which councils are being deprived of money is a return to the poor-oot, and that is not good enough. Councils must ultimately face up to the realities. They are soul-searching and tearing out their hearts to try to make ends meet, and they are doing the best that they possibly can.
748
Councils will have to decide at the end of this week what they can do with the moneys that they have. However, the problem boils down to the fact that they are being shortchanged by the Government. One can say what one likes, but, like everyone else, I know when I am being shortchanged. One can build up the matter, wrap it up in flannel and flowers or describe it in any way one likes, but, ultimately, the people of Midlothian know who are working against them—the Government, who are shortchanging us all. I am arguing the case for Midlothian, but I am sure that, if they have an opportunity in this debate, many other hon. Members will say the same.
I should tell the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) that it is totally unfair to compare his area with ours. I sympathise with those in the big urban areas. Does he know that the population of Wester Hailes, in Edinburgh, is the same as Perth's? Do they have Perth's facilities or amenities?
Mr. Bill Walker: I do not represent Perth.
Mr. Clarke: I am giving you an example. I am not saying that you represent Perth; I know who represents Perth—the lovely lady up there.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman always to address the Chair?
Mr. Clarke: I am very sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
One cannot compare Perth with Wester Hailes, or the big urban areas in Glasgow with some of Scotland's lovely rural cities; and it would be unfair to try to do so. Those cities have natural amenities and resources, whereas urban areas—massive areas of concrete jungle—have very little or nothing at all.
Mr. Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the cost of providing education in rural areas can be much more expensive because of the distances involved and the problems faced. That is one aspect of the matter. As education is a very large part of local government expenditure—[Interruption.]
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister does not accept that.
Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) accept that—when one compares what one gets for every pound spent—it is not unreasonable to say that one must take a population increase into account?
Mr. Clarke: All I am saying is that like-for-like comparisons are very difficult when the circumstances are absolutely different.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) has just given a splendid example of why invidious comparisons between England and Scotland are absolutely inappropriate?
Mr. Clarke: I totally agree. Because of Scotland's sparsely populated areas, with their massive deficits for road maintenance and many other services, it cannot be compared with England.

749
It is unfair to write off urban areas and merely to say that they are different from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Tayside. Those areas are different, and they have different problems. All I can tell him is that we should be compassionate to one another. It is not a matter of me taking anything away from other areas. In certain circumstances, areas should be given grants and rights. On that basis, I support the city of Glasgow.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Clarke: I have already given way three times, and I know that other hon. Members would like to speak; I am sorry.
If this debate does nothing else, I hope that it will ensure that those listening to it—not only to my speech, but to those of other hon. Members—understand the reality that we are attempting to describe, so that they can see beyond the smokescreen of allegations about inefficiency and globe-trotting, which, intolerably, is being used to shortchange us all.
People are lying awake at night with worry because of the cuts imposed by the Government on local government—because they do not have a job, because their mothers, fathers or other loved ones will not receive proper medical treatment and because their children will not be educated properly.
6.4 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) speaks as a member of the shadow Front-Bench team and as a Labour Whip, and he has just challenged the entire thrust of Labour's position on local government expenditure. Labour has said, "Not 1p more"; but he says, "The Government are shortchanging Midlothian." I can tell him that the Opposition will shortchange Midlothian in exactly the same way, because they are not offering any more cash.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) intervened on the hon. Member for Midlothian, highlighting the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) as to why Scotland receives additional expenditure, and she was quite right. The expenditure differential has been expressed in the Barnet formula. The Government have honoured the formula for many years, and they will continue to do so. By emphasising the problems of rural areas, however, she has not examined the situation in cities and in Scotland's central belt.
One question that must be asked is why Glasgow receives 80 per cent. more aggregate external finance than English cities? Why is there a 42 per cent. greater increase in AEF across Scotland than in similar towns and villages in England? It is a major problem, and it must be dealt with. I suggest that Opposition Members take on board the need to examine how money is being spent in local authorities, and to determine true value for money.
In his pathetic speech, the main criticism made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland did not open this debate. I should tell Opposition Members that the leader of the Scottish Liberals has not spoken in this debate—nor, I suspect, will the leader of the Scottish National party. Perhaps the difference between hon.
750
Members in the minor Opposition parties and Labour Members is that they have more faith in their junior shadow spokesmen. Obviously the hon. Member for Hamilton does not have such faith. Perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is sitting on the Back Benches. I remind the House of the time when he was relegated there. The hon. Member for Hamilton did not even keep him in the picture of Front-Bench thinking. All hon. Members should reflect on that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke about local authorities and about the belief—particularly in Labour-controlled authorities—that the value of controlling one lies in how much one can spend. I can provide an example of that sentiment from my own days on Cunninghame district council. When I challenged Councillor Jim Clements—whose family was steeped in local government—on why he never became involved with community councils, he said:
"They are worthless. They have no money to spend. I only want to be involved when we have money to spread out and provide services across the community."
He never thought for one moment about how that money was earned. That is the difference between Opposition and Conservative Members.
I know that Opposition Members have recently challenged the Government on the health service. We have been told that efficiencies are necessary. I have a letter from the North Ayrshire and Arran trust which challenges the beliefs of Opposition Members. It states:
"The numbers of nurses and midwives have increased by 4.6 per cent. since April 1993".
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes cantering down that particular road, I remind him that we are debating local government finance.
Mr. Gallie: I fully accept that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to illustrate how wrong Opposition Members are on those issues. They believe that attempts have not been made in other areas, such as the health service, to rationalise and to produce results and wise expenditure levels. Such results have been achieved in the health service, unlike in local government. It is time for local authorities to reanalyse their position. I recognise that I shall have to sit down in the not too distant future to allow other hon. Members to speak, but it is worth giving up several other issues that I wanted to raise to make several causes for thought.
I should like to pick up on one issue in relation to Glasgow. I note that £130,000 has been spent on a glossy magazine to inform people about what the City of Glasgow council sets out to do. I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) nodding his head and saying that that is great. He obviously approves.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I did not say a word.
Mr. Gallie: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman approves. He and his hon. Friends have criticised the Government for spending £600,000 on advertising the nursery voucher system. The public need to be advised about the system so that they know how to use it. That is

751
purely an information exercise. If it is good enough for Glasgow to spend £130,000 on a relatively small number of the Scottish people—
Ms Jean Corston: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has a Minister asked you whether it is possible for him to come to the House to apologise for a statement made during Environment questions this afternoon? I have had telephone calls from my constituents, whose interests I am sure that you wish to protect. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), said that Bristol city councillors were increasing their allowances by 66 per cent. and that they were going to build a flagship building with turrets at a cost of £1 million. Neither of those statements is true—they are both misleading. Is it possible for the Minister to come to the House to set the Hansard record straight today?
Madam Deputy Speaker: In answer to the hon. Lady's first question, I have received no such notification. As far as the substance of her complaint is concerned, it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the accuracy of statements made by any hon. Member—Minister or otherwise. The hon. Lady has made her point.
Mr. Gallie: Picking up on that point of order, I should like to talk about councillors' allowances. The number of councillors in Scotland has been reduced in recent times by about one third. We now have 1,245 councillors, of whom 739 receive special allowances. One might think that the level of special allowances would have reduced, but the level of councillors' allowances has gone up from £7.1 million to £13.3 million—the figure has almost doubled. We are told that there is not a lot of money in local authorities. I should have thought that councillors would have considered those special allowances.
The situation in East Ayrshire astounds me. The council has 30 members—almost all of whom are Labour—and 29 special allowances are available to councillors. There is something wrong there. Authorities should consider that issue when complaining about lack of funds.
The independent Peida report, put together with Coopers and Lybrand, shows that planning departments in Scotland cost 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. more than those in England. I accept the comments by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that sometimes more detailed analysis is needed. I have considered the planning development department in my area of South Ayrshire. Small shopkeepers who have tried to put up reasonable signs in a way that would enhance town centres have been constantly badgered by planning officials to stick to petty, small-minded rulings. There is something wrong there.
Mr. Kirkwood: What has that got to do with it?
Mr. Gallie: Planning departments spend a heck of a lot of local authority money. They are getting involved with petty matters and having a major effect on the expansion of town centres.
At Towans hotel in my constituency, the council insisted on keeping a dilapidated building occupied—it was empty but occupied by an owner. Demolition and
752
redevelopment of the site would obviously have been a better course. The inevitable happened—the building burnt—but the site remains dilapidated. Opposition Members are always shouting about the need for more houses. Additional houses are being missed out on that site.
South Ayrshire council did not seek to operate a pilot project for nursery vouchers. Instead, it has provided its own nursery scheme, building on the number of places available. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether that means that when cash is allocated for the voucher scheme in the coming year, South Ayrshire council will miss out because there will be a removal of previously funded amounts for nursery schemes provided in local authorities that have nursery places?
I am particularly concerned about community care. I do not understand how local authorities can be providers, competitors for places in nursing homes and residential homes and decision makers on spending plans for community care. My hon. Friends in the Government need to look carefully at that. There is considerable waste in the current workings of community care. The costs of keeping individuals in their homes are not always fully considered. Health costs are totally ignored. We must take that on board. I very much regret that community care funds have not been ring-fenced.
Finally, I have one comment on capping. I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that 65 per cent. of local government funding comes from general taxation. He suggested that the figure was 85 per cent., but the extra 20 per cent. came from the old non-domestic rating element. Irrespective of that fact, local authorities raise only 15 per cent. of local expenditure. Somewhere along the line, there will be a time when the cap should be removed. At that point, local authorities will take responsibility for financial aspects, which would be a jolly good thing.
6.17 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I am disappointed and angry about the way in which the debate has been conducted. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) talked about people knowing when they had been short-changed. In many ways, that is what has happened to them. The debate has been reduced to issues such as who has not contributed to the debate and some stuff about whether councillors have gone on foreign trips. We are discussing the most important subject facing the Scottish people. The decisions will affect the essential daily services for every man, woman and child in Scotland. They deserve a better debate.
The debate should have been about the kind of local government system that we all seek, about the level of local government services and about employment. It should also have been about democratic control of local decisions. Instead, public opinion has been ignored and dismissed. The Government have never admitted the consequences of their actions, but the people know who is to blame for cuts in services and employment. The Minister has dwelt on trivia, probably deliberately, rather than on substance.
The truth is that local government is totally controlled by central Government. Some 75 per cent. of its services are determined by central Government, as is 85 per cent.

753
of its revenue. Central Government place capping limits on local government and control its capital spend. Local authorities are not free to take decisions, because they are dominated by central Government decisions. The Government have created the current local government crisis.
We are debating next year's local government finance orders just days before local authorities announce their budgets in the light of what is widely recognised to be the worst local government settlement on record. Throughout Scotland, services are being squeezed, while, at the same time, councils are having to contemplate huge rises in council tax and huge increases in service charges. Even the better-off councils—there are now only a few—are running simply to stand still.
The cash crisis is primarily the result of the accumulated effect of long-term underfunding coupled with the failure of the Scottish Office to meet the costs of reorganisation or provide the resources necessary to meet the new statutory obligations that it has placed on local authorities. Although the Secretary of State continues to build into the settlement assumed savings from reorganisation, his assumptions have been totally discredited by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy study, which remains unchallenged. It found that, since 1995–96, the botched attempt to gerrymander has cost Scottish local government £281 million—almost four times the Scottish Office's estimate. Yet again, the Government's figures have been shown to be pure financial fantasy.
Even the Scottish Office has had to admit that new statutory obligations faced by local authorities, including those under the care in the community policy, the landfill tax, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, total more than £90 million. The Government have failed to provide new resources to meet those new obligations. As a result, councils are faced with having to make staggering cuts of about £350 million—even before taking into account the effect of the 75 per cent. housing debt repayment rules, which have so devastated Scottish council housing provision.
The Minister repeated the Tory boast that grant-aided expenditure next year would increase by 2.2 per cent., with a corresponding rise of 1.1 per cent. in grant support. That is a blatant and foolhardy attempt to mask the extent of the cuts. The Minister has failed absolutely to convince anyone. When transfers, new burdens and pay awards are left out and like is compared with like, it becomes clear that grant support is being reduced by 2.1 per cent. in cash terms. His increase is in reality a reduction.
The Secretary of State tried to steal the show at the Scottish Grand Committee with the announcement that he would permit 15 councils, including my own Angus council, to increase their spending levels by £10 million under the capping regime. He was, however, much less up-front about the fact that the capping relaxation was not accompanied by any new resources. So, it is good news for us but bad news for the others. It is a simple case of divide and rule.
The Secretary of State is trying to dictate to local authorities where the money will go, prioritising spending on the police, fire services, education and health without providing any additional resources to match those priorities. To increase spending according to Scottish Office directions while remaining within capping limits,
754
local authorities will have to reduce expenditure on every other service. Those are the actual consequences of the Government's proposals.
Surely it is not for the Secretary of State to decide how local authorities should spend public money. Councillors are not Government appointees on quangos, however much he would wish them to be. I accept that the notion of democratic accountability might seem rather peculiar to the Government. The Scottish National party believes that central Government should work in partnership with local government. Instead, the Tory Government seem determined to demolish local democracy at every turn. When the budgets are announced on Thursday, showing an increase in council tax that is estimated to be about 13 per cent., the Scottish people will know that local authorities are not to blame. The electorate will soon have the opportunity to show their contempt for the Government.
By means of a shameful party political propaganda exercise that cost taxpayers £235,000, the Secretary of State tried to argue that local government in Scotland is favourably treated; yet even the consultants who were commissioned to write the report gave it a health warning, urging "extreme caution" in making comparisons at any level of detail. In fact, when comparing like with like, there may be little difference at all in expenditure between Scotland and England.
Most of the expenditure variation is explained by differences in statutory responsibilities and funding mechanisms. Unique Scottish circumstances, such as its geography, climate and levels of deprivation, also lead to differences in need and the cost of meeting it. Any difference that remains is explained—even in the Coopers and Lybrand report—as the result of local councils' policy priorities. The priority in Scotland has clearly been to provide better services of higher quality than in England and Wales, particularly in education. The cuts imposed by the Government are leading to school closures and compulsory redundancies of teaching staff.
The Government should be ashamed of themselves for using the smokescreen of the per head of population figures to try to prove something that the Coopers and Lybrand report shows is fundamentally a sham. Given the spending of £235,000 on the report and £800,000 on nursery voucher propaganda, it is a great pity that the Secretary of State is not half as willing to defend Scotland's record of better standards as he is to squander public money on shameless Tory propaganda. As well as reflecting councils' policy priorities, the higher standard of service provision must surely also reflect the policy priorities of the Scottish people. In that regard, what the Secretary of State's propaganda report may explain above all else is why there are no longer any Tory councils in Scotland. The money would have been better spent on services.
It is nonsense for the Government to rant about relative spending without considering relative revenue. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted that, when Scotland's share of oil revenues is taken into account along with our share of privatisation proceeds, far from being subsidised, Scotland has paid a massive £27 billion surplus to the London Treasury since 1979. The Government's figures give the lie to the Tory subsidy myth. Over the next five years, a surplus of £12.5 billion will be generated. Why are we talking about cuts when such resources would be available to an independent Scotland?

755
Regardless of the debate over the reports, the findings of the report of the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers, which was commissioned by COSLA, highlight the devastating impact of the Government's cuts on the Scottish economy. It is perhaps significant that COSLA used the same consultancy firm as that commissioned by the Scottish Office. Perhaps the Secretary of State should accept the Pieda report, which points out that the cuts about which the Minister avoids talking will result in as many as 17,000 job losses in Scotland and the loss of £315 million from Scottish household incomes. That puts into context the trivia that the Minister has introduced into this debate in trying to avoid the reality. The cuts will be made regardless of the outcome of the debate on comparative expenditure and are a direct result of Government cuts. In a wealthy nation, there can be absolutely no justification for running Scottish local government services into the ground.
As for new, blue Labour, it has made it abundantly clear that it will do nothing to stem the financial crisis—a slap in the face that has sent its own people reeling. I deeply regret the fact that the Labour leadership seems to lack the imagination, integrity and political will to fight for Scotland, and is content instead to allow Scotland to run down while taking orders from its Thatcherite leaders in London. Labour will not escape the judgment of the Scottish people. Opinion polls show that, since the announcement of the Brown bombshell, support for new Labour has fallen dramatically by six points, with the SNP closing the gap.
The SNP has a fully costed commitment to restore services lost in local government cuts. We will provide Scottish local authorities with an extra £1.4 billion over the first four years of an independent Scottish Parliament. Local authorities need neither a seventh cavalry nor a slap in the face. They need a party that is committed to defending Scotland and investing in public services—working in partnership with local government, not against it. Only the SNP can be trusted to achieve those goals, and only independence will allow Scotland access to its wealth to secure the future of local government and to maintain its high standards of local services. I look forward to that day.
6.29 pm
Mr. John McAllion: I can tell the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) that to describe me as new or blue is a distortion of the facts, and I think most hon. Members would accept that. I was surprised that the Minister began the debate by referring to the opinion poll in The Herald today. That poll showed Labour leading its nearest rivals in Scotland by 20 per cent. Even worse for the Tories, our nearest rivals are the SNP—not the Tories, who are even further behind in Scotland than in England.
The Minister also ran the danger of drawing hon. Members' attention to the other poll in The Herald in which readers were invited to vote for a fantasy Cabinet in a Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State for Scotland is one of the most hated figures in Scotland, but he has a positive rating of eight. The Minister has a negative rating of minus five, so it was a mistake for him to begin his speech by referring to those polls.
The Minister also said that his claim—that every council in Scotland will be able to increase expenditure this year—bore repeating. Indeed, he claimed that
756
councils in Scotland would get an additional £140 million—including some £60 million directly from the Government—or an increase of 2.2 per cent. That claim bears repeating only to show that the Minister is a barefaced manipulator of the facts. It makes no allowance for the fact that the capping limits, imposed by the Government, allow for an increase of £75 million, not £140 million. That is an increase of 1.2 per cent., or half the rate of inflation.
The claim also makes no allowance for the pay awards that are agreed nationally between councils and trade unions and that councils are expected to implement. The settlement does not contain a single penny for those pay awards. It also does not make allowances for the new burdens that have been placed on local authorities, to which many hon. Members have already referred. The Scottish Office claimed that the cost of those burdens would be £90 million, but the settlement does not contain a penny to cover that cost.
Far from taking account of the costs of local government reorganisation and its impact on councils such as Dundee, the Government assume savings for local government from the reorganisation, but those savings do not exist. The Minister's claim was bogus and shows once again that the people of Scotland, and everyone else, cannot trust the Tories' claims.
The Minister also spoke of his trips abroad and tried to justify his trip to Korea by saying that he had brought back more than 4,000 jobs through the Chunghwa investment in Lanarkshire. What arrogance for that insignificant figure on the Front Bench to assume that a multinational company would make a major inward investment decision because he happened to visit there. The arrogance of the man is breathtaking. Nobody in Scotland believes for a minute that he is responsible for inward investment in Lanarkshire or anywhere else.
The Minister is personally responsible for jobs in Scotland through the current local government financial settlement and the one that we are debating tonight. Those financial settlements will mean the loss of 17,000 jobs across Scotland in local government. The Minister may dismiss those jobs as not real if he thinks that we do not need people who look after the elderly, home helps, teachers or people who work in family and child centres. Even if we accept his boast about the 4,000-plus jobs he has provided, he is still responsible for a net loss of 13,000 jobs. I wonder if he will apologise to the people of Scotland for his disgraceful record.
Mrs. Irene Adams: The Minister is not listening.
Mr. McAllion: He is not listening because he prefers debates in which only he and his hon. Friends speak. The debate has lasted three hours, and an hour and a half has been taken up by Tories who have kept Labour Members out because they do not want to face reality. They want to cower and hide in the Chamber because they are frightened to face the people in a general election. They are hanging on by their fingernails until the last possible moment, hoping that we will blow it and their bacon will be saved. It will not happen and everybody in Scotland is waiting for the moment when they can pay back all the Tory Ministers and Tory Back Benchers for the misery of the past 18 years.

757
Another example of the Minister's distortion of the truth was when he said that it was fascinating that COSLA intended an increase in spending of £500 million. The actual figure calculated by COSLA was £414 million. COSLA also admitted that, even if it used tricks such as phasing and delaying implementation—and other devices that it has learnt over the years to try to cushion Tory cuts—the increase is only £180 million, or less than half the figure that the Minister proclaimed. The Minister cannot be trusted. I cannot say what he is, because of the arcane rules of the House, but everybody in Scotland knows what he is. If he repeats any of his statements outside, he will be accused of being a barefaced—I cannot say what he is.
The Minister referred to his meeting with Glasgow city council and he said, in another example of the way in which he twists and manipulates everything, that the council was effectively asking for other councils to get less so it could get more. The key word is "effectively". I know that Glasgow city council asked for no such thing, but the Minister pretends that it did.
I accompanied a delegation from Dundee city council when it met the Minister. The delegation included councillors and people from local authority trade unions, the churches and voluntary organisations. It also included people from Dundee and Tayside chamber of commerce—who are normally on the Government's side, but who were on Dundee's side that time. We patiently explained the cuts that had been implemented in Dundee as a result of the financial settlement. We described the closure of six primary and two secondary schools. I remember a television debate in which the Minister said that there was no reason to close any school in Scotland because of the financial settlement. Eight schools have been closed in my area and many other schools have been closed, but the Minister has never withdrawn that statement.
Dundee has also seen a 37.5 per cent. increase in school meals charges in the past two years. Rich people can afford that increase. Another 30p or 40p from their purse makes little difference, and their kids will still get decent school meals. Poor people, who are just above the income support level, cannot afford that increase, and it could mean that their kids do not get a school meal. We hear no apologies from Tories for that. Staffing levels in schools have also been reduced. We are told that education is a priority, but the financial settlement means the loss of 50 teachers in Dundee.
Dundee has also had to start charging for home helps. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned home helps in Springburn. My mother was a home help in Springburn and I know the great work that home helps do. Previously, their services were free in Dundee, but we have had to start charging, and that means that old folk cannot afford them. Cuts have been made in voluntary organisations and concessionary travel schemes—the list goes on. The council tax increases that go with the cuts are even more savage. Morally, ethically, socially and economically, the financial settlement is unacceptable, and no hon. Member who genuinely has the interests of his constituents at heart could argue for it.
We explained all that to the Minister at the meeting. Everyone agreed that he was not interested. Only twice did he show a spark of interest in what anyone said. The first time was when he thought that someone had said that
758
other services in the Scottish Office bloc should be cut to pay for extra funding for local government: he immediately came to life and asked what other services should be cut. The second time was when he thought that someone had said that other councils should get less so that Dundee could get more: again, he became very excited and pleased.
Those are the same old Tory tactics of divide and rule, turning council against council and service against service, while insisting that public services have to be reduced and that the poor people who depend on them must pay the price because the kind of people who vote Tory can buy privately and do not have to depend on the councils. That is the hidden agenda.
The Minister issued a challenge to us to say what other services should be cut in the Scottish Office bloc. That bloc is between £14 billion and £15 billion—an awful lot of money—but its level is decided by the Cabinet, not from on high by God; it is not irreversible, and the Cabinet can decide what formula should be applied and how much money is needed. If the Secretary of State cannot win a better deal for Scotland, he should not be the Secretary of State for Scotland: someone else should be in his place.
Let us stop arguing about bogus points in this bogus forum. Let us go to the country and let the people decide who can best be trusted.
6.40 pm
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Once again, we have seen the Government playing politics with local government in the vain hope that Labour councils, or even Opposition Front Benchers, will get the blame. I remind them gently that they have been in charge for 18 years and that this local government settlement, the worst for more than 20 years, is the final monument to 18 years of low growth, boom-bust instability and economic failure.
The terms of the debate were set by the Minister, in 46 minutes of obfuscation, fiddles, smokescreen and absurdity. There are two facts that he cannot avoid. First, the job losses and service cuts that he described, in a climax of absurdity, as imaginary, are felt by people throughout Scotland: both those who have suffered this year—6,709 job losses, according to the Pieda report—and those who will be affected by the further job losses and service cuts that will be forced on local councils this week. Secondly, the people in Scotland now understand full well that the Secretary of State controls the service levels via capping and the council tax increases via grant distribution.
There are two ways of comparing this year's Government grant with next year's: in cash terms or in real terms. The simple way is to compare in straight cash terms. Whichever way we look at it, there has been a cash cut for next year compared with this year: the Red Book put it at £50 million, because of estimated outturn; the public expenditure statement in December put it at £25 million; and, even if we strip out the police loan charges and the urban programme specific grant, it is £17 million.
There has certainly been a cash cut, but the Minister talks of a £60 million increase in Government grant. The only way to arrive at that figure is by the imaginary savings from local government reorganisation that nobody

759
who has studied the subject believes in. The reality is that, as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy report pointed out, local government reorganisation has cost council tax payers in Scotland £281 million, and they are still paying a reorganisation surcharge in their bills for this year and next year.
The Minister asserted that the amount that can be spent on services will increase next year by 2.2 per cent. Again, the figures can be compared in cash terms or in real terms. In cash terms, the increase is 0.8 per cent., but in real terms we must take account of the new burdens that will be faced by local government next year, and even the Government admit that those burdens will amount to £90 million.
The Government like to talk about disappearing old burdens, such as the £26 million in nursery vouchers, but it is totally illogical to talk about that without balancing against it the £90 million of new burdens that even the Government admit to; the large cut in cash terms becomes a massive cut when we take new burdens into account.
I am glad that the Minister has stopped all the nonsense about uncollected poll tax and council tax that he was going on about a few weeks ago to try to muddy the waters, although he clearly did not understand the Government's rules about such uncollected tax. The reality is that single-tier local government in Scotland is called the Secretary of State for Scotland: he determines the service and grant levels.
That, of course, will change after the general election. One of our main reasons for wanting a Scottish Parliament is so that such decisions can be taken in an open, democratic manner, rather than by one person in the Scottish Office. [Interruption.]
The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), is fond of sedentary interventions. Throughout the Minister's speech, he kept shouting at the Opposition Front Bench and telling us that we should raise taxes; he was obviously upset about the fact that the Labour party has no intention of raising taxes. Unlike the Tory party, which raised expectations before the general election and taxes after, we are in the business of telling the truth before the general election, and only one tax after: the windfall tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Tartan tax.
Mr. Chisholm: Wrong again. We shall raise the windfall tax, to deal with youth unemployment, which will be our priority when we come into government.
We shall have to attend to the building blocks of economic success as a priority after the election, because the underlying cause of the grant cuts and the crisis in local government is the Government's economic failure. We also plan in the first year of a Labour Government to deal with the problem of waste and to examine priorities. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party has said that his priorities are education, education and education. That is good news for local government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) pointed out.
760
Once again, Ministers have tried to act as if we were the Government and they the Opposition. That will soon be the case, but they are still the Government tonight and all their attempts to blame somebody else for their failures will not be believed by the people of Scotland. Anyone who had managed to sit through the Minister's 46 minutes would not have been persuaded by any of his arguments. His tactic was to try to confuse by putting up smokescreens and descending into absurdity. This will be the last local government settlement from this Government. If tonight's performance by the Minister is anything to go by, it is certainly time for a change of tack.
My main fire has been directed at the Government, who are responsible for the settlement, but I should point out that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was equally in a world of fantasy. He and his party made all kinds of promises about what they would do for local government, centring on the claim that they would put £1.4 billion into local government to deal with the crisis, but that is not a credible option and the people of Scotland will not believe it. The Scottish National party makes many spending promises, but never tells us where the money will come from. Labour is the party with a credible alternative.
Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, and he will find exactly where the money is coming from if he cares to look at our detailed documents—something that his party has never produced. He offers Scottish local authorities no improvement, because he is dealing with a Scottish Office budget. We are promoting a Scottish national budget, and there is a massive difference between the two.
Mr. Chisholm: My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) referred to Santa Claus when the hon. Gentleman was speaking. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) referred to the planet Zog the other night, and that is where the Scottish National party belongs, with its plans to magic away debt, its conjuring up of massive surpluses by the loading of one parliamentary question, the way in which it made Scotland leap up the international prosperity table from 22nd to eighth in two months and its confetti spending pledges that it scatters with no tax costs.
That point has to be made, because the real choice before the Scottish people at the next election is between the Government and the Labour party. Labour is the only party that can get rid of the Government and is the only party with credible alternatives to deal with the economic and local government crises that 18 years of Conservative government have delivered to Scotland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I call Mr. Kynoch.
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has had 46 minutes in the debate already. May I ask why the Secretary of State, who is his boss and is sitting next to him, is not answering the debate? If he is too frightened to reply, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the Minister and it is a matter for him to reply if he so wishes.
6.50 pm
Mr. Kynoch: We have had the usual local government debate, as I described in my introduction. All Opposition Members have used their usual ploy of calling for more funding and saying that local government is suffering cuts. Thankfully, that is not the case, and we have given extra funding to local government. Of course, that is not our money, but taxpayers' money—something the Labour party always seems to forget.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who made rational and realistic speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside referred to a review of grant-aided expenditure formulae with particular reference to rural areas. I can tell them that, with COSLA, we are carrying out a review of GAE formulae, but there has been agreement on both sides that it will be appropriate to do that only once proper financial information is available from the new local authorities. It is quite clear that many authorities have taken a long time this year to make financial information available, so that councils and councillors know what is going on in their areas.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to the business rate and welcomed the fact that we had introduced the uniform business rate, which he rightly recognised has ensured that businesses north and south of the border can compete on a level playing field. In addition, we have ensured that business rates are frozen for businesses with a rateable value of less than £10,000. The Finance Bill proposes benefits for villages and village shops, and we believe that we are looking after small businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood referred to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who said that the people of Bearsden and Kelvinside were all parasites feeding off Glasgow.
Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: I will let the hon. Lady correct the remark.
Mrs. Fyfe: I asked the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in a civil manner—and would appreciate a civil reply—whether he had calculated by how much the people of Eastwood benefit from services provided by Glasgow for which they do not pay.
Mr. Kynoch: I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady rephrase that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) is shouting from a sedentary position.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) the word "parasite". That is clearly untrue, and I hope that even this Minister might have the decency to withdraw that remark under your guidance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard nothing of that nature. [Interruption.] Order. It is a matter for the Minister if he feels that he ought to withdraw the remark.
Mr. Kynoch: If I referred to anything that the hon. Lady did not actually say, I apologise.
Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just for clarification, I did not utter the word "parasite", so the Minister is wrong to attribute the word to me.
Mr. Kynoch: As I have just said, if I said anything that the hon. Lady did not say, I apologise and withdraw that statement. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has significant cheek in coming to the House at the tail end of the debate and with no intention of contributing to it, but—in his usual manner—raising irrelevant points of order.
Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I have just achieved the rare feat of drawing an apology from a Tory Minister, it was well worth coming in at any stage of the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The House must settle down.
Mr. Kynoch: I should like to continue in a positive vein. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood referred obliquely—as did the hon. Members for Maryhill and for Springburn—to the fact that people around Glasgow use facilities in Glasgow. As I explained to the hon. Members for Springburn and for Maryhill, the GAE formulae take account of commuter traffic and people visiting from outside Glasgow. However, there is no doubt that that matter will be looked at in the general review of GAE.
I can tell hon. Members who represent urban areas that I get as many complaints from hon. Members representing rural areas, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside complained that the GAE formulae do not benefit rural areas. I saw that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) agreed with what they were saying, which shows that the same views are held on either side of the fence.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside also referred to increasing school numbers and their effect on the formulae for education GAE. I responded to that this year, by urging the distribution committee of COSLA and the Scottish Office to look at updating the information on school rolls within the GAE formulae. I am delighted to say that this year the most up-to-date information will be used, which is the school roll as at September this year. The formulae now take account of rising school numbers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr referred to nursery vouchers and said that Labour wants to snatch away those vouchers, which give choice to parents. Vouchers provide £1,100 of opportunity to choose where nursery education is obtained, and I do not think that parents—certainly not the parents in my constituency—will approve of what the Labour party wants to do. I am certain from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood that his experiences prove that point clearly.
In his introductory remarks—which, incidentally, were heard by only 13 of the 49 Labour Members of Parliament who represent Scotland—the hon. Member for Hamilton

763
(Mr. Robertson) clearly referred to the fact that this was a poor settlement. He talked about new burdens, removing compulsory competitive tendering and an independent review of the relationship between central and local government. But the key question that he did not answer was: if he is so critical of the settlement, what funding would he give if he was in power?
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The funding is the Government's responsibility.
Mr. Kynoch: It is a responsibility that we delight in taking. We believe that we should be the trustees of the taxpayer and that we should give a sensible and reasonable settlement to local government. That we believe we have done.
We heard a remarkable admission from the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who said that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could not get a better settlement, he should not be Secretary of State for Scotland. What the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, in effect, was that the hon. Member for Hamilton is not fit to be Secretary of State, because he has said that he does not intend to provide more money to local government.
There was much scaremongering about cuts in the debate. Reference was made to the fact that notice has been given to employees, but councils have said that they were issued simply to cover legal liability. That does not mean that any posts will be cut.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) did not recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I responded positively to his request to ease capping limits for low-spending councils. He got almost an extra £1 million of spending power, which at least his convenor, Mr. Andrew Tulley, recognised was welcome.
In the debate, Conservative Members clearly laid out the ground rules. We have given a sensible and reasonable settlement to local government in Scotland. We have had nothing but the usual annual criticism from the Opposition. Their only solution is a tax-raising Scottish Parliament. Where will the £78 million for that come from?
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [28 February].
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 256.

Division No. 87]

[7 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Baldry, Tony

Alexander, Richard

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Bates, Michael

Amess, David

Batiste, Spencer

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Beggs, Roy

Arbuthnot, James

Bellingham, Henry

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bendall, Vivian

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Ashby, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Aspinwall, Jack

Body, Sir Richard

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Booth, Hartley

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Boswell, Tim

764

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fry, Sir Peter

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Gale, Roger

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Gallie, Phil

Bowis, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Brandreth, Gyles

Garnier, Edward

Brazier, Julian

Gill, Christopher

Bright, Sir Graham

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gorst, Sir John

Budgen, Nicholas

Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butcher, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Butler, Peter

Grylls, Sir Michael

Butterfill, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carttiss, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cash, William

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hannam, Sir John

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hargreaves, Andrew

Churchill, Mr

Harris, David

Clappison, James

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

Hawkins, Nick

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Hawksley, Warren

(Rushcliffe)

Hayes, Jerry

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heald, Oliver

Colvin, Michael

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Congdon, David

Hendry, Charles

Conway, Derek

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

Hicks, Sir Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Couchman, James

Horam, John

Cran, James

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Day, Stephen

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hunter, Andrew

Devlin, Tim

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dicks, Terry

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

Douglas-Hamilton,

Jessel, Toby

Rt Hon Lord James

Johnson Smith,

Dover, Den

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Duncan, Alan

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

Dunn, Bob

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Durant, Sir Anthony

Key, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

King, Rt Hon Tom

Elletson, Harold

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

Knapman, Roger

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Evennett, David

Knox, Sir David

Faber, David

Kynoch, George

Fabricant, Michael

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fishburn, Dudley

Legg, Barry

Forman, Nigel

Leigh, Edward

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lidington, David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lord, Michael

French, Douglas

Luff, Peter

765

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

MacKay, Andrew

Shersby, Sir Michael

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Sims, Sir Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

Madel, Sir David

Soames, Nicholas

Maitland, Lady Olga

Spencer, Sir Derek

Malone, Gerald

Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

Mans, Keith

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Marland, Paul

Spink, Dr Robert

Marlow, Tony

Spring, Richard

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sproat, Iain

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mates, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Stephen, Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stern, Michael

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Stewart, Allan

Merchant, Piers

Streeter, Gary

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sumberg, David

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Sweeney, Walter

Moate, Sir Roger

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Thomason, Roy

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Norris, Steve

Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Tracey, Richard

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tredinnick, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trend, Michael

Page, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Paice, James

Twinn, Dr Ian

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Patten, Rt Hon John

Viggers, Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Pawsey, James

Walden, George

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Pickles, Eric

Waller, Gary

Porter, David

Ward, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Powell, William (Corby)

Waterson, Nigel

Rathbone, Tim

Watts, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Richards, Rod

Whittingdale, John

Riddick, Graham

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Robathan, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

Willetts, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Rowe, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wolfson, Mark

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Tom

Yeo, Tim

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Sebastian Coe.

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Austin-Walker, John

Adams, Mrs Irene

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ainger, Nick

Barnes, Harry

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Barron, Kevin

Allen, Graham

Battle, John

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bayley, Hugh

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Bell, Stuart

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Ashton, Joseph

Bennett, Andrew F

766

Bermingham, Gerald

Golding, Mrs Llin

Berry, Roger

Graham, Thomas

Betts, Clive

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Blunkett, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Boateng, Paul

Grocott, Bruce

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Gunnell, John

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hain, Peter

Burden, Richard

Hall, Mike

Byers, Stephen

Hanson, David

Caborn, Richard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Callaghan, Jim

Henderson, Doug

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Heppell, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell-Savours, D N

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Canavan, Dennis

Hoey, Kate

Cann, Jamie

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Chapman, James (Wirral S)

Home Robertson, John

Chidgey, David

Hood, Jimmy

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hoon, Geoffrey

Clapham, Michael

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Howells, Dr Kim

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hoyle, Doug

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clelland, David

Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cohen, Harry

Hutton, John

Connarty, Michael

Illsley, Eric

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Ingram, Adam

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

Corbett, Robin

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jamieson, David

Corston, Ms Jean

Janner, Greville

Cousins, Jim

Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jones, Dr Lynne

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

(B'ham Selly Oak)

(Perth Kinross)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

Dafis, Cynog

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Darling, Alistair

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Davidson, Ian

Keen, Alan

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

Khabra, Piara S

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Kirkwood, Archy

Denham, John

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Lewis, Terry

Dixon, Rt Hon Don

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Donohoe, Brian H

Litherland, Robert

Dowd, Jim

Livingstone, Ken

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Llwyd, Elfyn

Eastham, Ken

Loyden, Eddie

Ennis, Jeff

Lynne, Ms Liz

Etherington, Bill

McAllion, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McAvoy, Thomas

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

Fatchett, Derek

Macdonald, Calum

Faulds, Andrew

McFall, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McKelvey, William

Fisher, Mark

Maclennan, Robert

Flynn, Paul

McNamara, Kevin

Foster, Don (Bath)

MacShane, Denis

Fraser, John

McWilliam, John

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Galloway, George

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gapes, Mike

Mandelson, Peter

Garrett, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

George, Bruce

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Gerrard, Neil

Martlew, Eric

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Maxton, John

Godman, Dr Norman A

Meacher, Michael

Godsiff, Roger

Meale, Alan

767

Michael, Alun

Salmond, Alex

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Sedgemore, Brian

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Sheerman, Barry

Milburn, Alan

Simpson, Alan

Miller, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, Chris (Islington S)

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morley, Elliot

Snape, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Soley, Clive

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Spearing, Nigel

Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

Spellar, John

Mudie, George

Squire, Ms Rachel

Mullin, Chris

(Dunfermline W)

Murphy, Paul

Steinberg, Gerry

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Stevenson, George

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stott, Roger

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Strang, Dr Gavin

Olner, Bill

Straw, Jack

O'Neill, Martin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pickthall, Colin

Thurnham, Peter

Pike, Peter L

Timms, Stephen

Pope, Greg

Touhig, Don

Pope, Greg

Trickett, Jon

Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

Vaz, Keith

Prentice, Mrs Bridget

Wallace, James

(Lewisham E)

Walley, Ms Joan

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Wareing, Robert N

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Welsh, Andrew

Purchase, Ken

Wicks, Malcolm

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wigley, Dafydd

Radice, Giles

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Randall, Stuart

(Swansea W)

Raynsford, Nick

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Reid, Dr John

Wilson, Brian

Rendel, David

Winnick, David

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Worthington, Tony

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wray, Jimmy

Rogers, Allan

Wright, Dr Tony

Rooker, Jeff

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rooney, Terry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Rowlands, Ted

Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Joe Benton.

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1997–98 (HC 272), which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Grant in aid of building works at Dunblane Primary School and Grant in aid of Local Authority revenue costs resulting from the Dunblane tragedy (HC 273), which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Housing (Scotland)
7.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
This is the annual opportunity for the House to debate the housing support grant order. The debate provides an opportunity to consider not only the detail of the orders, but wider issues relating to housing and housing finance.
The order provides that the total level of housing support grant payable to Scottish local authorities next year will be £15.2 million. Grant for mainstream council housing totalling £11.9 million will be paid to three authorities-Highland, Shetland and Western Isles. Broadly speaking, that sum represents the difference between the eligible expenditure and the relevant income of those authorities which, in the absence of grant, would have a deficit on their housing revenue accounts. Its purpose and the assumptions used are explained in detail in the report that accompanies the order.
The housing support grant order also includes an element—the hostels portion—that provides a contribution towards the running costs of local authority hostels for the homeless. Hostels grant will total £3.3 million to be paid to 20 authorities across Scotland, which will help to support around 2,300 places for homeless persons.
The 1997–98 grant calculations assumed expenditure of £834 per house on the management and maintenance of the housing stock. This represents an 8.2 per cent. increase over the equivalent figure for the current year, and brings the estimate into line with authorities' actual expenditure in 1996–97. For the purpose of the housing support grant formula, the assumed average standard rent for next year has been increased by only 2 per cent., to £39.38 per week, in line with the general rate of inflation.
I should also stress that that is not a forecast of rent levels, nor is it a guideline or recommendation; it is simply an assumption used solely for the grant calculation. Actual rents charged by authorities are, of course, a matter for local decision, and with so few authorities now qualifying for grant in respect of their housing costs, subsidy decisions have little impact on these decisions.
I understand that some authorities propose to increase rents well ahead of inflation. It will be for them to justify those increases to their tenants. Local authorities should consider very carefully the consequences for tenants of increasing rents substantially. I remind the House that the average local authority rent in Scotland in the current year, at £31.28 per week, is well below the English equivalent of £40.06.
As hon. Members will be aware, housing support grant has declined steadily since the early 1980s, in line with the Government's policy of moving away from such indiscriminate subsidies and targeting resources towards those tenants who are most in need through the housing benefit system. In the current year, it is estimated that council house tenants in Scotland who are unable to afford the full cost of their housing will receive rent rebates totalling £587 million. Housing benefit assistance will continue to be available for those who need help with their housing costs.

769
With only three authorities now qualifying for grant in respect of their mainstream housing, exploratory discussions have taken place with Shetland, the Western Isles and Highland councils with a view to reducing their housing debt to manageable levels and thereby removing the on-going need for HSG subsidy. Those discussions culminated in my right hon. Friend's announcement on Budget day of the Government's intention to commute a portion of the housing debt of the three councils.
The proposal is to convert the annual HSG subsidy paid to the councils into a capital grant and use that money to reduce the councils' outstanding debt to a level where they will no longer require subsidy. The on-going cost of servicing the debt would be offset against future HSG provision.
Rather than continuing to operate the current rather cumbersome HSG procedures for only three authorities, the Government consider that the early redemption of debt would be a more efficient use of available resources. The debt redemption proposals would place the housing revenue accounts of the three authorities on a firmer footing. Subject to detailed negotiations with the three councils, we would hope to redeem the debt before the end of the 1997–98 financial year.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister give an assurance that agreement will be reached with the councils, and that no formula or solution will be imposed upon them?
Mr. Robertson: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. That is why we are not acting right away: we want to talk to the councils and take them with us every step of the way.
I also draw the attention of the House to the question of general fund contributions. Such contributions represent a subsidy from council tax payers to council tenants. Like HSG, this kind of subsidy is indiscriminate, in that it benefits all tenants regardless of their personal circumstances. It is also unnecessary, as tenants who are unable to meet the costs of their housing receive assistance in the form of housing benefit.
Therefore, as has been the case in recent years, the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before the House on 3 February, prevents authorities from budgeting to make general fund contributions to the housing revenue account next year.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister provide an assurance that he will be sympathetic to the representations made by Inverclyde council? Not long ago, the Minister of State visited an area of Greenock that is bedevilled by very serious housing problems. There are equally grave housing problems elsewhere in Greenock and Port Glasgow. I hope that the Minister will treat those representations as sympathetically as his hon. Friend did some 18 months ago.
Mr. Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I treat sympathetically and sensitively all representations made to me.
I believe that the Government's proposals for housing support grant next year constitute a fair and reasonable subsidies package that balances the interests of the tenants, the council tax payer and the national taxpayer. I commend the order to the House.
7.22 pm
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: The Conservative party has waged a vendetta against council housing for 18 years, culminating in the Minister's open admission that he wants to see every council house in Scotland sold off and transferred to the private sector. He claims that that should happen with the consent of tenants.
However, we can be absolutely certain that, if this Government were returned for a fifth term, they would put the screws on council tenants even tighter, and force them out of the council sector and into the hands of private landlords. That would not be considered if there had been a Labour Government or a Scottish Parliament for the past 18 years. Housing will be the responsibility of a Scottish Parliament, and Scottish people who are concerned about housing cannot wait for the return of a Labour Government and the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.
The facts about housing—particularly council housing—speak for themselves. Since 1979, there has been a net decline of 343,000 houses available for rent in Scotland. Last year, local authorities built only 308 new homes. At the same time, about 185,000 households are on local authority housing waiting lists, and the number of households applying to local authorities as homeless has more than doubled over 10 years, from 20,000 to more than 41,000. About 1,000 people sleep rough in Scotland each night.
Since the present Prime Minister took office nearly seven years ago, housing investment in Scotland has been cut by 39 per cent. in real terms. If investment since 1990 had simply kept pace with inflation, there would have been enough money to build an extra 26,500 affordable homes. The house condition survey was conducted during that period, and the facts it revealed are chillingly familiar: 95,000 houses in Scotland below the tolerable standard, 580,000 houses in urgent need of repair and 267,000 houses affected by dampness, including an estimated one in three council houses.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Is it not true that 18,000 homes were built in Scotland in each of the past three years? Is it not also projected that 130,000 homes will be required in the next 10 years? On that basis, are the Government not on target to meet anticipated need?
Mr. Chisholm: The hon. Gentleman should do his sums again. Average new build in the housing association and the council sector has averaged about 4,000 in each of the past 10 years, compared with an average of 12,000 a year under Labour in the 1970s.
Housing is also a health problem. I have the advantage of being responsible for the areas of housing and health, and I frequently point out in health debates that, if people did not live in cold, damp homes, it would have a beneficial effect on the health of the nation.
There is another reason why the distinction that the Secretary of State tries to make between health and local government is completely phoney. Local government is crucially involved in health delivery via community care, but also through housing and other areas that are very important when considering the causes of illness.
This order represents a further turn of the screw, with the housing support grant cut by more than 20 per cent. relative to last year. The order makes an unrealistic rent

771
assumption of £39.36, which is 26 per cent. above the current average in Scotland. It also makes inadequate allowance for management and maintenance.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: This debate is intended to inform the House, so that we may have a sensible and rational discussion. The hon. Gentleman has criticised the level of the HSG order and the rent and management and maintenance assumptions that I have made. Will he give his figures in that regard, so that we may compare my proposals with his in the time available?
Mr. Chisholm: As in the local government debate, Ministers are trying to turn the Opposition Front Bench into the Government. We are nearing the end of 18 years of vicious, downward—spiralling cuts in housing—particularly council housing-and the next Government will clearly have difficulty addressing that situation quickly. The people of Scotland want to know only that our priorities in government are totally different from those of the Minister.
The Minister said openly that he wants to sell off all council houses in Scotland. We say quite clearly that council housing will remain central to our policy. The Conservatives want to pursue a privatisation agenda in Scotland, but we will take a twin-track approach: council housing will remain central, but we shall also support and encourage new housing partnerships in order to secure additional investment. Tenants will play a central and crucial role in those partnerships—the Government do not allow that under their local housing company proposals—and investment will be additional, rather than a cover for massive cuts, as has occurred under this Government.
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman obviously got a bit heated and carried away, but he did not answer my question. [Interruption.] I shall keep talking while the hon. Gentleman gets his lines from the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), so that she does not need to whisper in his ear. Are we to take it that the Opposition are unwilling to tell us alternative figures to those in the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order, and that we shall therefore argue and debate blindly about what the Government intend to do, getting nothing in return from the Opposition?
Mr. Chisholm: Obviously, when we get into government, we shall have to examine very closely several factors that are relevant to housing. The first factor is the level of the public sector borrowing requirement and, alas, one of the problems that we shall need to confront is a public sector borrowing requirement of at least £26 billion.
If 1992 is anything to go by, the sum will be much larger, because then we were told that the PSBR would be £30 billion, and it was actually more than £45 billion. That is a serious onstraint—[Interruption.] I am answering the Minister's question, if he would contain himself. That is a serious constraint on any Government's housing policy. It is not the situation that we would choose to inherit, but I remind the Government that that public sector borrowing requirement was run up by the Conservative Government; indeed, it is the final monument to their economic incompetence.
772
Obviously, we shall want to examine that. I shall talk about the 75 per cent. rule in a moment, so I shall touch on it only briefly now, by saying that we shall also want to consider the effect of the rule, including its effect on housing benefit. Obviously, when we have reviewed all that, we shall come up with specific proposals to start turning the crisis around, but, because of the vicious downward spiral that has continued for 18 years, there is no magic solution.
Once again, I refer briefly to the Scottish National party, which is committing a cruel deception on the Scottish people by pretending that housing debt can be magicked away. We realise that there is a serious problem of housing debt, but it cannot be magicked away, because, as this evening's figures show, the loan charges from housing debt run at more than £500 million a year, and in an independent Scotland, servicing that debt would put 3½p on income tax, quite apart from the many other SNP spending pledges.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I regret breaking into the hon. Gentleman's delusions, but I refer him to the policy document, which clearly sets out how that can be done. The Government have carried out a similar debt commutation for water services. If the hon. Gentleman had the imagination, he would realise that, when all Scotland's resources are available-given that we shall subsidise during the next five years by £12.5 billion, according to the Treasury's figures—those problems could be tackled. Under the hon. Gentleman's solution, there is no solution.
Mr. Chisholm: That was an interesting and important intervention, because it is the second, or possibly third, time that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) has used the figure of £12.5 billion tonight. That figure is the Scottish National party election manifesto: everything depends on that. The SNP has tabled a parliamentary question that talks about £27 billion retrospectively. It has not received a parliamentary answer that talks about £12.5 billion, but the SNP has somehow managed to conjure that up.
The reality is that the SNP has made such an enormous number of spending commitments that they make any sense only if the SNP can conjure up massive surpluses, and that is the problem. On the point that the hon. Member for Angus, East made about debt commutation, of course debt can be commuted, but the debt must still be serviced; the loan charges must still be paid. In an independent Scotland, the loan charges on the present debt would be the equivalent of 3p on income tax. I do not mind the SNP advancing that policy; I do mind it pretending that it is a no-cost option.
I return to the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order. Before the various interventions, I was talking about the unrealistic rent assumptions and inadequate management and maintenance allowance. That leads to the general subject of rents.
Since the Government came to power, average council house rents have increased by 535 per cent., compared with a general inflationary movement of 162 per cent. Although the housing support grant affects only a very few councils now, those rents will increase further as a result of the order, and also as a result of the 75 per cent. rule, which I want to discuss now.
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman appears to be au fait with all the figures. Would he care

773
to tell the House the value of housing benefit, and, specifically, the value of housing benefit that has gone into council house coffers, during the same period? That is still taxpayers' funds supporting council housing.
Mr. Chisholm: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes that point, because it was going to be my next but one point, and I am surprised that the Conservative party should want to highlight that, because housing benefit is crucial.
One problem is a lack of figures. I asked a parliamentary question about housing benefit on 29 January 1997, and I was told that housing benefit expenditure figures for Scotland were not available before 1988–89, which is unfortunate; but I shall refer to that question in a moment.
I shall first refer to another parliamentary question, the answer to which, by coincidence, was given to me on the same day at column 250, which shows the full scale of the devastating cuts caused by the 75 per cent. rule-even greater than some housing lobbying organisations have said. In the detailed table on 29 January, I was told that, next year, gross council housing capital expenditure will fall from £341 million to £221 million—a devastating cut of 35 per cent.
I know too well that that will have a devastating effect on council houses in my constituency. Throughout Scotland, 30,000 houses will not have the central heating work, the window replacements or the other necessary modernisation that they require. That is the key problem with the 75 per cent. rule.
I shall now mention something that we are considering very carefully in our review of policy—the housing benefit effect of the 75 per cent. rule. I do not have all the information yet, but I have contacted every council in Scotland to ask a specific question: what element of this year's rent increases is there purely to plug the investment gap caused by the 75 per cent. rule?
In Edinburgh, for example, £1.86 million has been added to council house rents so that a small part of the necessary window programme, which would otherwise be wiped out by the 75 per cent. rule, can be carried out. I want to obtain those figures from every council in Scotland. Then, to balance against the 75 per cent. rule, we shall have a figure that tells us how much extra has been added to rents, and therefore how much extra has been spent on housing benefit because of the 75 per cent. rule. The Government have taken no account of that in imposing that rule.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to the following question, which he did not give in the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose? God forbid, if there were to be a Labour Government, what would he do about the 75 per cent. rule? Would the rule stay at 75 per cent., would it be reduced to or 30 per. cent. or 25 per cent., or would it be abolished completely?
Mr. Chisholm: I believe I have shown that we are taking a completely different approach to the matter; I cannot give a specific answer until I have done the research which the Minister has not bothered to do. He has imposed a 75 per cent. rule without even thinking of its implications for taxation via housing benefit.
774
We accept that the 75 per cent. rule has a PSBR effect. We shall be confronted by a massive PSBR resulting from the Government's economic incompetence; that is one element. The second element is the effect on housing modernisation, and a third element, which the Minister has forgotten, is the effect on housing benefit.
Unlike the Government, we acknowledge that there is a serious problem in the effect on modernisation and the effect on taxation via housing benefit. All that will be taken into account before we make a specific recommendation. The Government do not acknowledge the problem, because their fundamental reason for imposing the 75 per cent. rule was to force council houses into the private sector by starving the council sector of funds.
The Government have highlighted the fact that 72 per cent. of council tenants are on housing benefit, so one can be certain that the increase in housing benefit resulting from the 75 per cent. rule will be large. If we extrapolate the Edinburgh figure of £1.86 million, which is 5 per cent. of the council housing stock, and multiply that by 20, we are talking about almost £40 million, most of which is housing benefit. I do not know the final figures. We are examining the matter in detail.
Increased housing benefit is not just a public expenditure problem. The Government have shown in their housing policy that they are happy for rents to go up and for housing benefit to take the strain. That causes a public expenditure problem, and an affordability problem, with 72 per cent. of tenants on housing benefit. As rents go up, that creates deep poverty traps if people have such high rents that they cannot move from benefit into work.
Affordability is at the heart of our policy for public rented housing. If rented houses are not affordable, deep poverty traps are created. That is already beginning to happen in the housing association sector in England. With the reduction in housing association grant in England, people cannot afford to move from housing benefit into work. That is the last thing we want.
Affordability is the key factor in rented housing, together with security of tenure. When I speak to tenants, affordability is their main concern in relation to rented housing, but the Government have forgotten about that. Because so much of our economic strategy is based on the movement from welfare into work, we are particularly concerned about the tendency to let housing benefit take the strain and to let rents soar. We do not find that acceptable, on social or economic grounds.
Homelessness is more than just a housing problem. It will be eliminated only by getting the economy right and creating jobs. That is why our policy on youth unemployment is also a crucial housing policy. I emphasised in the previous debate that the one tax that we will impose early in the next Parliament is the windfall tax, which people in Scotland recognise is a just tax on the excess fat-cat profits of the privatised gas, electricity and water industries.
Mr. Wallace: As it may have some relevance, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what impact the windfall tax will have on Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric?
Mr. Chisholm: There will be a tax on the gas, electricity and water industries. Everyone knows about

775
their excess profits. The tax will not have any effect on prices for consumers. Those are excess profits, which we shall examine carefully.
Homelessness is closely related to economic development. Another aspect of the windfall tax will be the setting up of an environmental task force, which will carry out housing repairs as part of its remit. We have a many-pronged approach to the housing crisis, and that is one part of it.
There will be no magic-wand solution. Our priorities for housing are fundamentally different from those of the Conservatives. We shall end the vendetta against council housing. We shall continue to regard council housing as central, but we are open to new housing partnerships in order to secure additional investment. We shall pursue that twin-track approach to turn around the desperate crisis in Scottish housing, and provide people with the warm, decent homes that are an essential part of a civilised society.
7.43 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). I hear once again proposals from the Opposition to establish yet another quango. Every argument that they ever advance seems to involve the creation of just one more of these bodies.
When the hon.Gentleman spoke about the windfall tax, he failed to address the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) with regard to the effect on the Scottish utilities. There have been no massive profits. The windfall tax suggested by the hon. Gentleman is a tax on fuel. That is what he means and what the effect would be, because the windfall tax would be passed on to the customer. People across Scotland should recognise that.
Mr. Bill Walker: As I understood the case presented by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), the Opposition are talking about profits made in the past, but the tax would be levied on the current position of the companies and would therefore come out of present-day prices.
Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend is right. The regulator has already confirmed that, and the hon. Gentleman must take it on board.
I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not turn up at the Chartered Institute of Housing conference in Dundee on Thursday morning.
Mr. Chisholm: I was active on the Committee that considered the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill, which is a United Kingdom Bill, despite the fact that the Government did not recognise it as such and did not put a Scottish Office Minister on the Committee.
Mr. Gallie: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment, but he is the shadow housing Minister for Scotland. I should have thought that he would attend that important conference in Dundee. He was missed by those who were there. Some thought that he was absent because he has recently had a hard time in Scotland on housing issues,
776
principally because of the Labour party's change of tack. Despite his claim that Labour wants an improvement in housing stock in Scotland, any potential source of funding for that has dried up, following the comments of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that there would be no other funding.
When the Opposition speak about the problem of housing, they miss an important change that has occurred in recent times—people's aspirations. It is recognised that 80 per cent. of people in Scotland want to be home owners. Since 1979, home ownership has risen from 35 per cent. to almost 60 per cent. People have put vast sums into the housing stock in Scotland. They have been pleased to invest their own money and take pride in their properties. That has meant that a burden has been lifted off the taxpayer. The public sector has to find less money to invest in bricks and mortar.
Another major change has occurred in regard to housing benefit. Before 1979, investment was falling: as we can all recall, the hammer had been put on Government expenditure by external sources. The realities of the economy demanded that public expenditure had to be cut. At that time the Labour Government were failing to invest in houses.
When the Conservatives became the Government in 1979, they examined the means of funding the array of public sector stock. Instead of funding bricks and mortar, they decided that it would be much fairer to fund individuals. People who needed support for housing received it through the housing benefit system. The present figure, as promoted by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), is £587 million coming in through the housing benefit system in Scotland.
Our rents are 25 per cent. below levels in England. If Scottish and English rents were equated, there would be an additional £130 million income. That is £130 million that could be invested in public sector housing. Perhaps there are good reasons for the difference. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one-the difficulty of moving from benefit into work. Forcing up rent levels would create problems. Perhaps a halfway house could be found. However, there is money in the kitty that could be used if councils were prepared to charge levels of rent that would still be seen as reasonable.
The right-to-buy scheme introduced by the Government not only gave people pride, but created massive opportunities for work. The extra investment in housing by individuals created work not for the large housing contractors, but for the smaller ones. That has greatly benefited those seeking work in the service industries recently.
The Government made another major change. They went out of their way to try to identify the quality of housing in Scotland, and, through Scottish Homes, they have established a new "below tolerable standards" criterion. Since the first statistics were issued, improvements in housing stock have increased year by year. I believe that the money involved has been well spent.
Let me bring a pet issue to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. I refer to this year's change with respect to the non-housing revenue account. We have now listened to COSLA, and have removed the requirement for local authorities to provide the private sector with

777
grants for repairs and maintenance. I think that that is wrong. You can bet your boots that now that local authorities have been given discretion, the money will go into the public sector. The private sector also needs improvement. People with their own homes who are not terribly well off need the grants that have helped cities such as Glasgow immensely over the years.
We should consider a specific aspect of housing in Scotland: sheltered housing. There are now 34,000 sheltered housing units in Scotland, while there were only some 2,000 or 3,000 in 1979. I am proud that the Conservative Government delivered in that regard; it is a pity that more people do not give them credit for it.
The order makes provision for hostels, and I am glad to see that south Ayrshire is on the list. However, I should like to hear the Minister's views on the homelessness legislation and the way in which it currently works. I feel that, in many instances, emphasis should be placed on hostel provision. My constituents and I are fed up with young girls who become pregnant, take advantage of the legislation and end up with houses. That is not fair to others on the waiting list, or, indeed, to the young girls concerned. They are pushed into unfriendly, sometimes hostile, environments, and are left on their own, surrounded by resentment. They are preyed on by their peers, and by others. Sheltered hostel accommodation for such people would be very welcome.
Dr. Godman: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that young girls become pregnant in order to acquire homes in the communities in which they live? Where is the evidence for such a malign comment?
Mr. Gallie: A number of 16 and 17-year-olds in my constituency have been housed under the legislation, and there is resentment among other constituents, some of whom have waited for six or seven years to be housed under the normal system. It is from my constituents that I get my evidence, and I tend to believe my constituents.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that a young woman becomes pregnant in order to live in a damp and virtually uninhabitable house in a grotty, rundown street, what does that say about the life that that young woman was living before?
Mr. Gallie: I do not think that the hon. Lady listened to what I said to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is now not listening in any case.
Dr. Godman: It is not true.
Mr. Gallie: I never claimed that young girls deliberately went out to get pregnant. What I am saying is that an extraordinary number of 16 and 17-year-old girls do get pregnant, and do end up being housed under the homelessness legislation. It would be far kinder to them, and to all concerned, to enable them to go into proper units where they would receive support—the support that their families should have given them, but cannot give them now.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gallie: I will, but time is short.
Mr. Walker rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Walker: I wonder whether there is a new system of ruling in the House. Do all occupants of the Chair understand that the chap who is on his feet has the right to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all occupants of the Chair are fully aware of the procedures of the House, and carry them out.
Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it astonishing that one of your colleagues on the Chairmen's Panel should let you down in the way that he did.
Perhaps Opposition Members will tell us why this generation has such a huge problem of young single mothers.
Mr. Gallie: I well understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I do not want to follow that line. I have given my views, as, like every other hon. Member, I have a democratic right to do—irrespective of sedentary comments from some individuals who should know better.
It is said that the solution to all Scotland's housing problems is to establish a Scottish Parliament. Such a parliament will do nothing for Scotland's housing—except, perhaps, take away some of the resources that could be put into it. I do not see what a further level of politicians, bureaucracy and requirement for funds will do to help Scottish housing. It will merely absorb funds that could have been used to provide housing stock.
Finally, let me comment on the 75 per cent. rule mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). Scotland has been in a privileged position in recent years: since the introduction of the right to buy, Scottish local authorities have been allowed to spend 100 per cent. of their capital receipts. That has not been the case south of the border or in Wales; I am not sure about Northern Ireland. It was left to local authorities to try to reduce council house debt, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, they did not do so. At that point, some discretion must be removed. This year the figure is 25 per cent. Perhaps 75 per cent. was a little hefty, but if anyone is to take the blame, it must be the councils themselves, as they have failed to act responsibly.
7.57 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: We are grateful to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) for reminding us of the political and philosophical gulf between the two sides of the House. If I understood him correctly, he proposed that pregnant single women should be housed in hostels rather than being given adequate and proper homes. I have no doubt that, were the impossible to happen and the Government survived another term, that policy would be implemented, and babies would be born in hostels. I am sure that the Conservatives would consider that an efficient way of saving money.

779
On a more positive note, let me take up what the Minister said in his opening speech about the current talks between the Scottish Office and local authorities—particularly Western Isles council—about the outstanding debt burden, which, in the case of Western Isles council, is about £40 million. I welcome the Minister's reassurance that the discussions with the council will be consensual, that there will not be an enforced solution to the matter and that he will seek to reach agreement with the council on how best to resolve it. In principle, that idea is worth supporting. I hope that the discussions will result in agreement.
It is worth pointing out that the debt was accumulated because of the huge shortage of public housing in the western isles. As a result of the failure of previous local authorities to tackle the problem, in the 1970s the newly created Western Isles council had to embark on a large house building programme, which has left it with a very large outstanding debt.
On a less positive note, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) mentioned the changes proposed to the 75 per cent. rule. The change is causing much concern to Western Isles council and it will impact on its ability to begin to tackle some of the huge problems that it faces in bringing its housing stock up to the standards that are required—and which should be demanded—of any local authority in this day and age.
I remind the Minister that it was his Government who issued guidelines that led to the housing conditions survey of 1991, which showed that 29 per cent. of council houses in the western isles suffered from serious dampness or disrepair. That is a phenomenal proportion. To repair those houses properly would require about £4 million-worth of improvements in the coming year alone. There is a huge shortfall between those needs and the money that is available to the local authority. Part of that shortfall will be caused by the 75 per cent. rule.
Before last year, Western Isles council was able to raise between £500,000 and £1 million through council house sales to reinvest in improving its housing stock. Last year, the 25 per cent. rule was introduced, but the new 75 per cent. rule could mean that only £140,000 will be available in the coming year.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the 75 per cent. rule, but he will have heard what his hon. Friend said: that if he were Minister, the 75 per cent. rule would stay.
Mr. Macdonald: I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend said. He gave me some new information and pointed out the way in which the 75 per cent. rule will impact on the public sector borrowing requirement and on taxation, forcing up housing rents and therefore public expenditure to meet the cost of those rents. He pointed out accurately and aptly that the Government simply have not thought the change through. They are hoping to save money, but it is not clear that they will save the amount that they had hoped. I fully accept that my hon. Friend will have to look at the way in which the money seems to be ending up back in the PSBR.
The Government have reduced the amount available to the Western Isles council for capital improvements by £1 million from 1 April. Taken together, the total amount
780
available to the council for capital improvements could be as little as £1.5 million in the coming year. As recently as 1990, £4 million a year was available. In the early 1980s, it was £6 million or £7 million a year. There has been a catastrophic collapse in the amount that the Government are giving local authorities to tackle the severe housing problems that they face, particularly in rural areas.
Mr. Gallie: I listened to the hon. Gentleman the other day on the radio—he is a caring Member—when he expressed his reservations about young ladies who cannot get homes. At the same time, however, he expresses concern about capital investment in housing. I am sure that I heard him say that he did not want people on Department of Social Security benefits on Benbecula and that he wanted to knock down a number of perfectly good homes there. Will he expand on that?
Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Nobody in his right mind would want to knock down perfectly good homes. The houses to which he refers are Ministry of Defence stock. Some are perfectly good, and I would like to see them retained; others are well past any kind of repair and should be cleared away. That would be obvious to anybody who looked at those houses. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at them if he wants to be convinced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leith made the point that, because of the Government's cuts year on year in the housing budget, we are seeing not just a housing crisis, particularly in rural areas, but a health crisis, as people's health is affected when they live in houses that are damp, draughty and not properly insulated. It is also an economic crisis, because the cuts have a direct impact on local businesses and local employment. Many small businesses, such as builders, rely heavily on the money that used to come their way through the public sector to improve and develop housing stock.
In taking the money away, the Government are hitting not just small businesses but people on low incomes, the health of the nation and the economy of Scotland, particularly the economy of places such as the western isles, where the reduction in expenditure is immediately discernible. That is why I so welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to look at housing partnerships, to release new money to reinvest in the housing programme that is much needed. I am sure that that will be the direction in which we shall go after April.
8.7 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: At least we now know that the solution to the problems of housing in Scotland lies in a windfall tax, which somehow will not affect or have any impact on Scottish Hydro-Electric or, indeed, the other Scottish power company. The truth, of course, is that it is bound to. Then, of course, there will be a "twin-track" approach. What do Labour Members think has been happening over the past few years, where we have seen the development of housing associations and the creation of Scottish Homes?
I suppose that that is—to use the language of modern times—a twin-track approach, because one is making use of the private and public sectors, working in co-operation so that there are public and private sector funds, and the two together provide the answers. The reality, however,

781
is that a group of people sitting in Edinburgh discussing and debating the matter will not provide answers tomorrow to the situation that many people face in Scotland.
We should consider the history of Scottish housing and ask ourselves what lessons can be learnt. The Government's proposals reflect a change of emphasis and priorities. They are applying pressure to make change happen. Sadly, we know from experience that we have to take a carrot-and-stick approach, which gives rewards for change and imposes penalties for not changing. That is what the Government have been trying to achieve in this difficult and complex area against a background of family break-up.
The family structure has changed more in the past 30 years than in the previous 300 years. There was a time not all that long ago when the family took responsibility for all its members. Much as we may like to go back to that, the reality is that we are now living in a world in which many families do not want to take responsibility for their offspring. We must deal with that problem: there is no point in saying that it does not exist, or blaming people. I believe that the blame lies with all of us.
We have created an environment in which young people, for whatever reason, want to leave home, and their parents do not care whether they do so or not. Ask any social work department whether that is a statement of fact: we know that it is. The issue is how we address that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) provided part of the answer: it is not the entire answer. He suggested that a modern form of hostel accommodation could be provided. There is some merit in that, especially if it is run by people who care. The Salvation Army and the YMCA have a Christian ethos and a caring attitude, and perhaps there is scope for developing that area to deal with some aspects of the problem. I accept that it is not the whole answer.
Hon. Members know my views on housing benefit, which I have expressed down the years. Local authorities have deprived themselves of vast sums of money, which they could have used to carry out maintenance and repair work. The Opposition's view is not shared by Conservative Members, because our view is conditioned by experience, and we believe that if things are not working as well as they should, changes must be made.
In the past 18 years, the Government have tried to shift resources. It is tragic that thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been put into bricks and mortar that turn out to be valueless, because the homes that have been built are unsuitable to live in. If that had been done by private investors and speculators, they would have gone broke. Homes were not built to design standards, and the quality was such that they were not built to last. Worse still, local authorities failed to maintain them.
Those of us who are on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will remember the first visit that we made to Glasgow. We were told that there was no dampness problem. That was a joke, because we found that it existed on a massive scale. The local authority denied that there was problem.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Nonsense.
Mr. Walker: It is on the record. What I find so disturbing is that people will not face reality. They should
782
ask themselves what they should do to address the problem. I am not opposed to using public money to resolve social problems, but I object to using public money again and again when that has obviously failed. If we are to spend public money to build houses, there is merit in doing so in partnership, because the other partner has a vested interest in ensuring that the property is built to a reasonable standard. I am not complaining about the twin-track approach: I am merely saying that the Government are already taking that approach.
Local authorities too often supervise themselves. I do not blame the authorities for that; it is a structural weakness. We should have changed that years ago. They should not be the provider and the supervisor or inspector. A separate body should have that task, because Chinese walls do not work, as we know from bitter experience.
The Government have done more than any previous Government to address the problem of special needs housing. I am proud of what we have achieved. The present arrangements, which involve housing associations and the private sector, help to reduce the amount of money for specific grants. However, they do not reduce the amount of public money that needs to be injected into special needs housing.
Housing benefit should be seen for what it is: it is not free money, it is taxpayers' money that comes out of a separate budget. We, quite properly, criticise the Scottish National party for pretending that we can wish away the housing debt. All that we can do is transfer it to another area of public responsibility and accountability. Someone else has to pick up the tab; someone else has to pay the interest: that someone else is the taxpayer, because there is no one else to do it.
It is difficult to find rational answers. Some people see local government as one thing, central Government as another, and the taxpayer as having no direct link with either. The truth is that the taxpayer has a direct link with both, and it is the taxpayer who picks up all the bills. The Government are trying to find a mechanism for reducing local authority housing debt, which I think is a scandal, because it should never have been allowed to reach such a level. They are doing the right thing and creating the right pressure, and their carrot-and-stick approach will help. Housing benefit is the carrot. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is wrong if he thinks that the Government have not worked that one out, because they have. That is why they are shifting resources to bring about change.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. We face a difficult problem. I welcome the fact that the Church takes an interest in these matters. I hope that it realises that it has a part to play. In the past, the Church brought and kept people together. If anyone has failed in that area, it is the Church. Churches have not been able to persuade the populace that families should accept some of the responsibility. They have failed in that, not the politicians.
National and local politicians have failed to look at the whole canvass, because they have had vested interests in different areas. That is unfortunate, because the people who suffer are those in need, whatever their background and wherever they come from. If we are to have a caring, balanced society, we must have an appropriate housing policy. That is the Government's aim, and it is interesting that the Labour party in recent years has followed our policies.
8.19 pm
Mr. James Wallace: In a contribution that may be largely critical of the Government, I start with a note of congratulation, or at least thanks, to the Minister for his statement that there should be continuing negotiation and discussion with Shetland Islands councils, as with the other two councils, on the commutation of the outstanding debt by the end of the forthcoming financial year, 1997–98. That will be welcomed. As I said in the Adjournment debate that I secured last month on rural housing, no matter who occupies the Treasury Bench after the next election, I trust that that will be seen through.
The less complimentary part of my speech follows. As has already been widely mentioned in the debate, we are debating a housing support grant settlement that, combined with the cuts in the funding of Scottish Homes, will lead to a substantial withdrawal of investment in Scottish housing in the year ahead, following a significant cut in investment in the present year. That takes place against a background of homelessness and poor housing conditions.
The visible signs of street homelessness indicate a reduction in housing investment. The Government introduced a Scottish rough sleepers initiative when they made their public expenditure announcement in December. We should be thankful for small mercies, but it is important to recognise what a small mercy this one is. The expenditure totals £15 million over three years and £3 million in the first year. That compares with £92 million spent in London in the first year and £270 million spent in London over the first three years. I accept that the scale of the problem is different, but, proportionately, it is not that different. It puts into context what the Government are doing in terms of the rough sleepers initiative. We welcome the fact that they have been converted to the principle of it in Scotland because it has had some results in London. The regret is that the initiative has not been better funded.
Although there are at least 1,000 young Scots, or Scots of any age, sleeping rough at night, in 1994–95, 41,500 households applied as homeless. That was a small drop on the previous year, but double what it was 10 years ago. Households translates into about 76,000 people, of whom 19,800 are children. At our constituency surgeries, most of us see at first hand the problems that can be caused by homelessness, albeit that people come to us to discuss what are essentially local government responsibilities in terms of housing. They are not necessarily people without a bed to sleep in at night. They may be in overcrowded housing or young married couples with a family still having to share with one set of parents or another. That brings considerable tension and, as I know from my own constituency experience, unhappiness and frustration.
In terms of the state of housing, 30 per cent. of Scotland's housing suffers from dampness, condensation or mould and 85,000 houses are officially below tolerable standard. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) gave the impression that all poor housing in Scotland was in the public sector, but 77 per cent. of below tolerable standard houses are in the private sector.
Much of the below tolerable standard and damp housing in the public sector was built by private sector contractors. That does not excuse what happened, but, even if one wants to look back on history, there is a problem today: a problem of dampness, of condensation,
784
of mould and of houses below tolerable standard. Anyone who has seen the video that last month by the Edinburgh Tenants Federation will have been made forcefully aware of the appalling conditions in which some of our fellow citizens have to live.
The reality for many people, particularly for young people, impinges so much on their lifestyle and on their education, the chances are that a child in a homeless family is regularly having to change schools, teachers and syllabuses and is unable to establish good solid friendships, which in time means that he is unlikely to reap the full benefit from his education.

A study of 1,000 primary school children in Edinburgh found that 22 per cent. of those living in damp houses were suffering from colds, compared with 11 per cent. in dry houses, so if children live in substandard housing, the chances are that they are missing more time at school because of illness. If they live in overcrowded conditions, the chances are that they will not have the opportunity of a place of quiet to pursue study.
That puts pressures on family relationships, leads to a lack of motivation and may—one would not wish to generalise because many young people manage to overcome many of these deprivations and handicaps—lead and contribute to disruptive behaviour. The Minister's comments about home-school contracts sound nice and cosy in leafy middle-class suburbs, but for a kid living in overcrowded housing with dampness and condensation, who has little motivation or is having to move around bed-and-breakfast accommodation, home-school contracts are a different thing altogether.
We have that background and a reduction in housing investment. It is estimated that in the present year investment in council housing will be a third lower than the planned level for 1996–97. On top of that, about £70 million has been cut from the Scottish Homes approved development programme. That represents a loss of new build particularly in the housing association sector, but also in the public sector and the council house sector. That means fewer roof repairs and fewer window replacements. I have already had correspondence with the Minister on representations that I received from tenants in the Grieveship scheme in Stromness in Orkney. Central heating and rewiring work was not done. Adaptations for people with disabilities will not be done.
That will impact not only on individual tenants, but many small businesses. For many construction companies, contracts for council house refurbishments are an important source of continuing work. The Minister asks, as those on the Treasury Bench often do: where will the money come from? Sixty-three jobs in the construction industry are said to follow on from £1 million worth of investment. If we reduce investment by £1 million, we are likely to lose 63 jobs, with about £500,000 worth of benefits to be paid out, not to mention the tax forgone.
In London, tuberculosis is 200 times more prevalent among homeless people than among non-homeless people, according to the national average, so today's housing cuts can be tomorrow's health service expenditure. If the Shelter estimate is that the cost of keeping a household in bed and breakfast accommodation is about £7,900 per annum, if the Median housing association rent in Scotland is £1,606, or if the average council house rent is £1,626, there could be a saving of £6,300 per household in finding permanent

785
accommodation. Often the problem in Government is that they consider just one narrow part of the budget, make cuts there and do not consider the consequences in terms of increased expenditure elsewhere.
It is estimated that the policy on capital receipts will have a damaging impact on the scope for investment in public sector housing in the year ahead. I was unconvinced by the proposals by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who seemed to be trying to wriggle out of the fact that he was not making any commitment and to find some means of dressing his proposal up. He at no point recognised an important point, which the Minister would certainly disagree with, relating to local discretion.
The Minister made great play of the fact that, if councils are going to put rents up by more than the rate of inflation, that will be a matter for them and they will then have to justify that to their tenants; but surely there is a case for local authorities to make the judgments themselves as to how much should be repaid in terms of outstanding debt from their capital receipts and how much should be invested or reinvested in their housing stock. That is an exercise of local discretion that they should justify to their local electors. If they think that the local authorities have got it wrong, the resolution of that will come at the ballot box.
A substantial amount will go out of investment in housing in Scotland this year as a result of the Government's increased capital receipt repayment requirements. Against a background of homelessness and housing quality in Scotland that leaves so much to be desired, that cannot stack up as a policy for housing in Scotland. That is why the sooner the Government go, the better it will be for housing and for the people who have suffered the consequences of poor housing and homelessness in Scotland.
8.29 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Let me begin by picking up a few points that were raised by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who unfortunately is not in his place. He referred to the Government's generosity in creating housing benefit to pay people's housing costs. If there were not so many millions unemployed, the housing benefit bill would not be so large, so it might be better if people had jobs instead of benefit. The hon. Gentleman alleged that home ownership would remove burdens from the taxpayer as people would no longer be council tenants. He must have forgotten about mortgage interest relief at source, which is certainly a considerable burden on the taxpayer. I do not object to it in principle, but if there is generosity to owner-occupiers, there should also be generosity to tenants.
I was surprised by the attitude of Conservative Members towards single mothers. I should point out that, by virtue of being a mother who is taking care of her child, a single mother carries the same responsibility as any other mother. It might be more appropriate to direct any critical remarks to those who may be dodging responsibility for the same children. Instead of trying to tidy people away into hostels, in might be more appropriate if Conservative Members considered that single mothers have just as great a need for housing as families with two parents. Their children have the same need for decent homes as any other children.
786
The Minister made no reference to the many families who live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, where it is normal for the children to have gastro enteritis. It is absolutely shocking and must be brought to an end.
Once again, the Government paid no attention to the fact that the provision of refuges for women who suffer domestic abuse is nowhere near adequate. All those deficiencies must be addressed.
Let me refer to housing below tolerable standards. The hon. Member for Ayr referred to steady, unrelenting progress. That is simply not true as COSLA's figures demonstrate. Last year, 84,000 houses in Scotland in the public and private sector were below tolerable standards. Only 6,000 were repaired. At that rate of progress, it will be 2010 before the problem is addressed, but fortunately we shall have a new Government before long and I am certain that faster progress will be made.
The housing support grant was £213 million 18 years ago. Next year it will be only £15 million. In 1979, all authorities were eligible, now it is only a few. In the past decade, £2.4 billion of direct Government support has been removed from housing in Scotland. Local authority money was cut to put money into Scottish Homes and now its budget has been cut and the housing associations do not have the money to carry through agreed and approved projects to timetable.
On rents, I hope that the Minister will answer a particular question. Council tenants in Glasgow are alone in carrying on their rents the capital debts from other properties that they do not inhabit. The properties have been sold off to the housing associations or demolished, but the capital debt still has to be paid. Why do the tenants have to carry the cost of that capital debt? What justice or fairness is there in that? From what he said at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Hamilton, Michael Hirst, the chairman of the Tory party in Scotland, seemed to believe that the council tax payer paid the debt. It is high time that he caught up with reality and realised that it is carried by council tenants. Will the Minister explain why he considers that to be fair?
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Can the hon. Lady tell the House who she thinks should pay the debt?
Mrs. Fyfe: Does that mean that the Minister thinks that council tenants should have to carry the capital debt for houses that have nothing to do with them, just because they happen to be tenants? Does he think that is fair? If the Government had any sense of responsibility they would look at the matter.
Mr. Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Fyfe: No, time is too short. The Government talk about controlling inflation, but they are not bothered about council tenants' rents. Scottish council rents are sky high. They have increased by 535 per cent. since 1979, compared with a general inflation rate of 162 per cent. Why should that be inflicted on people simply because they are tenants and not owner-occupiers?
The cuts in Glasgow have affected important works such as fuel saving and insulation schemes, window replacements and even help for people with disabilities. As a consequence, people's health is being affected.

787
I could continue, but I know that others are waiting to speak so I shall make just one last point. Recently National Childrens Home Action for Children launched its programme for homeless youth. I had the honour to represent the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party were also represented. There was no sign of any Conservative Member. Why could not the Tories find one man or woman in the whole of Scotland to express sympathy for homeless youth at that event?
Housing must be higher on the agenda, become a priority and get the attention that it deserves. I look forward to a Labour Government achieving that.
8.36 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) said that he had evidence that there was no damp housing in Glasgow. He must have spoken to a different council from the ones that I know as I have often raised cases in the House involving damp housing. The hon. Gentleman also said that if private sector companies built damp housing, they would not make money.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Martin: It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to ask me to give way when I have so little time to speak. I have news for him. Mitchell Comus, Crudens and Wimpey all built damp, non-traditional houses in my constituency and throughout the city of Glasgow. The corridor-type houses in my constituency that attract damp were built by the private sector because a Tory Government told local authorities that they would not get housing grant unless they built non-traditional houses. Therefore, the Tory Government must carry some of the blame.
The hon. Gentleman said that the private sector would not do that. I can take him to properties that have been built by the private sector and have made companies massive profits.
Some people enjoy living in multi-storey flats. There are some extremely nice blocks in my constituency and throughout the city of Glasgow. However, those who live in other blocks feel that they have no choice. As a party of law and order, it is important to provide a concierge service in every multi-storey block throughout the country. We cannot expect police officers to take the lift up and down to patrol such dwellings. Police officers stay on the ground floor, so it is important to have a concierge system. I am glad that the Minister visited the Sighthill district in my constituency and encouraged the local authorities to establish concierge systems. It is sensible use of taxpayers' money as there has been a vast improvement in the quality of life in those blocks and the feeling of security among the tenants.
Not all tenants can leave their council houses and buy flats or houses. For domestic and other personal reasons such as short-term contracts at work, some people have to pay rents, which are far too high for those who cannot claim housing benefit. It is a shame that hon. Members do not recognise that many people fall into that category.
788
I shall conclude as others wish to speak. I do not agree with the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) about setting up hostels for unmarried girls. That is absolute nonsense, but I agree with him about housing improvement grants. In the last financial year, some tenants were able to get housing improvement grants for tenement buildings, but now the grants have run out. I urge the Government to review housing improvement grants.
8.39 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I realise that time is of the essence, so I shall be as brief as possible. I should tell the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that it is interesting that his local council is talking to the Government about a commutation of debt, as that is something that the Labour party thinks cannot happen but which Governments do whenever it suits them.
The Government have made this debate almost obsolete by reducing housing support grant until it almost does not exist. Given the extent of Scotland's housing problems, I believe that the Government are pursuing the wrong policy and are going in the wrong direction. In recent years, there has been an appalling lack of investment in housing, and the escalating homelessness problem begs urgent action.
The significant aspect of this debate is that the housing support grant itself has been virtually eroded. The fact is that, 18 years ago, the grant was £213 million, with general fund contributions of another £100 million for investment. Next year, the combined total will be only £15 million. In the past decade, therefore, a staggering £2.4 billion in direct Government support has been cut from the housing budget. Between 1989 and 1996, the Government's neglect has inflicted on our budgets a 39 per cent. real-terms cut. Next year, there will be a further real-terms cut of 30 per cent.
The cuts have been aggravated by the senseless rules on debt repayment. The Secretary of State has tried to argue that they do not comprise a cut, but he is fooling no one. The rules mean that Scottish local authorities and Scottish Homes receive £193 million less than they otherwise would have received. Quite simply, given the problems that we face, that is the most severe type of cut.
The Government equally cannot wash their hands of the housing debt problem because they created it. As a direct result of their right-to-buy legislation, the number of council houses has been reduced by 31 per cent. Most of those houses were of the highest standard, but they were sold at prices that were substantially below market value. About £4 billion has been lost on right-to-buy discounts—a sum that is remarkably close to the level of housing debt. While punishing local authorities and council tenants for a debt problem caused by their policy, the Government stand guilty of allowing Scotland's housing to deteriorate further, adding to long-term and short-term problems.
The hypocrisy of the Labour party's leadership never ceases to amaze me. At the conclusion of this debate they will vote against the Government, but they have already admitted that they have nothing to offer those concerned with housing in Scotland. At the Scottish Grand Committee sitting, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) was given several opportunities to declare

789
that Labour would change the debt repayment rules, and his silence spoke a thousand words. Today, all we heard was some waffle about his studying the matter further. While he stalls, however, damage is being done by Tory Government policy, which gnaws away at housing provision.
Labour's defence on the matter—which is as feeble as its opposition—is that the ills of Scottish housing inflicted by 18 years of Tory rule cannot be righted in 18 months. Perhaps Labour Front Benchers would earn more sympathy from the Scottish people and from housing organisations if they had shown themselves willing to do anything. They are using Tory misrule as an excuse to do nothing.
Scotland does not need two more Tory years, and the Scottish people will not accept two more Tory years. I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to tell us whether Scotland will receive its equivalent share if, as expected, banked capital receipts are released in England. We have seen the housing policy for England. On an equivalent basis, however, will about £500 million—the appropriate sum—be released for Scotland? If not, it is yet another sign that Labour has nothing to contribute.
There must be an absolute war on shortfalls in Scottish housing. The Labour party is failing Scotland. It is giving us only more of what the Government have given us, and that will not do.
8.43 pm
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We have had a fascinating almost 90-minute debate, and the Government have clearly set out our spending plans and priorities in a crucial sphere which affects everyone in Scotland. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) for their support.
The principal spokesman for the Liberal Democrats spoke in the debate, and once again showed that their answer to everything is to tax, tax and tax. If we added up all their spending pledges, income tax in Scotland would be more than 30 per cent.
The Scottish National party indulged in its usual fantasy figures, pretending that £4 billion of council housing debt can somehow be magicked away in an independent Scotland and be forgotten about and cease to exist.
The spectacle, however, was provided by the principal Opposition party, the Labour party. Today it promised not one extra penny for housing in Scotland and confirmed that 75 per cent. debt repayment would stick. Whereas I had support from my hon. Friends on the Government Back Benches, not one Opposition Back Bencher supported the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Hamilton should not sit there chuntering away, because he was not in the Chamber for the debate and did not hear a word that was said in it. He does not know what the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) or for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) were saying or how they were criticising him—[Interruption.] I do not know where he was, but he cannot sit there and chunter away about what was said in the debate, because he was not here. He may well have had a very valid reason not to be in the
790
House. That is fine, and I understand it. However, he should not pretend to understand that he knew what happened, because he does not.
We have clearly set out our spending priorities in housing across Scotland. I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 246.

Division No. 88]

[8.44 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Alexander, Richard

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Couchman, James

Amess, David

Cran, James

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Arbuthnot, James

Curry, Rt Hon David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

Ashby, David

Day, Stephen

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Devlin, Tim

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Douglas-Hamilton,

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Rt Hon Lord James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dover, Den

Bates, Michael

Duncan, Alan

Batiste, Spencer

Duncan Smith, Iain

Beggs, Roy

Dunn, Bob

Bellingham, Henry

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bendall, Vivian

Dykes, Hugh

Beresford, Sir Paul

Elletson, Harold

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

Body, Sir Richard

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

Booth, Hartley

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Boswell, Tim

Evennett, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Faber, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Fabricant, Michael

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bowis, John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Forman, Nigel

Brandreth, Gyles

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Brazier, Julian

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bright, Sir Graham

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

French, Douglas

Budgen, Nicholas

Fry, Sir Peter

Burns, Simon

Gale, Roger

Burt, Alistair

Gallie, Phil

Butcher, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Butler, Peter

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Butterfill, John

Garnier, Edward

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

Gill, Christopher

Carttiss, Michael

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Cash, William

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Churchill, Mr

Gorst, Sir John

Clappison, James

Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

(Rushcliffe)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grylls, Sir Michael

Coe, Sebastian

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Colvin, Michael

Hague, Rt Hon William

Congdon, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Conway, Derek

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

791

Hampson, Dr Keith

Moss, Malcolm

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Hargreaves, Andrew

Nelson, Anthony

Harris, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hawkins, Nick

Nicholls, Patrick

Hawksley, Warren

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hayes, Jerry

Norris, Steve

Heald, Oliver

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hendry, Charles

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hicks, Sir Robert

Page, Richard

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Paice, James

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Horam, John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Pawsey, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

Pickles, Eric

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Porter, David

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

Rathbone, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Richards, Rod

Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

Riddick, Graham

Jessel, Toby

Robathan, Andrew

Johnson Smith,

Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

Rowe, Andrew

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Key, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

King, Rt Hon Tom

Sackville, Tom

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

Knox, Sir David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Kynoch, George

Shersby, Sir Michael

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sims, Sir Roger

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

Legg, Barry

Soames, Nicholas

Leigh, Edward

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Lidington, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spring, Richard

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Sproat, Iain

Lord, Michael

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Luff, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stephen, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Stern, Michael

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Stewart, Allan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sumberg, David

Madel, Sir David

Sweeney, Walter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sykes, John

Malone, Gerald

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Thomason, Roy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

Mates, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

Merchant, Piers

Tracey, Richard

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Trend, Michael

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Trotter, Neville

Moate, Sir Roger

Twinn, Dr Ian

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

792

Viggers, Peter

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Walden, George

Wilkinson, John

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

Ward, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wood, Timothy

Waterson, Nigel

Yeo, Tim

Watts, John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Matthew Carrington.

Whittingdale, John

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

Ainger, Nick

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Allen, Graham

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Alton, David

Denham, John

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Dixon, Rt Hon Don

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Donohoe, Brian H

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Dowd, Jim

Ashton, Joseph

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Austin-Walker, John

Eastham, Ken

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ennis, Jeff

Barnes, Harry

Etherington, Bill

Barron, Kevin

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Battle, John

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Bayley, Hugh

Fatchett, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Faulds, Andrew

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bennett, Andrew F

Fisher, Mark

Benton, Joe

Flynn, Paul

Bermingham, Gerald

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Berry, Roger

Foster, Don (Bath)

Blunkett, David

Fraser, John

Boateng, Paul

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Bradley, Keith

Galloway, George

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Gapes, Mike

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

George, Bruce

Burden, Richard

Gerrard, Neil

Byers, Stephen

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Caborn, Richard

Godman, Dr Norman A

Callaghan, Jim

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Graham, Thomas

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Canavan, Dennis

Gunnell, John

Cann, Jamie

Hain, Peter

Chapman, James (Wirral S)

Hall, Mike

Chidgey, David

Hanson, David

Chisholm, Malcolm

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clapham, Michael

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Henderson, Doug

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Heppell, John

Clelland, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hinchliffe, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Hoey, Kate

Connarty, Michael

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Home Robertson, John

Corbett, Robin

Hood, Jimmy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corston, Ms Jean

Howells, Dr Kim

Cousins, Jim

Hoyle, Doug

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

(Perth Kinross)

Hutton, John

Dafis, Cynog

Illsley, Eric

Darling, Alistair

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

793

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Janner, Greville

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Dr Lynne

Radice, Giles

(B'ham Selly Oak)

Randall, Stuart

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

Raynsford, Nick

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Reid, Dr John

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Rendel, David

Keen, Alan

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Khabra, Piara S

Rogers, Allan

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rooker, Jeff

Kirkwood, Archy

Rooney, Terry

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lewis, Terry

Rowlands, Ted

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Litherland, Robert

Salmond, Alex

Livingstone, Ken

Sedgemore, Brian

Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

Sheerman, Barry

Llwyd, Elfyn

Simpson, Alan

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

Lynne, Ms Liz

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McAllion, John

Smith, Chris (Islington S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

Snape, Peter

Macdonald, Calum

Soley, Clive

McFall, John

Spearing, Nigel

McKelvey, William

Spellar, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Squire, Ms Rachel

McNamara, Kevin

(Dunfermline W)

MacShane, Denis

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McWilliam, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Stevenson, George

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Strang, Dr Gavin

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Straw, Jack

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Martlew, Eric

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Maxton, John

Thurnham, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Tipping, Paddy

Meale, Alan

Touhig, Don

Michael, Alun

Trickett, Jon

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Turner, Dennis

Tyler, Paul

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Vaz, Keith

Milburn, Alan

Wallace, James

Miller, Andrew

Walley, Ms Joan

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Wardell, Grareth (Gower)

Morgan, Rhodri

Wareing, Robert N

Motley, Elliot

Welsh, Andrew

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Wicks, Malcolm

Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

Wigley, Dafydd

Mudie, George

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mullin, Chris

(Swansea W)

Murphy, Paul

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Wilson, Brian

O'Hara, Edward

Winnick, David

Olner, Bill

Wise, Mrs Audrey

O'Neill, Martin

Worthington, Tony

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wray, Jimmy

Pickthall, Colin

Wright, Dr Tony

Pike, Peter L

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Pope, Greg

Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

Tellers for the Noes:

Prentice, Mrs Bridget

Mr. Clive Betts and Ms Angela Eagle.

(Lewisham E)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

Orders of the Day

  Welsh Development Agency Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  8.58 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The House will be aware of the provisions of the Bill, the purpose of which is to amend section 18 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 to raise the financial limit of the agency from its present level of £950 million to £1,350 million. The Bill is a routine, technical measure to permit on-going public expenditure to finance the agency's activities without prejudice to future spending decisions.
  I was asked in Committee how long the proposed increase of £400 million would last. The annual amounts that contribute to the limit are derived from a series of activities that have to be based on the best assumptions at the time, including the total that can be afforded for the agency's programmes, the estimate for total capital and current receipts, the likely level of repayments and the permitted level of the budget for running costs. On top of that would be any supplementary provision that could be made in-year. It is really not possible to state with any certainty how long increases in the agency's financial limit are likely to last, and I would not wish to pre-empt future public expenditure decisions either generally or specifically.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked me to provide the total figure for 1997–98 and 1998–99 that will count against the agency's financial limit. I have written to him and a copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. Approximately £62 million is planned to count against the agency's financial limit in 1997–98 and about £101 million in 1998–99. Those figures should be taken as only indicative figures for the purpose of debate, and they are liable to change.
  I was pleased to be able to respond to the wishes of members of the Committee in another respect—for the sums counting against the agency's financial limit at the end of each financial year to be reported more widely. Members of the Committee will already be aware that the agency's annual report, a copy of which is laid before Parliament, carries a statement of the agency's expenditure to date counting against its financial limit. I have, however, agreed that the Welsh Office's departmental report should also include figures showing the agency's progress against its financial limit, starting with the 1997 departmental report.
  9 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: In some ways, I regret that it looks as if this Bill will be the last of the Welsh Development Agency Bills because of its provision that such matters will in future be dealt with by statutory instrument and in a debate of an hour and a half. I regret that because, even during the passage of this Bill, we have probed and discovered aspects of the agency's expenditure, budgets and future targets, which are of interest and concern to us all.

  795
  The most important fact is that there is a Bill at all and that, after 18 years, a Welsh Development Agency has survived. Those of us who recall the heyday of early Thatcherism—in which any form of government intervention was denied entirely and it was thought that everything should be left to the market and the money supply—will be fascinated by the agency's experience over the past 18 years. There was supposed to be no fine-tuning of the economy, but the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England now fine-tune on a monthly basis.
  The most extraordinary and interesting development of the agency, which has been spending very large sums of public money—I support that expenditure—has been in ensuring the location of major inward investment. By any standards, it represents regional, development area policy of the kind that goes back to post-war Britain. It is strange that, considering everything else that has been said ideologically over the past 18 years, the agency has been fulfilling a rather traditional, long-standing function. Indeed, it has gone beyond that.
  I found the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading fascinating for the way in which it seemed to counter the concept of non-intervention. We have not only intervention, but clear, specific prescriptive targets for the agency to achieve. We have got down not only to the number of jobs that we expect the agency either to create or secure but to sub-regional targets, which I very much welcome.
  I should like to remind the House that, on Thursday, the Secretary of State said:
  "I shall require that at least 50 per cent. of the jobs safeguarded or created by the agency to be outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors."—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 461.]
  So far, it has been argued that development has favoured the south-east and the north-east. Such planning is prescriptive. We are saying to the agency, "Thou shalt put 50 per cent. of all jobs and the expenditure that goes with them in certain specific areas in the Principality." Although I support that—the Secretary of State's announcement was widely welcomed—I think that it produces an interesting concept of detailed prescriptive targets which I thought were inconsistent with high Thatcherism.
  As we have targets and the Secretary of State made the case for them on Second Reading, we should be enlightened on the definition of the sub-region about which we are talking. What is the eastern M4? At which junction does it become the western M4?
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Bridgend. Mr. Rowlands: Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
  We should also have a definition of the M4 corridor. How wide is it? I am fascinated by the prescriptive targeting that has emerged from the Secretary of State's thinking, but we need closer definitions.
  Now that the discussion of detailed, prescriptive targets has started, I would like to propose some more targets. I shall direct my remarks to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, because I hope that they will soon establish with the Welsh Development Agency
  796
  targets for the next few years. However, my remarks may be valid during the Secretary of State's few remaining weeks of tenure. If targeting is now in fashion, we should ask the agency to reach other targets.
  First, I would like one target to be restored. We used to have a specific target for the reclamation of derelict land by 2000. That clearly defined target has been pushed aside, but I hope that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will consider restoring it. In the debate last Thursday and in our debates on the Bill, concerns emerged that, whatever success the agency has achieved, with LG and Halla Engineering, the Welsh still have the lowest disposable personal income in the United Kingdom and the lowest gross domestic product per capita. Therefore, I see no reason why a future Secretary of State should not seek to establish targets to improve those figures by a certain date.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: That is Stalinism.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am merely describing targets like those that the Secretary of State has suggested. If we can have geographical targets, we can ask the agency to achieve economic targets.
  The Welsh economy differs from those of most other regions and nations in the United Kingdom in another respect. Everybody says that future development in the world economy will come from small and medium companies, not larger ones. All the figures that I have seen show that Wales has a low proportion of small and medium companies, especially in manufacturing. The UK figure for companies with under 200 employees is 45 per cent., but the Welsh figure is 32 per cent. Small and medium companies therefore play a smaller role in the Welsh manufacturing economy. A significant target would be the promotion and development of small and medium manufacturing companies as a future base for the Welsh economy. That might also be an important Welsh Development Agency target.
  I was fascinated by the new concept of prescriptive targeting by a Tory Secretary of State. I can imagine the howls of protest that would have come from Opposition Members if a Labour Secretary of State had talked about such targets—they would have called it old socialist planning—yet a Tory Secretary of State is targeting and planning, even in a sub-regional fashion, as much as any previous Government.
  I welcome the Government's conversion to those concepts, because I still support those concepts. 1 believe in the role and function of Governments. I represent a community that is living proof that government matters, because when Governments did nothing we suffered; I believe passionately in targets and in government, and therefore in the role that the agency can play.
  I have identified one or two of the targets that a future Labour Government could adopt. In describing them, I may also have revealed the daunting legacy that we shall face when we come to power within the next couple of months.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad to take part in the debate, albeit late in the passage of the Bill. I have had an interest in Welsh Development Agency legislation from its earliest days. My only regret is that

  797
  the Secretary of State is not with us on Third Reading, to accept our felicitations on today's news that, even though he may not be able to find a seat or be elected in Wales, he has found a future wife there. I am sure that we all congratulate him on that.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) went back to the days in 1975 when the original Bill was debated. There was total opposition from Conservative Members to the creation of the agency: they were against it, lock, stock and barrel, because it would be interventionist and might affect the workings of the free market economy.
  One of the Conservative party's wiser acts after coming to office was to realise that one does not throw the baby out with the bath water, and that the WDA had the potential to do a great deal of good for Wales. The Welsh Development Agency may not have had the resources that the Bill will give it, and may not always have had the guidelines that we would consider necessary for it to make an impact on the Welsh economy; none the less, it has been an extremely important body and has a future role that may be even more significant.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney spoke about targeting. I, too, was interested in the fact that the previous target allowed up to 80 per cent. of the new jobs that were coming to Wales to be concentrated in two small corners, the south-east and the north-east, which represent 10 per cent. of the land area of Wales and include about 30 per cent. of the unemployed.
  Now the position is that 50 per cent. of the jobs will exist within 90 per cent. of the land area, and 50 per cent. will be in an area with 70 per cent. of the unemployed. That is a move in the right direction, but it does not solve the problem. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was right to ask about the definition of the two areas. Is it to remain the same, and on what basis has it been reached? It is not a statutory basis, and this has not been defined formally at all.
  We gather that the boundary runs along the M4, from the border with England as far as Bridgend, and that, in the north, Alyn and Deeside and Wrexham are included, but not Prestatyn. If those are the limits, presumably areas that are crying out for new jobs, such as the Cynon valley, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda in the south, or Point of Ayr and Prestatyn, which are in the north-east but need the jobs, will miss out on the 50 per cent. that are available.
  How will the Government ensure that jobs come beyond the defined area, to places that need them, such as Dyfed in the west—in the south-west, in Pembrokeshire, there have been areas of high unemployment for many years—Ammanford and the Amman valley further east, and Holyhead and parts of the old Gwynedd in the north-west?
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I intervene to try to assist the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, the House. For the purpose of the WDA's strategic guidance and targets, the eastern M4 is defined as the coastal strip from Chepstow in the east to Pyle in the west. The northern boundary is coincident with the southern boundary of the programme for the valleys area, extended east to include the southern half of Monmouthshire. In north Wales, the eastern A55 corridor is defined as the non-rural part of the Wrexham county borough council area, the whole of Flintshire and the
  798
  northern part of Denbighshire, including the towns of St. Asaph, Rhyl and Prestatyn. I have had a map of the eastern M4 and A55 corridors placed in the Library.
  Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. There has been a small change from the map used by the WDA previously, and that underlines the need for these matters to be defined so we know exactly where we stand.
  Assuming that we have clearly defined areas, the other question that arises—which is even more relevant to the Bill—is, "How will the resources to be made available by the legislation be used to achieve the Government's objective?" The objective, as described by the Secretary of State for Wales the other day, was that there would be a mechanism to enable those areas further to the west—perhaps the old coalfield areas in the industrial south of Wales or the western side of Dyfed or Gwynedd—to receive resources to make up for their difficulties in attracting industry.
  I should be glad if the Minister will tell us how the money to be provided by the Bill will be used. What will be the mechanism? What will be the constraints? Will it be possible to use those resources as the Secretary of State suggested? It is not good enough to give generalities. The areas with full development area status, intermediate status and no benefit at all are defined in legislation, and the resources have been fairly tightly defined. If, by virtue of the Secretary of State's statement, it will be possible to have more resources per job in the areas of the west without development area status to make up for the loss that they would otherwise experience and to enable them to compete on an even footing with areas with full development area status, that is significant. Presumably, that statement has been cleared with the European Union, because questions of competition clearly arise.
  I hope that the Minister can give a categorical assurance that the mechanisms have been cleared and defined and will be available to make sure that every location trying to get reasonable development—Dyfed, Gwynned, the western parts of Glamorgan, the old coalfields, Neath and the Rhondda and Cynon valley areas, all of which have had high unemployment in the past—will have adequate incentives to attract industry which would otherwise take the easy option and locate in the south-east or north-east corridor of the M4. If the Government cannot give a statement along those lines, it will be a question for an incoming Government after the general election. We know that those areas need to be targeted, but that is not happening.
  I turn briefly to another matter raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—the balance of priorities in using resources. There is a balance between money going to inward investment into Wales and the need for investment in companies that are already located in Wales. Small and medium companies often need the same helping hand, but they undoubtedly feel that they miss out. In my part of Wales, small companies say that one has to be a big Japanese or Korean company to get help from the WDA.
  The WDA is not interested in small companies. That may not be a fair reflection on the WDA, and I understand the importance of the 6,000 jobs that come with projects such as LG; I do not disparage that. However, if they grow, our small acorns can be valuable contributors to the economy. They have the advantage of being scattered

  799
  around Wales so that they benefit several areas and, as they are rooted in Wales, they are unlikely to decide to pack up at the first ill wind of economic depression. We must ensure that there is an equal balance in using the resources that the Bill provides to help small indigenous companies in a way to which perhaps not enough attention has been given in the past.
  My final question concerns the Opposition spokesmen rather than the Government. How will oversight of the WDA's use of its funds, the balance between investment in large companies from outside and small companies, and the geographical distribution of the resources available, be handled under the elected assembly that Labour is committed to introducing? Will it be done by absorbing the WDA, and the resources that go with it under the Bill, in the apparatus of government under the assembly? Will there be an arm's-length relationship or will it be done by the present quango state? I suppose, hope and suspect that there will be a change, but it would be helpful to know. In using resources, which I assume will be available to the Welsh Assembly in due course, it is important that we have accountability and the fine tuning of policy necessary to meet the requirements of unemployed people in every part of Wales.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was right. Wales is at the bottom of the league table of gross domestic product per head of all the countries and regions of Britain, not including Northern Ireland. That respects a decline from 92 per cent. of GDP per head a generation ago to only 83 per cent. now. That does not reflect well on the success of Government policies in recent years. I hope that we will get not only the resources given by the Bill but a dynamic commitment to rejecting unemployment as a factor in the economy and ensuring full employment in every part of Wales, and a determination by virtue of that to raise the income per head of the people of Wales to an acceptable level. That is the background against which we should see the Bill. If it plays such a part, it will be helpful; if it does not, the same areas will suffer for decades to come.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I shall be brief because I want to touch on matters already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). On Second Reading, the Secretary of State discussed setting targets to increase the performance of the WDA in areas outside the narrow confines of the M4 corridor and the eastern end of the A55 corridor. He gave a commitment to increase the target for creating and securing jobs outside those areas from the present 20 per cent. not merely to the 32 per cent. that he claimed that the WDA was already achieving, but to 50 per cent. I welcome that.
  My constituency has the second highest unemployment level of any travel-to-work area, not only in mainland Britain but in Northern Ireland. Only Cumnock and Sanquhar has higher unemployment than south Pembrokeshire. It is interesting that the third worst area is also in the western periphery of Wales: the Holyhead travel-to-work area. I welcome anything that targets resources to achieve a significant increase in the number of jobs secured or created in those areas.
  800
  As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, as well as setting targets, the Secretary of State gave a commitment on how the resources would be used to achieve those targets. He said
  "Secondly, I am asking the WDA, within agreed UK and European limits, to recognise the extra costs of locating in some areas by providing more assistance to companies locating in those areas than to equivalent projects elsewhere."—[Official Report, 10 February 1997: Vol. 290, c. 80.]
  I ask the Under-Secretary to confirm tonight how that aim would be achieved.
  Would a company that located in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—which, given the boundaries that the Minister announced a few moments ago, would be eligible for additional resources—receive the same per capita funding as a company that located in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)? Would it receive the same grant as a company locating in my constituency, which is some 70 miles further west? Would there be a gradation of assistance as the companies located further afield? The same question applies on the north Wales coast, towards Ynys Môn.
  The Under-Secretary owes us an explanation. We agree with and welcome the targets, but how will they be achieved? The Secretary of State said that different grants would be offered. Is he saying that, the more peripheral one gets, the more grant one receives? I should welcome that idea, as I have the most peripheral constituency. The Under-Secretary must make it perfectly clear how the targets will be achieved.
  If the grants are not graduated in that way, constituencies with the worst unemployment problems and the worst structural long-term unemployment—such as my constituency and Ynys Môn, and particularly the two travel-to-work areas of Holyhead and south Pembrokeshire—will think that the Government's rhetoric is meaningless. We need specific, additional help. If there is no true gradation, and a job in Port Talbot, Aberavon or Holyhead receives the same grant aid as one in Pembroke Dock or Wrexham, there will be no great incentive for any new investment in the far west. Labour Front Benchers will also have to decide how to tackle the structural problems of the peripheral areas in the far west. I welcome the Minister's comments on that matter.
  After the statement on 10 February, my local newspaper carried a front-page story saying that help was on the way. I told the reporter to be careful: I warned that Christmas had not arrived early and that we needed to see the details. I fear that, despite the WDA's best intentions in trying to push significant inward investment further west and the fact that investment may improve along the M4 or the A55 corridors, unless it has the resources to achieve that aim, the areas with the highest unemployment will not see the major investment that is required to address their structural problems.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Like the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I offer my felicitations to the Secretary of State on his engagement. I am sorry that he is not here to receive those felicitations, but perhaps it is because he was a bit shy of receiving them that he decided to absent himself.

  801
  I understand that the Western Mail was in two minds as to whether to run the headline this morning, "Offa's Tyke Joins Welsh Establishment", but decided against it for good reasons. We shall watch carefully to see whether the Welsh Development Agency decides to invest in some Welsh gold mines now, if the Secretary of State orders an especially large engagement ring for his new fianée.
  I shall now discuss the Bill, and especially the issues that have arisen tonight, on how one resolves the differences between what has emerged of the Secretary of State's promises, as to how he will distribute WDA resources differently geographically. That subject was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in the annual Welsh affairs debate—the St. David's day debate, as we sometimes call it—last week, on 27 February 1997 at column 462. He drew attention to the attempt to push investment and new job creation preferentially westward, and to some extent northward, by creating what one might loosely call a Mason-Dixon line. South-east Wales would have a lower priority than south-west Wales, the former having received the benefits of LG and certain other recent investments—Ocean Technical Glass, Newport Wafer-Fab and so on—and now that, perhaps more modestly, north-east Wales has received the benefits of the expansion of JCB, Hoya Lens and so on, investment would be pushed further west along the A55.
  The problem is that, to do that, one must know whether sufficient resources are available to make it possible. Although the Bill extends the WDA's parliamentary financial limit by £400 million, if, as is likely, the Bill is passed—we shall not oppose it—the issue will remain of how much of those resources is left uncommitted, with which to execute the new policy of pushing investment further north and west. What is the point of issuing a ringing declaration about directing new WDA investment preferentially to areas that have not benefited very much in the past couple of years, if there are no resources to do so?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has asked the Minister to tell us how much of the WDA's budget is uncommitted as things stand: uncommitted in this case meaning, I believe, on a commonsense basis—uncommitted to the known projects, in other words, to LG, Newport Wafer-Fab, JCB, Halla Fork-Lift Trucks, the expansion of Sony in Bridgend or any other investments that have been announced.
  The Secretary of State is making a grand pronouncement about his intention to bias the agency's operations so as to push job creation further west: further into the valleys, further west into north Wales and west Wales, and into Pembrokeshire because of its unique difficulties following the problems of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the Sea Empress disaster, defence cuts and the oil refinery closure, but how can that be done if all the resources have been fully committed? We have not yet received an answer to the question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East in column 462 in last week's annual debate on Welsh affairs. That question has arisen repeatedly during tonight's Third Reading debate.
  What resources are available to the Welsh Development Agency, via the Bill, the public expenditure survey process and so on, with which to carry out the
  802
  commitment given by the Secretary of State to execute the grand new policy to try to develop the whole of Wales, not merely the south-east and north-east corner?
  The WDA has the problem, not only of existing commitments, but of how the Welsh Office wants to define its relationship with the agency. In other words, does the Welsh Office see the WDA as an organisationally autonomous body, within the constraints of Treasury approval, approval from the Secretary of State and parliamentary debate once every five years, such as this debate? Does the Welsh Office envisage that within the normal constraints of parliamentary approval, the WDA should have a reasonable degree of operational autonomy, or should it work on the basis that every time it lands a big fish such as LG, it should go back to the Department for approval to spend the money? The Department would then give it a special handout, as happened last autumn in the winter supplementary estimate, and would say to the WDA, "Obviously, you have landed a big fish. You cannot handle that within your cash flow. Here is another £25 million, and a further £20 million for the next financial year."
  That was never the original intention for the relationship between the Welsh Office and the WDA. In the past few years, the amount of finance given by the Welsh Office to the WDA has gone up and down like a yo-yo. The agency was virtually crippled by the previous Secretary of State and the forced asset sales policy, which took away the cash flow, its operational autonomy and its ability to handle all but the largest projects within its annual budget. Once the agency lost the cash flow from its rental income on buildings and land, it did not have operational autonomy.
  We need to know from the Minister tonight whether it is now Government policy in the few remaining weeks of this Government to try to make the WDA totally dependent on the Welsh Office, so that every time it has a need for expenditure approved by the Welsh Office, it will ask the Welsh Office to give it some money from the general pool, as happened with the extra £25 million. I am sure that the Minister recalls that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked him where the extra £25 million that was awarded to the WDA last November came from. The Minister replied, "Within the usual flexibilities."
  Is that the sort of relationship that the Welsh Office wants to have with the WDA? Does it want the WDA to ask the Department every time it wants to spend some money, rather than being operationally autonomous during the financial year, except in emergencies? "Within the usual flexibilities" is not sufficient to define the relationship between the Welsh Office and the WDA in the future.
  Many speakers have referred to the problem of getting the balance right in Wales in terms of new job creation. Has south-east Wales, in particular, done almost too well for its own good, and is it straining the labour supply and the supply of specialist skills, such as those of engineers?
  I saw a letter in the Western Mail that referred to the possible emergence of an almost continuous urban strip of a possibly undesirable kind, running roughly from Cardiff Wales airport, to the west of Barry, right through Cardiff, through Newport and on to the end of the steelworks at Llanwern. That was described as a newly emerging city called Bacardiport—made up of Barry, Cardiff and

  803
  Newport—giving the right yuppie image of people sipping sundowners while looking at their boat from their luxury pad, and so on.
  That illustrates the danger of areas of Wales having prosperity levels that we usually associate with the south-east of England, while the rest of Wales would be left to fend for itself as dormitory areas or areas that remained dependent on welfare, and so on. We need to know more from the Government about how they intend to achieve the right east-west, north-south, valleys-coast balance in the work of the WDA.
  Finally, I shall deal with the sums that the Government will make available via the Bill and its financial provisions. In Committee, at columns 12, 16 and 19, I guessed that under the terms of the Bill, using the Bill's definition of finance for the WDA, the WDA would require about £100 million in the year 1998–99.
  The Minister did not want to answer in Committee, which is fair enough. We then received a letter stating that my figure was wrong, and that the sum was £102 million. I received a letter on 25 February stating that the figure would be £202 million, but that letter was withdrawn.
  Given the excitement generated in the ministerial private office by all the talk of engagement and marriage, it may be natural and forgivable to make a few mistakes, but it looks as if the figure of £100 million was about right—within £1 million or £2 million of the correct figure. That means that, having given an additional £400 million to the WDA in terms of the financial limit, or having permitted that expenditure, we would be doing the same job again in about four years' time.
  The Government have said that they will attempt to give us the indicative limits. We are not talking about fixed commitments, but the amount will be about £100 million in 1998–99, which means, obviously, that £400 million will be used up in four years. If, as the Minister said, the limit is only indicative, I do not see why he could not go a step further and say—as it was not a commitment—that the Government expected the £400 million to last for so many years.
  It would be useful for everyone in Wales to know the Government's policy on the WDA. Its financing, and its dependence on the Welsh Office, should not be allowed to go up and down like a yo-yo. We have lived through that over the past few years: we have lived through a very serious situation. The previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), tried to wreck the WDA by forcing it to dispose of all its major saleable assets. He lowered the amount of finance required in the terms of the Bill to only £13 million in 1994–95. The present Secretary of State started off in the same mould, keeping finance to less than £20 million, until he found an extra £25 million last November. He is now rebuilding the agency, but he is doing so with post-dated cheques. It is important for us to be given a much clearer picture.
  As for the WDA's financing of the Eurofreight terminal project between Cardiff and Newport, no money appears to be going in. The WDA has been asked to look after the terminal on behalf of the Secretary of State, but what is it actually doing? Consultants commissioned to act on behalf of the Secretary of State, but under the WDA's aegis, have reopened the whole issue of whether the
  804
  terminal ought to be between Cardiff and Newport or between Newport and the Severn bridge, or on Cardiff docks, or on the site of the existing freightliner terminal at Pengam moors.
  That question was closed off by the Secretary of State, but the consultants for the WDA have said that they are reopening the issue, and that they are considering four sites rather than one. Is that because the Secretary of State has told the WDA to put off the decision? Has he said, "We have no money to fund the grant for the Eurofreight terminal anyway, so please delay this until after the election"? The Government are undoubtedly living in a post-dated cheque culture.
  We want to know how the Mason-Dixon line is defined. We also want to know when the Secretary of State and his ministerial team expect Wales to move up from the bottom of the prosperity league table. We have plans to remove not only the democratic deficit but the prosperity deficit from Wales, by putting the WDA and its resources directly at the behest of the Welsh people, through the Welsh Assembly.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to respond to as many of the questions that have been raised as I can in the short time that is left. First, let me thank the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for their kind congratulations on the engagement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will accept that it is understandable that, for once, he has not been in the Chamber for the entire debate.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West was concerned about the flexibility that—not unusually—we used to find more money for the Welsh Development Agency in-year. That was a result of end-year flexibility entitlements carried forward from previous years, a switch of resources from class XIV, vote 1, claims proving lower than expected for agri-environmental and farm conservation schemes, and cases of funds within vote 2. I am grateful to him for his forbearance on the difference between £101 million and £202 million. He gave one explanation. Perhaps it was merely nothing more than wishful thinking.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about time limits. Since the debate in Committee, I have checked that, and I note that the current limit will probably last for about six years, whereas the previous limit lasted for three years. We feel that the limit proposed in the Bill is more than appropriate.
  I am glad thatthe hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) have given me an opportunity to respond to their concern—it is one we hear elsewhere in Wales—about indigenous companies.
  As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, one complaint we hear is, "You have to be a big Japanese or Korean company to receive help from the Welsh Development Agency". He will know, as will every hon. Member, that that is certainly not the case. It is Government policy, and it is the WDA's intention, to ensure that help is available to every company that can appropriately be provided for, be it an indigenous company or an inward investor coming into Wales.

  805
  A new target will be to focus attention for support for indigenous companies to go hand in hand with support for inward investors. The agency is required to secure additional business worth £24 million through its business development activities. Within the target of 12,500 jobs in total, 8,000 should come from inward investment, of which some 3,000 should be new jobs from overseas. Linked with the inward investment jobs target is the requirement to secure some £400 million in associated planned investment. The target for investment from all the agency's programmes is £600 million.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney also expressed concern about the opportunities for the debate in future, and suggested that only one and a half hours would be allowed. I have checked this, and one and a half hours should probably be regarded as the minimum for debate. It would be possible to have longer debates—subject, of course, to the Speaker.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to land reclamation. The aim of removing all major or significant dereliction in Wales by the end of the century was promoted by the agency some time ago. However, circumstances change, priorities are reviewed, and new projects come forward. Other factors can affect progress. For example, the full complexity of some schemes becomes apparent only after work has commenced. The target of removing all major dereliction by the end of the century was the agency's target, and not one reached by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) made a fascinating proposal about a gradation westward through Wales, from which he would very much have been the greatest beneficiary. I wonder whether he would invite even more trouble from his more easterly colleagues in trying to pursue that objective. We have told the WDA that it will have to act within agreed United Kingdom and European limits, but that we want it to recognise the extra costs to companies of locating in some areas by giving them more assistance than it gives equivalent projects elsewhere.
  That matter is best taken forward by the WDA determining what it would recognise in the circumstances. I wish to encourage the hon. Gentleman not to be as overly negative on behalf of his constituency as he implies.
  Mr. Ainger: What the Minister just said confirms again that it is far more difficult to locate businesses the further west one goes. There are higher costs and so on. He is again implying that there may well be a gradation in grant aid. Is it possible under the present restrictions to offer different levels of grant aid, using whatever criteria, between an area such as Pembroke and areas such as Llanelli or Aberavon?
  Mr. Jones: That is a matter for the agency to consider. We have said that we want it to consider the extra costs involved—no more, no less. That is the best thing for it to take forward.
  Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wigley rose—
  Mr. Jones: I give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
  Mr. Rowlands: The most important and significant assistance is selective financial assistance. Will that reflect the geographical problems as well?
  Mr. Jones: I want the agency to use all the weapons at its disposal, so that it can be effective. We now place great emphasis on the western corridors in north and south Wales.
  Mr. Wigley: I want to develop that point. Will the agency make grant aid available? By and large, it has given loan aid. Many of the companies that are not in the regions with full development area status cannot obtain grants. Will there be a change either in the maps under the Industry Acts or in the definition of the WDA's powers to give grants as well as loans?
  Mr. Jones: I am not going to invent legislation on the hoof, because we have stated our intention. We want the agency to recognise the extra costs involved in locating in north-west and west Wales. I am confident that the agency will achieve its targets, because it already has an excellent record on job creation in western and north-western parts of Wales.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I wanted to refer to the hon. Gentleman's point about LG and the dependence of the Welsh Development Agency.
  Mr. Morgan: I just want to ask the Minister to respond to my point about what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said last Thursday. On the question of how much uncommitted budget the WDA will have to execute under the new policy of pushing investment further west and north, the Secretary of State said:
  "The WDA has many commitments, but that does not mean that its entire budget is committed."—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 462.]
  If its entire budget is not committed, how large is the uncommitted section?
  Mr. Jones: I do not have that answer at my fingertips, but I shall be pleased to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him more information.
  The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about whether the Welsh Development Agency would be totally dependent on the Welsh Office should something similar to the LG project be developed in the future. No, that is not my expectation. I expect the agency to continue to be a totally integrated part of the successful "team Wales" approach that we have taken, and which we will continue to take after the general election with even more success, without the extra bureaucratic costs and hurdles with which the hon. Gentleman would saddle Wales.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
  Ordered,
  That Sir Archibald Hamilton be discharged from the Standards and Privileges Committee and Sir David Mitchell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

PETITIONS

  Scottish Borders Council (Financial Settlement)
  9.53 pm
  Sir David Steel: On behalf of my constituents, I wish to present a petition, which has attracted more than 7,500 signatures of people in the Scottish Borders region. Never in my three decades in the House have I known such genuine anxiety about the quality of public services in our region, and that is reflected in the response to this petition.
  The second part of the petition, which pleads for the capping limit to be raised, has already been agreed by the Secretary of State for Scotland since the petition was drawn up, and we are grateful for small mercies. However, the main burden of the petition remains, as the Scottish Borders council will meet later this week to carry out the unpalatable task of cutting what people regard as essential services. The petition reads:
  The petition of the residents of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency in the Scottish Borders declares that the financial settlement proposed for the Scottish Borders council for 1997–98 is inadequate to meet local needs and will lead to damaging reductions in the level of public services. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Scotland to review the settlement proposed for Scottish Borders council for the aforementioned year, and also urges the Secretary of State to revise the maximum capping limits imposed on the council for 1997–98.
  I have pleasure in presenting the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I seek the leave of the House to lodge the Roxburgh and Berwickshire part of the regional petition that has been organised, explained and presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).
  The first name in the Roxburgh and Berwickshire petition is that of 12-year-old Ross Oliver of Hillend drive in Hawick, who came to our meeting in Galashiels, and, in front of 600 people, explained that he hoped to be a professional swimmer when he was older, but could not do so if the local authority's proposed pool closures went ahead.
  That petition and sentiment is also supported by Mr. Ronald Young, an athlete with learning difficulties who has won many medals, including a gold at the 1991 special Olympics. He too is worried about the closure of the Jedburgh pool, which will be proposed by Scottish Borders council at its meeting later this week. The petition reads:
  The petitioners of Roxburgh and Berwickshire concur with the plea that has been made by the Members from Roxburgh and Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that the petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Scotland to review the settlement proposed for Scottish Borders Council for the aforementioned year and also urges the Secretary of State to revise the maximum capping limits imposed on the Council 1997/1998.
  I beg to submit the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Railway Safety
  9.55 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: The petition that I wish to present carries 4,200 signatures, many of them from my constituents in Preston and others from other residents of Lancashire and Cumbria. It draws attention to a new hazard faced by rail passengers. Whereas passengers were previously endangered by inadequate door locks on trains, now they face the problem of being inadvertently locked in prematurely, which can cause acute and hazardous distress to certain passengers and has triggered at least one death by heart attack. The petition reads:
  To the House of Commons.
  The humble Petition of the citizens of Cumbria and Lancashire declares that—Many people, including the old, infirm and disabled, as well as young people, have been "overcarried" from Oxenholme (Lake District) and other railway stations, due to the central locking of the doors and the very short stopping times of the trains. This has been aggravated by the fines imposed by Railtrack on the train companies for late running.
  This "overcarrying" is traumatic and dangerous.
  These fines are putting pressure on the railway staff who should be able to check that all passengers who wish to get off the train have done so.
  The Petitioners respectfully ask the House of Commons to cause these changes to be made in the procedures on the country's railways, in the interests of passenger safety.
  Simple on-train notices and audible announcements, with two-way radio for guards and conductors to communicate to enable the doors to be re-opened when necessary … the abolition of the fines levied by Railtrack.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  I beg to submit the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Road Traffic (Nottingham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful to have been granted this Adjournment debate about road traffic issues in Wilford, Nottingham. I do so because in many ways they seem to represent a microcosm of the transport clashes of interest that we would find in almost every major urban area. I do so also with some sadness, because this debate follows an extremely successful public meeting, at which it came out that many reasonable complaints, which appear to have been made over many years, have been completely unresolved or are still being disregarded by the Highways Agency, at which they were initially directed.
  I want to break the issues down into two parts: internal transport and traffic movement on the estate, and the broader issue of trunk road traffic movements that affect the edge of that part of Wilford in Nottingham.
  To take local issues first, there are clashes of interest between drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. The interests of vehicle traffic collide with environmental interests, public safety interests and public spending priorities. In some circumstances, the word "collision" is sadly appropriate and involves people colliding with vehicles. In others, it results in the victims of those clashes affecting other aspects of the problem, the most obvious being children travelling to and from school.
  Many children on the estate have to travel along Wilford lane or Ruddington lane to reach the local secondary school. Most parents no longer allow their children to cycle to school.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Mr. Simpson: It is worth noting that, 20 or 25 years ago, eight out of 10 children would have travelled to the secondary school by bike. Today, however, one, or at most two, out of every 10 children cycle to school. It is not that they are uninterested in exercise or in travelling by a more responsible means; they and their parents know that far greater risks are associated with travelling to school by bike. Cyclists in Britain are 10 times more likely to be involved in a road accident than cyclists—adults and children—in Germany, for example, because we have forced vulnerable road users on to the same narrow roads on which the main and overriding priority always seems to be the car.
  As a result, parents driving their children to school add to the other risks and the traffic congestion on the estate, not because they wish to do so, but because there are few safer alternatives on which they can rely to protect their children's health and well-being.
  The accident statistics, particularly on Ruddington lane, make a sufficient case for recognising that it is a serious problem. In 1993, the county council conducted a survey of road traffic schemes. It found that more than 50 per cent. of cars on Ruddington lane were travelling at more than 35 mph and one in six cars were travelling at
  810
  more than 45 mph—this in a 30 mph zone with a secondary school right on the main road. The police and local authorities recognise that in no way could that be described as safe and sensible driving.
  Between 1991 and 1996, there were two fatalities and six serious accidents. In addition, there have been numerous witnessed incidents in which people have narrowly escaped serious injury. One would have thought that there were grounds for local authority action. Neither the police nor the local authority has expressed indifference to the plight of local people in respect of traffic problems, but they have drawn attention to two problems: insufficient cash resources to do anything and the complexity of the rules, which appear to exclude far more possibilities than they include.
  For example, this year we asked for two initiatives to be taken, one involving traffic-calming measures on Ruddington lane and the other involving a pedestrian phase in the traffic lights at the junction of Ruddington lane and Wilford lane. Our first thought was that it could be paid for out of the transport supplementary grant, but the council pointed out that all the money had been allocated to what was referred to as the "Greater Nottingham (package bid) area" and that capital funds for minor schemes would therefore be devoted to areas outside the city boundary.
  We therefore examined what would be available from the Greater Nottingham package funding programme. However, it was made clear that that funding was available only for the strategic road network. As neither Wilford lane nor Ruddington lane is part of the strategic road network, funding from the package was not applicable to the problems faced by people in the Wilford area.
  We then thought that it might be appropriate to pursue the matter in another context—under supplementary credit approvals, which the Government make available for their local safety scheme. However, that approach also drew a blank. In a letter, the county council stated:
  "The Highway authority has the ability to bid for monies for traffic calming schemes … However the funding does not come in the form of grant but as part of Supplementary Credit Approvals … The Department of Transport's Guidelines on this matter are quite clear—'The resources earmarked must be used to deal with locations where there have been recurrent accidents in the last three years, which can be reduced by engineering measures. They are not intended for sites where there appears only to be a risk of accidents'."
  The dilemma—the Catch-22 or strike three position in which Wilford residents were caught—is that, although statistical evidence on accidents is available, it is not sufficient for the previous three-year period to trigger entitlement to the supplementary credit approval schemes.
  There is ample evidence of accidents that were averted or of near-misses, yet we have the absurd position in which we have to wait for serious and predictable accidents to occur before money is triggered so that we can prevent them from recurring. We are essentially looking for people who will volunteer themselves or a member of their family to be seriously injured so that we can protect the rest of the community. I really cannot understand the logic of such a situation.
  In policing practice over the past few years, the police have quite rightly said that crime prevention is better than crime detection; that, although stolen items may be recovered, people never properly recover from the effects

  811
  of being burgled; and that it is better to implement measures to prevent burglaries from occurring. The same logic should apply to accidents. It is better to avoid accidents by design rather than waiting for them to happen and then introducing policies to clear up the mess, yet "prevention" is clearly not the framework within which the current rules were made.
  It seems that only minute obligations are built into the ways in which moneys are passed to local authorities to ensure public safety. There are more rules to exclude one from entitlement than to include one. Moreover, access to those funds is triggered by accidents or by death rather than by calculations of avoidance. It would be helpful if the Minister would re-examine the rules to determine whether we can find a more sensible starting point.
  In trunk road policies, the problems faced by Wilford residents have been seriously compounded by the improvements to the A52—Nottingham's ring road—which is a major conduit for traffic coming into and going around the city. No one disputes the importance of the ring road, although whether the improvements were done in a manner that minimised disturbance to local people is another matter. Those complications have added to local residents' frustrations. Local people believe that the Highways Agency has pursued an almost bizarre twist of logic in assessing noise impact and their compensation entitlements.
  The effects of improvements on that part of the trunk road system have been enormous, and have been particularly bad for the residents of Bradbourne avenue, in Wilford. I am particularly indebted to Mr. and Mrs. Mason, who have fought not only their own cause but that of many others who have to deal with very high levels of noise and air pollution shrouding every aspect of their daily lives. It has turned the urban dreams of many into urban nightmares.
  Residents have to face unacceptably high levels of noise every day. As if that were not bad enough, the worse news is that the noise levels are set only to increase. The Minister will know that a base noise level of 68 dB is needed to trigger noise compensation, together with a 1 dB increase in noise levels expected during the following 15 years and resulting directly from the improvements to the trunk road system.
  The noise level assessments in 1994 for properties on Bradbourne avenue, Newholme drive and Barnfield were, respectively, 70.4 dB, 76.3 dB and 77.5 dB. That is before the additional calculations for the growth of noise impact in the 15 years ahead. Those noise levels qualify the properties to get over the first hurdle, but not the second, of a 1 dB increase. After enormous difficulty, we obtained answers from the Highways Agency about the calculations that it used for that assessment: all come just under the 1 dB increase.
  Some of the ways in which those figures have been arrived at leave me bemused. It is worth looking into the difficulties that the Highways Agency puts in the path of people who are trying to find out the basis of the calculations. The Highways Agency says that it has used the low growth estimates for traffic growth and noise growth. I know of no trunk road improvement that has failed to hit the high growth levels that were feared. The success of a trunk road improvement can be measured
  812
  partly by how rapidly the additional road space is filled up. That has been the compelling argument for further trunk road improvements. Whether that is a sensible choice is a separate matter, but to assume that only the low growth figures will apply is absurd. The high growth figures would bring about a 2 dB increase in noise levels, which would automatically entitle a greater number of people thus affected to compensation in the form of noise insulation to their properties and environmental improvements in the area.
  I have been able to raise the matter only as a result of doing a huge amount of work and putting great pressure on the Highways Agency to get the information. Local people were not able to get the information despite their persistent, reasonable and courteous inquiries to the Highways Agency. One of the strongest criticisms about the culture in the Highways Agency is that it appears to run on a premise of coned-off thinking that excludes the public from access to legitimate information about plans for future road improvements and any assessment of their impact.
  The Highways Agency also appears to run on an Alice in Wonderland use of words—that words will mean no more than it chooses. First, it told local residents that there had been no road widening. During our negotiations and exchanges, however, it was accepted that there had been road widening. The agency cannot say that the incorporation of what was previously the hard shoulder into the main carriageway is other than an extension of that carriageway. It has not altered the parameters of the road, but it has increased the size of the carriageway quite significantly.
  There has also been a recognition that road widening has occurred on a 40 m stretch of road very close to the Bradbourne avenue part of the Wilford estate. In addition, alterations to the Clifton underpass immediately in front of the estate have added an extra lane to the A52 and the trunk road going out—on the A453—towards the motorway. An extra lane of trunk road traffic is now part and parcel of the intersection that touches the edge of the estate.
  My concerns about how the matter has been managed go through a series of fairly simple stages. As I read the law and regulations governing the matter, it became clear that the Highways Agency ought to have conducted an impact assessment on all properties within 300 m of the end of the trunk road improvement. Clearly, that has not happened. If one draws a line showing a 300 m radius, it becomes clear that a tranche of properties on the Wilford estate was never included in any impact assessment. In that sense, the Highways Agency failed to carry out the statutory duty imposed on it by the House and by Ministers' regulations. That failure has denied residents in that part of the Wilford estate information from the assessment that they should have had at the start of the scheme. Even the current findings are still inaccessible to people, because of the way in which the calculations were made; yet the way in which the agency has tried to say that there have been no significant alterations to the trunk road is bizarre.
  I should like to raise with the Minister the notion that the agency may also be pursuing a way of avoiding compensation by making improvements by increments. Let me explain how this works.

  813
  If the Minister and I bought properties at the end of a long stretch of road and over 15 years the traffic on that road increased, it might be unreasonable for either of us to claim compensation for such natural growth on a road that was there when we arrived. I would probably think that it would be presumptuous of us to lodge such a complaint. If, however, back down the road, the improvements that have taken place on the A52 had occurred, I think that both the Minister and I would be a bit miffed.
  First, a major underpass at the Queens Medical Centre and university intersection reduced congestion and enabled traffic on the A52 to flow much more quickly, effectively and in greater volume. The next significant stage of the improvement was the Dunkirk flyover, which was supposed to speed up traffic flow, reduce congestion and increase traffic volumes, and has done so fairly successfully. The third part of the improvement was to add an extra lane to the Clifton underpass. That has speeded up traffic flow and provided an extra lane on the southbound carriageway, which separates traffic at an earlier stage so that two lanes of traffic can still join the ring road and two can swing round out towards the motorway.
  All the improvements have been fairly successful, but if the Minister and I owned properties just beyond the end of them, I suspect that we would both argue that each of the improvements materially affected the traffic flow past our properties. It would not matter whether the pavements or whatever in front of our properties had been tinkered with; all the improvements in the tranche of road that preceded our properties would significantly change the nature of the road.
  That is precisely what has happened to the residents in Wilford and in part of the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the continuation of the A52. However, the Highways Agency tried to argue that all those improvements should be ignored because they happened at earlier stages. It said that earlier increments could be written off and that calculations of impact should not carry through.
  In addition to the natural traffic growth, there has been serious growth by design and construction on the A52. There has been growth in volume, speed and noise. I do not argue against that, but the effect of those changes on the environment in which people live should be acknowledged. It should also be reflected in compensation.
  The Highways Agency is supposed to advertise to invite claims by those who have suffered from noise intrusion or loss of value. The agency chose to advertise in two free newspapers and one other newspaper that circulates only at the other end of the city. If people in Nottingham were asked which was their local newspaper, 99 out of 100 would say that it was the Nottingham Evening Post; yet that was the one newspaper in which the Highways Agency chose not to advertise. It is hard to escape the common conclusion that that was a strategic choice to deter claims for compensation rather than encourage them.
  The budget for environmental repair forms only a minute part of the multi-million pound cost of today's trunk road improvement schemes. I ask the Minister for his assurance that he will consider several key points about strengthening this element.
  814
  Will the Minister consider raising the status of non-motorists' interests in road scheme budgets? Could a designated minimum of 5 per cent. of the budgets be earmarked for environmental repair and improvement? Could local authorities determine the placing of compensation advertisements? Will the Minister investigate the Highway Agency's negligence and its failure to undertake the statutory impact calculations for the Wilford area? Will he review the use of incrementalism as a way of avoiding compensation claims? Will he also make a commitment to a shift in emphasis—to public protection rather than budget protection—in the trunk road improvement programme, and to recognise the reality of the impact of high growth on people's lives?
  It would be a real help too if, within the guidelines for the appropriate local government budgets, commitments were made to prioritise public safety over faster traffic; to allow integrated budgets that would facilitate sensible movement of moneys towards identifiable priorities; and to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that public safety and environmental protection are the preconditions of road improvements rather than their first victims. If the Minister could make those commitments, he would be thanked not only by the people of Wilford but by people throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
  10.22 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I shall consider carefully the points that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made at the end of his speech, and I will send him a more considered response than I can achieve off the cuff this evening. We try to build environmental features into all major trunk road schemes in mitigation of their effects. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not believe that we have succeeded in the scheme that he mentions.
  I shall start with trunk roads. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is more familiar with the ones that he mentioned than I am, but I acknowledge that the traffic flows on those trunk roads have grown strongly in recent years. The A52 at present carries a daily flow of some 44,000 vehicles on the section to the south of the A453 junction, and the section to the north of the Clifton bridge is used by up to 76,000 vehicles each day.
  The A52 to the north of the river crossing has recently been widened from a dual two-lane road to give three lanes in each direction. The Clifton bridge has been reconfigured to give four lanes in each direction. That work was completed in March 1995 and the extra capacity has been welcomed by road users in Nottingham but, as the hon. Gentleman explained, not so enthusiastically by those who live near it.
  Major maintenance has also been carried out on the road both north and south of the river crossing. Through Wilford, the reconstruction has raised the level of the road by up to 8 in. Existing noise fences were therefore renewed and set at higher levels to compensate for the change in the height of the carriageway.
  Those works to the A52 have brought entitlement to compensation under the terms of the Land Compensation Act 1973, for the effects of increased traffic noise and other nuisance. I shall certainly investigate what the hon. Gentleman said about the way in which entitlement to compensation was advertised. It is generally our practice

  815
  both to advertise and to cover such matters in a press notice, so that it can be reported as a news item. I shall investigate whether that was done in this case.
  Claims are still being lodged by local residents and so far more than 300 have been received, two thirds of which have been processed. The total paid in compensation to date is about £17,000, and the average payment per successful claim is around £550. Compensation is set independently by the district valuer with recourse to the lands tribunal in the event of an unresolved disagreement.
  The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 cover the provision of offers for noise insulation necessitated by new or altered roads. The hon. Gentleman referred to some difficulties in agreeing a definition of improvements that fall within that compass, but I hope that the matter has been resolved satisfactorily.
  The works carried out on the A52 did not bring any statutory entitlement to noise insulation. The hon. Gentleman explained the reason: the increase in noise fell short of the 1 dB required. Only one property was insulated: a restaurant to the north of the river. That insulation was offered because of the expected high levels of noise during the carrying out of the works rather than because of the effect of the road in use.
  There is discretionary power to offer noise insulation, but the Highways Agency does not make offers where the expected increase in noise is low, as is forecast in this case, even though the absolute level of noise is already high. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has taken up many of the detailed issues about the calculations with the chief executive of the Highways Agency and that that correspondence is continuing. If it does not come to a successful conclusion, he can revert to me on that matter, too.
  816
  The agency does not try to withhold information about how the calculations are done, but I, as a non-technical person, have sometimes found its explanations extremely difficult to follow. It is certainly the case that a layman, as I consider myself to be in this instance, cannot really understand the calculations unless he has an expert to monitor and validate what is being explained.
  The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport announced on 5 February their decision to approve the A453 Clifton lane improvement, following consideration of the inspector's report into the public inquiry. The scheme has a long history that the hon. Gentleman knows, and I am aware that he has not supported it. It has, however, been approved through the full democratic processes and it is still our view that it offers the most sustainable and economically robust solution to the trunk road problem.
  It is obviously for the county council and, after April this year, for the city council as a new unitary authority, to manage the non-trunk network. As the hon. Gentleman said, a package bid for Greater Nottingham was first accepted by the Department in December 1994. It remains one of the most successfully supported packages within shire authorities, with £1.3 million of supplementary credit approvals allocated in the current year, and we are happy to continue that level of support into 1997–98.
  Within the package, the local authority has considerable flexibility about which elements it progresses. The proposals include park and ride schemes, bus priority measures, traffic calming and cycling and pedestrian schemes. From what the hon. Gentleman said, I gain the impression that he felt that the authority—
  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.

WALES

  Glamorgan
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors underlay the decision not to recreate the historic county of Glamorgan as a unitary authority. [18505]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The fundamental principles underpinning local government reorganisation were that: local authorities should be democratically accountable to their electorate; the roles of local authorities, and their responsibilities for service delivery, should be clearly understood by local people; local authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties; and local public services should be of high quality, and be efficient, economical and effective.

  Wherever practicable, Ministers attempted to recreate the pre-1974 counties, but a unitary authority based on the historic administrative boundaries of Glamorgan would have resulted in a unitary authority of some 1.3 million electors—far too large to accord satisfactorily with all the principles set out.

TREASURY

  London Transport Funding
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, columns 118–19, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Lord Mayor of London's letter to him and his response on London Transport's investment programme. [15911]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have placed in the Library copies of the correspondence referred to.

  London Underground (Privatisation Receipts)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the receipts that will accrue to the Treasury as a result of the sale of London Underground. [18625]

  Mr. Jack
  Proceeds will depend on the structural option selected for the sale and the level of demand from bidders.

  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which airlines and travel companies he has recently had discussions about the enforcement of CITES regulations; and what has been the response in each case. [17837]
  534
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: I have written to a number of airlines and travel companies, as I explained on 13 February in my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), Official Report, column 448, seeking their participation in an initiative aimed at producing a video for in-flight display aimed at enhancing the CITES profile and environmentally responsible tourism.

  The airlines I contacted were Aer Lingus, Aeroflot, Air Canada, Air France, Air India, Air UK Ltd., Alitilia Airlines, American Airlines, Bangladesh Airlines, British Airways, British Midland Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., Continental Airlines, Cyprus Airways, Egyptair, El Al Airlines, Finnair, Ghana Airways, Iberia Airlines, Kenya Airways, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Lufthansa Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Middle East Airlines, Monarch Airlines, Olympic Airways, Pakistan International Airlines, Qantas Airways, Royal Jordanian Airlines, Sabena Airlines, Singapore Airlines, South African Airways, Swissair, United Airlines and Virgin Atlantic.

  Airtours, Leisure International Airways, Iberia, Kenya Airways, and Singapore Airlines have already agreed to show the video as part of their in-flight entertainment. British Airways has asked for a meeting to discuss the technical detail. Lufthansa and United Airways have referred the matter to their head offices. Air France, Air UK, and KLM all indicated that they have no in-flight entertainment on their UK services. Other airlines, including Virgin Atlantic, have yet to respond but replies have been solicited through follow-up letters.

  The following tour operators and travel agents were contacted: Airtours plc, Althams Travel Services Ltd., American Express Europe Ltd., Avro plc, Bakers Dolphin, Britannic Travel Ltd., British Airways Holidays Ltd., British Airways Travel Shops Ltd., Carlson Wagonlit Travel, Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd., Cosmosair plc, Cresta Holidays Ltd., Crystal Holidays Ltd., Dawson and Sanderson Ltd., First Choice Holidays and Flights Ltd., Going Places Leisure Travel Ltd., Gold Medal Travel Group plc, Hogg Robinson (Travel) Ltd., Hotel Plan Ltd., Inspirations East Ltd., Kuoni Travel Ltd., Lunn Poly Ltd., Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd., MTG (UK) Ltd. (AT Mays and The Travel Agents), Portman Travel Ltd., STA Travel Ltd., Sunset Holidays plc, Sunworld Ltd., Thomas Cook Group Ltd., Thomson Tour Operations Ltd., Trailfinders Ltd., The Travel Company Ltd., Travel 2 Ltd., Unijet Travel Ltd., United Norwest Co-operatives Ltd., Virgin Holidays Ltd. and Woodcock Travel Ltd.

  Airtours plc, Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd., Hogg Robinson, Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd. (Co-op Travel), Trailfinders Ltd., Unijet Travel Ltd., United Norwest Co-operatives Ltd. (Co-op Travel) are lending support by agreeing to distribute associated literature. Bakers Dolphin explained that it covers the issue in its existing leaflets.

  Britannic Travel Ltd., Carlson Wagonlit Travel, AT Mays and The Travel Agents, and Virgin Holidays Ltd. replied that for a variety of practical reasons they were unable to participate. As with the airlines, other correspondents have yet to reply but we are optimistic of receiving further positive responses in the near future.
  535
  I will be announcing further details in due course.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue received from air passenger duty at(a) the lower rate and (b) the higher rate on traffic in and out of the Scottish isles in 1995–96. [17944]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: Customs' estimate of revenue received from air passenger duty on flights in and out of the Scottish isles in the financial year 1995–96 is (a) for the lower rate of £5, about £3 million and (b) for the higher rate of £10, less than £1 million.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue received from air passenger duty on domestic United Kingdom flights in and out of the Scottish isles in 1995–96. [17945]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: Customs' estimate of revenue received from air passenger duty on domestic United Kingdom flights in and out of the Scottish isles in the financial year 1995–96 is about £2 million.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue received from air passenger duty at(a) the lower rate and (b) the higher rate of traffic in and out of Northern Ireland in 1995–96. [17946]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: Customs' estimate of revenue received from air passenger duty on flights in and out of Northern Ireland in the financial year 1995–96 is (a) for the lower rate of £5, about £13 million and (b) for the higher rate of £10, less than £1 million.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue received from air passenger duty on domestic United Kingdom flights in and out of Northern Ireland in 1995–96. [17947]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: Customs' estimate of revenue received from air passenger duty on domestic United Kingdom flights in and out of Northern Ireland in the financial year 1995–96 is about £12 million.

  Illegal Firearms (Imports)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of illegal firearms entering the United Kingdom(a) via the channel tunnel and (b) via other points of access in each of the last five years. [18129]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 March 1997]: Customs does not hold central statistics of the number of illegal firearms entering the UK broken down in this way. The following table sets out the number of firearms seized by customs since 1992.
  536

  Year ended 31 March

  Hand guns

  Rifles

  Shot guns

  Total

  1992

  176

  126

  82

  384

  1993

  138

  41

  39

  218

  1994

  94

  338

  49

  481

  1995

  261

  49

  111

  421

  1996

  113,342

  61

  124

  113,527

  Totals

  114,011

  615

  405

  115,031

  1 The large number of handguns seized was due to a single seizure of 13,260 flares incorporating barrels which are regarded as firearms within the meaning of the Firearms Acts.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersen, (c) BMI, (d) Sema and (e) Capita since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17610]

  Mr. Howard
  The contracts let by my Department since 1992 are as follows:

  Contractor

  Date

  Function

  (a) EDS

  1992

  Consultancy for harmonisation of equipment standards—Police Information Technology Organisation.

  1992

  Consultancy for software development—Police Information Technology Organisation.

  1992

  Consultancy on Neural Network Learning—Police Information Technology Organisation.

  Total: £73,000

  (b) Andersen

  No contracts have been awarded to this company in the period specified.

  (c) BMI

  No contracts have been awarded to this company in the period specified.

  (d) Sema

  1994

  Call-off contract for the provision of computer and software services— Home Office and Agencies.

  Total: £26,000,000

  (e) Capita

  1993

  Consultancy support to the in-house bid of Statistics Division—main Home Office.

  1994

  Consultancy support for the in-house bid for market test of prisons—Prison Service.

  1995

  Support for F8 Division review— main Home Office.

  1995

  Provision of a temporary project director for the Procurement Management Information System (PROMIS)—Home Office.

  1995

  Post implementation review—Home Office.

  1995

  Standards Consultancy—Home Office.

  1996

  Helpdesk performance review—Home Office.

  1996

  Quantum Project Recruitment—Prison Service.

  537

  Contractor

  Date

  Function

  1997

  Switchboard. Post implementation review—Home Office.

  1997

  Assisting with benchmarking of Police Inspectorates—Home Office.

  1992–97

  Architectural professional construction services on projects.

  Total £450,000

  Alcohol Sales (Young People)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions have been brought against licensees for selling alcohol to people under the age of 18 years since 1988; [18150]

  (2) how many licensees have been successfully prosecuted for selling alcohol to people under the age of 18 years since 1988; [18151]

  (3) how many off-licence proprietors have been successfully prosecuted for selling alcohol to people under the age of 18 years since 1988; [18153]

  (4) how many prosecutions have been brought against off-licence proprietors for selling alcohol to people under the age of 18 years since 1988. [18152]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information collected centrally under section 169(1) of the Licensing Act 1964—selling intoxicating liquor to persons under 18—does not separately identify the type of licensee involved.

  The table shows the number of prosecutions and convictions in England and Wales from 1988 to 1995 for this offence.

  Persons prosecuted and convicted for offences under section 169 (1) of the Licensing Act 1964—selling intoxicating liquor to persons under 18, 1988–1995

  England and Wales

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1988

  673

  357

  1989

  747

  388

  1990

  574

  273

  1991

  309

  155

  1992

  195

  87

  1993

  156

  70

  1994

  137

  83

  1995

  198

  108

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that the proposed voluntary national identity card will eventually become compulsory for United Kingdom subjects. [18246]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government's policy is for the national identity card to be voluntary. It may in practice be held very widely, but there are no plans for it to become compulsory.

  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that the proposed national identity card will be electronically linked to the police national computer database. [18219]
  538
  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions have not yet been taken on the practical arrangements for storing identity card data, but there are no plans for an electronic link between the national identity card and the database of the police national computer.

  Philip Saunders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to inquire into the assistance given by public agencies to Ms Sharon Saunders of Bolton in her efforts to break the drug addiction of her late son; if he will order a public inquiry into the case; and if he will make a statement. [18143]

  Mr. Sackville
  As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, an inquest is to be held into the death of Philip Saunders. We will consider any issues that arise from the inquest in respect of services for which the Home Office is responsible.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times during 1996 CS gas was used by police in the Metropolitan police area. [17962]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that during 1996 the Metropolitan police has used CS incapacitant spray on 120 occasions.

  Casino Operations (Croydon)
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to designate Croydon as a permitted area for casino operation. [17975]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Home Office issued consultation papers in February and November 1996 proposing 21 new permitted areas for casinos, including Croydon. We are currently considering the responses to the November proposals.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of local authorities in relation to victim support initiatives. [18258]

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware that local authorities have any formal responsibilities in relation to victim support initiatives. However, I understand that many local authorities do provide financial support to their local victim support schemes, and that the total amount of such support provided in 1995–96 was in the order of £1.4 million.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was his Department's financial contribution to the National Association of Victim Support Schemes in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [18259]
  539
  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  Home Office grant (£ million)

  1992–93

  7.260

  1993–94

  8.375

  1994–95

  10.016

  1995–96

  10.817

  1996–97

  11.682

  This generous funding has enabled Victim Support to achieve nationwide coverage with its 365 local schemes and branches and to establish a witness support service at all 77 Crown court centres. The Home Office grant meets the salary and related costs of over 600, full-time equivalent staff, who deploy over 12,000 volunteers to offer practical help and emotional support to well over 1 million victims of crime a year.

  Rabies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons rabies is singled out for particular attention in his Department's publication "Essential Information for United Kingdom passport-holders". [18361]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  It is felt desirable to warn British passport holders travelling abroad of the potential dangers of rabies as it is still endemic in certain parts of the world, such as the Indian sub-continent, where over 10,000 deaths a year are directly attributable to the disease.

  The "Essential Information" publication, issued with all British passports, provides helpful advice and reminders to passport holders about sensible precautions which they can take when going abroad. The inclusion of factual information about rabies is still considered highly appropriate.

  Children (Crime)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for preventing children offending. [18914]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government attach a high priority to dealing with juvenile crime. We have acted to provide the courts with the powers they need to deal effectively with serious and persistent young offenders; and we have acted to reduce the use of inappropriate cautioning. But it would be better if young people did not offend in the first place.

  We have, therefore, developed proposals for a new strategy which aims to reduce the risk of children turning to crime. The strategy is based on research about the effectiveness of early intervention with children. We propose that it should be delivered by local agencies, including those in the voluntary sector, working together in partnership in a new local organisation, which might be known as a child crime team. Its task would be to identify children at risk of offending at an early age, and refer them to programmes designed to help them stay clear of crime. A Home Office research study published today—"Reducing Criminality among Young People", by David Utting—describes a selection of the kinds of programme that might be effective.
  540
  Parents have a very important role to play in bringing up their children to respect the law. Most parents face up to their responsibilities, and we believe that they would co-operate with suitable programmes which reduced the risk of their children turning to crime. But there is a small minority of parents who do not bring up their children responsibly and who may refuse to accept any support that is offered. To meet that situation, we propose to give the courts a new power to make a parental control order requiring parents to exercise proper care and control over their children. The courts would be able to attach conditions, such as attendance at a suitable programme. The order would be available both where a child aged 10 to 16 had committed an offence, and where no offence had been committed but a child of any age up to 16 had demonstrated unruly behaviour likely to lead to offending.

  These proposals are contained in a Green Paper which had been published today. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the results of the latest CCTV challenge competition; and if he will make a statement. [18915]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be announcing the results of the 1997–98 closed circuit television challenge competition on Wednesday 5 March. Details of the successful bids will be placed in the Library. A total of £15 million is being made available in this competition.

  Data Protection
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the responses to the March 1996 consultation paper on the EC data protection directive (95/46/EC). [18916]

  Mr. Sackville
  I am today placing a summary of the responses in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  British Beers
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will ensure that British beers are available as an option at all receptions booked in the House where the House catering facilities are used. [18263]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  I am advised by the Director of Catering Services that British beers are available for all functions booked with the House of Commons Refreshment Department. The precise range of drinks served at any reception is a matter for agreement with the function organiser.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members representing English constituencies addressed oral or supplementary questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Session 1995–96. [18639]
  541
  Mr. Newton
  The figures, supplied by the parliamentary on-line information service unit, are:

  Number

  Member

  7

  John Marshall

  5

  Ian Bruce

  5

  Simon Coombs

  5

  Lady Olga Maitland

  5

  James Pawsey

  4

  Jacques Arnold

  4

  Toby Jessel

  3

  Matthew Banks

  3

  Iain Duncan-Smith

  3

  Teresa Gorman

  3

  Neil Hamilton

  3

  David Shaw

  3

  Robert Spink

  3

  Anthony Steen

  3

  Michael Stephen

  2

  Thomas Arnold

  2

  Henry Bellingham

  2

  David Congdon

  2

  Alan Duncan

  2

  Jim Marshall

  2

  Patrick Nicholls

  1

  Peter Atkinson

  1

  Spencer Batiste

  1

  Peter Brooke

  1

  Michael Brown

  1

  Dale

  Campbell-Savours

  John Carlisle

  Anthony Coombs

  Stephen Day

  Tim Devlin

  Bob Dunn

  Hugh Dykes

  Nigel Evans

  Harry Greenway

  John Greenway

  Bernard Jenkin

  David Knox

  David Lidington

  1

  Michael Lord

  Tony Marlow

  1

  Piers Merchant

  1

  Irvine Patnick

  i

  Gordon Prentice

  1

  Andrew Rowe

  1

  John Sykes

  Richard Tracey

  Nicholas Winterton

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Projects
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Kingdom aid projects were not subject to competitive tendering procedures in the country in which they were to take place; how much money was involved in each case; what was the relative percentage of those cases identified of the aid budget for that year; and who were the recipients of any moneys paid in each year since 1980. [18402]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  It is ODA' s policy that wherever practicable, and to ensure value for money, bilateral aid projects should be competitively tendered in the United Kingdom or in the recipient country. In many cases,542
  however, the additional cost of tendering, particularly on smaller projects, outweighs the potential savings to the taxpayer and the recipient country. In such cases a waiver to tender is applied.

  In the current financial year to date, about 46 per cent. of ODA expenditure on contracts let for the provision of goods and services were subject to competitive tendering. Figures for in-country expenditure and tendering are not kept centrally in ODA. These details and those of specific projects could not, therefore be provided without disproportionate cost.

  EU Social Summit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy in respect of the 1995 EU social summit 20:20 initiative; and if he will make a statement. [18680]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The 20:20 initiative was discussed at the 1995 United Nations social summit in Copenhagen. Interested developed and developing countries agreed to allocate, on average, 20 per cent. of development assistance and 20 per cent. of national budgets respectively, to basic social services.

  The United Kingdom expressed reservations about certain aspects of the initiative, including lack of clarity about definitions and its excessive focus on inputs, not results. However, the United Kingdom attaches importance to development assistance in the area of basic social services and is willing to discuss the initiative with recipients who raise it on a bilateral basis.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the UK will be spending(a) in the current year and (b) in each of the next five years on overseas family planning programmes, indicating the amount per geographical area; and if he will make a statement. [18681]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  No specific allocation is made for family planning programmes in the development assistance budget. Expenditure on population and reproductive health—which includes family planning—in 1995 was £62.3 million. The figure for 1996 is not yet available. Commitment figures from 1994 onwards are strong and we expect the level of expenditure to remain substantial in the next five financial years. So far the majority of this expenditure is in Africa and to a lesser extent Asia, with smaller amounts being spent in Latin America and the Caribbean, and central and eastern Europe.

  Food Crops (Aid)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the United Kingdom aid programme was(a) directly and (b) indirectly devoted to promoting food production for local consumption; how much was devoted to promoting cash crop production for export; and what are these figures as a percentage of the total aid programme in each year since 1979. [18020]
  543
  Dr. Liam Fox
  ODA does not maintain data covering the specific information on food production and cash crop production in the form requested for the period 1979 to 1986. It would, therefore, not be possible to provide a detailed answer for the period 1979 to 1986 without disproportionate cost. However, from 1987–88 onwards the information requested as a percentage of the total bilateral aid programme is contained in the table.

  Promotion of food production under the UK bilateral aid programme

  Financial year

  New commitments devoted to direct1 promotion £

  New commitments as a percentage of total annual bilateral aid programme (direct)

  i New commitments devoted to indirect2 promotion £

  New commitments as a percentage of total annual bilateral aid programme (indirect)

  1987–88

  147,732,000

  18.72

  38,333,634

  4.86

  1988–89

  25,120,251

  2.93

  16,700,176

  1.95

  1989–90

  48,508,063

  4.84

  22,278,657

  2.22

  1990–91

  46,685,531

  4.45

  15,900,996

  1.51

  1991–92

  53,206,595

  4.95

  24,688,720

  2.30

  1992–93

  46,370,484

  4.12

  37,603,350

  3.34

  1993–94

  53,621,729

  4.64

  15,699,531

  1.36

  1994–95

  25,048,368

  2.24

  36,022,357

  3.22

  1995–96

  30,348,874

  2.76

  22,485,344

  2.04

  1 Direct promotion; any activity which has the promotion of food production for local consumption as a stated objective or output.

  2 Indirect promotion; any activity which does not have an explicit objective to promote food production for local consumption.

  Promotion of cash crop production under the UK bilateral aid programme

  Financial year

  New commitments devoted to direct1 promotion £

  New commitments as a percentage of total annual bilateral aid programme (direct)

  New commitments devoted to indirect2 promotion £

  New commitments as a percentage of total annual bilateral aid programme (indirect)

  1987–88

  27,735,095

  3.52

  7,957,901

  1.01

  1988–89

  3,143,623

  0.37

  5,814,928

  0.68

  1989–90

  26,016,905

  2.6

  507,021

  0.05

  1990–91

  349,391

  0.03

  946,866

  0.09

  1991–92

  2,308,567

  0.21

  1,602,335

  0.12

  1992–93

  19,454,644

  1.72

  4,117,628

  0.37

  1993–94

  2,035,540

  0.18

  2,471,516

  0.22

  1994–95

  2,360,001

  0.21

  3,284,624

  0.29

  1995–96

  112,360

  0.01

  2,007,882

  0.18

  1 Direct promotion; any activity which has the promotion of exports of cash crops as a stated objective or output.

  2 Indirect promotion; any activity which does not have an explicit objective to increase the export of cash crops, but addresses crops that do have export potential.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the agreement reached in Tokyo last year on the 11th replenishment of the International Development Association. [18918]
  544
  Dr. Liam Fox
  Under the arrangements established at Tokyo, it was agreed that, in the first year of the new IDA triennium, the United States would aim to pay off its arrears to the 10th replenishment of IDA and the rest of the donor community would contribute to an interim trust fund for that year: procurement opportunities from this fund would be limited to contributors—and developing countries—thus excluding the United States. There would be a traditional burden-sharing arrangement for the final two years of the replenishment, with no restrictions.

  The interim trust fund has now been established and is operational: the selection and approval process is under way in respect of some $2.3 billion-worth of projects—out of a total of some $3.3 billion. Parliament has approved our own contribution to the trust fund and we have deposited the promissory note.

  However, despite this progress, the United States Administration have sought a relaxation of the procurement restrictions in order to try and ensure that Congress will approve the funds to meet both the IDA-10 arrears and their pledge to IDA-11. Following a meeting of senior officials on 6 and 7 February in Paris, it has not been agreed to adjust the trust fund arrangements. In short, an amount of uncommitted trust fund money—limited to SDR700 million (around $1 billion)—is to be held back pending the results of congressional deliberations on the United States Administration's request for finance to cover both the IDA-10 arrears and the first tranche of the US contribution to IDA-11 proper. The result will not be known until the autumn at the earliest when the issue will be discussed further among IDA contributors.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  State Visit (President of Israel)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues were raised during his discussions with the Israeli President during his state visit to the United Kingdom. [18624]

  Mr. Hanley
  President Weizman's discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary covered bilateral relations, which are excellent, and regional issues including recent developments in the middle east peace process.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sir Nicholas Lloyd
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Prime Minister what advisory function Sir Nicholas Lloyd is carrying out on his behalf; and if there is any resultant cost to public funds. [18341]

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Nicholas Lloyd is not carrying out any advisory functions for me as Prime Minister and therefore there is no cost to public funds.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17369]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17370]

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

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if he received a letter from Hilary Meredith of the solicitors firm of Donn and Co. in July 1995 enclosing documents concerning the use of organophosphate pesticides by British forces during the Gulf war. [18658]

  The Prime Minister
  My Office received correspondence in 1995, which was passed to the Ministry of Defence.

TRANSPORT

  Policy Initiatives
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which policy initiative he has devoted most funding in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on progress with each such initiative. [15084]

  Mr. Bowis
  The annual transport reports give details of the Department's expenditure and progress with programmes. The 1997 transport report is due to be published on 20 March.

  Air Traffic Control (North Sea)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop satellite communication-based positive air traffic control arrangements for offshore industry helicopter operations in the North sea beyond radar coverage. [16827]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Civil Aviation Authority's National Air Traffic Services Ltd. already provides air traffic services to helicopters over the North sea using satellite communications. Radar coverage in the UK sector of the North sea is adequate and currently there are no plans to develop satellite-based surveillance systems in this area.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of total expenditure on traffic-calming measures by transport authorities in England in each of the last three years. [18460]

  Mr. Bowis
  Traffic calming is one element among the traffic management techniques available to local authorities for relieving congestion, improving safety and enhancing the environment. We do not require detailed returns from authorities on expenditure of this kind.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has(a) commissioned and
  546
  (b) evaluated concerning (i) good and bad practice in respect of traffic-calming measures in England and (ii) the overall effect of such measures; and if he will make a statement. [18459]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since April 1992, the Department of Transport has commissioned 10 research projects to study a range of traffic-calming measures, assessing their effectiveness in reducing and controlling traffic speeds and their effect on the environment:

  UG16 Traffic calming on distributor roads

  UG24 Speed control humps

  UG25 Traffic calming on roads through villages

  UG46 Innovative traffic calming measures

  UG48 Traffic calming on major roads

  UG93 Environment management

  UG127 Traffic management and vehicle emissions

  UG128 Urban activity in 20 mph zones

  UG137 Vertical and horizontal deflections

  S204F Monitoring of 20 mph zones

  Details of most of these projects are in the Department's "Urban and Local Transport Compendium of Research Projects", copies of which have been placed in the Library and can be seen on the Department's Internet site.

  The results of this research are published in the form of research reports and traffic advisory leaflets.

  Epping to Ongar Train Service
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the disposal of the Epping to Ongar line; and what commitment will be sought from prospective purchasers about the restoration of a train service. [18441]

  Mr. Bowis
  The conditions which the former Secretary of State attached to the closure of the Epping to Ongar line required London Underground to seek a private operator for the line. I understand that London Underground has identified a preferred bidder following an open competition. The details of the negotiations are a commercial matter for London Underground. If it seeks the Secretary of State's consent to a disposal to the preferred bidder, he will want to be satisfied that the proposed operator is committed to running a train service.

  Rural Residents (Buses)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of rural residents who live more than half a mile from a bus route; and if he will make a statement. [18405]

  Mr. Watts
  Information from the national travel survey indicates that about 12 per cent. of rural residents live further than 13 minutes, walking time from a bus stop, which equates to about half a mile in distance.

  Vehicle Licence Fraud
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the loss of revenue caused by the display of fraudulent vehicle excise licences. [18577]
  547
  Mr. Bowis
  This figure cannot be established separately from the estimated loss through evasion of vehicle excise duty. The amount involved is likely to be minimal.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to combat the practice of motorists displaying fraudulent vehicle excise licenses. [18576]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for the police. We have no evidence to suggest that the practice is widespread.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the loss of revenue caused by motorists not obtaining vehicle excise licences. [18568]

  Mr. Bowis
  The estimated vehicle excise duty loss through evasion in Great Britain in 1995–96 was £170 million. This represents 4.1 per cent. of the total revenue due. Over £74 million of this total was recouped through enforcement action undertaken by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to address the problem of motorists failing to display vehicle excise licences. [18569]

  Mr. Bowis
  The offence of failure to display a vehicle licence is dealt with by the police under the fixed penalty procedures. In addition, police and traffic wardens pass offence reports to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for enforcement action if the vehicle is unlicensed. Last year successful action was taken against nearly 500,000 unlicensed motorists.

  London Underground
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his objection of clearing the investment backlog within five years of privatisation of London Underground will be a contractual commitment for purchasers. [18660]

  Mr. Bowis
  The privatisation of London Underground will be structured so as to ensure that the underground's infrastructure is modernised as soon as possible. Our aim is to achieve this within five years. The exact mechanism for delivering this commitment depends on the structural option chosen. Further details will be included in the White Paper that we aim to publish this summer.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what mechanisms he will put in place to ensure that fares will not rise following the privatisation of London Underground; and if purchasers will be under a contractual obligation not to increase fares; [18662]

  (2) what safeguards will apply to employees' pension rights and travel concessions in legislation introduced to privatise London Underground; [18629]

  (3) what proposals he has to ensure that a guaranteed minimum level of service is maintained following the privatisation of London Underground; [18647]

  (4) by what means (a) the continuation of through ticketing, (b) freedom of interchange between lines and (c) the current concessionary fares arrangements will be specifically safeguarded in legislation introduced to privatise London Underground; [18627]
  548
  (5) what proposals he has to limit fare increases on London Underground in year five after privatisation; [18626]

  (6) by what means he will ensure the continuation of the London travelcard following the privatisation of London Underground. [18628]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Secretary of State has given clear commitments in all these policy areas—Official Report, columns 149–65. We shall now develop the precise mechanisms for delivering them, which in almost all of these cases will depend on the structural option that we choose. Further details will be included in the White Paper that we aim to publish in the summer.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those companies invited to tender for the provision of advice for the sale of London Underground, indicating which were successful; [18649]

  (2) on what date his Department began the process of appointing advisers for the process of the sale of London Underground; [18648]

  (3) what budget he has allocated for the provision of advice and consultancy fees for the sale of London Underground. [18650]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have not yet appointed any advisers on the privatisation of London Underground, nor have any potential advisers yet been invited to tender. We shall be starting the process of appointing advisers shortly. No estimates have yet been made about the cost of advisers.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the investment backlog of the London Underground. [18659]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Transport estimates the size of the investment backlog to be around £1.2 billion.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total income received by London Underground for advertising in each of the last five years. [18622]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Underground has provided the information requested which is set out in the following table.

  Year

  Advertising income £ million

  1996–97

  115.5

  1995–96

  12.8

  1994–95

  15.1

  1993–94

  18.1

  1992–93

  18.0

  1Current forecast.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the amount of surplus available for other transport investment following the sale of London Underground. [18661]

  Mr. Bowis
  We believe that there should be sufficient proceeds from the privatisation of London Underground to fund not only the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure but additional transport investment. The amounts involved will depend on the structural option chosen for privatisation and the level of demand from the private sector.
  549
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the income received from the marketing of products bearing the London Underground logo for each of the last five years. [18620]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not readily available.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the income received by London Underground from the lease of its properties in each of the last five years; and if he will list the income he expects for each of the next five years. [18619]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Underground has provided the following figures showing income from property leasing since 1992–93. It has not been able to provide forecasts for income expected in the next five years from this source.

  Year

  Income from property leasing £ million

  1992–93

  20.6

  1993–94

  20.4

  1994–95

  22.3

  1995–96

  24.7

  1996–971

  24.8

  1 Current forecast.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 25 February,Official Report, column 164, if he will make a statement on the treatment of future public and private investment in London Underground Ltd. in respect of limits on public borrowing set out in the convergence criteria in the Maastricht treaty. [18354]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 3 March 1997]: The general government financial deficit is the measure used in the Maastricht criteria. The general government sector excludes public corporations, such as London Underground. Net borrowing by a publicly owned London Underground would however score against London Transport's external finance limit and against the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Air Traffic Control (Scotland)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the new Scottish air traffic control centre to be fully operational. [18618]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 25 February 1997,Official Report column 141, to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell).

  London Transport Museum
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the income of the London transport museum for each of the last five years. [18621]

  Mr. Bowis
  The income generated by the London transport museum, excluding Government grant, is as follows:

  1991–91: £1,201,000

  1992–93: £1,429,000

  1993–94: £.1,172,000

  1994–95: £2,043,000

  1995–96: £1,977,000

  London Buses (Subsidy)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the level of subsidy paid by London Underground Ltd. to London Buses Ltd. in each of the last five years. [18623]

  Mr. Bowis
  The distribution of resources by London Transport to its businesses is an operational matter for LT. The cash it allocated to London Buses activities in each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Year

  Cash paid (£ million outturn prices)1

  1991–92

  157

  1992–93

  174

  1993–94

  78

  1994–95

  43

  1995–96

  44

  1 Figures supplied by London Transport.

  Taxi Licences (North Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has approved the request from North Lincolnshire district council to allow it to implement a policy of vehicle age limits when licensing taxis in the former Glanford borough area. [18592]

  Mr. Bowis
  The council does not require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to implement such a policy. My right hon. Friend has consulted on a proposal to make an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 which would prohibit the imposition of age limits on taxis and private hire vehicles; the responses are being considered.

  Rail Tickets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 69, if he will list the consultants commissioned to test the capabilities of station ticket offices, indicating the cost of employing them. [18656]

  Mr. Watts
  Following a competitive tendering exercise in 1995, the Rail Regulator commissioned Steer Davies Gleave to verify the capabilities of station ticket offices. The cost involved is commercially confidential.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 69, if he will list the market research organisation commissioned to survey rail ticket outlets. [18655]

  Mr. Watts
  Following a competitive tendering exercise in autumn 1996, the Rail Regulator commissioned NOP Mystery Shopping to survey rail ticket outlets.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 69, if he will list the stations included in the Rail Regulator's survey of ticket outlets. [18657]

  Mr. Watts
  No. The Rail Regulator's survey is a Mystery Shopping exercise. It would be inappropriate to identify the stations involved.

  Channel Tunnel Fire
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 70, on what basis he believes it could be prejudicial to release information on the channel tunnel fire. [18654]

  Mr. Watts
  The investigations into the causes and consequences of the channel tunnel fire are continuing to examine evidence and establish the facts relating to the incident. Until the results of these investigations are known it could be misleading to release partial information.

  London and Continental Railways
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total amount paid by London and Continental Railways to Her Majesty's Government for its acquisitions during the privatisation of the railways. [18640]

  Mr. Watts
  Nil. London and Continental Railways—LCR—was appointed in February 1996 to design, building and operate the channel tunnel rail link as part of the private finance initiative. An explanatory memorandum describing the Government's agreements with LCR was deposited in the House Library in March 1996.

  Research Site, Crowthorne
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the sale of the Department's former research site at Crowthorne. [18901]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department has exchanged contracts with Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd. to dispose of the research site at Crowthorne, to take effect from 25 March. The price is £18.2 million with a clawback provision on the undeveloped part of the site. The disposal represents a good deal for the taxpayer and the local community at Crowthorne which will have the benefit of a respected financial institution as the new landlord. The Transport Research Laboratory has a long lease for most of the site which has 14 years to run. TRL will be able to continue its excellent research, for which it is world famous.

  Train Track Fences
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) who is responsible for the maintenance of fences alongside railway lines; [18240]

  (2) what are the regulations governing the height and strength of fences alongside railway lines; and if these differ between built-up and rural areas. [18241]

  Mr. Watts
  Responsibility for maintaining railway fencing rests the infrastructure controller, Railtrack, in the case of the main network.

  The controller's general duties under sections 3 and 4 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974, to protect the public from its premises and activities, extend to taking reasonably practicable measures to prevent
  552
  unauthorised access. This obligation will be made explicit in the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1977 which come into force in early May. The new regulations will replace an existing fencing requirement in section 10 of the Railway Regulation Act 1842.

  Guidance published by the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate gives detailed advice on standards of railway fencing distinguishing between built-up and rural areas.

  En Route Centre (Swanwick)
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the purpose of his Department's press briefing to be held at the new en route centre at Swanwick on 6 March; how many previous press briefings at Swanwick have taken place in the last 24 months; by whom they were organised; who attended; and if he will make a statement. [18290]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 3 March 1997]: The press briefing at Swanwick on 6 March is not being held or organised by the Department of Transport. It has been arranged by the Civil Aviation Authority's corporate communications department—CCD.

  The purpose is to demonstrate the systems integration achieved to date, prior to the commencement of air traffic controller training at the centre in the near future.

  I understand that this is the first major press briefing to be held at the Swanwick centre in the past 24 months although numerous individual journalists have made visits during that period. All these visits have been co-ordinated by the CAA's corporate communications department.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department estimates it cost to establish each executive agency associated with her Department. [16965]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Employment Service is the executive agency associated with the Department for Education and Employment. The Teachers Pensions Agency was an agency until it was contractorised in October 1996. The cost of setting up these agencies can be calculated only at disproportionate cost and would, in any case, be marginal when set against their overall budgets.

  Both the Employment Service and the Teachers Pensions Agency carried out broadly the same functions before they become agencies. Therefore, although no actual figures are available, the cost of setting up these agencies is likely to have been marginal. The benefits in

  553
  setting up these organisations as agencies can be seen in their clearer roles and responsibilities and in the freedom to meet targets they are set by Ministers and the successful performance against those targets.

  General Schools Budget
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), of 10 February,Official Report, columns 54–55, (i) what factors underlie the variations in the amounts of money in the general schools budget which are not delegated to schools; [18407]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the reasonableness of the amounts of money in the general schools budget which (a) Buckinghamshire and (b) Lancashire chooses not to delegate to schools. [18408]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Within the general schools budget, funding is retained centrally by local education authorities for a wide variety of purposes, of which the most significant include capital expenditure; programmes supported by grants for education support and training and other specific grants; home-to-school transport, school meals, and various aspects of special educational needs. A number of these items are generally acknowledged to be particularly difficult to delegate, and in certain cases, known as "mandatory exceptions", delegation is currently forbidden by law.

  There may therefore be many reasons why one LEA delegates a higher percentage of its GSB. In the case of the two LEAs referred to in the hon. Member's second question, the most significant factor would appear to be Buckinghamshire's proportionately higher provision for capital expenditure, which is a "mandatory exception".

  Post-16 Pupils
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the educational institutions in Kirklees that provide post-16 places; and how many post-16 pupils attended each in the most recent year for which figures are available. [18410]

  Mr. Paice
  The following table shows the educational institutions in Kirklees that provide post-16 places and how many post-16 pupils attended each one on the latest date for which figures are available.

  School (January 1996)

  16+ pupils

  All Saints RC High School

  107

  Batley Boys High School

  117

  Colne Valley High School

  124

  Heckmondwike (GM) Grammar School

  150

  Honley High School and Sixth Form Centre

  145

  Howden Clough High School

  208

  Mirfield Free Grammar School

  190

  St. John Fisher RC High School

  129

  Shelley High School

  332

  Whitcliffe Mount High School

  175

  554

  College of further education (June 1996)

  Full-time students

  Part-time students

  Dewsbury College

  1,800

  3,900

  Greenhead College

  1,265

  —

  Huddersfield New College

  1,058

  —

  Huddersfield Technical College

  3,400

  7,400

  Mrs. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations she has received from the Audit Commission about the provision of post-16 places in Kirklees; [18413]

  (2) what advice he has received from the Audit Commission about the number of educational institutions for post-16 pupils. [18414]

  Mr. Paice
  None.

  Mrs. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many surplus post-16 school places there were in Kirkless in the latest year for which figures are available; [18415]

  (2) what is the cost of maintaining surplus places for post-16 pupils in Kirklees; and what is the cost per surplus place. [18416]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mrs. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list the educational institutions within five miles of Castle Hall grant-maintained school that provide post-16 places; [18411]

  (2) if she will list the educational institutions in Kirklees available for year 11 pupils leaving Castle Hall grant-maintained school in the summer of 1997 to attend. [18412]

  Mr. Paice
  The following educational institutions, all within five miles, are available in Kirklees for year 11 pupils leaving Castle Hall GM school in the summer of 1997 to attend:

  Colleges of further education

  Dewsbury College

  Greenhead College

  Huddersfield New College

  Huddersfield Technical College

  Schools

  All Saints RC (VA) High School

  Batley High School for Boys

  Batley Grammar (independent mixed selective) School

  Colne Valley High School

  Heckmondwike GM Grammar (selective) School

  Honley High School and College

  Howden Clough (Girls) High School

  Mirfield Free Grammar School and Sixth Form Centre

  St. John Fisher RC (SA) High School

  Shelley High (VC) School

  Whitcliffe Mount High School

  555
  The following schools providing post 16 places are also within five miles of Castle Hall GM School:

  Calderdale LEA

  Brighouse GM High

  The Brooksbank GM

  Hipperholme and Lightcliffe GM High

  Rastrick GM High

  Wakefield LEA

  Ossett School

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of(a) 16, (b) 17 and (c) 18-year-olds are in full-time education in each local authority area. [18610]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is published for 16 and 17-year-olds in the Department's "Statistical Bulletin 8/96: Participation in education of young people aged 16 and 17 in each local education authority and region of England, 1990–91 to 1994–95". Information on 18-year-olds could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students residing in Lancashire receive their education under the assisted places scheme in schools(a) located in each of the district council areas of Lancashire and (b) in other local education authority areas; and if she will list those areas. [18387]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information about the district council area or the local education authority area from which assisted pupils originate is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many successful applicants there were under the assisted places scheme in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire indicating the total value of the payments made in the last three years for which figures are available. [18642]

  Mrs. Gillan
  No schools in the Crewe and Nantwich constituency were successful in joining the assisted places scheme. Abbey Gate college, Chester and the Grange school, Northwich joined the scheme in September 1996 and Beech Hall preparatory school, Macclesfield has been successful in its bid for participation from September 1997. Four other schools in Cheshire—King's school, Chester; King's school, Macclesfield; Mount Carmel school; and Queen's school, Chester—were already participating before 1996.

  The total amount spent on the scheme at the existing four participating schools in Cheshire in the academic years 1993–94 to 1995–96, the latest year for which information is complete, is given in the following table:

  Assisted places scheme: Cheshire schools

  Academic Year

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Pupils

  £000s

  Pupils

  £000s

  Pupils

  £000s

  King's School, Chester

  95

  220

  89

  212

  87

  234

  King's School, Macclesfield

  173

  553

  179

  619

  193

  670

  Mount Carmel School

  25

  74

  30

  94

  35

  109

  556

  Assisted places scheme: Cheshire schools

  Academic Year

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Pupils

  £000s

  Pupils

  £000s

  Pupils

  £000s

  Queen's School, Chester

  63

  135

  58

  136

  58

  152

  Total

  972

  1,061

  1,165

  Information is not collected centrally on the place of residence of assisted pupils. Participating schools generally draw from a wide catchment area.

  First Aid (Schools)
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what requirements there are for the teaching of first aid in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; and what data she collates on the numbers of schoolchildren achieving first aid qualifications. [18393]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There is no specific requirement on schools to teach first aid. However, all maintained schools are required under section 351 of the Education Act 1996 to deliver a curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. This can include teaching about first aid.

  The Department does not collate information centrally on the numbers of schoolchildren achieving first aid qualifications.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of students who, on completion of a postgraduate certificate of education or equivalent qualification, will gain qualified teacher status in(a) mathematics and (b) physics, for each of the years 1997 to 2000. [18248]

  Mr. Forth
  The information is given in the following table. Estimates for undergraduate completers are based on students who entered such courses between 1993–94 and 1996–97, assuming a four-year course length. Estimates of postgraduate completers in 1997 are based on actual entrants in 1996–97, and for later years on the anticipated intakes for postgraduate courses, assuming that intake targets are met. Estimates for completers reflect the average in-course wastage by type of course; 25 per cent. in the case of undergraduate and 11 per cent. for postgraduate courses.

  Year

  Maths completers

  Science completers

  1996–97

  1,550

  2,600

  1997–98

  1,900

  2,850

  1998–99

  1,650

  2,600

  1999–2000

  1,600

  2,650

  Figures shown to nearest 50.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps her Department is taking to encourage new entrants into the teaching profession in(a) mathematics and (b) physics. [18249]
  557
  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for promoting teaching as a profession rests with the Teacher Training Agency. I will ask the chairman of the agency, Geoffrey Parker, to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the training of teachers in(a) mathematics and (b) physics. [18250]

  Mr. Forth
  From this September, there will be a national training curriculum for initial teacher training in primary mathematics. A curriculum for secondary mathematics and science and primary science will be introduced next September.

  In addition, the Teacher Training Agency is developing national standards for classroom teachers, subject leaders and head teachers. The national standards will provide a focus for teachers' continuing professional development, whatever subject they teach. It is for schools and teachers to decide what individual training needs are appropriate.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions she has had with universities and their representatives over changes in the number of university physics courses; and what assessment she has made of the impact of those changes on the number training to be physics teachers. [18252]

  Mr. Forth
  None. My right hon. Friend continues to attach importance to the supply of places in science and engineering, but it is for individual universities to decide which courses to offer in the light of demand from suitably qualified applicants and other factors. The latest available information from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service suggests that the number of applicants for higher education physics courses has risen compared with this time last year. The number of students commencing initial teacher training courses in science, including physics, has increased significantly since 1990.

  Enborne Lodge School, Newbury
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what statutory authority orders have been made prohibiting(a) the proposed closure and (b) the sale of Enborne Lodge school in Newbury. [18583]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There are no orders that prohibit either the sale or the closure of Enborne Lodge school. The school was transferred by the Education (Inner London Education Authority) (Property Transfer) Order 1990 to Lambeth local education authority subject to a condition that should the authority cease to use it wholly or mainly for its education functions or should it wish to sell the school it must first offer it to all other inner-London councils for transfer at nil consideration. Statutory proposals to close the school were published on 4 February 1997 and are currently under consideration.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to whom the proceeds of the sale of Enborne Lodge school in Newbury would be payable. [18584]
  558
  Mrs. Gillan
  Enborne Lodge is currently subject to conditions in the Education (Inner London Education Authority) (Property Transfer) Order 1990 which specify that proceeds of sale would be divided among the inner-London councils.

  Education Reform Act 1988
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on proposals(a) to amend the Education Reform Act 1988 and (b) to issue new orders under the Act. [18585]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Education Act 1996, which is a consolidated Act, made amendments to and superseded most of the Education Reform Act 1988. The Education Bill, which was introduced in the House on 30 October 1996, proposes amending section 218 of the ERA, which concerns the employment of teachers and others in positions involving regular contact with young people under the age of 19.

  Part III of the ERA confers a number of order-making powers on the Secretary of State. The Government have recently consulted about proposals to exercise those powers in order to relax conditions on certain former Inner London education authority properties which were transferred to the inner-London boroughs.

  Schools (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the average class size for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools for (i) the constituency of Crewe and Nantwich and (ii) Cheshire; [18641]

  (2) how many schools in (a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire have an average class size over 30. [18643]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Average class sizes of classes as taught by one teacher in Cheshire local education authority area in January 1996 were 27.4 for primary schools and 21.3 for secondary schools; 53 primary schools and no secondary schools had average class sizes over 30.

  Information on average class sizes in schools in the constituency of Crewe and Nantwich is not collated centrally.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent by each training and enterprise council on (i) administration, (ii) youth training, (iii) training for work and (iv) other areas in 1995–96. [18710]

  Mr. Paice
  Information on training and enterprise council spend for administration is published by each TEC in its annual statutory accounts, a copy of which is placed in the Library. Information on TEC expenditure on youth training, training for work and other areas is stated in an annual amalgamated income and expenditure account for all TECs, which will be published shortly.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is planning to introduce to reduce long-term unemployment. [16086]

  Mr. Forth
  Long-term unemployment has fallen by 36 per cent. over the last three years. We are continuing to build on the success of our economic and labour market policies by introducing this year a new package of measures to help people unemployed for two years or more.

  From February project work will be extended to help up to 100,000 people. The new pilots will include an emphasis on identifying and tackling basic skills problems which might be preventing some individuals from returning to work. In addition, a new contract for work pilot initiative will explore ways in which the talents of the private sector might be used to help more very long-term unemployed people back to work. From April, under a new jobfinder programme, people reaching two or more years' unemployment will benefit from an intensive series of one-to-one interviews with an Employment Service adviser which will focus on helping the individual jobseeker back to work. We will also be making the jobmatch programme—which helps people to leave unemployment for a part-time job—available nationally to those aged under 25 who have been unemployed for two years or more; and within the existing training for work programme, there will be new opportunities for long-term unemployed people whose job prospects can best be increased through training designed to improve their basic skills.

  Home-school Agreements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has undertaken with regard to the best way of implementing home-school agreements; and if she will make a statement. [16932]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has not commissioned research in this area beyond that referred to in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 29 January by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan),Official Report, column 256. A good deal of work has however previously been undertaken on home-school agreements. This includes the two-year project "Home-School Contract of Partnership" carried out jointly by the Royal Society of Arts and the National Association of Head Teachers.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to reduce discrimination against potential employees on the grounds of age. [16084]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Government are fully aware of the problem of age discrimination against older employees. That is why this Department promotes the Government's campaign for older workers which persuades employers to recruit, train, and retain them on merit, disregarding age.

  Science, Technology and Mathematics Council
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the work of the Science, Technology and Mathematics Council; and if she will make a statement on the future of the council. [18356]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 3 March 1997]: Since it was set up in 1994, the Science, Technology and Mathematics Council has successfully undertaken a range of development activities in support of national vocational education and training policies including national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications.

  I understand that the council intends to bid for national training organisation status later this year. Bids for recognition will be judged by an independent recognition panel chaired by Gordon Beaumont, against national criteria. The future of the Science, Technology and Mathematics Council as an NTO is, therefore, dependent upon its ability to meet the recognition criteria.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the definition of fuel poverty. [15238]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The term fuel poverty has no precise meaning and is not adopted by the Department.

  Extra help has been made available through the benefit scale rates and premiums—which includes help with payment of VAT on fuel—and is worth around £1.4 billion a year to low-income families with children and £1.1 billion a year to poorer pensioners. Cold weather payments, which provide help to those most in need during periods of exceptional cold weather, the home energy efficiency scheme and the direct payments scheme, which plays an important role in protecting benefit recipients who might otherwise be at risk of having fuel or water supply disconnected, are further examples of our commitment to helping the most vulnerable.

  Fuel bills have fallen by more than 1 per cent. in real terms over the last two years, while the main income-related benefit rates have continued to be increased in line with inflation.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department estimates it cost to establish each executive agency set up by his Department since the start of April 1992. [16971]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department of Social Security has set up two agencies since April 1992. The total cost of setting up the Child Support Agency was approximately £146 million which includes the cost of the work transferred from the Benefits Agency, the costs of computers, accommodation, recruitment and training of staff in the administration of new legislation.
  561
  The cost of setting up the War Pensions Agency was approximately £1 million as it retained an existing organisation and staff together with the same framework of legislation.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances, in answering questions to Ministers regarding appeal tribunals, it is his policy to(a) provide the information requested, (b) inform the questioner that the president of the independent tribunal service will write to him and (c) inform the hon. Member that it is a matter for the independent tribunal service; and in what respects the policy changed between 23 January and 17 February. [17402]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Responsibility for the judicial functions and administration of appeal tribunals is vested by statute in the president of the independent tribunal service.

  Where the information requested by an hon. Member lies wholly within the responsibilities of the independent tribunal service, Ministers may decide either to obtain the information from the independent tribunal service in order to reply to the hon. Member, or suggest that the hon. Member deal directly with the independent tribunal service. As the hon. Member's recent questions related to matters within the responsibility of the independent tribunal service, I judged it more appropriate to direct the hon. Member to the service for the information requested.

  Questions on the Government's policy in relation to appeal tribunals will, of course, continue to be answered by Ministers.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what methodology is to be adopted by his Department to ensure that contractorisation of the services provided to the Benefits Agency delivers(a) value for money and (b) quality standards for the full term of the contract. [17621]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The methods and procedures used on all contracts for services awarded by this Department take account of prescribed policies, EU legislation and best practice.

  The key criterion used in selecting contractors is that the chosen bid must demonstrate itself to be the most economically advantageous. Formal evaluation procedures, pertinent to each specific project, are put in place to ensure this is achieved.

  The necessary quality standards are part of a contractor's contractual obligation. The actual performance achieved is measured against the requirements throughout the contract to ensure compliance.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersen, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor, and the value of the contract in each case. [17614]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18 December 1996,Official Report, columns 752–53.

  Pensioners
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners aged(a) 75 years and over, (b) 80 years and over and (c) 85 years and over received income support for the latest year for which figures are available. [17485]

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

  Proportion of pensioners in the population of Great Britain receiving income support: (February 1996)

  Age of pensioner

  Percentage of population

  75 years and over

  24.6

  80 years and over

  30.9

  85 years and over

  35.9

  Notes:

  1. Sample size 5 per cent.

  2. Percentages are based on the age of the income support claimant as a proportion of all pensioners in the specified age group.

  3. There will be an overlap in the numbers of recipients accounted for in each banding as a recipient may appear in more than one group ie. an 80 year old recipient will be represented in both the 75 years and over and the 80 years and over groups.

  Source:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1996.

  2. Office for National Statistics mid-term estimates of the population 1995.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the social fund was spent on administration costs in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [17732]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table. Information for 1995–96 will be published in the Social Security departmental report later this month.

  Year

  Administration cost (£ million)

  Percentage of total gross expenditure

  Percentage of total gross1 expenditure plus recoveries

  1992–93

  208

  51.9

  35.3

  1993–94

  2270

  61.1

  41.4

  1994–95

  209

  46.3

  30.5

  1 The social fund recycles loan repayments to help more people. Since the start of the scheme loans valued at over £1.9 billion have been made for an outlay of £384 million—a multiplier effect of some 5 times.

  2 The high administration cost for 1993–94 was largely due to expenditure on the new social fund computer system.

  563
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the budget of the social fund for the financial year 1997–98. [18237]

  Mr. Evans
  Details of the discretionary social fund budget for 1997–98 will be announced later this month.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the budget of the social fund in each of the last five years. [18238]

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

  £ million

  Year

  Grants budget

  Gross loans budget1

  In-year allocation (loans)

  Total gross loans budget

  1992–93

  91

  211

  15

  225

  1993–94

  95

  251

  0

  251

  1994–95

  97

  255

  15

  270

  1995–96

  97

  309

  0

  309

  1996–97

  97

  322.5

  21

  343.5

  1 Includes contingency reserve.

  Income Support
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to end the classification of taxed inheritance as capital in assessing income support entitlement. [17746]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are no plans to do so.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the rules for the disqualification of income support entitlement for families from a capital sum for each partner to an aggregate sum for both partners. [17747]

  Mr. Evans
  The income support rules already provide that the capital resources of partners are aggregated when assessing entitlement to benefit. The exception is where one partner is permanently in a residential care or nursing home. In such cases, each partner is assessed separately and their capital resources are not aggregated. We have no plans to amend these rules.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the current cost of funding the jobseeker's allowance; and if he will make a statement. [17731]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated programme cost of jobseeker's allowance in 1996–97 is £5,681 million.

  The departmental report for 1997–98, which is due to be published later this month, will contain new estimates of the cost of jobseeker's allowance.

  Source: Table 1A, Departmental report 1996–97.

  Pensions (Winter Supplement)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the British pensioners and the trade unions action association regarding the introduction of a supplement to the basic pension during the winter months; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on this matter. [18251]

  Mr. Heald
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with either group.

  We have no plans to introduce a supplement to the contributory retirement pension during the winter months. Cold weather payments from the social fund give extra help towards additional heating costs resulting from a sustained period of very cold weather. People in receipt of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance who have a pensioner premium are eligible. So far this winter, over 5 million payments worth over £43 million have been issued to almost 3 million eligible people.

  Young Benefit Claimants (Crewe and Nantwich)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the current number of under 25-year-olds claiming benefits in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire. [18644]

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

  Disability Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical members of disability appeal tribunals are involved in examining claimants for the purpose of the all-work test. [11087]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January 1997, c. 719]: A comparison of Benefits Agency medical services and independent tribunal service records indicates that 88 doctors who perform work for Benefits Agency medical services on a fee-paid sessional basis involving incapacity benefit are also members of disability appeal tribunals.

  Sources:

  Independent Tribunal Service.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services.

  Note:

  Data are provisional and subject to change.
  565
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances medical members of disability appeal tribunals are involved in examining claimants for the purpose of the all-work test. [13327]

  Mr. Evans
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 January 1997, c. 362–63]: Medical members of disability appeal tribunals may be involved in examing claimants for the purposes of the all-work test if they are qualified and contracted to do so by Benefits Agency medical services on whose behalf such examinations are carried out.

  Sources:

  Independent Tribunal Service. Benefits Agency Medical Services.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) medical members of disability appeal tribunals and (b) doctors appointed to sit as medical assessors in appeals involving the all work test are employed by the Benefits Agency; and in what capacity. [11086]

  Mr. Evans
  [pursuant to the reply, 27 January, 1997c. 107]: No doctor who is currently employed by the Benefits Agency medical services, in a salaried capacity, may be appointed as a medical member of a disability appeal tribunal or as a medical assessor.

  A comparison of Benefits Agency medical services and independent tribunal service records indicates that 241 doctors who perform work for Benefits Agency medical services on a fee-paid sessional basis are also members of disability appeal tribunals. These doctors do not sit as a members of the tribunals which are considering cases in which they have been involved in connection with their work for Benefits Agency medical services.

  Information on the number of doctors who perform work for Benefits Agency medical services on a fee-paid sessional basis who also act as medical assessors to Social Security Appeals tribunals is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, a doctor who performs work for Benefits Agency medical services on a fee-paid sessional basis which involves incapacity benefit is not eligible for appointment as a medical assessor. On appointment as a medical assessor, it is emphasised that an individual cannot undertake sessional work for Benefits Agency medical services in connection with incapacity benefit because of the possible conflict of interest.

  Sources:

  Independant Tribunal Service. Benefits Agency Medical Services.

  Note

  Data are provisional and subject to change.

HEALTH

  EU Anti-smoking Campaign
  Mr. Lamont
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been Her Majesty's Government's policy towards proposals for an EU anti-smoking campaign; and what is the current status of these proposals. [18088]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government acknowledge the European Commission's work in putting together a paper on the present and proposed future Community role in combating tobacco consumption.
  566
  However, we consider that tobacco control measures are primarily a matter for individual member states, taking account of their differing social and economic contexts.

  Fibromyalgia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into fibromyalgia; what treatment is available for it under the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [18100]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has not commissioned or evaluated any research into fibromyalgia. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment. The council is always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  Decisions about the treatment of individual patients with fibromyalgia are the responsibility of the doctors concerned who are required to exercise their clinical judgment, in consultation with their patients, informed by the patient's medical history.

  The organisation of health services and the manner in which they are delivered are matters for health authorities in their role as purchasers of services for their populations. They enter into arrangements with hospital and community units—trusts—to ensure that the entire range of services is available, taking account of the needs of the local population and the priorities set for the use of the available resources.

  Human Growth Hormone
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to his Department to date of the litigation in respect of human growth hormone. [18086]

  Mr. Horam
  The legal costs to date are estimated at £500,000. In addition, numerous staff at various levels and for various periods of time have been involved in matters related to the litigation and their costs cannot be separately identified.

  Dental Laboratories
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy in respect of third-party accreditation of dental laboratories. [18465]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government support the principles of third-party accreditation of dental laboratories, highlighted in their response to the fourth report from the Health Select Committee, Session 1992–93.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures his Department has taken to control the levels of laboratory prices charged by dentists; [18446]

  (2) what measures he has taken to ensure the laboratory expense element of dentists' NHS work is properly accounted for; [18466]
  567
  (3) what role his Department has, and what consultations it has had, in determining how and where the annual expenditure on laboratory treatment is spent. [18447]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Dentists are paid a fee for each item of service which covers both remuneration and the expenses met by a dentist in providing treatment. These expenses include any laboratory expenses. Dentists decide for themselves which laboratories they use and they then make entirely private transactions with those laboratories. The control of the level of laboratory prices is, therefore, a matter for individual dentists.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons statistics are not available on the(a) levels of dental laboratory work and (b) cost of dental laboratory items. [18444]

  Mr. Malone
  These statistics are not collected centrally. They are a matter for laboratories and their customers.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has taken to safeguard the quality of dental appliances for which dentists are paid a fixed fee; and if he will issue guidelines containing indicative costs for laboratory work. [18443]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service dentists are required by law to employ a proper degree of skill and attention and to use only materials which are suitable for the purposes for which they are used. The work of dentists is monitored by the dental reference service. There are no plans to issue guidelines containing indicative costs of laboratory work.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment will make a further statement about the safety of vitamin B6 supplements. [18384]

  Mr. Horam
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has yet to complete its further consideration of the safety of vitamin B6.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what scientific studies of vitamin B6 the secretariat of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment based its assertions, in respect of(a) peripheral neuropathy in humans at 50 mg and above over a prolonged period and (b) corroborating evidence from reports of animal toxicity. [18383]

  Mr. Horam
  The secretariat of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment reflects the views of the committee. As concerns a list of the scientific studies first considered by the committee, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave him on 21 January 1997, columns 548–49. A list of the additional studies being considered by the Committee will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons dentists are not required to provide patients with an itemised invoice for all dental work. [18445]

  Mr. Malone
  For most courses of dental treatment, including those involving laboratory work, dentists are required, under their terms of service, to provide treatment plans for patients, detailing the treatment they require and the likely cost. Dentists are also required by regulations to issue a receipt for the amount of the national health service charge the patients have paid.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he rejected the Health Committee's recommendations in its fourth report of Session 1992–93 on dental services (HC264) that laboratory fees should be ring-fenced. [18493]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 47 of the Government response to the fourth report from the Health Select Committee, Session 1992–93, published in August 1993 as Cm 2308.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now hold a public inquiry in respect of patients treated with pituitary-derived human growth hormone who have contracted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [18944]

  Mr. Horam
  I regret if I inadvertently misled the House on 24 February 1997 at column 128 in saying that the judge, Mr. Justice Morland, had actually said that the hearing was in inquisitorial examination rather than an adversarial one. He did, however, say that the Department had"given full discovery so far as logistically possible and have not withheld any witnesses who could have given worthwhile evidence."

  In practice, therefore, the court case was very much like a public inquiry, and I am not convinced that another public examination of these issues would add anything further.

  Needless to say, in what is undoubtedly a tragic situation, the Department is committed to settling compensation for those who will receive it as soon as possible, as well as offering counselling and support, and financing research into the causes and nature of this condition.

  Community Care (Suffolk)
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people Suffolk county council had placed under community care in its own residential homes at the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [18292]

  Mr. Burns
  At 31 March 1996, Suffolk county council was supporting a total of 1,059 adult and elderly residents in its own residential homes.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to Suffolk county council per week of a community care place in a residential home run(a) by the county council and (b) by the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [18293]
  569
  Mr. Burns
  As published in "Key Indicators of local authority social services 1996", copies of which are available in the Library, the latest available figures, for 1994–95, show gross expenditure per week by Suffolk county council on residential care per supported resident in staffed homes for older people was £268 for local authority homes and £178 for independent sector homes.

  Prescriptions
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances patients are entitled to an NHS prescription from a private consultation; and what contractual limitations health authorities may place on general practitioners in respect of such prescriptions. [18360]

  Mr. Malone
  Doctors who are consulted in a private capacity may not provide national health service prescriptions.

  Rabies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data he has collated on the number of British subjects who have contracted rabies in the past five years; and where it was contracted in each case. [18363]

  Mr. Horam
  The public health laboratory service collates information on human rabies cases imported into the United Kingdom. It has had no reports of clinically diagnosed rabies in British subjects in the last five years.

  NHS Trusts (Funding)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts which will receive funds from the public capital budget to support their proposed private finance initiative projects, indicating for each the amount that will be paid in each year of these arrangements. [18482]

  Mr. Horam
  The following 14 trusts have been offered funds from the support scheme:

  Bishop Auckland Hospitals NHS Trust

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Durham Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  St. James and Seacroft University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  The trusts are still negotiating with their private sector partners to finalise these projects. Therefore the amount of support being offered to each trust is commercial in confidence. However, the total cost of the support scheme is not expected to exceed £9 million a year, less than 1 per cent. of the total NHS capital budget.

  Waiting Lists (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the current number of patients on waiting lists for each of the hospitals in Cheshire. [18646]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the numbers of patients waiting for admission to each of the trusts in Cheshire is given in the table.

  Provisional number of patients on waiting lists on 31 December 1996

  Number

  Warrington Hospital National Health Service Trust

  5,979

  Halton General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,857

  West Cheshire NHS Trust

  105

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  1,528

  Mid-Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  6,577

  Countess of Chester Hospital Trust

  6,425

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the current average waiting times for operations for each of the hospitals in Cheshire. [18645]

  Mr. Horam
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally.

  Blood Products (Recalls)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in the last 12 months blood plasma and other blood products have been recalled from hospitals by the blood transfusion service; in how many cases the cause for recall was possible contamination; and in how many cases batches of products later recalled had begun to be used by hospitals. [17535]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 25 February 1997]: The National Blood Authority, of which the former blood transfusion service forms a part, has made two such recalls in the last 12 months after the products had been issued to hospitals and had begun to be used by them. The products in question were assessed as safe for use because of the production processes to which they were subjected. The recalls were undertaken as a precautionary measure only, in order to avoid unnecessary public concern.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the extent of farmers concealing incidents of BSE infection; and if he will make a statement. [18147]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no evidence to suggest that farmers are concealing BSE suspect cases. The temptation to do so would be greatest on holdings where no previous BSE case had occurred, as it is these farmers who might expect to have the most to lose by reporting a case. Statistical data give no indication that this is happening. In Great Britain in 1995, 1,351 cases were reported on holdings with no previous BSE case; in 1996, 789 cases were reported; and as at 28 February 1997, 72 cases had been reported. This is in line with the overall year-on-year decline in the epidemic as a result of controls on animal feed.
  571
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many new cases of BSE infection have been reported in each of the last 48 months categorised by area; and if he will make a statement. [18148]

  Mrs. Browning
  Details of confirmed cases of BSE by date of restriction for the last 48 months categorised by county are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of concealment over BSE infection(a) are currently under investigation and (b) have been reported in each of the past two years; of those investigated, how many and what percentage have resulted in (i) prosecution and (ii) conviction; and if he will make a statement. [18146]

  Mrs. Browning
  None.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's current estimate of the additional public expenditure attributable to BSE in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what estimate he has made of the amount of this expenditure which will be reimbursed from the European Union's budget. [18432]

  Mrs. Browning
  Details of BSE-related expenditure and receipts for the years in question are as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Estimated expenditure

  1,370

  1,010

  Estimated recoveries from EU

  340

  590

  Cod (North Sea)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the decline in cod stocks in the North sea; and by what percentage total stocks have declined over the last 12 years. [18017]

  Mr. Baldry
  The advisory committee on fishery management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has estimated that the spawning stock biomass of North sea cod declined by 16 per cent. over the period 1985 to 1996 inclusive. The total allowable catch set for 1997 by the Fisheries Council in December 1996 reflected concern about the pressure on this important stock and provides for the spawning stock biomass to increase by 38 per cent. over the period 1996 to 1998.

  Cloning
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will establish a review of the ethical issues relating to the cloning of animals and birds threatened with extinction. [18390]

  Mrs. Browning
  The breakthrough in cloning technology has the potential to be used to save animal and bird species threatened with extinction, but it has yet to be shown to be possible in species other than the sheep. A review of the ethics of the application of this technique to threatened species would be premature.

  Bullfinches
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance his Department issues to fruit growers regarding the prevention of damage caused by bullfinches. [18365]

  Mrs. Browning
  Advice to fruit growers regarding the prevention of damage caused by bullfinches is provided, on request, by ADAS (Statutory), the Ministry's wildlife adviser. The basis of the advice is that, wherever possible, non-lethal means of preventing any damage, for example the use of netting or fine threads spread over trees, should be used. Advice on longer-term measures, such as future planting strategies to reduce the risk of damage, would also be available.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individual licences have been issued by his Department for the killing or taking or bullfinches since the restriction on general licences to the county of Kent; and how many bullfinches have been killed or trapped during that period. [18364]

  Mrs. Browning
  One individual licence has been issued since the restriction on the general licence to kill or take bullfinches to the county of Kent came into effect on 1 November 1996. The licensee is not required to submit details of the number of bullfinches killed or taken until after the licence has expired. As the licence is still in force, this information is not yet available.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what data he has collated on the damage to fruit orchards by bullfinches; how those data were gathered; and how often the situation is reviewed. [18366]

  Mrs. Browning
  Past evidence and the best advice currently available to the Ministry are that bullfinches can cause serious damage to fruit orchards; this can happen very quickly and is often unpredictable. The Ministry's experience in dealing with problems caused by bullfinches has shown that whole trees can be affected, resulting in total crop losses. The situation is kept under continual renewal.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many bullfinches have been killed or taken under general licences issued by his Department in each of the past five years; [18367]

  (2) what data he has collated on the number of bullfinches killed or taken under general licence in Kent in each of the past five years. [18368]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is set out below.

  Number of bullfinches killed or taken

  Year

  Within all areas in England covered by the general licence, including Kent

  Within the County of Kent

  1991–92

  433

  341

  1992–93

  620

  567

  1993–94

  326

  312

  1994–95

  262

  262

  1995–96

  317

  317

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of classical swine fever were recorded in the United Kingdom in each year, from 1992 to 1996; and how much compensation was paid to the owner of those animals in each year. [18359]

  Mrs. Browning
  None.

  Rabies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what data he has collated relating to rabies in those parts of Europe where it is a serious hazard. [18362]

  Mrs. Browning
  Those data are available from a quarterly report entitled "Rabies Bulletin Europe", which is compiled and published by the World Health Organisation collaborating centre for rabies surveillance and research in Tubingen, Germany.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Executive
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of Housing Executive properties(a) demolished and (b) replaced in each local authority catchment area since 1992. [17744]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I am advised that the information, for the period 1 April 1992 to 25 February 1997, is as follows:

  District council area

  Demolitions

  Completions

  Belfast

  2,921

  790

  Antrim

  111

  0

  Ballycastle

  23

  23

  Ballymena

  90

  9

  Ballymoney

  39

  0

  Carrickfergus

  105

  38

  Coleraine

  72

  0

  Larne

  59

  27

  Newtownabbey

  446

  26

  Armagh

  8

  4

  Banbridge

  34

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  10

  21

  Craigavon

  194

  65

  Castlereagh

  41

  0

  Down

  54

  13

  Lisburn

  36

  1

  Newtownards

  127

  116

  North Down

  0

  0

  Cookstown

  2

  0

  Dungannon

  66

  0

  Fermanagh

  38

  6

  Limavady

  0

  0

  Derry

  127

  100

  Magherafelt

  1

  0

  Omagh

  16

  5

  Strabane

  20

  6

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met members of the Northern Ireland Housing Council to discuss the budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. [17742]

  Mr. Moss
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not met the members of the Northern Ireland Housing Council, but I met them on 4 April 1996 at which time we discussed several matters including the allocation of resources for 1996–97 for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and housing associations.

  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many submissions he has received(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to, his proposals to subject Northern Ireland Housing Executive functions to compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement. [17745]

  Mr. Moss
  Over 130 copies of the proposal for the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order, which included provisions subjecting the Northern Ireland Housing Executive functions to compulsory competitive tendering, were issued on 19 January 1996. Thirty-four submissions were received, of which two were in favour of, and eight were opposed to, the proposals to subject Northern Ireland Housing Executive functions to compulsory competitive tendering.

  Water Service Staff
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many posts within the Water Service were transferred to Craigavon from (i) Newry, (ii) Armagh, (iii) Belfast and (iv) elsewhere, in each of the past five years; [17803]

  (2) how many people are employed in design in the Water Services in (i) Craigavon, (ii) Armagh and (iii) Newry; and what proposals there are for future staffing levels in those offices; [17807]

  (3) how many posts within the Water Service were transferred to Belfast from (i) Newry, (ii) Armagh, (iii) Craigavon and (iv) elsewhere, in each of the past five years; [17805]

  (4) how many employees there were in Water Service in (i) Armagh, (ii) Craigavon and (iii) Newry and Mourne in each of the past five years; [17804]

  (5) what were the (a) numbers and (b) grades of recruits to the Water Service in (i) administration, (ii) personnel, (iii) design, (iv) accountancy and (v) other disciplines, in each of the past five years, indicating the location of each post; [17808]

  (6) what are the projected staffing levels in the water service in (i) Armagh, (ii) Craigavon, (iii) Newry and (iv) Belfast, for the next three years. [17806]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Water Service under its chief executive, Mr. H. R. F. Plester. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  575
  Letter from H. R. F. Plester to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 28 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your six Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about Water Service operational matters. I shall answer each in turn in the order in which they were tabled. The general background is that staffing levels in the Water Service have reduced from 2529 in 1992 to 2298 at the end of 1996.
  No 386
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many posts within Water Service were transferred to Craigavon from (i) Newry, (ii) Armagh, (iii) Belfast and (iv) elsewhere, in each of the past five years.
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Newry

  Armagh

  Belfast

  Elsewhere

  1992

  0

  0

  10

  0

  1993

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1996

  9

  4

  0

  0

  No 387
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many people are employed in design in the Water Services in (i) Craigavon, (ii) Armagh and (iii) Newry; and what proposals there are for future staffing levels in those offices.
  Twenty-seven people based in Craigavon are employed in design which is taken to include construction supervision and direct administrative support. Overall design manning in the Water Service is being reduced so that engineering staff can be redeployed to enable the filling of key vacancies directly related to the provision of customer services. One option under consideration would involve a reduction of about ten staff in the Craigavon design section (together with slightly greater numbers in Belfast). Water Service is currently considering this and alternative options in line with business needs, the expressed wishes of staff and their career development, together with any possible differential impact in relation to Equal Opportunities taking full account of Government's commitments to TSN and PANT concerning possible disparity of effect in community or sectional terms. You will be aware that Water Service Design Group does not provide direct services to the public. All staff under consideration are in mobile grades available for posting throughout Northern Ireland. Water Service has, at present, no staff involved in design permanently based in either Armagh or Newry and no change in this situation is envisaged.
  No 389
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many posts within the Water Services were transferred to Belfast from (i) Newry, (ii) Armagh, (iii) Craigavon and (iv) elsewhere, in each of the past five years.
  No Water Service posts were transferred to Belfast during the past five years with the exception of five posts transferred from Craigavon in 1995.
  No 392
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many employees there were in Water Services in (i) Armagh, (ii) Craigavon and (iii) Newry and Mourne in each of the past five years.
  576
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Armagh

  Craigavon

  Newry and Mourne

  1992

  71

  219

  104

  1993

  65

  230

  101

  1994

  64

  222

  97

  1995

  62

  207

  96

  1996

  53

  221

  89

  No 393
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what were the (a) numbers and (b) grades of recruits to the Water Services in (i) administration, (ii) personnel, (iii) design, (iv) accountancy and (v) other disciplines, in each of the past five years, indicating the location of each post.
  Recruitment of staff is to the Department of the Environment (NI); numbers, grades and initial location of recruits whose first posting was to Water Service are shown in the table.

  General Service Grades (includes administration and personnel)

  Number

  Grade

  Location

  1992

  2

  Administrative Assistant

  Belfast

  1

  Administrative Officer

  Belfast

  1

  Typist

  Belfast

  1993

  3

  Administrative Assistant

  Belfast

  1

  Administrative Trainee

  Belfast

  1

  Administrative Assistant

  Cookstown

  1

  Administrative Officer

  Belfast

  1

  Typist

  Belfast

  1994

  0

  1995

  2

  Administrative Assistant

  Belfast

  1

  Typist

  Belfast

  1996

  1

  Administrative Assistant

  Belfast

  1

  Administrative Officer

  Belfast

  1

  Management Trainee

  Belfast

  Design

  Number

  Grade

  Location

  1992

  5

  Professional and Technology Officer

  Belfast

  3

  Graduate Trainee Engineer

  Belfast

  7

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Belfast

  1

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Craigavon

  1

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Londonderry

  1993

  2

  Graduate Trainee Engineer

  Belfast

  3

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Belfast

  1

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Ballymena

  2

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Craigavon

  1994

  0

  1995

  0

  577

  Design

  Number

  Grade

  Location

  1996

  4

  Graduate Trainee Engineer

  Belfast

  1

  Graduate Trainee Engineer

  Craigavon

  5

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Belfast

  1

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Londonderry

  1

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Ballymena

  1

  'O' level Trainee Engineer

  Craigavon

  Accountants

  Number

  Grade

  Location

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  1994

  1

  Grade 5 Director of Finance

  Belfast

  3

  Grade 7 Accountant

  Belfast

  1995

  0

  1996

  1

  Staff Officer Accountant

  Belfast

  Other disciplines (includes main operational functions)

  Number

  Grade

  Location

  1992

  2

  Professional and Technology Officer

  Belfast

  1

  Professional and Technology Officer

  Londonderry

  1

  Professional and Technology Officer

  Craigavon

  1

  Professional and Technology Officer

  Omagh

  2

  SG2 Water Sampler

  Belfast

  2

  SG2 Water Sampler

  Craigavon

  1

  Scientific Officer

  Belfast

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Londonderry

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Antrim

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Ballymena

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Larne

  1

  Electrician

  Belfast

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Downpatrick

  12

  Industrial Operative

  Belfast

  10

  Industrial Operative

  Craigavon

  5

  Industrial Operative

  Newry

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Armagh

  1993

  1

  Professional and Technology Officer

  Belfast

  1

  Professional and Technology Officer

  Londonderry

  1

  Professional and Technology Officer

  Antrim

  2

  Professional and Technology Officer

  Craigavon

  1

  SG2 Water Sampler

  Belfast

  3

  SG2 Water Sampler

  Ballymena

  1

  Ship's Mate

  Belfast

  2

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  Belfast

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Magherafelt

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Enniskillen

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Ballymena

  578

  Other disciplines (includes main operational functions)

  Number

  Grade

  Location

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Coleraine

  1

  Electrician

  Belfast

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Downpatrick

  6

  Industrial Operative

  Conlig

  10

  Industrial Operative

  Belfast

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Armagh

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Newry

  9

  Industrial Operative

  Craigavon

  1994

  2

  SG2 Water Sampler

  Belfast

  1

  SG2 Water Sampler

  Ballymena

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Magherafelt

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Omagh

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Londonderry

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Antrim

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Ballymena

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Coleraine

  5

  Industrial Operative

  Belfast

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Lisburn

  4

  Industrial Operative

  Conlig

  1

  Fitter

  Belfast

  4

  Industrial Operative

  Craigavon

  6

  Industrial Operative

  Armagh

  1995

  1

  SG2 Water Sampler

  Ballymena

  1

  SG2 Water Sampler

  Craigavon

  4

  Industrial Operative

  Londonderry

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Omagh

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Antrim

  4

  Industrial Operative

  Ballymena

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Larne

  18

  Industrial Operative

  Belfast

  4

  Industrial Operative

  Lisburn

  9

  Industrial Operative

  Conlig

  3

  Industrial Operative

  Downpatrick

  1

  Able Bodied Seaman

  Belfast

  2

  Fitter

  Belfast

  4

  Industrial Operative

  Craigavon

  3

  Industrial Operative

  Newry

  3

  Industrial Operative

  Armagh

  1996

  1

  Gr 6 Mechanical and Electrical Eng

  Belfast

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Londonderry

  3

  Industrial Operative

  Ballymena

  8

  Industrial Operative

  Belfast

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Lisburn

  1

  Industrial Operative

  Conlig

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Downpatrick

  2

  Electrician

  Belfast

  2

  Fitter

  Belfast

  2

  Industrial Operative

  Craigavon

  No 396
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what are the projected staffing levels in Water Services in (i) Armagh, (ii) Craigavon, (iii) Newry and (iv) Belfast, for the next three years.
  Water Service staffing levels currently under review include scientific services, design services and administrative support for operational services. The outcome of these reviews will not be known for some months. It is not, therefore, possible to provide the detailed information requested for these locations at this time. When concluded the outcome of these reviews will, however, if significant changes are involved, be communicated to elected representatives. Staffing matters are regularly the subject of trade union consultation

  Housing Council
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Housing Council. [17741]

  Mr. Moss
  None.

  Housing
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many units of housing were completed by(a) housing associations and (b) the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland during 1995–96; and what is the total number of applicants on housing waiting lists. [17743]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  Registering housing associations

  1,276

  Housing executive

  1,362

  Waiting lists as at 31 March 1996

  Urgent

  11,148

  General

  12,201

  Total

  23,349

  Number

  Percentage

  Expenditure (1 April 1996 to 1 February 1997)

  Total households in Northern Ireland

  518,841

  —

  —

  Total Housing Executive properties

  139,447

  —

  —

  Tenants receiving Housing benefit

  109,026

  78

  168,864,324

  Private Sector tenants (including housing association tenants)

  34,045

  —

  68,626,495

  Owner-occupiers receiving housing benefit

  43,905

  —

  10,200,000

  Major Road Works Programme
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in respect of the major road works programme in each of the last five years and the current year the sums set out in each relevant edition of the Northern Ireland expenditure plans and priorities for that programme. [18591]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. J. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Mr. William Ross, dated 3 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your recently tabled PQ about planned expenditure on the major road works programme.
  The table below details planned expenditure on major roads schemes as incorporated in the Government's Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities.
  580
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each council area the total (i) dwellings, (ii) Housing Executive dwellings, (iii) housing association dwellings, (iv) privately owned rented dwellings and (v) owner-occupied dwellings; and if he will list each category as a percentage of the total number of dwellings in each council area. [18511]

  Mr. Moss
  The most recent information in the form requested is set out in table A3.21 of the Northern Ireland house condition survey 1991, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. Similar information from the Northern Ireland house condition survey 1996 is expected to be published later this year. Between surveys, the information requested is not available at district council level.

  Housing Benefit and Rate Rebate
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each council area the number and percentage of (i) all occupants, (ii) occupants of (1) Housing Executive properties and (2) housing association properties and (iii) owner-occupiers who receive(a) housing benefit and (b) rate rebate, and what are the total sums for each category in each area. [18510]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested; however, information which is available as at 1 February 1997 is as follows:

  Planned expenditure on major works (Schemes costing £200,000 and over)

  Year

  £000s

  1991–92

  18,730

  1992–93

  18,426

  1993–94

  22,747

  1994–95

  22,309

  1995–96

  16,723

  1996–97

  14,384

  Figures for 1991–92 to 1995–96 extracted from NI Estimates. Figure for 1996–97 included in new format of NI Estimates.

  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the PFI contracts signed to date, indicating the total value of such contracts, the cost per year in annual payments and the total value of the payments to be made over the life of the contracts. [18617]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Projects approved under the private finance initiative to date include a contract energy services scheme at Holywell hospital, car parking facilities at the Royal group of hospitals, and leasing of medical and other equipment. The car parking project at the Royal group of hospitals is a financially free-standing
  581
  project which will recover its costs through charges to the user. The total capital value of signed contracts amounts to approximately £5.3 million, with an annual payment of £1 million. The total value of the payments to be made over the life of the contracts amounts to approximately £5.7 million.

SCOTLAND

  Voluntary Sector Projects
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to prevent closure of voluntary sector projects which would formerly have been eligible for a three-year extension subject to positive evaluation. [18173]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Under "Programme for Partnership", it is for local partnerships to make decisions on the extension of voluntary sector projects funded through the urban programme.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the urban programme underspend he will use to fund voluntary sector projects for one more year, in areas that were not awarded priority partnership area or regulation programme status. [18174]

  Mr. Robertson
  There is no reason to expect an urban programme underspend in 1996–97.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of the Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector to discuss the use of urban programme underspend to avoid imminent closure of voluntary sector projects. [18175]

  Mr. Robertson
  I met representatives of the Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector on 24 January 1997 to discuss its concerns about voluntary sector projects. I have already agreed to a further meeting with it on Friday 4 April 1997.

  Research Grants
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total amount of Government research grants allocated in each of the past five years to each Scottish university in (i) pharmacology, (ii) bio-physics, (iii) food hygiene and (iv) information technology. [17288]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 26 February 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tests are currently carried out on farmed Scottish salmon for traces of ivermectin; and what proportion of fish revealed traces in the most recent tests. [17830]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The Veterinary Medicines Directorate undertakes surveillance for the presence of residues of veterinary medicines in fish as part of a
  582
  programme to monitor whether residues of these substances are passing into food for human consumption in unacceptable concentrations. In the case of salmon, samples of farmed salmon, including Scottish salmon, are purchased from randomly selected retail outlets throughout the United Kingdom. The 1996 programme of analyses has yet to be completed and reported, but the most recent data show that no residues of ivermectin were determined in any of the 275 samples of salmon analysed to date.

  Further Education
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to include an assessment of(a) the quality of the services and (b) other factors in the future determination of grants for further education colleges; and if he will make a statement. [17998]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: The White Paper "Raising the Standard", Cm 3542, published in January 1997 set out our plans to consult colleges on introducing, from 1997–98, a direct link between quality and funding. That, and other factors, will be considered in the review of the further education funding formula I have announced will take place.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to provide additional funding to the further education sector to allow for the introduction of new initiatives; and if he will make a statement. [17999]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 29 February 1997]: The White Paper "Raising the Standard", Cm 3542, published in January 1997 set out our plans to launch a challenge fund to improve the use of new technology by colleges. The sum of £1.3 million will be made available for this in 1997–98.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the funding formula for the further education sector; and if he will make a statement. [18000]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: I announced on 3 February 1997 that a review of the funding formula for the further education sector would be initiated. Work on that will commence shortly, and will involve representatives of the sector.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the further education sector in respect of its concerns about the current funding formula; and if he will make a statement. [18001]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: I met representatives of the Association of Scottish Colleges on 27 January 1997 for a discussion on further education funding. I assured them that college views will be considered as part of the forthcoming review of the funding formula.

  Pupils (Standard Grades)
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many 16-year-olds gained five standard grades in each year since 1991. [18420]
  583
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 3 March 1997]: Standard grade statistics are collected for S4 pupils and not for 16-year-old pupils. Most S4 pupils, however, have attained their 16th birthday, or will shortly do so. The number of pupils who gained five or more standard grades is listed. Statistics for those who gained standard grades at levels 1 to 3 are available from 1991. Information on pupils who gained five or more standard grades at levels 4 to 7 is, however, available only from 1993.

  Level 1–3

  Level 4–7

  Level 1–7

  1991

  25,357

  —

  —

  1992

  27,527

  —

  —

  1993

  28,478

  22,868

  51,346

  1994

  30,655

  23,423

  54,078

  1995

  33,553

  23,623

  54,078

  1996

  34,884

  24,091

  58,975

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on recent rulings by the Office of Fair Trading in respect of(a) the tied house in relation to brewers and (b) the Courage Inntrepreneur scheme. [18462]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) The Officer of Fair Trading held an inquiry into brewers' wholesale pricing policy in 1995. The inquiry concluded that, although a minority of tied tenants on long leases had experienced some hardship, the differential wholesale pricing policy of brewers had not in general placed the tied trade at a disadvantage to free houses. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade accepted this conclusion.

  (b) The Office of Fair Trading recommended that the undertakings given by Inntrepreneur following the merger between Courage and Grand Metropolitan in 1991 be varied. This variation released Inntrepreneur from its previous undertakings, but introduced a new undertaking which prevented Inntrepreneur from requiring any of its tenants to take beer supplies exclusively from Scottish and Newcastle, which owns the Courage beer brands. The Director General of Fair Trading argued that, as the nature and size of Inntrepreneur were similar to that of a number of other pub chain operators, it was no longer appropriate to keep the existing undertakings in place. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade accepted this recommendation.

  Oil (Control and Jurisdiction)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the European Union has any entitlement to exercise control or jurisdiction over the organisation of oil development and exploration and the disposal of the oil from United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement. [18586]

  Mr. Page
  The exploration for and development of the UK's oil and gas resources continue to be carried out under licences issued by the UK Government. The UK's licensing regime is required to conform with the 584
  provisions of the hydrocarbons licensing directive of 1994, which sets out common rules relating to the procedures for granting authorisations for the exploration and production of oil and gas. However, that directive also reaffirms the important principle that
  "Member States have sovereignty and sovereign rights over hydrocarbon resources on their territories".

  Structural Funds Programmes
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the negotiation of the 1997 to 1999 British objective 2 structural funds programmes. [18863]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  The Government in collaboration with local partnerships produced regional and social conversion plans for each of the 13 British areas. These were submitted to the European Commission during August 1996.

  Following negotiations, the Commission has announced its agreement in principle to 10 programmes of grant, based on these plans, subject to consultation of the EU structural funds committees. Some questions raised by the Commission remain to be settled; I hope that this can be done as soon as possible so that the programmes can be adopted by the Commission by the end of March.

  The 10 programmes cover:

  North-east England

  West Cumbria

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  London

  West Midlands

  Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire

  South Wales

  Eastern Scotland

  Western Scotland

  Gibraltar

  The remaining programmes for the east midlands, Thanet and Plymouth are close to agreement and should be adopted during April.

  The programmes set a coherent strategic framework for the use of approximately £1.9 billion of EU structural funds grant for economic regeneration, the development of enterprise and skills, and the creation of jobs based on the local needs and the potential of each area. They draw on the experience and successes of the 1994 to 1996 programmes to ensure continuity and improved value for money.

  Under the programmes, a range of projects will be approved, for the support for small and medium enterprises, increasing the technology base, tourism and community economic development, with an anticipated total value of around £4.7 billion.

  I welcome the effective way in which the Government and local partnerships have co-operated on these programmes. Over the past few years, the experience of local programme monitoring committees has grown. Increasingly, they address strategic issues, as well as the more working level consideration of programme implementation. Although these committees essentially deal with administrative matters and are mainly attended by officials, we have received representations from some

  585
  committees seeking to involve local councillors. After considering these representations, I have decided that it should be for each United Kingdom monitoring committee to determine whether to accept elected members as representatives of local councils.

  Most of the programmes for England and Wales provide for part of their grant, £160 million in total, to be awarded to projects through the second round of regional challenge. This will be run locally, and after the programmes have been adopted, each area will launch its own competition.

  Regional challenge aims to increase competition in the allocation of European structural funds. The first round awarded a total prize fund of £160 million to 34 innovative projects in England and Wales. Winning applicants included flagship projects such as the earth centre in South Yorkshire and the Lowry centre in Salford. The first round of regional challenge projects has levered in an estimated £359 million of private sector contribution.

  Films (Copyright)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what form notifications should take for the purpose of regulation 33(b) of the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996 (SI, 1996, No. 2967) when authors or performers wish to exercise their right to equitable remuneration for rental of films made under agreements concluded before 1 July 1994. [18864]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Directive 92/100 EEC, which these regulations implement, does not specify how such notification are to be made and nor, therefore, can the regulations do so. It would nevertheless appear that any form of notifications that clearly indicates an intent to exercise the right to equitable remuneration would be valid for the purposes of regulation 33. Such notifications may be given on behalf of the persons to whom they relate by those representing them, such as professional agents or advisers or organisations such as Equity. It would also appear that notifications need not list individually the performers or films to which they relate to be valid. Ultimately, however, these are matters for the courts to determine.

DEFENCE

  Pipeline Inspection Notification
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what conclusions were reached following the trial of published avoidances around the United Kingdom ethylene pipeline, promulgated by aeronautical information circular No. 73/1994; [17993]

  (2) how many aircraft proximity incidents between helicopters whose activities were notified under the pipeline inspection notification system and military aircraft have been reported since the introduction of the system; and if he will list the date and risk category of each incident; [17994]

  (3) if he will list the changes made to the pipeline inspection notification system since its introduction, including the date on which each change was introduced; [17984]
  586
  (4) what plans he has for further changes to the pipeline inspection notification system. [17983]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Ion Exchange Resin
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress being made in developing a treatment process for ion exchange resin arising from the MODIX process at Rosyth and Devonport. [18221]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Ships Support Agency. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Roger Babington to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 4 March 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the progress on the treatment of ion exchange resin arising from the MODIX process at Rosyth and Devonport, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Ships Support Agency.
  The resin generated as a result of the MODIX process can be categorised into two groups; resin containing chelates (chemicals which affect the rate at which the radioactivity within the resin may leach out) and resin without chelates. The resin without chelates, categorised as low level waste, is sent to BNF Plc Drigg for disposal. The resin without chelates, categorised as intermediate level waste, is stored safely until it has decayed to low level waste, when it too can be disposed of at BNF Plc Drigg. The resin containing chelates is cleaned by a process called MODULOX (trade name for Modular Oxidisation) which removes the chelates so the waste can be disposed of at BNF Plc Drigg once classified as low level waste.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress being made to construct building D151 at Devonport to store arisings of ion exchange resin. [18218]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Ships Support Agency. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Roger Babington to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 4 March 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the progress being made to construct building D151 at Devonport to store the arisings of ion exchange resin, as this mater falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Ships Support Agency.
  The construction work on the building which will accommodate arisings from the ion exchange resin is progressing to programme, under project D151, for handover to Devonport Management Limited early in 1998.

  Radium Experiments (Alverstoke)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what data his Department has collated concerning radium experiments on humans at Alverstoke. [18098]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on operational
  587
  effectiveness of moving from a system of military air traffic control to utilising the system of civilian air traffic control. [18260]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF has carried out a thorough assessment, involving practical simulations and managerial studies, of delivering a military air traffic control service using the equipment and associated software designed to be provided for the new en route centre at Swanwick. The assessment determined that the same degree of service in terms of quality and safety could be provided to military aircraft without any loss of operational freedom.

  Gulf War (Organophosphate Pesticides)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report specific corrections to each of the previously inaccurate replies relating to the use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war. [18342]

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Vehicles

  1.171

  11.358

  9.447

  2.049

  1.653

  Containers

  0.000

  2.75

  8.65

  0.03

  0.007

  These costs are charged to Vote 2. Further breakdown by subhead is not held centrally and is not available.

  RAF Greenham Common (Radioactive Contamination)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the recent report by the geosciences advisory unit of Southampton oceanography centre relating to alleged radioactive contamination around RAF Greenham Common base. [18340]

  Mr. Soames
  As this report was issued only very recently, it has not yet been possible to assess in detail all the information it contains. We are, however, pleased to note that the conclusions of this independent study broadly substantiate the findings of the National Radiological Protection Board report which was published in December last year. The results relating to the Greenham Common and Newbury areas must be particularly reassuring to local residents and provide further confirmation that there was no truth in last year's irresponsible allegations of a nuclear weapon accident.

  The tentative evidence regarding man-made radioactivity in the immediate environment of AWE Aldermaston must be compared with the extensive environmental survey data held at AWE and published annually before any proposals for yet further work can be considered.

  British Military Personnel (Rwanda)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training assistance British military personnel have provided in Rwanda over the past five years. [18474]
  588
  Mr. Soames
  I apologised to the House on 10 December last year for the fact that earlier parliamentary questions on this subject had been answered incorrectly. Full details of what is now known about the use of organophosphate pesticides by British service personnel during the Gulf war are contained in the organophosphate pesticide investigation team report which was published on 10 December 1996. A copy of this report was also placed in the Library.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to his Department of aid to the Russian Federation to assist the safe transport and storage of nuclear weapons for each of the last five financial years; and from which subheads of which votes these funds were taken. [18278]

  Mr. Soames
  UK assistance to the Russian Federation in the context of safe transport and storage of nuclear weapons has comprised two related projects: the supply of heavy duty trucks and the supply of supercontainers. The total costs by year for each of the last five years for these two projects are as follows:

  Mr. Soames
  No training assistance has been provided by British military personnel in Rwanda over the past five years. A member of the Royal Army Medical Corps has, however, provided assistance in 1995 to the independent international commission of inquiry set up at the request of the Government of Rwanda to investigate events surrounding deaths of an unknown number of persons at the Kibeho refugee camp. In addition, a member of the RAF legal services led a seminar sponsored by the UN centre for human rights in February on training the Rwandan army in the human rights aspects of military activity.

  European Directives
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been carried out or commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) the Adjutant General to assess the impact on the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force of (i) the working time directive, (ii) the posting of workers directive, (iii) the parental and family leave directive, (iv) the young workers directive, (v) the burden of proof directive and (vi) the data protection directive. [18369]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence takes its full part in government consideration of EU legislation. All relevant directives are examined within MOD to assess the potential impact on the armed forces, and the appropriate service authorities contribute fully to the debate. Any proposed EU directives which might affect service personnel policy are routinely referred to the Army's Adjutant General and to his counterparts in the other two services for their views. The parental and family leave directive and the burden of proof directive do not
  589
  apply to the UK since they are being made under the agreement on social policy. The posting of workers directive does not apply to the armed forces. The working time directive, the young workers directive and the data protection directive are all currently under active consideration within the Department.

  HMS Monmouth (Lynx Helicopter)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the loss of the Lynx helicopter from HMS Monmouth off Plymouth on 25 February; and what the helicopter will cost to replace. [18424]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Monmouth was exercising in the channel south of the Eddystone light on 25 February, in heavy seas, when the lashing securing her Lynx helicopter to the flight deck broke, causing the aircraft to topple overboard following a sequence of heavy rolls by the ship. The crew of the helicopter, who were aboard the aircraft at the time, were recovered shaken but uninjured. The Royal Navy has begun an inquiry into the incident.

  It is intended to salvage the aircraft so that the extent of the damage to it, and the possibility of returning it to service, can be assessed. HMS Monmouth is currently being provided with a replacement Lynx from within the existing aircraft fleet. It is too early to say what further action, if any, will be required to replace the damaged aircraft, or what the costs would be.

  New Building (Abbey Wood, Bristol)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 32, if the new claim for additional payments and extensions for time submitted by the shell and core contractor for his Department's new building at Abbey Wood, Bristol, incorporates the claims referred to in his answer of 24 June 1996, Official Report, column 39; [18502]

  (2) what claims for compensation have been made on the basis of the accuracy of the specifications in his Department's documentation for its new building at Abbey Wood, Bristol; [18503]

  (3) on how many occasions the shell and core contractor for his Department's new building at Abbey Wood, Bristol, was prevented from progressing because of delays by the client team in approving design change. [18504]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The new claim submitted for additional payment and extensions of time has subsumed that previously submitted by the Abbey Wood shell and core contractor.

  Common Security and Defence Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the agreement made between France and Germany at Nuremburg in December 1996 on common security and defence and the relevance of this agreement to NATO obligations. [18587]
  590
  Mr. Soames
  The agreement is a matter for the French and German Governments, but we note its reaffirmation of the importance of NATO to Europe's stability and security, and its signatories' commitment to strengthen their contribution to the alliance.

  German Military Forces
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement describing the current restrictions on the participation of German military forces outside their own borders in consequence of post-war agreements. [18588]

  Mr. Soames
  Germany is not bound by any post-war treaty in this respect. The basic law lays down that the German armed forces may be used only for defensive purposes. The federal court ruled in July 1994 that this provision was no bar to the deployment of German forces outside Germany. The court did, however, require that any such deployment be approved by the Bundestag in each case. German forces are now deployed to Bosnia as part of NATO's security force.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military sites in the United Kingdom have nuclear waste storage facilities; and what is the total amount of radioactive waste in storage at the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force sites. [15999]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: MOD stores radioactive waste in numerous locations throughout the United Kingdom. Details, including predicted future arisings, from the 10 major MOD sites in the United Kingdom, either storing or producing radioactive waste, were published by Nirex in "The 1994 United Kingdom Waste Inventory", a copy of which has been sent to the Library. Other minor items of radioactive waste are stored at various locations prior to disposal; however, it would involve disproportionate cost to provide details of these.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16785]

  Mr. Soames
  A list of the number of written and oral parliamentary questions answered by Ministers in my Department in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, supplied by the parliamentary on-line information service unit, has been placed in the Library. Figures for the earlier years requested are not available.

  The other information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each armed service have(a) been killed on active service, (b) been killed in accidents, (c) committed suicide and (d) died of natural causes in each of the last seven years. [17819]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  The number of deaths in the armed forces from 1 January 1990 to 3 March 1997 (based on information reported to DASA as at 3 March 1997)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997 to 3 March 1997

  Total

  Tri-service

  Active service

  10

  38

  5

  7

  8

  0

  3

  0

  71

  Assault

  2

  4

  2

  0

  5

  4

  0

  0

  17

  Coroner verdicts of suicide

  42

  34

  30

  23

  29

  18

  5

  0

  181

  Other self inflicted1

  4

  7

  6

  10

  2

  23

  17

  0

  69

  Accidents

  159

  141

  124

  129

  107

  101

  75

  4

  840

  Natural causes

  103

  86

  100

  72

  68

  61

  40

  3

  533

  Details of causes not yet available

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  1

  9

  Total

  320

  310

  267

  241

  219

  207

  148

  8

  1,720

  Navy

  Active service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Assault

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Coroner verdicts of suicide

  8

  5

  6

  1

  6

  1

  2

  0

  29

  Other self inflicted1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  5

  Accidents

  22

  26

  21

  34

  11

  16

  13

  1

  144

  Natural causes

  19

  19

  21

  9

  18

  12

  8

  1

  107

  Details of causes not yet available

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  3

  Total

  50

  53

  48

  44

  37

  31

  27

  2

  292

  Note:

  1This covers cases with open or misadventure coroner verdicts and those yet to be confirmed.

  The number of deaths in the armed forces from 1 January 1990 to 3 March 1997 (based on information reported to DASA as at 3 March 1997)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997 to 3 March 1997

  Total

  Army1

  Active service

  10

  33

  5

  7

  7

  0

  3

  0

  65

  Assault

  2

  3

  2

  0

  4

  3

  0

  0

  14

  Coroner verdicts of suicide

  20

  22

  19

  18

  18

  15

  3

  0

  115

  Other self inflicted2

  3

  4

  4

  4

  1

  17

  13

  0

  46

  Accidents

  92

  91

  75

  65

  71

  55

  46

  1

  496

  Natural causes

  48

  39

  50

  39

  29

  24

  17

  0

  246

  Details of causes not yet available

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  5

  Total

  175

  192

  155

  133

  130

  114

  87

  1

  987

  RAF

  Active service

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Assault

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coroner verdicts of suicide

  14

  7

  5

  4

  5

  2

  0

  0

  37

  Other self inflicted2

  0

  1

  2

  6

  1

  5

  3

  0

  18

  Accidents

  45

  24

  28

  30

  25

  30

  16

  2

  200

  Natural causes

  36

  28

  29

  24

  21

  25

  15

  2

  180

  Unknown

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  95

  65

  64

  64

  52

  62

  34

  5

  441

  Notes:

  1Includes Gurkhas.

  2'This covers cases with open or misadventure coroner verdicts and those yet to be confirmed.
  592
  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 March 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of personnel serving in the Armed Forces who have died since 1990 as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Defence Analytical Services Agency.
  The information you request is detailed in the attached tables. I have listed deaths according to our standard classification system which I hope you will find useful as it gives slightly greater detail than requested in your question. You will also note that as well as giving figures for the last seven years I have included the position for the first three months of this year.

  UN Service Medal (Korea)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons stocks of the United Nations service medal with clasp "Korea" are exhausted; and when further medals will be made available. [17752]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: It is normal procedure that claims for the United Nations service medal with clasp "Korea" are passed to the appropriate single service medal office where eligibility may be confirmed following a check of service records. Until recently, stocks were held at the Army medal office. Those stocks were depleted in August 1995 and a request for additional medals was sent to UN headquarters, New York. In late 1996 the UN secretariat informed the United Kingdom mission to the UN that it did not intend to issue any more "Korea" medals, as its stocks were exhausted and no funds were available to purchase more.

  Since then, the UN has granted permission to the British Government to purchase and issue the medal. Arrangements to identify a suitable source of supply are in hand. Following the necessary procurement action, eligible claimants will be issued with their medal.

  Some 180 eligible British veterans of the Korean war are awaiting their UN medal at this time.

  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the estimated costs of the conversion of the Royal Naval college at Greenwich to accommodate the joint service command and staff college(a) as set out in the consultation document published by his Department in January 1995 and (b) as subsequently revised, in each case taken over a 25-year period at net present value. [18471]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 3 March 1997]: The 1995 consultative document considered two Greenwich-based options, the difference lying in the number of students on the advanced course. The most relevant of these is the option with 312 students on the advanced course, which had a 25-year net present value of £256 million at September 1993 prices. As the Greenwich option was effectively ruled out at this point, for a variety of reasons including the fact that its costs were 25 per cent. higher than the then preferred Camberley option, no revised costs have been produced. Uplifting the figure by standard defence indices gives an NPV of approximately £290 million at April 1997 prices. Broadly comparable NPV figures for the recently announced preferred Serco/Laing proposal, albeit over a 30-year period and with an advanced course of 327 students, are around £195 million.

ENVIRONMENT

  City Challenge
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for redeveloping Stockton high street under the city challenge initiative. [17013]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of 594
  State for Transport issued our decisions on the planning and associated transport matters relating to Stockton town centre development on 20 February. Those decisions should effectively allow city challenge to proceed with its redevelopment plans.

  Recycling Facility (Warndon)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about(a) planning permission for and (b) the licensing of the proposed chemical transfer and oil recycling facility at Warndon, Worcester. [17017]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received some 210 representations on these issues. These are in addition to the petition from the residents of Worcestershire which the hon. Gentleman submitted to the House on 26 November 1996 and on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State submitted observations on 22 January 1997.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of local government funding. [17018]

  Mr. Curry
  The level of local government funding is set at a level which allows efficient local authorities to provide a full range of services, and is in line with overall Government policy on public spending.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he plans to make to the formulae for the standard spending assessment. [17020]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None, at present. We shall consider the formulae for 1998–99 later in the year.

  Global Warming
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representation he has received relating to the impact of Government policies on global warming. [17019]

  Mr. Gummer
  The hon. Member will be as pleased as I am at the successful outcome of Sunday and Monday's Environment Council. The UK played a central part in that success and we are determined to ensure that the world signs up in Kyoto to substantial reductions in polluting gases.

  Litter
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to discourage litter. [17021]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Tidy Britain Group, which is largely funded by my Department, acts as the national litter abatement agency. The group promotes a wide range of campaigns to discourage litter and we have highlighted its role in the Department's current national publicity campaign "Helping your Environment".

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports the Government will submit to the UN special session in New York in June to review progress on implementing the decisions of the Rio de Janeiro Earth summit. [17022]

  Mr. Gummer
  A report setting out the United Kingdom's overall progress in implementing Agenda 21 will be presented to the special session. The report will also set out some of the Government's objectives for future action towards achieving sustainable development, and cross-refer to other relevant sources of information about the UK's approach.

  Rents-to-mortgages Schemes
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the rents-to-mortgages schemes. [17023]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. Rent-to-mortgage is an option under the highly successful right-to-buy scheme, which has enabled over 1.3 million council tenants in England to buy their home since 1980.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will change planning procedures to make it more difficult for opencast coal operators to obtain planning consent. [17024]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No. The mineral planning guidance note on opencast coal was fully reviewed and revised in July 1994. There are currently no plans to revise it again.

  Council Tax (Essex)
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the level of council tax likely to be levied in Essex in 1997–98. [17025]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No such assessment has been made, as it is for local authorities to set their own levels of council tax in their area in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans for the transfer of local authority housing. [17026]

  Mr. Curry
  Transfer is an excellent way of increasing investment in the local authority stock and the Government have therefore recently introduced a package of measures aimed at encouraging local authorities to transfer more of their stock to registered social landlords. We have also announced our intention to use the housing investment programme to encourage local authorities to consider how they can best use transfer to meet the need for investment in their stock and thus also make best use of the limited public funds available for housing.
  596
  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of the numbers of dwellings in local authority ownership which could be transferred to different ownership through large-scale voluntary transfer. [17029]

  Mr. Curry
  With the new package of measures announced by the Government last autumn to encourage stock transfer, we expect the level of transfer to increase significantly. Taken together with sales to individuals, we currently anticipate a reduction in local authority stock of just over 1 million homes or around 30 per cent. in the next 10 years.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about air pollution. [17027]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Act 1995 set up the legislative framework for a national strategy for air quality and for action by local authorities to assess and manage air quality. The strategy, which will be published shortly, will set out air quality standards and objectives, and will outline the measures which will be taken at international, national and local level in order to meet those objectives.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding air pollution. [17028]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has received 420 representations, from members of the public, business, local authorities and other bodies, in response to consultation on the draft national strategy for air quality, which the Government are preparing in accordance with the Environment Act 1995.

  Council House Sales
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants since May 1979. [17030]

  Mr. Clappison
  Over 1.48 million tenants purchased their homes from English local authorities and new towns between April 1979 and September 1996.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16796]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list of the number of written and oral PQs answered by my Department in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, as supplied by the parliamentary on-line information service unit, is given. This information is also available in the House Library. Figures for 1979–80 to 1981–82 are not available.
  597

  Year

  Written

  Oral

  1982–83

  1,457

  367

  1983–84

  4,181

  626

  1984–85

  3,328

  370

  1985–86

  3,624

  415

  1986–87

  2,355

  290

  1987–88

  5,214

  554

  1988–89

  4,911

  423

  1989–90

  5,947

  369

  1990–91

  3,233

  367

  1991–92

  1,513

  182

  1992–93

  5,029

  541

  1993–94

  3,301

  377

  1994–95

  2,970

  405

  1995–96

  2,481

  317

  Providing the number of instances in each year that questions have been given a reply of disproportionate cost or that the information was not held centrally would themselves involve disproportionate cost.

  Household Waste-derived Compost
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the report on the potential markets for household waste-derived compost to be published; and to whom he plans to circulate it. [17714]

  Mr. Gummer
  The report, entitled "Markets and Quality Requirements for composts and Digestates from the Organic Fraction of Household Wastes", has been prepared under a research contract now managed by the Environment Agency. It was made public in January; and priced copies will be available in March, reference number CWM 147/96, from the Waste Management Information Bureau, AEA Technology plc, F6 Culham, Oxfordshire OX14 3DB, telephone number 01235 463162. Complimentary copies are due to be sent to the Environment Select Committee, the British library, the Composting Association, the National Composting Development Association, the Institute of Waste Management, the Environmental Services Association, the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management and the specialist press. My Department promoted the report at the Composting Association's annual conference in November 1996 and will be doing so again at a National Composting Development Association conference in March 1997.

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the legislation for which his Department has been responsible which affects(a) local government finance and (b) local government responsibilities since June 1979. [18149]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department has been responsible for the primary legislation listed in the years since 1979. Only Acts affecting the general responsibilities of local government are shown. Some of the Acts are private Members' legislation.

  (a) local government finance

  Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980

  Local Government Finance Act 1982

  Rates Act 1984

  Rates Support Grant Act 1986

  598

  Local Government Finance Act 1987

  Local Government Act 1987

  Rates Support Grant Act 1987

  Local Government Finance Act 1988

  Rates Support Grant Act 1988

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Act 1991

  Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Act 1991

  Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991

  Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991

  Local Government Finance Act 1992

  Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992

  Non-Domestic Rating Act 1993

  Non-Domestic Rating Act 1994

  Non-Domestic Rating (Information) Act 1996

  Rating (Caravans and Boats) Act 1996.

  (b) local government

  Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982

  Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Act 1983

  Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984

  Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

  Local Government Act 1985

  Local Government Act 1986

  Local Government Act 1988

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors Reports) Act 1991

  Local Government Act 1992

  Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993

  Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1996

  Rivers (Water Abstraction)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rivers in England and Wales have been identified as suffering from low flow due to over-abstraction; what percentage of those identified have had(a) short-term and (b) long-term solutions implemented to restore their natural flow; and if he will make a statement. [18015]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1990–91 the National Rivers Authority identified in England and Wales a total of 335 km of reaches in 40 rivers as having low flows and affected by water abstraction. Of those 40, nine have fully implemented solutions, nine have solutions in progress, eight have solutions identified, six continue to be investigated and eight have been found not to have problems due to abstraction. By March 1996, the total length of the affected reaches had been reduced by 207 km. The Environment Agency has targets to reduce this by a further 106 km by March 1999.

  Waltham Forest
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what bids into the single regeneration budget from the London borough of Waltham Forest have been successful in each year since the SRB was established. [18081]
  599
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since the single regeneration budget was introduced the London borough of Waltham Forest has attracted funding for the following bids:1995–96: South Leytonstone Community Partnership Lea Bridge - A Gateway to Opportunity.
  1996–97: Towards Employability - A Strategy for Schools in Waltham Forest.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the expenditure of the Waltham Forest housing action trust in each year since it was set up; and what is its expected final total spending. [18080]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Waltham Forest housing action trust has received grant in aid as follows:

  1991–92: £0.5 million

  1992–93: £11.8 million

  1993–94: £25.0 million

  1994–95: £36.7 million

  1995–96: £34.0 million

  1996–97: £20.9 million (Estimate)

  Waltham Forest HAT has been asked to base its future plans on a total lifetime grant in aid figure not exceeding £227 million.

  Landfill Applications
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he issues on the requirement of a planning authority to consider(a) the risk of water pollution and (b) the impact from increased traffic on surrounding communities, before granting permission to a planning application for a landfill facility. [18094]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planning guidance in respect of waste disposal, including landfill, is contained in planning policy guidance note 23 "Planning and Pollution Control". This guidance is being revised in stages and the first part, to be published later this year, will deal with waste management. Attention is drawn to the need to consider the risks of water pollution and the effects of traffic in both the original PPG and the revision.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in rank order the number of employees for each local authority per 1,000 of the resident population for the most recent three years for which figures are available. [18097]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have today placed the information for 1995 and 1996 in the Library of the House.

  The figures are taken from the "Joint Staffing Watch". The survey was reviewed in 1994 and from 1995 onwards a revised survey form was introduced which included a different service analysis, introduced figures for whole-time equivalent employment, and introduced new guidelines on the recording of part time staff. As a result of these changes, it is not possible to provide comparable figures for 1994.
  600
  The levels of employment in individual authorities are not directly comparable because of variations in population structure, social characteristics and the extent to which they use private firms and contractors or act as agents for other authorities.

  Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the change in nitrogen oxide emission levels over the last 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [18016]

  Mr. Clappison
  Emissions for nitrogen oxides were 2,206 kilotonnes and 2,218 kilotonnes for 1974 and 1994 respectively. Emissions of nitrogen oxide peaked in 1989 at 2,728 kilotonnes. The 1994 figure represents a 19 per cent. reduction on the 1989 peak. Further information can be found in the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Statistics 1996", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Timber
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of timber used in the United Kingdom came from certified sustainable sources in each year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [18018]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not available.

  The Government are exploring ways in which voluntary certification of timber could both reflect and encourage sustainable forest management, and support the recently agreed proposals for action on this set out in the final report of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development's intergovernmental panel on forests. The Government will now be pressing for effective international action to implement the IPF's proposals.

  Single Regeneration Budget (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what bids into the single regeneration budget from local authorities and others within the county of Lancashire have(a) been submitted and (b) been approved in each year of the budget's existence. [18435]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Over the three annual rounds of the single regeneration budget, the following number of bids have been received from local authorities and others in Lancashire:

  Outline

  Encouraged

  Approved

  Round I

  34

  9

  5

  Round II

  32

  8

  4

  Round III

  12

  7

  6

  First Aid Staff (Schools)
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the statutory requirements regarding the number of qualified first aid staff in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [18392]
  601
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Schools, like all workplaces, are required by the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 to make first aid provision for their employees.

  Although school pupils as non-employees are not covered by these requirements, the guidance covering the regulations recognises that employers will wish to make provision for them.

  Additionally, guidance from the Department for Education and Employment and the Welsh Office describes the common law responsibilities of schools "in loco parentis". The guidance suggests that combined provision for both employees and students is sensible when employers are making their assessment of the number of first-aiders required.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department is currently undertaking into noise pollution; and if he will make a statement. [17371]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is currently funding the following noise research work:

  Domestic noise complaints as seen by local authorities and those complained of.

  Noise climate assessment: a review of national and European practices.

  Clay target shooting: establishment of noise measurement methodology.

  Review of the take-up of the new night noise offence in the Noise Act 1996—phase 1: survey of local authority practice in dealing with domestic night noise complaints as at October 1996 to provide a baseline for studying the take-up and workings of the new offence.

  Technical advice to the Department on acoustic issues.

  Housing (Disabled People)
  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Government's proposals of 12 January 1995 to bring house building regulations into line with those for public and commercial buildings in respect of access for disabled people. [17898]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Given the large number of replies to the consultation, work on analysing them has only just been completed. Further work is being undertaken on the cost of complying with the proposals. The results from this will then be considered by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, along with the analysis of the responses to the consultation, prior to officials making recommendations to Ministers. Given the uncertainty of the timing of the outstanding work, it is difficult to give a firm commitment, but I hope that it will be possible to take a statement in the early summer.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been built since the Government's proposals for access for disabled people to new housing were published on 12 January 1995; how many of them are accessible to disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [17897]

  Mr. Jones
  Estimates of housebuilding for chronically sick and disabled persons are shown in the publication "Housing and Construction Statistics". Figures for 602
  January 1995 to September 1996 can be found in the September quarter 1996 part 1 edition. Copies of this publication are in the Library.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations his Department has received from organisations of and for disabled people on access for disabled people to new housing; what replies he has made; what action he is taking in response to the representations; and if he will make a statement. [17899]

  Mr. Jones
  There have been 64 letters received since the beginning of this year regarding the extension of part M of the building regulations to dwellings. The letters have come from five individuals and 42 disability organisations, some of which have written more than once. Ministers have replied to 31 of the letters, and officials in my Department have responded to the rest on our behalf. All the replies have indicated the progress that has been made with the analysis of the consultation that was issued concerning this matter, and have indicated that further work is in hand examining the costs of implementing the proposals.

  Water Companies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total indicative value of the water and sewerage companies calculated by his Department at the time of privatisation. [18581]

  Mr. Clappison
  The total indicative value of the 10 water and sewerage companies calculated at the time of privatisation was £15.2 billion.

  Refuse Collection (Barnet)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the response of the council of the London borough of Barnet to the notice served on it on 21 November 1996 in respect of its decision to assign refuse collection work to its direct service organisation. [18865]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered the response made by the authority on 18 December. He has today given a direction to the authority because it still appears to him that the authority acted in an anti-competitive manner in assigning work to its direct service organisation. He took this view because of the way in which the authority had reached its decision to assign the work. The effect of the direction is that the authority must retender the work immediately and seek consent if it wishes to continue to carry out the work in-house.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the result of the Government's consultation on the draft hedgerows regulations. [18921]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government yesterday laid in both Houses draft hedgerows regulations, revised in the light of responses to the public consultation.

  Copies of the report on the analysis of the responses to the consultation have been placed in the Library of the House.

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

Nuclear Test Veterans
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to respond to the finding of the European Commission of Human Rights that the convention had been violated in relation to nuclear test veterans and that just satisfaction should be given by the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government intend to contest before the European Court of Human Rights the Commission's conclusion that in the case of McGinley and EE v. UK there has been a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is entirely a matter for the Government if they want to appeal and carry on such a bitter fight with our veterans after 40 years. But is there not now a question mark over the methods they have been using? Will the Minister confirm that the Commission seriously questioned the honesty and integrity of the Government and said that their conduct was,
"reluctant and lacking in candour"?
Will the Minister comment on that? Will he also comment on a statement by the Commission that the United States Government have paid 25 million US dollars to personnel who were hundreds of miles from the epicentre of the detonations in striking contrast to the treatment of our veterans who were very much nearer?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are naturally disappointed that the Commission considered some of our responses lacking in candour. Our intention was to be open and straightforward. Clearly, our written answers failed to deal convincingly with certain complex issues, particularly the difficulties in confirming the existence and whereabouts of records so many years later. We take that seriously. We acknowledge the criticism and will seek to provide clear answers to the Court on all the points on which we were unable to satisfy the Commission. With regard to the noble Lord's last question, the United States' decision to pay compensation to the Marshall Islanders is a matter for the United States Government. It is not a matter on which I feel I can comment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that this is a long-standing problem and that the procedure has caused great distress and proved
1698
costly to those involved? Would it not be preferable to have the European Convention on Human Rights established into UK law so that the procedure can be shortened?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government have made clear on many occasions that they consider the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights or the introduction of a Bill of Rights to be neither necessary nor desirable. Human rights are already very well safeguarded in this country. Our rights and freedoms are inherent in a legal system which protects them, as does Parliament. It is our view that the course suggested by the noble Lord would not provide significantly greater protection than the existing safeguards.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in that case, is the noble Earl saying that people who feel themselves disadvantaged under UK law will still have to go through the long, costly and distressing process of appealing through the European Commission of Human Rights to the Court of Human Rights? Is that the Government's position?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the other side of the argument is that such incorporation or the introduction of a justiciable Bill of Rights would also require our courts to make political judgments about a wide range of matters which at present are determined by our elected and democratically accountable Parliament. Those judgments are the proper functions of Parliament, not the courts. That is why we do not agree with the proposals of the party opposite.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the Commission's statement that there is undisputed evidence of steps by our Government to avoid the admission of incriminating evidence against themselves? Can he also comment on the Commission's statement that incriminating medical records went missing when in the custody of the Government? If the Government really intend to go on fighting in this way against our ex-servicemen, can the Minister at least make it a clean fight?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we believe that the ex-servicemen involved have a fair and proper basis on which to approach the pensions appeal tribunal, which is what the case is all about. I have already said that we very much regret the criticism of the Government. It was certainly not our intention to be evasive in any way. We believe that the right course is for us to defend the position as we see it. We believe that there is sufficient and ample information already in the public domain to enable those veterans to take their case properly to the tribunal.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister consider holding discussions with the Royal British Legion apropos this matter? That body is very much concerned, as I am, about Britain's ex-servicemen and women who have always had a good hearing in this House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House shares the respect that the noble Lord, Lord

1699
Molloy, has for the Royal British Legion and the excellent work that it does. I shall certainly consider the proposal that he puts to me.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that men and women who volunteer to serve our country and who protect us in time of war expect to be protected by the Ministry of Defence when something goes wrong? We have the examples of the people referred to in the Question, the Porton Down volunteers and now the Gulf veterans. Will the Minister look again at the problems suffered by these people who have been made ill by their service? They are being told that they must go through the courts in order to get assistance.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Countess is absolutely wrong in what she has just implied. The cases of the Gulf War veterans and the nuclear test veterans are poles apart. As to the latter, at one time there was a hypothesis of cause and effect, namely, that their presence in the vicinity of detonations caused ill health. We commissioned research into that question. It is now clear that there were no long-term effects on life expectancy. As for the Gulf War veterans who have suffered ill health, the Government retain an open mind. We have commissioned research, as I have informed the House on previous occasions. I do not believe that the noble Countess's comparison is in any way valid.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, since the matter is before an appeal tribunal, is it not better to leave the matter to that tribunal to express a view upon it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. The Commission has referred the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. We must await its verdict before deciding the way forward.

EU Directives and Regulations
2.45 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many EU directives and regulations respectively are now binding on the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I regret that there is no comprehensive list collated centrally. However, the European Commission CELEX database, which is available in the Library of the House, contains some of the information needed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for her remarkable Answer, I am sorry to say that it does not deal with the question of the vast number of directives and regulations that are issued by the European Union and are binding upon this country. Nevertheless, I thank my noble and learned friend the
1700
Lord Chancellor for an encouraging letter that I have just received from him affirming the view that there should be less and better legislation on the part of the European Union. Will the Government point out at the forthcoming meetings of the IGC that attempted harmonisation results in the passing of unnecessary laws which are confusing and that it is difficult to reach an agreement between 15 nations with different systems and 11 different languages if we want sensible laws?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with much of what my noble friend has just said. The Government's approach to regulation is best summed up as: fewer, better and simpler rules. However, we must take account of the purpose of those rules. When the Foreign Secretary spoke yesterday he said that it was an illusion to believe that one could construct a single market for six countries, let alone 15, without some supra-national rules and institutions to enforce them. I fully agree with my noble friend that, despite the fall in the number of proposals for primary legislation from 61 in 1990 to 19 in the pipeline this year, there is a tendency for increased secondary legislation. Much of that secondary legislation is related to CAP management. I am glad to say that the Commission agrees with us that the CAP must be simplified.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I and, I believe, many others are very surprised that there is no record of the legislation that is passed by the European Union? Does she agree that it runs into tens of thousands of pages, many of which are unreadable and incomprehensible? Would it not be better for the House to make progress with the Bill presented to this House on 31st January by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, which obtained a Second Reading to amend the European Communities Act by the deletion of Sections 2 and 3? In that event, would we not be spared many, if not all, of these sometimes ridiculous regulations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, one of the problems is that there is no single record but a number of records. Those records relate to many regulations that have been overtaken in the process of updating. The whole purpose of improving the quality of regulation is to make sure that it is kept to a minimum—as I said to my noble friend, the approach of the Government is that there should be fewer, better and simpler regulations—and that the burden of regulation which damages competitiveness is as light as possible. It is for that reason that the UK, with its experience of being as deregulated as any country in Europe, is pushing the SLIM initiative which Commissioner Monti brought forward to simplify the legislation of the internal market. That is a serious commitment to administrative simplification. Referring to my noble friend's Bill, I believe that the views of the whole House on that matter may be slightly different from those expressed at Second Reading.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can my noble friend reveal, to the nearest thousand or so, how many bureaucrats in Brussels have little else to do but to

1701
concoct these pernicious laws? Can she say whether their number has increased or decreased over recent years? Can she give us any prospect that redundancy is in store for any of them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I wish that I could give my noble friend the answer that he seeks to the question. I cannot, because no bureaucrat in Brussels, as he puts it, is concerned solely with producing regulations. Regulations are part of the way in which the EU works. There has been no greater advocate in Brussels of budgetary rigour and the need to control the running costs of the European institutions than the UK. The good thing is that a number of member states have now joined us in that. My noble friend should be pleased that we are making progress and that we are not only reducing primary legislation but are also simplifying and improving secondary legislation.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the total number of civil servants in the European Commission is considerably less than those in the Scottish Office? Does she agree that if the aim is to have less and simpler legislation, charity might begin at home for the Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I wondered how long it would be before someone reminded us that we have fewer civil servants in the European Commission than in the Scottish Office. However, we have of course been reducing the number of civil servants in British government service over the years, and making them more efficient. If we could take to Brussels some of the efficiency that the UK Civil Service has achieved, I would be even happier.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the reference to the Scottish Office is somewhat of a canard, because Civil Service numbers given for the Scottish Office include all the prison staff in the prisons and all the nurses in Carstairs Hospital, the equivalent of Broadmoor, for some reason, which come to about 14,000, whereas the number of civil servants who work in the Scottish Office, as we know it, is only 7,000.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, try as I might, I am not eloquent on Scottish matters. I leave the explanation of the figures to my noble friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the seven days ending 1st March there arrived from the Commission to the UK six draft directives, three draft decisions, nine draft regulations, and a miscellany of reports, opinions, green papers and other communications, totalling 15, being 33 altogether? Is the Minister sure that the figures that were given to her, presumably as up to date, are correct?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes, because in fact we are talking about apples and pears, if I may put it like that. I was giving the figures for primary legislation, and explaining that the secondary
1702
legislation is being improved, and is therefore superseding old secondary legislation. Much of what comes forward is a result of the single market for which the UK was fundamental in pushing. That single market has achieved the sort of liberalisation which has helped to put this country so much ahead in production and in receiving investment for overseas. The reality is simple. We cannot have a single market without an obligation to play by its rules. That means accepting some decisions which we would rather not have. It means having rules to ensure that everyone plays on a level playing field.

EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
2.55 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recommendations reflecting government policy they will make to the European Union to ensure that the Community has a planned, coherent approach in its foreign relations and whether they envisage that the common foreign and security policy developed in the Treaty on European Union will be updated at the next Inter-Governmental Conference.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we proposed a range of practical measures in the Inter-Governmental Conference, including better planning and representation for the common foreign and security policy. If adopted, these would foster a better co-ordinated EU external policy.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the progress made on developing a common, coherent approach to foreign affairs, particularly bearing in mind the great problems, for example, of trans-Atlantic relations upon which the Western world will so depend with regard to our relations with Eastern Europe? Is it not necessary for the arrangements entered into at Maastricht to be updated at the next international conference?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, achieving coherence in Community policy requires a great deal of attention. I spent the whole of Saturday morning discussing coherence in development policy with my 14 colleagues from the other member states. Even in that small area it requires greater attention than it has had in the past. The interesting thing in the whole of the work on a common foreign and security policy is that it must be a policy which is agreed by consensus. That view will remain. It is right, too, that we should seek to work at that common foreign and security policy in the political committee which is now working very well. We have a great deal more work to do. I do not believe that that coherent approach requires any change to the Maastricht Treaty, because Article C of that treaty already makes the Council and the Commission responsible for ensuring consistency on EU external activities.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that she should not be surprised that achieving co-operation

1703
and co-ordination takes time? That is inevitable when dealing with a number of different countries. However, does she agree that the basis of increasing co-ordination and co-operation in foreign policy is an increased appreciation of just how many interests those countries have in common? Therefore it is terribly important, since we have so many interests in common, that those interests should be fostered, and that our view should be put across in the most coherent and pointed way. Does she agree that the best way to do that is to do it in common rather than individually, when indeed one can be picked off one by one?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the one reason why we felt it to be important to have a common foreign and security policy was the many shared interests in a number of different fields of European co-operation. We have had shared interests for a very long time. They have now been brought together, and the political committee seeks to help that happen with greater ease and frequency; but it will not just be the political committee, there are the other committees. In my field there is the Africa Working Group which seeks to ensure that we have a proper co-ordinated approach to major problems such as the Great Lakes. It is because we have shared interests and a common wish for peace and stability in those countries that we should be working together, but it should remain a second pillar and not as part of the Commission.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the accuracy or otherwise of a report in The Times a few days ago which revealed that Greece was threatening to veto the entry into the EU of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and so on, if EU representatives consulted the Turkish Cypriots? If that is true, does it not constitute disgraceful blackmail and demonstrate the dangers of a common foreign and security policy which could well suck us into a conflict between Greece and Turkey?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I, for one do not believe everything I read in the newspapers, and certainly not everything I read in The Times these days. We are used to Turkey on some occasions, Greece on other occasions, and other countries on further occasions, making bellicose statements. The discussion that takes place on a common foreign and security policy is a discussion which can result in action by consensus only, and that is how it should remain.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while common interests no doubt exist among the 15 countries of the European Union, they each have their own particular aims, objectives and, indeed, appreciation of what is going on in the rest of the world? Is it not flying in the face of reason to imagine that those differences will disappear suddenly because people utter warm words about European unity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is absolutely right, natural, and will continue to be so, that
1704
each nation state will have its own appreciation but on occasions we find that as regards a great deal of the analysis, there is more that unites us than divides us. It may be that some nation states have a greater capacity to analyse certain problems in certain parts of the world. It is sensible that that should be shared. It is sensible also that we should try to proceed together wherever we can, because there is no doubt that in that way we have been able to make beneficial changes in overall approaches to some of the world's worst problems which often take the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are serious differences of interpretation among the member states concerning the European Union guidelines on arms sales? Does she not consider that it is necessary for the European Union, in addition to developing those agreements, to consider also methods of monitoring and implementation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is rather wide of the main Question. But I should say that the European Union is not a defence organisation. It is an organisation of the three pillars. We are well aware that common foreign and security policy is part of the second pillar which is agreed by the member states of the European Union and not by the Commission. Whether in relation to arms or any other aspect of defence policy, I do not believe that it would be right to go beyond that. I certainly believe that we have no need for further treaty language on those matters.

Salisbury Bypass Proposal
3.2 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider fresh alternatives for the Salisbury bypass in view of the recent submission of the Countryside Commission that "no form of mitigation would be sufficient to offset the significant damage to a landscape of heritage importance" which would be caused by the present proposals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Highways Agency report on the scope for realigning the section of the route across the sensitive area of the River Avon floodplain south of Salisbury, produced in consultation with the Countryside Commission and others, has just been received. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport will consider the commission's views as part of their consideration of the report.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend understand my distress that having this morning been to Salisbury for an on-the-spot look at the proposed routes—and I am sorry that he was not able to accept my invitation to accompany me—I found that the present proposal is to build the road across the water

1705
meadows of both the River Avon and the River Nadder; to build it on three sides of Salisbury Cathedral, within a mile of the cathedral, and to build it on embankments which are between 20 and 30 feet high? Does my noble friend agree that that would devastate a landscape which, as a result of Constable's paintings, is sacred not only to Britain but to much of the western world? Will he urge his colleagues to go back to the drawing board and try to solve Salisbury's traffic problems in a more civilised manner?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I accept that my noble friend has strong views on this subject; but I am sure that he will accept that there was a year-long public inquiry and that the inspector concluded that the provision of a bypass was justified. I am sure also that my noble friend recognises that there is a real problem which requires a real solution.
The planning process is still under way. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment are considering the Highways Agency report. That report will be published and comments invited upon it. Beyond that, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in more detail at this stage of the planning process.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that in addition to the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, there is anxiety also about the site of special scientific interest in the meadows, and about the fact that the River Avon and its tributaries is in line to be declared as a site of a special area of conservation? I understand that English Nature has undertaken an examination of the problem. Has English Nature reported; and, if so, what has been its advice? Will that advice be available for us to see?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. English Nature was part of the review and its comments will be published. I understand also that the environmental and landscape impacts of the bypass were explored in depth at the public inquiry and that the Countryside Commission and English Nature did not object to the bypass proposals at the time of the inquiry.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I have lived in or near Salisbury for 35 years and I am well acquainted with the problem alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, with whose views I agree entirely. I managed to obtain a copy of the Countryside Commission's letter sent to the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport. It is a very strong letter. Does the Minister understand how strong that letter is? It refers to environmental, scenic and ecological matters which have been underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Will the Minister confirm that it does not refer to the traffic situation, and there is much anxiety—
Noble Lords: Speech, speech! Question, question!
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I am coming to my question. I hope that the Minister will understand that
1706
there is much local anxiety concerning the effectiveness of the proposed bypass. Can he assure your Lordships and those who live locally that the bypass will have the effect which it was proposed to have?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there is a very real traffic problem in the area and the inspector concluded that the provision of a bypass was justified. My right honourable friends were minded to accept that view but they commissioned further work on the specific points which I mentioned. They will be consulting further on those points and the views of the commission and the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, will be taken into account.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have some experience of what happens when a new road is to be built. This is to be an 11-mile road. It is not a short bypass. I have never received quite as many representations as I have received in relation to this proposal. The site of special scientific interest is also of vital importance. People are asking whether the public inquiry was convinced that the only way to relieve the traffic in Salisbury was by this proposed bypass. Will the Minister not take back this scheme and re-examine it within the Government's new and very welcome proposal for planning on a regional basis instead of on such a local basis as it seems to have been prepared?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can merely restate the position that I gave earlier. I direct the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to paragraph 43 of the letter to which I referred in which it stated that after taking into account the inspector's views on the possible alternative options put before the inquiry, the Secretaries of State are not persuaded by objectors' arguments that alternative solutions are available. The Secretaries of State felt that it was important to commission further work on those environmentally sensitive questions. That detailed work has now been done. It has arrived only recently in the department. It is extremely important that that should be considered fully and comments are invited upon that work. However, we recognise that there are strongly held views on both sides of the argument and we do not wish to see any unnecessary delay.

Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Drionadoon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
CONDITIONS RELATING TO MANDATORY AND MINIMUM CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
(" .—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of setting out the basis on which the court shall carry out its sentencing functions under this Part.
(2) Under section 1 below, when determining whether it would be appropriate not to impose a life sentence the court shall have regard to the circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender.
(3) Under section 2 below, when determining whether it would be appropriate not to impose a custodial sentence of at least seven years under subsection 2(2) the court shall have regard to the specific circumstances which—

(a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender; and

(b) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.").

The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 47 and 48. Amendment No. 1 refers to the process of setting a basis upon which a court shall carry out its sentencing functions under this part of the Bill. It refers to sentencing under Clauses 1 and 2.
The three main purposes of the amendment can be simply stated. First, it would provide an appropriate, necessary and, above all, a workable structure within which judicial discretion can be exercised in the context of a framework of automatic sentences. On this side of the Committee, we do not wish to cast aside the concept of automatic sentences; but we wish to see the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion in that context.
I refer to the comment made during the Committee stage of the Crime (Sentences) Bill, which is the appropriate English legislation, by the independent legal watchdog Justice which said that the purpose of the amendment, moved on that day successfully and being moved today similarly, was:
"to ensure that judicial discretion is preserved while retaining a presumption in favour of mandatory sentences".
That is what the amendment is essentially all about; in other words, it seeks to get the balance right.
Secondly, the amendment would provide a means by which properly severe sentences can be meted out to dangerous and professional criminals while ensuring that the court remains in a position to apply appropriate and proportional disposals for more inadequate offenders; that is to say, to maintain the concept of proportionality in sentencing. Thirdly, the amendment would ensure, in the context of the decision in this Chamber during the passage of the Crime (Sentences) Bill, that the Scottish legislation before us today is brought into step with the English and Welsh legislation.
Many of the arguments that are appropriate and relevant today will be fresh in the memory of many noble Lords. We heard many of them—and many of them are directly applicable—when we discussed the Crime (Sentences) Bill in Committee. Indeed, on that day we heard many effective, robust and powerful speeches. I do not intend to rehearse those arguments in
1708
detail, because I know that Members of the Committee will already be sensitive to them. However, I should like to highlight one or two of them.
When one moves into the area of automatic sentences and takes away a large element of discretion from the courts, there is always the danger that the courts, and especially juries, will respond knowing that there is the inevitability of an automatic sentence and that the response will basically be a failure to convict where effectively there should be a conviction. I say that because juries are concerned about the appropriateness and proportionality of the automatic sentence which will follow.
There is also the injustice of automatic sentences being applied where, in the full circumstances of the offender and the offence, it is clear that there is a lack of proportionality; that something is deeply wrong and deeply unjust with the application of a severe automatic sentence. We can all recognise that there may well be a case of a young man—or, possibly, a young woman; but for these purposes I will say a young man—who, in a kind of folly of youth, falls into bad company, becomes involved in some very unfortunate activity and perhaps commits a major crime covered by the Bill by bringing about, for example, the permanent disfigurement of an individual and is then convicted at a relatively young age.
Through the passage of time that conviction is seen as almost a one-off. The individual concerned matures, marries and has children. Then perhaps one night about 20 years later there is a rush of blood to his head and something happens. He either attacks a friend or perhaps there is a domestic dispute and, unfortunately, his wife is the subject of an assault. Is it really fair and just in those circumstances to go back to the period of 20 years or more and bring into account, in working out the disposal appropriate for one act, something that happened 20 or more years previously? That is a question that weighs very heavily with me.
When we look at the Bill, I am also concerned to see that a conviction that would count in the totting-up process is one which was disposed of by way of an admonishment; that is, basically the court saying that it is such a minor matter that it is not worth a period of imprisonment or a fine and that it is a case for an admonishment—a good old-fashioned basic telling off. Yet, in the totting-up process that would remain a conviction which could have devastating consequences later on.
As it stands, the Bill perhaps tries to deal with such circumstances by the use of the phrase "exceptional circumstances". However, we are convinced of the need to replace those words with the phrasing set out in the amendment. I should explain why. It is partly because we do not know what "exceptional circumstances" mean. As far as I am aware, the Government have declined to give any substance, definition or meaning to those words as regards what is intended. If that remains the case, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, indicated on Second Reading, judges will to a large extent be operating in the dark. It is, perhaps, even worse. I say that because the only example that I have

1709
found of an attempt by the Government to indicate what meaning might be attached to those words is the comment by the Minister of State in the other place, Mr. David Maclean, who said:
"It is the Lord Chief Justice's view, which I believe to be correct, that the term 'exceptional circumstances' will be construed very narrowly. I believe and hope that this is the correct interpretation".
Admittedly, that reference was made in the context of the Crime (Sentences) Bill, but we have a confusion here because in a recent article in the Herald newspaper, Her Majesty's Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Paul Cullen, actually said:
"Nothing in the Bill will reduce judicial discretion".
So where are we? It is incumbent upon the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to make clear what his view is on this provision, whether he goes down the road clearly preferred by his ministerial colleague in the other place—that the provision should be constrained and narrow—or whether he agrees with his own Solicitor-General that it does not change judicial discretion at all. There is a need for clarity; it has not been forthcoming.
The amendment proposed today refers specifically to the exercise of judicial discretion in circumstances relating to either the offence or circumstances attaching to the offender. It is our belief that that gives the right measure of flexibility and the right degree by which the courts, through the judges, can apply the appropriate and just sentence. As the Bill stands, the courts are in great danger of having a number of individual cases put before them of people in different circumstances and of crimes committed in widely different circumstances over long periods of time. Often it will perhaps be the "small fry" rather than the "godfathers" who have been caught. The courts will be confronted with a situation where, as the Bill stands, the automatic sentence is applied which everyone concerned will see as a negation of justice. Surely that cannot be right. We must ensure that our courts have the degree of judicial discretion which ensures, within an expectation of automatic sentencing, the appropriate means whereby the sentence of the court can fit the crime and the court is not required to go down a path which it would recognise as unjust. I beg to move.
Baroness Seccombe: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope I may ask a point of clarification. When he referred to a second occasion of an offence being committed, perhaps 20 years later, which could involve a wife or another domestic situation, was he implying that an act of violence against anyone in a domestic situation is not as serious as violence against someone else?
Lord Sewel: I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point. I seize the opportunity to say no, certainly not. The point I was seeking to make was that the period of time that may pass between one act and another should rightly and properly be taken into account. At the moment, under the Bill, that is not the case.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord explained that the amendment would bring the Bill into
1710
line with the English Bill which is at present going through this Chamber. I suggest it is conceivable that the other place will not accept the amendment agreed by this Chamber the other day. Even if it does, I wonder whether the Scots will want to follow the English along this particular path.
I was not able to speak at Second Reading as I was not well and had to stay at home. But had I been present, I would have expressed the view to the Chamber—as I express it now to the Committee—that it seems to me the Scots are thoughtful people. They are extremely keen on justice but they are also frightened by dangerous crimes that are committed against people in their areas that they read about in the media. I believe that the Scottish public expect Parliament to set a framework for sentencing within which the Scottish judges should act. I believe also that the Scots public are worried that—albeit absolutely within the current law—it is quite possible to read of sentences of, say, four years where people serve only two years in prison. They worry about that and the fact that the longer the sentence, the greater the difference in that regard.
Therefore I do not have a major problem about Clauses 1 and 2 in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and his party have. Serious violent and sexual offences which are repeated—I remind the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that they have to be serious offences because they have brought about conviction on indictment in the High Court; they are not the trivial kind of sentence that I believe he implied—are dreadful crimes. And so is drug trafficking that has been repeated three times. To lay down that in the case of the former offence a life sentence is mandatory, unless there are exceptional circumstances, and that a seven year sentence is the minimum for drug trafficking seems to me to be what the public want. They want to see a different framework within which the judiciary can operate.
The whole thing, it seems to me, hangs on the fact that the judiciary are permitted, in exceptional circumstances, not to pass that sentence. As I understand it, Clause 1(3) enlarges upon that. It states that,
"if the High Court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances…the court may decline to pass that sentence and may instead pass any sentence which it otherwise has power to pass in respect of a conviction for that offence".
It seems to me, an ordinary person who has acted as an honorary sheriff but not in any way as a professional judge, that there is discretion for the judge. The judiciary do not like it. At the moment they have free discretion over a much wider range. I believe that this Chamber and the other place—Parliament as a whole—owe it to the Scots public to see Clauses 1 and 2 onto the statute book. I hope therefore that the Committee will not accept these amendments.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, says that the Scots are thoughtful people. Not only are they thoughtful; they also have great pride in their separate judicial system and, I had always believed, great pride in the judges who administer that system. Therefore, when there are

1711
proposals before this Chamber for the curbing of the discretion of those judges, I am sure that the people of Scotland will want to examine closely and with deep thought what rationale is put forward by the Government for introducing those curbs and for imposing automatic sentences in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
The first issue that arises is this. Is there something wrong with the level of sentencing that is passed in Scotland at present? Is there a general feeling that sentences are too low? If so, the machinery for putting the matter right is already in existence; and it is machinery which has been introduced by this Government within very recent years which has not had time to prove itself, to show whether it can operate successfully. For example, if the Crown, the prosecutor, feels that a sentence which is far too low has been imposed by a court then the Crown may appeal. I should be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate how many times since the power came into operation in the cases referred to as qualifying offences he and his predecessor have exercised the right of appeal on sentence to the High Court, and on how many occasions those appeals have been successful.
On 1st April 1995, less than two years ago, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 introduced the power of the High Court to pronounce an opinion on the sentence or other disposal in a particular matter which is appropriate in similar cases. Two sections of that 1995 legislation introduced by the Government have not had time to operate. By the use of that power the High Court can lay down sentencing guidelines which under Section 196 of that Act must be taken into account subsequently by any court which passes sentence in a similar case. That appears to be machinery introduced by the Government in order to deal with the level of sentencing if there is thought to be something wrong with it.
However, other constructive proposals have been put forward. In case it be thought that questions of sentencing are kept too much within the legal profession, or within the judiciary, in 1992 the Law Society of Scotland proposed a sentencing commission modelled on the sentencing commission in the state of Massachusetts in the United States which suggested that a body should be formed consisting of judicial legal professional people and lay people. They would have referred to them particular offences. They would be able to institute research into those offences, to consider the matter on broad public policy lines and produce advice by way of a report which any court could then take into account. Their proposal, put forward in 1992 by amendment to a Bill going through this House, was not successful.
However, if there is a genuine feeling that levels of sentencing are too low, surely the way to go about it is not to impose an automatic sentence in every case but to carry out the necessary research, give consideration, and take advice from informed people and lay people who can give an opinion. After all, there is nothing particularly magic about any level of sentencing. The levels of sentencing in this country have gone up and
1712
up under public pressure over a number of years; and the judges, as an entire body, reflect what they believe to be public opinion. If they are getting it wrong, then there are ways of dealing with that other than by imposing some artificial and automatic standard which will inevitably bring about injustices in certain cases.
If it is not levels of sentencing that worry the public, is it perhaps consistency in sentencing; namely, that there are variations between one court and another which must be addressed and dealt with so that a person who commits an offence in one part of the kingdom is sentenced in the same way as someone before a court elsewhere. In Scotland, the High Court is fortunate in having a small body of people which meets together on a regular basis save when they are on circuit, and no doubt discuss such matters. If there is a problem of consistency in sentencing, I do not believe that it arises at that level. It may arise at the sheriff court level; there are many more such courts scattered throughout Scotland. If that is the case, that problem can be addressed in other ways than by the imposition of automatic sentences. I doubt whether the sheriff court will deal with the offences that are qualifying offences in Clause 1 of the Bill, and certainly not with the matters referred to in Clause 2. But I address that problem by way of general comment at this point. For example, if there is inconsistency between sheriff courts, it is possible for sheriffs to be appointed to sit in the High Court on appeals against sentence from sheriff courts. Sheriffs could play their part in meeting together on an appeal body, to discuss the appropriate sentence in a particular case.
There is room for the computerised project that the Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Ross, proposed in Scotland whereby sentences are computerised and published for the benefit of judges who pass sentences throughout the country.
Under the proposals set out in Clause 1 of the Bill, unjust sentences are inevitable. It is a disgrace—is it not?—to a judicial system that it should contemplate passing sentences which by definition will turn out to be unjust. Why do I say that? Because the circumstances of each and every individual case are different. Practitioners understand that. Judges understand it. No two cases are the same. For example, there can be the same conviction passed upon a person who is an accomplice to a serious crime—one of a group of young people who become involved—where the blow is struck by only one person yet all are guilty because all are encouraging what goes on. That counts as the conviction for the full offence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, pointed out, there can be differences of timing. Years may pass between the two qualifying offences; the circumstances of the first offence may have been forgotten. For the purposes of considering exceptional circumstances at least, if not even the circumstances proposed in the amendment, it is necessary for the court to have before it a report on the facts of the first qualifying offence and on the mitigating circumstances which were applicable at the time of the original offence—and under the proposed legislation that could be 20 or 30 years previously.

1713
If it is said that legislation for automatic life sentences is necessary to protect the public, that there should be indeterminate sentences, that we are pursuing honesty in sentencing, why should this sentence be called a life sentence? There is no intention of imprisoning people for life. If there is a need for an indeterminate sentence, why it is not called a public safety sentence? Everyone can understand that a person is being imprisoned for an indefinite period until the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland is satisfied that that person is safe to be released into the community. When one sees that automatic life sentences are contemplated in this clause, and when one considers that the machinery which the Government have only recently put into effect has not had time to operate, one has to come to the conclusion that the use of the express words "life sentences" is no more than gesture politics, to use the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in our debates on the Crime (Sentences) Bill. Using words of this sort is gesture politics designed to create a public impact. I urge the Committee to support this amendment to keep the Bill in step with the amendments that have already been sensibly passed by this place on the English and Welsh Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that noble Lords who live in Scotland will be able to tell him that what concerns people there is not the level or the consistency of sentencing. Not everybody knows about all the mechanisms that there are to even these matters up, but they are very good, and I am sure they work. What worries people is the fact that the time spent in prison is so very different to the sentence that a person receives. That worries people. The Scottish media bear that out, as do my own discussions with the people who live where I do.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, she merely emphasises the point that I sought to make a moment ago; namely, that we are to have a proliferation of "life" sentences—that is the word being used—when the media and the people of Scotland know that it is not a life sentence that is contemplated at all; it is an indeterminate sentence. I would describe it as a public safety sentence. Why can we not use the correct expressions when contemplating changes of this sort?
Lord McCluskey: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, just expressed her support for proposals in a different part, Part III, of the Bill; namely, the early release proposals, to which we shall turn in due course. She also, perhaps unwittingly, expressed total support for the speeches just delivered, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I shall do the same. I propose to be brief at this stage since I intend to speak on the Question as to whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill. I can forgive the noble Baroness some of her errors, since in the article referred to by the noble Lord,
1714
Lord Sewel, no less distinguished an authority than the Solicitor-General for Scotland said, with the utmost folly:
"Nothing in the Bill will reduce judicial discretion".
There are 26 offences listed in the Bill, and they constitute 99 per cent. of the diet of the High Court in Scotland, in which I have been appearing for 41 years. These offences are almost all the offences with which I deal as a High Court judge. My discretion will be totally and utterly removed in any case in which a person has previously been convicted of such an offence. Let me make that abundantly plain. The literature and statements put out by the Government do not make it clear. I repeat, it is not a matter of having cognate offences, such as rape, to put people into prison. If a boy at the age of 15 interferes with his little sister and happens to receive a conviction for what is called lewd and libidinous practices which does not involve an assault and may involve no more, then at the age of 18, if in the course of a brawl in a bar he cuts somebody's face and inflicts a scar that requires four stitches, he goes to prison for life. As a judge I would never dream of imposing such a sentence. To say that my discretion is not removed is the utmost folly. For the Solicitor-General to write for readers of the Herald, the quality newspaper with the largest circulation in Scotland, that nothing in the Bill will reduce judicial discretion is totally and utterly misleading.
On the point about consistency, we have—it was sponsored by the recently retired Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Ross—the "sentencing information system". Every sentence imposed in the High Court in Scotland for the past five years is put onto a computer databank. I have a computer at home, and when I come out of court in the course of a day, I press the appropriate buttons and find out what we have been doing in assault cases of this character and that character. I can type in offence characteristics and offender characteristics, and can thus arrive at the centre of gravity, as it were, of what we are doing. Consistency is assured for that reason as well as for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
We shall examine more fully the matter of "exceptional". But the Committee should understand this. When in a statute a word is used that has been used previously in statute, the courts will always endeavour to give that word the same meaning as it had on previous occasions. The word "exceptional" has been given a meaning in England and in Scotland. The Minister of State was quite right to agree with the Lord Chief Justice that it will be construed extremely narrowly. I will seek information about this; however, as I read the Bill, "exceptional circumstances" relates only to the second or qualifying offence, not to the first. We shall return to that. The sheriff court has no jurisdiction at all in this matter. It cannot and is not required by the Bill to pass a life sentence.
In conclusion, I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, with some astonishment. He said things with which I agree about 99 per cent. He also said that they supported the idea of mandatory sentencing. His entire argument gave the lie to that

1715
proposition. He cannot advance the argument that he has and say, "We support some degree of mandatory sentencing". I shall return to the matter at a later stage.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I intervene with great trepidation on a Bill which describes itself as referring to Scotland. I do so in order to make only one very small point and to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. As I understand it, this amendment is word for word the same as that passed by this place some two or three weeks ago in relation to Clauses 1 and 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Bill relating to England. Surely, if for no other reason than that of consistency, we should support in the same way this amendment to this Bill.
The noble Baroness says that that amendment may be changed in the Commons. It may; on the other hand, it may not. Certainly, if we change this Bill in the same way, the Commons will have the opportunity to deal with both Bills in the same way when they return there.
Lord Ackner: I rise to make a very short intervention. We had a White Paper in 1960 entitled, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public. That contained a statement of the government view then in these terms:
"The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework, on the lines of those introduced in the United States, or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences. This would make it more difficult to sentence justly in exceptional cases. It could also result in more acquittals by juries, with more guilty men and women going free unjustly as a result".
In the debates on the English Bill we heard not the slightest basis for the Government changing their mind. The noble Lord, Lord Can, a former Home Secretary, in a debate that was the result of an intervention by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, said in terms that where the Government make such a fundamental change in philosophy they must be obliged to provide the basis for the change. None has been provided. It is very easy to support what is said. "It"—these mandatory sentences—"could result in more acquittals by juries with more guilty men and women going free unjustly as a result".
Let me very briefly give the Committee some indication as to how maximum and minimum sentences can detract from public safety and public protection. First, there will be many more cases where there are pleas of not guilty to avoid the risk of being convicted with a life sentence. The consequence of that will be to jam up the lists; it will involve victims having to go through the misery of a court appearance; and, because the onus of proof is such a heavy one, there will be some guilty persons who go free.
Secondly, there will be occasions when the jury, conscious of the severe consequences of a conviction and not wishing to impose what will in the event be a life sentence, will refuse to convict. There will be cases where witnesses, particularly those who have some family or emotional relationship with the accused, will either refuse to give evidence or not come up to proof.
1716
There will be cases where the prosecution, anxious to achieve a conviction and knowing that the danger is that they will fail, will—as has occurred in America—enter into wholly unrealistic plea bargains, thereby shifting the discretion in sentencing away from the judges and into the hands of the prosecution or the defence.
Finally, the prisons will be filled up, with the result that they will no longer have adequate resources to provide training and re-education to aid rehabilitation. As a consequence, more people will be convicted again, following their release from prison, and recidivism will increase. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that for all those reasons this amendment should be agreed to.
Lord McCluskey: There is one other matter that I should have mentioned. The prison population of Scotland at the moment is slightly smaller than 6,000. I put down a Question to the Government at about the time of Second Reading to ask how many people in Scotland are qualified to go to prison the next time they appear in the High Court and are convicted. The answer was 3,300: so 3,300 people are at risk of being sent to prison for life if they commit a further offence.
I believe that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred to the 1960 White Paper; of course, he meant to refer to the 1990 White Paper.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: We shall come to the question of prison population in due course. If I may take up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state:
"There will be no significant increase in Prison Service manpower, as new prisons will be privately financed".
I do not quite understand what that means. The notes continue:
"However the new assessment procedures will require the equivalent of 25 additional prison staff".
That must tie in with the figure given to the noble and learned Lord. It is also stated:
"The provision of additional court sitting days will require the appointment of one Senator and 7 permanent Sheriffs".
I do not understand why eight extra judges are needed to implement the provisions of this Bill; judges just impose a different sentence.
An amendment of this importance tends to take on the dimensions of a Second Reading debate; I shall try to avoid that. I do not intend to go over the points made on Second Reading. As demonstrated by the amendments put down by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, he has taken notice of some of the points made.
From reading the Scottish press it seems to me that there is something peculiar in the concentrated government feeding of the press with regard to the Bill. I understand—though I say it with great reservation because I do not like hearsay evidence—that before the Bill ever reached the Committee the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General held a press briefing. I would like the Lord Advocate to say whether that rumour is true or untrue; and, if it is true, why it was held and what its purpose was.

1717
If I may say so—with the greatest restraint because the Solicitor-General is not a Member of this Chamber—the article in the Glasgow Herald is one of the most disgraceful I have seen for a long time concerning the Scottish judicial system. I have to declare an interest because the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was my devil master at the Scottish Bar. That does not make any difference. I hope that the Lord Advocate will take heed of what the noble and learned Lord said during the Second Reading debate and answer a question for a change. Did the Lord Advocate approve this article? Was it cleared by the Crown Office? Did he see a draft of it? Does he consider it proper, when a debate is taking place in this Chamber, that a senior law officer dealing with the Bill goes into public print to make an attack—this is nothing less than an attack—on a highly respected senator of the College of Justice? If we do not receive an answer today, I shall continue to seek one.
It has been claimed in the press in one form or another that this side of the Committee is out to wreck the Bill. Nothing of the kind. We accept the Bill—it will probably go through—and, in the best traditions of your Lordships' House, will try to amend it and make it sensible and workable and not the piece of judicial and legal nonsense that it is at the moment.
It is important to remember that life sentences were introduced into the system as a quid pro quo for doing away with capital punishment. That was the bargain that was struck. It is clear from the deliberations of the Select Committee which met a number of years ago. The transfer of the crime of murder into the terms of this Bill is quite inappropriate. It will increase the prison population. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the recent figure for Scotland is 6,200 prisoners "banged up" three in a cell, with the prospect of one new prison in Kilmarnock in 1999 which may hold 500. Will the Lord Advocate tell the Committee whether the figure given by the noble and learned Lord of an increase of 3,300 is correct? If it is correct, where will he put them? Is he going to put them up on the roof of the prison?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble Lord continues, did I understand him to suggest that the Government were asserting that, as a result of the Bill, there would be an increase in the prison population in Scotland of 3,300?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: That is precisely what I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to say. I may have got it wrong; if I have, I apologise.
Lord McCluskey: I am afraid that the noble Lord has got it wrong. What I asked the Government was how many people had already committed qualifying offences. I did not ask about the relevant offences, because that applies to people who have committed offences in England; that simply adds to the number. At the moment there are 3,300 people who, if convicted in
1718
the High Court of a qualifying offence, will go to prison for life. It will not have the effect of increasing the prison population by 3,300.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord; it is probably my phraseology. There is potential for an increase in the prison population of 3,300. If that is correct, let us assume that they commit a second offence. Where do the Government propose to put them?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord says that there is potential for an increase in the prison population to the extent of 3,300 people. If all of those 3,300 people have already committed qualifying offences—which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would have known when he put down the Question, involves convictions in the High Court—and they commit another serious violent or sexual offence which results in their conviction in the High Court, would the noble Lord not agree that each and every one of them is already liable to go to prison, either for a determinate sentence or, if it is an offence which carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, for a term of life imprisonment? If they offend again, each and every one of those offenders could go to prison. Does the noble Lord not agree with that?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I would accept that, but we are dealing with the question of judicial discretion here. It is not always necessary to send people to prison. The figure I have is that 6,200 people are presently in prison in Scotland, and the prisons are grossly overcrowded but I will not dwell on that matter.
Noble Lords who have contributed to this debate have given reasons for someone receiving an automatic life sentence. For example, let us assume that a 15-year-old happens to be involved in a school fight and someone dies or receives a severe injury. The 15-year-old goes on to complete his education, going to university and finally qualifying as an architect or doctor. He then marries and becomes involved in a domestic dispute—and I say that with respect to the noble Baroness—having lived a blameless life for 15 to 20 years. If he happens to go off-course on one occasion, he will receive a sentence of life imprisonment. That is why I make no apology for saying that this part of the Bill is complete social and legal nonsense. Even if a person is admonished, under the Bill that will still be counted as a conviction resulting in imprisonment for life.
I well remember a case in Edinburgh—and I shall not mention names because it is not appropriate—of a publican punching a Welsh supporter who was making a nuisance of himself. He gave him just one punch whereupon the supporter fell down some steps outside the pub and died. As I recollect, I think the publican was admonished. Now that is strike one. Although the court has admonished him, if the publican happens to be involved in another assault 20 to 25 years later, he will go to prison for life. What sense is there in that?
What steps do the Government intend to take, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned, to find out what the first offence was all about? If it took place in

1719
England or Wales, we would have to obtain a report from the Crown Prosecution Service or its predecessor, the police. If it took place in Scotland, we should have to obtain a report from the Crown Office. But there is nothing in the Bill that requires the court to be apprised of the situation pertaining at the time the first offence took place: even the age of the person and the circumstances; and, as we mentioned at Second Reading, whether or not the person was certifiable or suffering from a mental disorder. That seems to me to be grossly unfair.
This part of the Bill demeans the meaning of life imprisonment. One may call it a public safety order, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has mentioned. People should know what life imprisonment is all about and it should be reserved for very special cases, not for political gain, as is the case with this Bill.
The other dimension is the European dimension, in which I understand the Government are not very interested. You can bet your bottom dollar that the first person who receives an automatic life imprisonment will appeal to the European Court. That, of course, will set off a chain of events. Let us take the European Community: we are all supposed to be part of the one community. Why is it that if a person commits an offence in England or Wales, he or she becomes subject to this provision in Scotland and visa versa, but if that person commits the first offence in Paris or Madrid the provision does not apply. That means that a person who has killed someone in Madrid or Paris can come to England, Wales or Scotland, kill someone there and it does not matter: he will receive the appropriate sentence with judicial discretion on the first offence. As this is a Scottish Bill I think we can call it a lot of legal "porridge".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may respectfully suggest that party affiliation ought not to govern our consideration of the due administration of justice in Scotland. I support the amendment. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said, it avoids a negation of justice. I would not seek to enter into the essence of the merits of this argument. They have been thrashed out over the English Bill and they have been dealt with more ably today than I would be able to. I am not concerned at this stage with the prison population question; nor indeed the international or European justice aspect. But consistency has a merit. This amendment has been carried into the English Bill. I do not assume that another place will reject our amendment; assuredly I do not. It may well be that certain members of the Government, which I support, will not change their minds. So be it. That does not mean, as night follows day, that another place will reject these amendments. Hope for justice, as I see it, springs eternal.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: These amendments require to be considered together but equally, to some extent, must be examined separately. The first, which seeks to introduce the new clause standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and
1720
Lord Sewel, is, in the Government's view, partly unnecessary and partly unacceptable. It sets out, as noble Lords will see, some references or some changes to the circumstances in which the court can exercise its discretion to set aside the mandatory penalties prescribed in Clauses 1 and 2. I shall obviously have more to say about the issue of discretion in due course in the light of the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Clause 2 deals with mandatory sentences for drug offenders. The amendment seeks to introduce a different approach for Clause 2 from that which would apply for automatic life sentences under Clause 1, provided that Amendment No. 1 is the only one that is carried. But noble Lords will bear in mind the terms of Amendment No. 14, which appears in the names of both noble Lords, which seeks to leave out "exceptional" and insert "specific". I invite members of the Committee to have that before them when considering the merits or otherwise of this first amendment.
Noble Lords will recall that Clause 1 will require the imposition of automatic life sentences on those convicted in the High Court for a second occasion of serious violent or sexual offences. As I have already observed, the new clause, when looked at in isolation, does not seek to alter the requirement that the circumstances which allow the court to set aside an automatic life sentence for the purposes of Clause I must be exceptional. However, it seeks to alter the approach which the courts would take. It refers to a test of appropriateness, which is not actually to be found in the terms of Clause 1 as currently drafted. It would require the court, when considering whether there are any exceptional circumstances to justify not imposing a life sentence, to consider the circumstances relating to the two qualifying offences and to the offender. There is nothing in the Bill as currently drafted which would prevent the court from considering such circumstances. During all the debates on both the English Bill and this Bill in another place and when the English Bill was debated extensively before a committee and in this Chamber, it was accepted that the clause as currently drafted would cover that point. But the approach taken in drafting the Bill is that, rather than prescribing the particular circumstances which the court must consider, the Bill leaves to the discretion of the court the consideration of what can be exceptional circumstances. That is one aspect on which the discretion of the court is preserved.
The Government can see no reason why the court could not construe the term "exceptional circumstances" in the manner I suggested. For that reason the first part of the amendment—namely, new subsection (2)—is considered to be unnecessary. Moreover, it might even have the unfortunate consequence of restricting the circumstances which the court could consider and, if it were to be accepted, might lead the court to construe Section 205A(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (as it would be introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill) in a narrower way than it otherwise might have done. For example, if this amendment is carried, there is a possibility—I put it no higher—that the court might take the view that more general background information

1721
might not fall within the definition of "exceptional circumstances". For that reason, the court might seek to exclude them from consideration.
So far as concerns Clause 2, the new clause has a dramatically different effect. I invite the Committee to bear that in mind. It would replace the existing "exceptional circumstances" test and thereby effectively wreck the Government's intention in Clause 2 as included in the Bill. In its place, the court would have the discretion to set aside the minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, where there are specific circumstances which relate to the offence or the offender which would make the mandatory sentence "unjust in all the circumstances". I am sure the Committee will accept that that will be a much less stringent test. We believe that it would undermine the objective of Clause 2, which is to ensure that persistent, serious drug dealers receive a degree of punishment appropriate to their repeated level of offending. The Government have made clear on a number of occasions—and I repeat it again this afternoon—that they believe that the public deserve protection from such repeat offenders. This clause is intended to give the public that protection.
The whole essence of mandatory penalties is that they should be imposed except in the most exceptional cases. If they are not, then mandatory penalties will not have the salutary effect that we intend and expect them to have. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lords will not press the first amendment tabled in their names.
4.15 p.m.
I shall deal with the other amendments before responding to some of the points made in debate. Amendments Nos. 15 and 48 are in a similar vein. They seek to direct the High Court, for the purposes of Clauses 1 and 2, to consider the circumstances relating to the offender and to the offender's previous offences when considering whether there are exceptional circumstances which justify the imposition of a sentence other than an automatic sentence. I have already indicated that so far as concerns Clause 1, the Government see no reason why that should not be possible. That would equally apply to Clause 2.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 47, also tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Sewel, adopt yet another strategy for undermining the objectives of Clauses 1 and 2. The amendments would replace the existing provisions, whereby the High Court may decide not to impose a mandatory sentence if there are exceptional circumstances justifying a different sentence, with this alternative provision which would allow the court to impose a different sentence if there are specific circumstances for so doing. Obviously, "specific" is not required to mean "exceptional" or "unusual". The amendments would allow a different sentence to be imposed whenever there are identifiable circumstances, no matter how commonplace, which the court decided justified the imposition of a determinate sentence different from either the automatic life sentence in Clause 1 or the mandatory sentence set out in Clause 2. In effect, they would nullify the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2.
1722
I turn to some of the points made in the debate. There was some dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and, to some extent, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, as to the effect that the provision would have on judicial discretion. The Government's position has been explained on a number of occasions and need not be elaborated upon at length. So far as concerns automatic life sentences, there will be a discretion to consider what is the fixed period to be spent in custody for punishment and deterrence; there will be discretion to construe what the term "exceptional circumstances" amounts to; and, in the circumstances of a particular case, having regard to the submissions made to the court, there will be a discretion for the chairman as to whether or not there are exceptional circumstances which would justify the court departing from the mandatory penalty.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, suggested that the main purpose of the new clause to be inserted before Clause 1 was to bring the Scottish Bill into line with the English Bill. That view was supported by my noble friend Lord Carlisle. Looked at in isolation, that is correct. But if the Committee were to agree to Amendment No. 14, it would alter the Scottish Bill to a greater extent than happened to the English Bill. As these amendments are effectively moved at the same time, in my submission it is right for the Committee to consider them together.
Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, concerned the effect on juries and whether they would be reluctant to convict. I recall that during our debates on the English Bill the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated that the practice of defence counsel would be to lay the existence of previous convictions which were of relevance to mandatory sentences before the trial while the questions of guilt or innocence were still live. On the basis of my experience as prosecutor and as defence counsel, I find it difficult to imagine that happening in all but the rarest of cases. Suppose that a man, having previously maintained his innocence, had been convicted of rape by the jury against his evidence. If that fact came out when he was being tried for a second qualifying offence, it is difficult to see how, if he disputed that second qualifying offence, the history of what had happened at the first trial and the fact that he had protested his innocence and been convicted at the first trial, would assist in avoiding conviction. I go further and say that there would be a very strong argument that, if defence counsel deliberately brought that fact out purely for the purposes of avoiding a conviction on the basis that a jury would be reluctant to convict, that would not be a practice which would find approval either with the court or, equally importantly, with counsel or the Solicitor-General's professional colleagues.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mentioned the example of offences separated by a period of 20 years. Such a fact could—I put it no higher than that—justify a successful argument that there were exceptional circumstances. That is precisely the sort of issue that we are leaving to the courts to consider. Equally, the fact that an admonition had been the appropriate penalty on an earlier occasion could indicate that it was worth looking with great care at the circumstances of the

1723
earlier offence to see whether the two justified an argument that exceptional circumstances were to be found.
Mention has been made on more than one occasion about the article in the Herald in the name of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I will have more to say about that in due course in response to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. As far as comparing what was said in that article with what was said by the Minister of State in the English Bill in another place and by the Minister of State, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on this Bill in another place, they were talking about slightly different issues. Both Ministers of State were explaining the Government's approach to exceptional circumstances which were outlined to the Committee this afternoon.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Will the noble and learned Lord give way? I was not discussing what the content of the article was. I put a simple question: did the noble and learned Lord know of this article which was about to be published, and did he, as the senior officer in Scotland, approve of the Solicitor-General going into print in the middle of the debate on a very important Bill in Scotland? It is a simple question which demands a simple answer. Did you approve or did you not?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It is a simple question which demands an answer, to use the words of the noble Lord. Whether it demands an answer or not, I intend to give it. With the permission of the noble Lord, I would like to deal with all of his points at the same time. I have no intention of ignoring the allegation—I have to put it in those terms—that the Solicitor-General attacked the Senator of the College of Justices, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I will invite the Members of the Committee who have not read the article to read it to see whether I am right. I invite the Members of the Committee to consider that it is no more an attack on the senator than some articles to which the noble and learned Lord himself has contributed have been a personal attack on myself.
I turn briefly to deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He asked for some information about the right of appeal which the Lord Advocate recently acquired on unduly lenient sentences. The latest information I have is that since the jurisdiction was introduced there have been a total of 31 appeals. Ten of these have been successful, 10 have been unsuccessful and seven of them were not proceeded with after the judge's full report was made available. I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that, unlike in England and Wales, judges are not required to explain in detail in Scotland why they are imposing a particular sentence. The Crown's practice, which I am sure the noble Lord will well understand, is that when the trial judge or the sentencing judge has had the opportunity of explaining in detail why he imposed the sentence in the light of background
1724
reports or whatever other information he had available, the Crown's appeal is reassessed. There are some three outstanding.
The test for this jurisdiction is a comparatively high one. I understand that it is fairly similar to that which applies in England. The sentence must fall outside the range of sentences which judges at first instance, applying their minds to all the relevant factors, could reasonably have considered appropriate, weight always being given to the views of the trial judge. The appeal court can but will not necessarily pass an additional sentence if it was satisfied that the original sentence was unduly lenient. It goes back to a requirement that it be one which falls below the bottom of the range.
As far as concerns the other procedure to which the noble Lord referred, the sentencing guidelines which are to be found in Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, my regret is that these guidelines have never yet been exercised by the court. I am as keen as anyone that they should be exercised. It will be for the court to decide when dealing with the numerous sentence appeals that are considered by the court every month in Scotland to decide in which cases it would be appropriate to exercise that jurisdiction and which are the ones where guidance would be of assistance.
With the greatest respect, I do not believe that either of these two statutory provisions, whilst they are useful, go anywhere towards providing the additional safeguards which the Government believe will be brought, first of all by automatic life sentences, and secondly by mandatory sentences in drugs cases.
In addition to the determinate part of an automatic life sentence, the period which the judge imposes to punish and deter the individual, there are of course two additional safeguards. One is that the Parole Board will have a say in deciding when it is safe to release the offender. Secondly, he will be subject to life licence thereafter. These are both safeguards which neither of the statutory provisions mentioned would help.
The noble Lord raised the question, why call it a life sentence; why not call it a public safety sentence? That is an interesting point which one could apply to the present system of discretionary life sentences. The Government's position has been to mould the automatic life provisions on the existing system for discretionary life sentences. If one were going to have a different name for Clause 1 offence sentences, then clearly one would have to rewrite a lot of other legislation, and it is not proposed to do that at the present time.
Turning to the points mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I hope he will accept that I have already explained to the Committee how the Government believe that all judicial discretion is not being removed. I fully accept that he has a different view on the matter but, in the light of the decisions which a trial judge or sentencing judge

1725
would have to make, I trust that Members of the Committee will understand and accept my point of view on that matter.
Lord McCluskey: Would the noble and learned Lord say whether he agrees with the following statement in the article by the Solicitor-General for Scotland appearing in the Herald newspaper on 15th February:
"Nothing in the Bill will reduce judicial discretion".
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In my view it can be said that that is correct.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope Members of the Committee will bear with me. At the present time, in dealing with a second offender convicted in the High Court on a second occasion for one of the qualifying offences, the court has to exercise a discretion as to how long the offender should stay in custody for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. That discretion will remain. What the Bill does is require the additional safeguards which follow from an automatic life sentence to be imposed. A view can be taken that it is limiting discretion; a view can be taken that it is not doing so. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will be fair enough to accept this, that when the whole of the Solicitor-General's article is read, whilst it does not espouse views which I know he would share, it is quite wrong to characterise it as an attack on the noble and learned Lord. It is no more than a Member of the Government explaining to the readership of the Herald newspaper—in the way many others have sought to explain to the readership of the Herald newspaper—what their views are on the specific issues that arise in the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
McCluskey: I did not intend to raise the issue but it has become a matter which is trivialising the debate. When I came into the Chamber to speak at Second Reading, the Chamber was packed because the House was then dealing with the firearms legislation. I could not obtain a seat on these Cross-Benches. I asked the doorkeeper where I might sit and he pointed to the fact that the seat next to the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, was free, though it was normally occupied by my noble friend Lord Weatherill. He said to me, "If you are a Cross-Bencher, you cannot get much more Cross-Bench than that"! I therefore sat in that seat.
The article the Solicitor-General wrote in the Herald, which may be a contempt of this House, says as follows:
"The spot from which he [Lord McCluskey] rose to speak, though well to the left"—
I emphasise "to the left"—
"of the Opposition front bench, was still technically part of cross-bench territory. But he had positioned himself as far from the Government as he could get and with his hack to the wall. Perhaps there was some theatre here after all, or at any rate some stagecraft, for Lord McCluskey went on to deliver what was reported as a 'thunderous denouncement' of the Crime and Punishment Bill".
1726
It continued a little later,
"It was a bravura performance, and won admiring reviews in the next day's papers … But judges should be wary of playing to the political footlights".
The suggestion is that by sitting as far away as I could from the Government and as far away as I could from my former noble friends on the Front Bench of the Labour Party, I was playing to the political footlights. That is not just funny; it is close to being contempt of the House. It is deeply offensive and, at the very least, it is snide.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I demur to the noble and learned Lord in those observations. If I could modestly say so, one of the things I have learnt since I came to this Chamber—not that long ago—and one of the things that characterised our deliberations on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, is that a little humour goes a long way to lighten the long evenings. All Benches complimented each other recently on that. If people within the Chamber are entitled to a sense of humour, there may be an argument—I put it no higher—that those outwith can have a sense of humour also.
It may be productive for me to move on to another point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, relating to the 3,300 people at risk The answer is to be found in the misunderstanding which gave rise to the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and myself. If people reoffend; if they go to prison; if there are not enough places for them in prison, then additional prison space will require to be found. Clearly the Government will not bring these provisions into effect unless there is the necessary prison space for anybody convicted.
It is important to bear in mind, when dealing with automatic life sentences, that a person subject to an automatic life sentence need not necessarily spend any longer in prison than he would spend if he were subject to a determinate sentence. My noble friend Lord Carlisle made that point quite clear on repeated occasions when he was criticising the English Bill. He never for one moment suggested that automatic life sentences would necessarily lead to an increase in the prison population.
Perhaps I can deal now with the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. It is fairly unusual for a Government Minister to be asked whether he took part in an off-the-record briefing. It is fairly unusual for an Opposition spokesman to be asked whether he ever took part in an off-the-record or lobby briefing. That is one of the characteristics of Westminster which applies to both this House and to another place. In so far as the question was asked, to which an answer was demanded, I am happy to say and perfectly prepared to say that in the usual terms for a lobby briefing, I took part in such a lobby briefing and explained to the lobby the provisions of the Bill, as any other Government Minster of either main party will have done for the past 50 years.
In relation to the article written by the Solicitor-General, I am equally happy to confirm that that article, having been prepared by the Solicitor-General with assistance from officials, was shown to me before it went out and I demurred to any

1727
suggestion made that it was any more an attack on the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, than any articles about Government Ministers.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I can interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I asked a simple question once, then twice and now a third time. Does the Minister approve of the terms of the article and does he believe it is proper for a Minister of the Crown—namely, the Solicitor-General for Scotland—to accuse a judge of playing political football? Those are two questions which require two simple answers.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I did not approve the article in the sense that I was not asked to approve it. I saw it and it went out in terms which I considered to be unexceptional. It did not criticise the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for playing political football; I regret to say that many others have had occasion to do so. I regret that as much as anybody else did, as I made clear to the House during the Second Reading. I said that I regretted the political controversy which had become associated with certain utterances and certain consultation responses of Senators of the College of Justices when taking part in a debate which I welcomed.
Lord Kirkhill: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way for a moment. Would it not be more gracious for him on this occasion to acknowledge that his colleague's article was a disgrace? It was not a political disgrace taken in isolation. But it is a disgrace in this sense: the Solicitor-General is not a Member of either House and his attack on the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was of such a character as to demean not only the reputation of himself, but of the Lord Advocate's office.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I can only repeat what I said. I do not consider that it did. The Solicitor-General is not a Member of either House; he is a Member of the Government. He is perfectly prepared to speak in public and have articles published in his name. If they happen to criticise the view of a certain Senator of the College of Justices who has himself criticised government policy, then so be it. That does not demean his office; on the contrary, that is part of his office.
It is a bit of a constitutional anomaly that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General who have to take an independent role in prosecutions, also have to play a part in the running of government and in the politics of government. If one was inventing a constitution, one might not give those differing and to some extent inconsistent roles to a man who has responsibility for prosecution. But that is a system we have had for generations. It is a system in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, took part under the last Labour Administration. I do not believe it demeans his office or my office for him to speak in public, any more than it demeans the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, as a serving judge, to speak in public if he deems it appropriate to do so.
1728
Finally, before inviting the Committee not to support this amendment, perhaps I may mention two small points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. He said that the existence of life sentences was a quid pro quo for doing away with capital punishment. Again, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I disagree with that assertion. Each and every one of the qualifying offences carries with it the maximum penalty of a discretionary life sentence. As far as I recall, none of them—certainly this century—has carried with it any risk of capital punishment. So the suggestion that it was a quid pro quo which in some way is being misused by the Government is not a proposition I can accept. Finally, the noble Lord mentioned the estimates of judicial costs and accommodation. Again, I regret to say that the noble Lord misunderstands the position. The figures in the financial memorandum relate to all the provisions in the Bill, not just to Clauses 1 and 2.
Clearly, when viewed with later amendments, Amendment No. 1 is very important and I invite noble Lords to follow me into the Lobby to vote against it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him one question. Clause 2 of this Bill is rather different from Clause 2 in the English Bill. Did I understand my noble and learned friend to say that this group of amendments would weaken Clause 2, which is the clause dealing with Class A drug trafficking repeat offences?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The short answer is yes.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether he can clarify a point which I am not sure that I have properly followed. In our debates on the English Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did not hesitate to say that the sentencing by judges in England was inadequate in regard to the matters to be the subject of the automatic minimum sentence and the automatic life sentence. She produced figures which were heavily criticised in the House and to which I diffidently referred recently in a letter to The Times. My question is this: is it said that in Scotland the judges are failing adequately to sentence? If so, what is the basis for so saying? And if so, why have there not been more applications by the Lord Advocate to put the matter right? If they are sentencing adequately, what is the need for, and the purpose of, this legislation?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoonsss: The noble and learned Lord's question raises a number of points. As he will recall, one of the clauses in the English Bill deals with the problem of repeat burglary. I may be wrong, but my recollection is that the statistics that were read out by my noble friend Lady Blatch related to the sentences in burglary cases. Again, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for confirming that.
The provisions on mandatory drugs offences are based on legislation which applies in both England and Scotland. The view is taken that it is appropriate

1729
to have similar sentencing provisions north and south of the Border for a statute which applies north and south of the Border. In addition, there is concern that in some instances—not a huge number—repeat mandatory drugs offenders are not receiving sentences which command public support.
As far as automatic life sentences are concerned, I have some difficulty with the noble and learned Lord's intervention because as I have said already—I do not want to repeat myself—the purpose of those sentences is to give additional safeguards to the community, and not necessarily to lead to individual offenders spending longer in prison. That was made clear in the English Bill and it is a matter of regret if that was not accepted on all sides of the House.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may complete the point. When we were given the statistics for England, a separate set of statistics (quite apart from those for burglary) related to serious sexual and violent offences: 217 were alleged to have occurred in 1994 and only 10 were the subject matter of life sentences. It was pointed out that the Attorney-General, who had the right and the obligation to bring such matters to the Court of Appeal, had done so in only six cases—and in none of them had he asked for a life sentence. I raise the point to discover whether there is a similar alleged dissatisfaction about inadequate sentencing because each and every one of those offences carries a potential life sentence.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: To be quite frank, there is some dissatisfaction. Indeed, I commented on that at Second Reading. Since the Secretary of State for Scotland brought forward his proposals and published the consultation papers and the White Paper, it has become clear to anybody reading the newspapers or taking note of any section of the media that there is such a concern. However, as I have said, that concern can be met in a variety of ways, one of which is by the provisions set out in Clauses 1 and 2.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Does my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate realise that in his answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner he said that one of the purposes of the Bill was that the Government could see advantage, in relation to Clause 2, in having similar provisions for both England and Scotland? If that is so, surely my noble and learned friend should be inviting the Committee to pass the amendment as that would then bring the Bill into line with the amendment that was passed to the English Bill. The Commons would then have the opportunity to make the same decision on both Bills rather than decide in different ways on different Bills.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Game, set and match!
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: No, it is not quite game, set and match—and for reasons of which those sitting opposite are well aware. The Committee will recall that when a similar amendment to the English
1730
Bill was tabled in Committee it was not grouped with an amendment similar to Amendment No. 14. If the Government were to lose the vote on this amendment, the convention is that we would accept defeat on the subsequent amendment. That means that the Bill would end up differently from what is proposed. If there is a problem with correspondence between north and south of the Border, don't blame me!
Lord McCluskey: With respect, I think that the Committee should know that the Lord Advocate is wrong in that regard. I have the grouping paper with me. It was written in my absence, but it states:
"It is … open to any Peer to speak to an amendment in its place in the Marshalled List".
The grouping is of no significance at all; it is only a matter of convenience. Whether or not the Committee decides to pass this amendment, it is left free to pass, not to consider or not to pass Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 47 and 48. The Lord Advocate is simply wrong on that point.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be happy to explain that on this occasion, for once, the Lord Advocate is correct.
Lord Sewel: It may be helpful if my comments relate to Amendment No. 1 and the Bill as drafted. Following some of the comments that have been made, perhaps I should make it clear where we on this side of the Committee stand on the amendment. We have constructed and phrased Amendment No. 1 quite deliberately to achieve a purpose. That purpose is to maintain judicial discretion within the framework of an expectation of an automatic sentence. The amendment seeks to provide the right degree of discretion and the right degree of flexibility. That is the purpose and essence of Amendment No. 1 in its entirety.
I have listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said about judicial discretion as it now stands. I am in a complete fog. At one moment the noble and learned Lord appears to be saying that the view of the Solicitor-General that nothing in the Bill will reduce judicial discretion is correct and at another moment he supports the view of the Minister of State in the other place that exceptional circumstances will be construed very narrowly. I cannot resolve those two totally different positions in one compatible, coherent sentence. It is not resolved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate saying in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that his total discretion is not taken away. What the amendment seeks to do is to give clear guidance and power to the court:
"… the court shall have regard to the specific circumstances which … relate to any of the offences or to the offender; and … make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances".
That is where we stand and what we believe justice cries out for. We shall ask the Committee to support it.

1731
Much has been made of the claim of the need to ensure that the English, Welsh and Scottish legislation proceeds step by step. I believe that over the next few weeks and months we shall hear much of the value of this House as a revising Chamber for Scottish legislation. Given the precedent of the view of the House on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, I trust that the Committee will demonstrate a robust capacity to act as a revising Chamber on Scottish legislation and support the amendments. I commend the amendments to the Committee. In so doing, I move Amendment No. 1. I have listened to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said in relation to Amendment No. 14. I give notice that I shall not move Amendment No. 14.
4.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Glenamara, L.

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ailesburym, M.

Grey, E.

Alderdice, L.

Halsbury, E.

Aldington, L.

Hampton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hamwee, B.

Avebury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Barnett,L.

Haskel, L.

Bath, M.

Hayman, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayter, L.

Berkeley, L.

Healey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blease, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hooson, L.

Calverley, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howell, L.

Carlisle, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hughes, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carter, L.

Ilchester, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Clancarty, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kennet, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Desai, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lowry, L.

Donoughue, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ezra, L.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

McNally, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mar and Kellie, [Teller.]

Gainsborough, E.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Meston, L.

Geraint, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Molloy, L.

1732

Monkswell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Monson, L.

Simon, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Palmer, L.

Swinfen, L.

Peston, L.

Taverne, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Rea, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Richard, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Thurso, V.

Rochester, L.

Tope, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell, E.

Waverley, V.

St John of Bletso, L

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sewel, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shannon, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gainford, L.

Addison, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ailsa, M.

Geddes, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Granard, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Attlee, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harlech, L.

Beloff, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Birdwood, L.

Haslam, L.

Blatch, B.

Hemphill, L.

Bowness, L

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Holderness, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Hood, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Hooper, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Howe, E.

Burnham, L.

Huntly, M.

Butterworth, L.

Kitchener, E.

Byford, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lindsay, E.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Camock, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Long, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Lucas, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Luke, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Clitheroe, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Coleridge, L.

McConnell, L.

Courtown, E.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Cox, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

[Lord Chancellor.]

Crawshaw, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Manton, L.

Davidson, V.

Marlesford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mersey, V.

Denbigh, E.

Middleton, L.

Denham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Milverton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mottistone, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mountevans, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Erroll, E.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E

O'Cathain, B.

Flather, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Oxfuird, V

1733

Pender, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Pym, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Quinton, L.

Strange, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Reay, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Rees, L.

Sudeley, L.

Renton, L.

Teviot, L.

Romney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Tollemache, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trefgame, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Sandfond, L.

Vivian, L.

Sandys, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Selborne, E.

Wise, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.1 p.m.
Clause 1 [Imprisonment for life on further conviction for certain offences]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("18") and insert ("21").
The noble and learned Lord said: As the Bill presently stands, a person who has attained the age of 18 and has a conviction in the High Court for any qualifying or relevant offence must be sent to prison for life. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the danger that we might have to send substantial numbers of young people aged between 18 and 21 to prison for life.
Let me give an example. Of course one can give many different examples. But at the moment—I have had such a case within the past 12 months—a person aged 14 or 15 can be indicted by the Lord Advocate in the High Court on a charge of rape. He may be acquitted on the charge of rape but convicted under Section 5(1); namely, of having intercourse with a girl under the age of 13; or he may be convicted in certain circumstances of lewd and libidinous practices. Such a person is then qualified for life imprisonment. As I mentioned earlier, if he then goes out and becomes involved in an ordinary pub brawl at the age of 18—these are extremely common in our modern cities, not least in Scotland—and in the course of a fight inflicts a facial wound on someone else, he may be convicted in the High Court of assault to severe injury which is a second qualifying offence. The judge is then obliged to send him to prison for life unless the circumstances are exceptional.
There is nothing exceptional about fighting in a pub in Glasgow or Dundee or, for that matter, in Edinburgh or Aberdeen. There is nothing exceptional about cutting someone's face. Some people call it the "Glasgow kiss" if one has a scar on one's face. There is nothing exceptional about it. Similarly, there is nothing exceptional about the kind of lewd and lib conviction of which I have spoken. It is not uncommon.
So one may say that this is a common enough situation. If the case is indicted in the High Court, then the judge is obliged to send that person to detention in a young offender institution, I think it is. One could have it the other way around. There might be an old
1734
conviction for assault to severe injury indicted and convicted in the High Court and a second for lewd and libidinous practices. Do we really despair of the possibilities of reform and rehabilitation in such a way that we must give life imprisonment to such a person, or, indeed for that matter, to almost any of these people aged 18, 19 or 20, who appear not uncommonly in our courts?
I want to ask the Lord Advocate a question. I hope that he will answer it with his customary thoroughness and precision. Who was consulted about this proposal? I have before me the White Paper entitled Crime and Punishment, published in June 1996 (Cmnd. 3302), and it does not seek consultation on this matter. The only consultation is mentioned in paragraph 17.6.1 where the Government invite comments on some of the proposal contained in the White Paper, and in that paragraph are the offences which could trigger a life sentence. So there was no suggestion of consultation on this matter.
I should like to know who was consulted; when was the consultation; and what were the responses. I should like to know whether there was any support from any outside body, whether it be the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates, the judiciary, SACRO, the Howard League, the prison governors, the chief officers of police, or anyone, for this proposal in relation to sending 18, 19, or 20 year-olds to prison for life in the circumstances envisaged by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: This is an important amendment which has the support of this side of the Committee. It is linked with Amendment No. 3. The objective behind that amendment is to have a starting point for the Bill's operation, assuming that it ever becomes an Act, and to give some degree of certainty, if that is possible, within the context of the Bill. In due course, I shall beg to move Amendment No. 3.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The amendment is grouped with my Amendment No. 9 which amends the new Section 205A. I believe that 21 is too young for a mandatory life sentence to be usefully imposed. It will be counter-productive to do so. SACRO agrees with me. I must declare that I have worked for SACRO as a project officer on an intensive probation project in Falkirk, but I do not work for it now.
The differences between those aged 21 and 25 are substantial. We can accept that at the age of 25 almost everyone has achieved full adulthood, formed opinions, and must be fully culpable. The age of 22 is the average age of leaving home in Scotland; and the age of 25 is when one becomes a mature student. In a survey I carried out as a prison social worker I noted that the average age of people convicted in Inverness prison was 25. Therefore half the Scottish population was younger than 25 at the point of conviction. In particular the assertion that most prisoners are younger than 25 at the point of conviction suggests strongly that criminal behaviour is grown out of. Doubt can be sown in an offender's mind about the downside to his or her offending behaviour. Too much will be lost. This is straightforwardly a cost benefit analysis, and it tends to work. Many young offenders are successfully enabled to

1735
reduce their offending through support and counselling. Addressing their offending behaviour and its often appalling consequences is the real task.
Research suggests that the longer a young offender is kept out of prison, the less likely it is that offending will continue beyond the age of maturity. The contamination effect of imprisonment is usually counter-productive and all-pervasive. Imprisonment delays the progress of the next phase of an individual's maturity. I hope that Members of the Committee will support my Amendment No. 9.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 3. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, did less than justice to that amendment, which comes from the Law Society of Scotland and makes an interesting point. It suggests that in that respect, the Bill is retrospective legislation because people become liable to a penalty because of an offence which was committed before the Bill was enacted. At a slightly different level, that reminds me of the War Crimes Act. I shall be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend has to say on that. I am sure that he will be aware of the Law Society of Scotland's anxieties about that issue. I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, did not speak to the amendment but he did not and I felt that I should mention it.
As regards the age of offenders, again, I shall be interested to hear my noble and learned friend's reply. We shall be keen to make up our minds about what is right in that regard when we have heard from my noble and learned friend.
Lord Sewel: I too should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 41. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, anticipated my contribution. These amendments seek to deal with the apparent problem of retrospection. Clearly there is a difficulty if an offence and conviction is recorded at some significant time in the past under a totally different sentencing regime and a different climate and then in the future, when the other triggering offence is committed, that old offence, as I say committed under a totally different sentencing regime, is then brought into account.
Therefore, Amendments Nos. 3 and 41 seek to remove the possibility of automatic mandatory sentences being applied where the initial offence took place before 1st January 1998. That deals with the problem of retrospection and I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As Members of the Committee will appreciate, many of the points which arise on this series of amendments were discussed in some detail in Committee in another place. But they raised important concerns and I am happy to address them again.
Clearly, the Bill sets one set of ages for which the automatic provisions would not apply. There is a difference between us as to what that age should be.
1736
Amendment No. 2 and the consequential Amendment No. 10 seek to increase the minimum age from 18 to 21 years. The Government believe that 18 is an appropriate lower age limit and I shall explain why in a few moments. Indeed, arguments were considered for setting the limit at the lower age of 16 but they were rejected because children up to the age of 16 are dealt with mostly by the children's hearings system and only the very few who commit the most serious offences are ever prosecuted in the criminal courts. Therefore, that is one substantial argument to be borne in mind.
Another reason is that persons up to the age of 18 can be subject to supervision requirements under the children's hearings provisions. Therefore, the Government propose that that should be the lower limit at which the commission of an offence will trigger an automatic life sentence. Your Lordships will wish to bear in mind that those provisions will apply only to those who have already been convicted in the High Court of a qualifying offence and who have served any custodial sentence imposed before there is an opportunity to re-offend. Therefore, the provisions are unlikely to apply to many people at the age of just 18.
To go further and limit the age at which a second or further relevant offence can be committed to the age of 21 would disapply the provisions to those who are most frequently involved in criminal activity. Statistics indicate that the peak age for offending is about 18 to 19 years of age.
The Government believe that it is entirely reasonable to expect persons of 18 years and above to appreciate the consequences of their actions and to be held fully responsible for re-offending which involves serious sexual and violent offences which justify prosecution in the High Court. Someone who has shown himself capable of such serious re-offending can present just as great a risk to the public as a person aged 21 or over. The public expect to be protected from such individuals.
The other amendments to Clause 1 seek to go much further than that by wiping away an offender's record prior to the age of 21 years. Those amendments would mean that only offences committed after the offender had reached the age of 21 would count for the purposes of the automatic life provisions.
It is not clear whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, means to provide that only offences committed after the provisions had come into force should count or not. Amendment No. 7 leaves in the proviso that it does not matter whether previous offences were committed before or after the coming into force of these provision, whereas Amendment No. 6 deletes that clarificatory part of the text and leaves the position unclear. Amendment No. 3 provides that only convictions obtained on or after 1st January 1998 will be relevant.
The amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is rather curious as it prevents the High Court from passing a sentence of imprisonment for life on an offender who otherwise qualifies for an automatic life sentence unless he has attained the age of 25 years. It does not change the part of Clause 1 that requires the court to pass a sentence of detention for life on a

1737
qualifying offender who is either aged 18 or over but is under 21 years. The offender aged between 21 and 24 who is convicted for a second time of a serious sexual or violent offence committed between the ages of 21 and 25 would therefore be left in a sentencing limbo.
In respect of the provisions in Clause 2 for a minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment for repeated drug trafficking offences, Amendment No. 42 seeks to create a similar restriction. The amendment would allow the court to ignore any convictions obtained prior to the commencement of this clause which the offender might have for a Class A drug trafficking offence.
Amendment No. 41 would have the effect that the third conviction would have to be obtained on or after 1st January 1998. As such, I am not clear what helpful purpose that is intended to achieve. It may be that its intended effect is that previous convictions should qualify only if they have been obtained on or after that date. If that is the case, I should have to resist it for the same reasons that I am resisting Amendment No. 42.
The Bill as it stands provides that convictions for appropriate offences may count as qualifying convictions for the purposes of automatic life or minimum sentences irrespective of the age of the offender at the time when he committed the offence in question and irrespective of the date of commission. However, none of the mandatory penalties can be imposed unless the offender was aged 18 years or more when he committed the final qualifying offence.
Members of the Committee may argue that these proposals are unfair because they contain an element of retrospection and that, what an offender has done, no matter how serious, before he or she is 21, should be ignored. I cannot agree. We are not talking about retrospection in the true sense. When these provisions come into force, everyone who has a previous qualifying conviction will be put on notice that any further offending could result in an automatic sentence, in the event of conviction and in the event of "exceptional circumstances" not being established. There has to be further offending on behalf of the offender before the provisions can apply. If an offender keeps out of trouble, he will not be affected by the provisions of the Bill to any extent.
I believe that it would also be helpful to consider the implications of the amendments. As we have already discussed, Clause 1 covers serious sexual and violent offences, while Clause 2 deals with persistent serious drug traffickers. The Government do not propose that an automatic sentence should be imposed on an offender who is under 18, but if, for example, a juvenile rapes as a 16 or 17 year-old, or is convicted of one of the other serious violent or sexual offences set out in the schedule and then commits another rape or another similar offence when he is 18 years or over, we believe that an automatic life sentence should be imposed for the protection of the public. The part which has to be served for punishment and deterrence is for the judge to decide. He may be open to argument that it should be lower than if the offender were an older person. However, that would be a matter for the judge to decide in the light of all the information placed before him.
1738
The purpose of Clause 1 is to ensure that offenders of 18 or over who have been convicted for at least the second time of a serious sexual or violent offence are not released from custody until the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe to do so. It also seeks to ensure that, when offenders are released from custody, they are subject to life licence supervision to make sure that they do not re-offend. On that basis, it seems to the Government that the offender's age or the date on which the first offence is committed should not require to be above 18, let alone above 21. I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will not seek to press their amendments.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, asked me a question about the issue of consultation and invited me to give him a full reply. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord is aware of the history of events as well as anyone else in the Chamber. He will no doubt be aware of the terms of the consultation paper which did not mention the issue of automatic life sentences. Indeed, he drew attention to the fact that no invitation was sought in the White Paper for consultation responses on that issue.
The Government have never shirked from accepting that their decision to adopt this policy was not one that was set out in the original consultation paper. They do not shirk from accepting that the White Paper did not specifically ask for consultation responses, although I have to say that it received a number including, as I recollect, one from the noble and learned Lord. Although I do not have all the relevant details with me today, it is correct to say that those who sent in responses did not all offer their support.
As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord's question proceeds on the premise that before a government can bring forward policies in legislation and seek to have that legislation approved before Parliament, they must have consulted in detailed. Obviously, if a government have consulted in detail and have wide-ranging support, that may assist them with the Bill's passage through Parliament. However, the Government do not suggest that that is so in this case. We suggest that the proposals were put before another place and, as I made clear on Second Reading, they received support there.
In my submission, every government is entitled to do that. That is what the Government are doing with the present proposals. It is open for noble Lords on all sides of the Committee to criticise the proposals if they wish to do so. However, the Government stand by them and invite Members of the Committee to have regard not only to what has been said in this Chamber but also to have regard to the extent to which the proposals have received support elsewhere.
I believe that I dealt with the problem of retrospection which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, raised and that may leave only the question raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. However, I hope that what I said earlier means that I have fully answered her query. If not, no doubt

1739
my noble friend will write to me and we can proceed further. Having said that, I invite Members of the Committee to reject Amendment No. 2.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that I agree with him in that I did leave out a consequential amendment which is necessary to make sense of Amendment No. 9. Having said that, perhaps I may return to the helpful remarks that the noble and learned Lord made about notifying the 3,300 qualifying offenders. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee to what lengths the Government will go to notify those people; for example, will they do so by letters to the last known addresses of such offenders, will it be by newspaper advertising campaigns, or what? Perhaps the Minister can help us in that respect.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Earl has made an interesting suggestion. I must confess that we had not thought of sending recorded delivery letters to each and every one of them. I suspect that advertising in newspapers is unnecessary because if anyone reads newspapers in Scotland and is liable to read an advertisement, he or she will certainly have read the vast coverage that the proposals have attracted. In the fullness of time, when the individual sections of the Act are brought into force, I have no doubt that similar press attention will be focused upon them. However, it might be imprudent for me to speculate as to whether that would be generated by articles written by individuals.
Lord McCluskey: As I have already indicated, I have no responsibility for the grouping of the amendments. I find the question of retrospection to be a separate one. Therefore, I propose to deal with it separately in relation to another amendment. However, at this stage, I shall say only that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is perfectly correct to say that there are people who are now at risk—that is, the 3,300 that were specified in the Written Answer.
Those people are facing a "one strike and you are out" situation. We are familiar from California and from about 35 or 36 other states in the USA with "three strikes and you are out", but these people are facing just one strike. I do not suppose too many of them study closely articles written by law officers in the Herald and I do not suppose that many of them would have picked up the fact that they are at risk. Nevertheless, they will find out when they engage in a fight in a pub and cut someone's face and thereby stand at risk of being convicted of assault to severe injury.
Of course the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is right to say that very few young people are indicted in the High Court, but some are. I, myself, have presided over three such trials within the past two or three years. It may well be, and it commonly is, that a person indicted for one trial in the High Court is not convicted of that crime but is convicted of a lesser one. For example, if you are indicted for the crime set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 5A to Section 205A—namely, "rape or attempted rape"—you can be convicted of an
1740
offence under Section 5(1) of the Act. Alternatively, you might be convicted of assault to severe injury in certain circumstances. Therefore, you can get a conviction in the High Court, although you would not normally be sent there for that type of offence. Therefore many people are at risk.
On the question of retrospection at the present time—this was true when I was in practice in the courts—it did not matter all that much whether one pleaded guilty to assault to severe injury or assault to injury because the judge had the medical report in front of him and he had the photographs. One might take the word "severe" out, or one might not. One might prefer to leave it in and take out the words "permanent disfigurement" or some such other modification. Many people were advised to plead guilty to charges of the kind that are now listed in the schedule. They would never have dreamt of pleading guilty to those charges if they had known they would be qualifying offences for the purposes of what is to be new Section 205A. Undoubtedly there is an element of retrospection.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has made it plain—as he intends to do today—that no one was consulted. Of course I know the history; the history is well known to everyone, including those who, like myself, have read the proceedings in the other place. Several weeks before these announcements were made the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he did not believe in mandatory sentencing. Then there was the tragic case of Mhairi Julyan where the girl was murdered by a man who had been released shortly beforehand by the then Lord Advocate because he thought there was insufficient evidence against him. He had previously been released under certain provisions which obtained before the 1993 Act. As I understand it, that caused such an outrage that the Secretary of State for Scotland announced, without consulting anyone, that he intended to introduce this provision. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who is frowning, will be able to confirm that that is so.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It might be of assistance to the Committee if the noble and learned Lord gave full details of the record of the individual concerned, and referred in particular to the fact that he had been convicted twice for rape. He received 10 years for the first rape and 10 years for the second rape. That might be of some assistance to the Committee in considering the merits or otherwise of the proposals which are encapsulated in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord McCluskey: Of course I am entirely in agreement with the noble and learned Lord that that was an appalling case and that it involved an appalling person. He received two sentences of 10 years' imprisonment for rapes. He should never have come out. However, I am saying that it was that one case which prompted the Secretary of State for Scotland to announce this measure. He did not consult anyone. As far as I know, he did not consult the police or the Parole Board. It is the Parole Board, incidentally, which is given the responsibility nowadays of saying whether it

1741
is safe to let a person out. Just think of that responsibility. Every time the Parole Board is faced with a violent prisoner who has been sentenced to life imprisonment under the provisions of this clause, it will have to decide whether it is safe to let him out. If it lets him out, and if he then commits another appalling crime—as some of them inevitably will—the Parole Board will get the blame. I should have thought it would be sensible to consult the Parole Board as to whether or not it had any mechanism or means whereby it could predict the future behaviour of persons who had been in prison for 10 or 12 years under a provision of the kind we are discussing.
The point that I have consistently sought to make is that the criminal justice system of Scotland has had, as one of its principles—endorsed not just by Baron Hume, as I said in my Second Reading speech, but by the previous Secretary of State, Mr. Ian Lang—the principle that judges should be accorded judicial discretion. The decision to revolutionise that system was taken by one man on the basis of one terribly tragic and hard case. It is a clear example that hard cases can make bad law. As far as I am aware, this has not been supported by anyone. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate unfortunately did not have the responses to hand. I have most of them here. He said that the responses did not strongly support the Government, or words to that effect. I wonder whether there was any support at all for this provision which is the subject matter of this amendment, or whether there was any consultation with the Parole Board, or with anyone else.
Perhaps the Committee would care to read the Scottish White Paper which states that the Government consulted about this and that. Paragraph 8.3 states:
"However the Government considers that more needs to be done … the Government therefore proposes that, where an offender is convicted in the High Court of a serious violent or sexual offence and has a previous conviction for a similar offence, the court should be required to impose a life sentence".
The Government sought no consultation on that. Such consultation as was offered received a negative response from the likes of me and the Government have pressed on with it just the same. That is not the way to alter the criminal justice system of the country, and particularly at a time such as the present when unfortunately the criminal justice system gets dragged into the political arena and people adopt strange attitudes to it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I am not quite sure that I followed the explanation. I shall read with interest what he has said and perhaps return at another stage if I think that necessary.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line I, leave out ("or for any relevant offence").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is concerned with an important point which was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. It appears to me to be the subject of an amendment by the Government—Amendment No. 38. Accordingly, it is a matter which I think might be better dealt with at a later stage. I simply included this as a probing amendment. However, I take that word as an invitation to myself to say one thing. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate quite rightly points out that my amendments are in some instances defective in the matter of draftsmanship. I confess to that; I am almost proud of the fact that I am not a good draftsman. However, I certainly do not table amendments in the hope that they can be accepted in that state. I table them to discover the Government's thinking and to probe what the Bill is about. If the Committee persuades the Government, or the Government accept that an amendment is in principle sound, I trust that the numerous draftsmen who sit somewhere to the left or behind—when I say left, there is nothing significant about that—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will assist him to produce a better result than I could possibly do.
There is one other point. When I asked my question about the number of people who had a previous conviction which included a qualifying offence as defined under Clause 1 of the Bill—or new Section 205A of the 1995 Act—the answer, as I said, was 3,300. Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate any information about how many people have been convicted of a relevant offence in England or Northern Ireland who also qualify, so as to bring the numbers up to around 15,000? I shall return to this amendment when we discuss Amendment No. 38. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment raises again the question of removal of discretion. There is a danger that those who do not read the Bill but simply read press reports or articles written by various people about what the Bill contains may not fully understand what the Bill contains.
Paragraph 8.4 of the White Paper which I have already quoted states that,
"The Government therefore proposes that, where an offender is convicted in the High Court of a serious violent or sexual offence and has a previous conviction for a similar offence, the court should be required to impose a life sentence".
The Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill states:
"Clause 1 requires the High Court of Justiciary to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on an offender who commits a qualifying serious sexual or violent offence where the offender has been previously convicted on indictment in that court for such an offence or been convicted for a similar offence elsewhere in the United Kingdom".
I believe that there is a danger that people reading that, or some report of it in the newspaper, might suppose that in terms of that section in order to be qualified to

1743
be sent to prison for life, one must commit a second offence which is cognate with the first. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to make it plain that the meaning of the Bill, and of the 1995 Act once amended, is that any person who commits any one of the 19 or so different offences listed as qualifying offences, and has already a conviction for any of them or certain other offences listed as relevant offences, will be liable to be sent to prison for life, and the offences need not be cognate.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner asked the Government whether sentences for such offences were regarded as inadequate. I know of no evidence that inadequate sentences are being imposed in the High Court by judges of the High Court in respect of such cases. Of course there are one or two cases in which the judge takes the view that he should exercise a degree of leniency which the Lord Advocate thinks unduly great. Those cases can be, and are, taken back to the court. We have heard the statistics. The court sometimes agrees and sometimes does not agree with that suggestion. That is a perfectly sensible route to ensure reasonable consistency and the right degree of severity.
If the Government think that the word "unduly" in the present statute gives them too high a hurdle to cross, they can choose another word and bring more cases to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could criticise the Court of Criminal Appeal for being unduly lenient in any of the cases. I do not understand the problem that is being met by the provisions of the Bill. Accordingly, I seek to move the amendment which prevents the introduction of mandatory sentencing and enables the High Court judge to exercise his discretion. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My amendments, Amendments Nos. 16 and 49, are fairly similar and are grouped with Amendment No. 8.
Amendment No. 16 amends the new Section 205A(3); and Amendment No. 49 amends the new Section 205B(3). The purpose is to ensure that discretion in justice remains a central tenet of the Scottish criminal justice system. Once again I find myself in agreement with SACRO on this matter. I assert that it would run counter to the principles of justice to require an automatic sentence of life imprisonment without all the circumstances of the offence and offender being taken into account.
During deliberations on the first amendment, it struck me that we need to define the word "exceptional". We have had suggestions that "exceptional" provides an extremely tight and rare distinction; and that it offers all the discretion that judges already have. I can see that at a later stage we must suggest a proper definition of exceptional—and that will no doubt take up an hour or so.
As amended, the Bill will allow, and indeed encourage, the courts to pass more life sentences for a wider range of second or repeat offences. I do not have a problem with that. However, I believe that judges should
1744
retain discretionary powers on these extended sentences. I assert that little will be served by meeting one injustice with another.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The Committee will appreciate that the amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, are grouped with other amendments. However, I take it from the silence that we shall come to those amendments in due course. If not, it might be helpful to be corrected.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may explain to the noble and learned Lord that in this Committee one can move one amendment, and one amendment only, at a time. The grouping is to indicate informally to Members of the Committee that those amendments could usefully be discussed together. However, it is not a grouping which has my support in the sense that no one asked me for it and I cannot make sense of the grouping produced at 2 p.m. this afternoon, some time after I arrived from Edinburgh. The amendments must be voted upon or put to the Chamber one at a time.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has been in the House for a much longer period than I have, although I have attended here for some time. However, it is for the convenience of the Committee either to operate the groupings, or for any noble Lord who wishes an exception to that, to say precisely what he or she is doing so that we all know what we are talking about. We have had already one or two muddles. I have some difficulty in following which amendments people are speaking to. If we can follow the groupings, it is helpful. But where the subjects are different—the noble and learned Lord apparently was not involved in the decision—I am sure that the Committee is willing to discuss the amendments separately. But to expedite business it helps to operate the groupings whenever possible.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It is sometimes enough to understand the intricacies of the legislation before the House without descending into the intricacies of the usual channels. If I have misunderstood the position which I had understood was for the convenience of your Lordships, I apologise to the Committee.
I deal, therefore, with Amendments Nos. 8 and 13, to which I understand the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, spoke, and Amendments Nos. 16 and 49 to which I understand that the noble Earl spoke.
The Government's view is that Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 would simply state in a roundabout and complicated way what the High Court is already able to do: that is to impose a discretionary life sentence following on a conviction for one of the listed serious sexual or violent offences set out in the schedule. As I have already indicated to the Committee, all of those offences attract a maximum penalty of life

1745
imprisonment on conviction, whether as common law offences or as statutory offences, irrespective of the existence or otherwise of any previous conviction.
The purpose of Clause 1 is to establish, as we have already discussed, that life should be an automatic sentence imposed for repeat offenders. Removing the obligation to impose a life sentence would mean that such offenders might receive a determinate sentence at the end of which they would require to be released, as happened in the case referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, regardless of whether they posed a threat to the public.
I was slightly surprised to listen to the detail of the criticism the noble and learned Lord made about the lack of consultation with the Parole Board. I can well see the force of the argument about consulting with the Parole Board as to whether it believes automatic life sentences are a good thing or not. But to consult the Parole Board as to whether it has procedures by which it can assess whether or not it is safe to release an offender into the community is to ask a question that is unnecessary. That is what the Parole Board does at the moment. "Risk assessment", as it was somewhat curiously referred to during discussions on the English Bill, is what the board is about in that part of its duties. By procedures which will be well-known to the noble and learned Lord, the board goes about building up a picture of an individual offender, by obtaining reports from various people, by a Parole Board member interviewing the offender possibly on a number of occasions, and amassing information upon which to carry out a risk assessment. That is why the Government believe that this "first safeguard", as I referred to it, is a valid one, because it would involve the Parole Board applying a check that it currently has to apply in other circumstances.
Removing the obligation to impose a life sentence would deprive society of that further check. If the check is there, release would not take place until the Parole Board is satisfied that a particular offender no longer poses a threat to society. In addition, there will be the continuing supervision to which, again, I have already referred.
I remind Members of the Committee that Section 2(5) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 sets down the current statutory position, to the effect that the Parole Board requires to be,
"satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined,"
before issuing a direction to the Secretary of State that the Secretary of State should order the release of the individual.
I turn briefly to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. These, as I understand them, are consequential amendments which seek to replace the court's obligation to impose the automatic sentences set out in Clauses 1 and 2. On that basis, I am sure the noble Earl will agree that I have probably said enough to explain why they are unacceptable to the Government.
Lord Hope of Craighead: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he will help me on a
1746
point touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, relating to the explanation for the decision to introduce this whole range of mandatory life sentences. As I understood the explanation given, it was that the decision was a reaction to a tragic case involving the crime of rape. I could understand the decision if it had concentrated on the problem raised by that particular case. Indeed, I think I could understand it if the list had been kept comparatively short and dealt with other cases that have caused concern in the past, cases where culpable homicide has been committed on two separate occasions by the same offender. The point I have always found very difficult to understand is why it was decided to expand the list to such an extraordinary extent.
I use the word "extraordinary" because two features come to mind. The first is that it looks very like an attempt to copy, word for word, the list that is given in the English Bill, the Crime (Sentences) Bill, although the wording has had to be changed to accommodate the differences between crimes north and south of the Border. That is the first characteristic which I find not particularly attractive, given that it is the only reason advanced so far for the decision to place this measure before the Committee. Secondly, our list of offences has expanded as time has gone on in a way that has not been reproduced in the English legislation.
The feature that causes me some concern and to which I shall return later is the need to expand the list to create a sensible structure upon which the whole sentencing practice of the court can proceed. It strikes me as a matter that merited more careful thought—which so far as I am aware the whole subject did not receive—before the announcement was made that this was a policy that the Government proposed to follow. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate help me by explaining whether there was any cause other than that one case, which we all accept was so tragic, which led to the decision to take the matter to the extent now before us in the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I assure the Committee that the issue was given full consideration within government. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would not expect me to divulge the full extent of the detail of discussion that took place. However, I assure him that the decision was not, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, took it to be, the decision of one man, namely the Secretary of State, on the basis of one case, which admittedly was a very serious one and which, as Members of the Committee will accept, falls fairly and squarely within the problem that one seeks to address. It was a decision of government, taking the advice of all those who contribute to the decisions of government. It came along after the Maguire case became public. I wish to dispel any suggestion that it was just the result of a rush of blood to the head of the Secretary of State in the light of matters of which he became aware when the case became public and of media attention to that individual case.

1747
The English proposals had been around for some time and had been considered by government. People were addressing their minds to this issue. Noble Lords may not accept that, but it cannot be disputed that the issue of the automatic life sentence had been considered by government for many months before the Maguire case. The Government took the view that this policy should be encapsulated in Clause 1.
Earlier, I was quite frank in saying that there was not the detailed consultation that many noble Lords and noble and learned Lords would have liked. But there it is. The view is that when we are dealing with repeat offenders who commit serious sexual and violent offences, this is the route that should be followed and it should not be limited to those who commit rape but should cover the broader range of offences set out as qualifying offences—and as "relevant" offences in an amendment that we shall debate in due course.
Having listened to numerous urgent debates on the English Bill and not a few hours on this Bill, I know that no matter how long I talk I shall not convince every Member of the Committee to share the Government's views. However, they were set out in the legislation and were put through another place, where they attracted—I am sorry for reminding noble Lords opposite—a measure of support. That is the basis on which they are brought before this place.
Regarding the matter of the list being longer or, in the words used by the noble and learned Lord, extraordinarily wide, I think he will be the first to admit that to some extent he has contributed to the process, and I fully appreciate why he did so. Obviously, having established the policy that convictions for serious violent and sexual offences in England should have an effect on subsequent convictions in Scotland and the other way round, one looks for as much similarity as one can achieve. It is not possible to construct lists which are a precise mirror image of each other. I hope that, when we come to discuss the detailed amendments setting out the provisions covering qualifying offences and relevant offences, Members of the Committee will be satisfied that the Government's proposals, both in the Bill as currently drafted and in the amendments which I shall move later, achieve as high a degree of mirror image—if that is a correct analogy—as possible. If not, no doubt we can look at that when we come to the amendments. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord as to why the list is not restricted to rape and culpable homicide.
6 p.m.
Lord Hughes: I am interested in Amendment No. 8. Over many years in this House I cannot remember ever seeing an amendment to replace the word "shall" by the word "may"; but there have been innumerable occasions when it has been moved that the word "may" should be replaced by the word "shall". The Government have always argued that from a legislative point of view the word "may" can include the word "shall". Are we to have a new definition to the effect that the word "shall" cannot include the word "may" but the word "may" can
1748
include the word "shall"? Is the meaning of the words "may" and "shall" now to be definitely decided in the way that ordinary people would regard it and not from the point of view of a legislative quirk?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: What is being decided, as I am sure the noble Lord knows well, is how these words would fall to be construed in the Bill. There can be little doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would not move this amendment unless he, as a senator of the College of Justice, anticipates the possibility—to put it no higher—that he and his colleagues would construe the word "shall" in a different way to that in which they would construe the word "may" in the Bill were it become law. What he might do in other legislation is no doubt something that he and I could discuss on different sides of the Bar on another occasion.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may take up two points arising out of these amendments. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in Clause 1(3) the word "may" appears twice, which appears to give discretion. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, wants to replace the word "shall" in subsection (2) with the word "may". It would appear that, for the sake of consistency at least, the word "may" should be the common thread throughout subsections (2) and (3). I do not know whether that appeals to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate or not. Why should the word "may" appear in Clause 1(3) and the word "shall" appear in Clause 1(2)? Perhaps he will consider the point and we can deal with it at another stage.
Amendment No. 38 has been grouped with the present group of amendments. For the avoidance of doubt, will the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate make it clear that we shall have a discussion on Amendment No. 38 in due course? We have been rather floating about between amendments in the discussion. Maybe I have it wrong, but can we have a guarantee that in due course we shall discuss Amendment No. 38?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Yes. The noble Lord raises an understandable concern that we have not discussed Amendment No. 38. The original proposal was that we would discuss it in the group beginning with Amendment No. 4; we did not do so. We shall return to it later, as I understand it. We are currently discussing a group which begins with Amendment No. 8 but, for reasons we have discussed, it has been limited in scope. However, it has never included Amendment No. 38, so now is not the time to discuss that amendment.
Lord McCluskey: If I may, I shall explain to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that in this instance the substitution of the word "may" for the word "shall" is crucial. The word "shall" means that judges are required to impose the sentence specified in the clause. If one replaces the word "shall" with the word "may" it means that they may impose a life sentence but they do not have to do so. The substitution is crucial in this case.

1749
So far as concerns the Parole Board, the Lord Advocate correctly referred the Committee to Section 2(5)(b) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, but I am afraid that for a proper understanding one needs to look at the preceding section. Section 2(5)(b) says that the Parole Board shall not give a direction to the Secretary of State to release a discretionary life prisoner unless:
"the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should he confined".
The Parole Board has a duty under the 1993 Act to consider the question as to the necessity for the protection of the public if the prisoner is confined or released. But subsection (4) provides that:
"Where this subsection applies, the Secretary of State shall, if directed by the Parole Board, release a discretionary life prisoner on licence".
Subsection (5) provides that:
"The Parole Board shall not give a direction under subsection (4) above unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board".
The man who starts the process is the Secretary of State. He requires the Parole Board to consider the matter and, if it makes a judgment about safety favourable to the prisoner, it tells the Secretary of State that he has to release him.
Under this Bill the Secretary of State neatly disappears from the scene and the entire responsibility is landed on the Parole Board. When the period of time prescribed by the judge under the Act has passed, the Parole Board is required to decide whether the person can be released and, if something goes wrong, the Secretary of State can always say, "It wasn't me".
In relation to the consultations that take place within the Government, not only do I not wish to know about them but I shudder to think what effect they would have upon my delicate constitution. I have been a close student of the Secretary of State's pronouncements on the matter and I quote from his speech on the 24th April 1996 to the Scottish Police Federation conference in Peebles:
"Parliament decrees, by statute, the norms of sentencing for crimes. Even in those instances where sheriffs and judges pass sentences whose leniency provokes public outrage, it is Parliament which awarded them the discretion. It is Parliament's right—and duty—to qualify or remove that discretion when public opinion has been persistently scandalised".
That means that by the 24th April the Secretary of State had formed the view that judges in Scotland were exercising such leniency that they were provoking public outrage and persistently scandalising the public. It was in that state of mind that he reacted to the Mhairi Julyan case in June by announcing the present proposals.
The important thing about the reform of criminal justice is that hitherto Parliament largely stayed out of the reform of criminal justice in Scotland until 1980. There were hardly any Acts of Parliament on the subject—very few to do with procedure and some, but not many, to do with imprisonment and sentencing policy. Parliament has now stepped into this matter on a very considerable scale. Since Parliament stepped in,
1750
it has been the invariable practice to consult extremely widely, preferably through the mechanism of a committee like the Kincraig committee. That committee sat for a very long time. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow's committee, it took a lot of evidence and then made recommendations which the Government in part accepted and in part modified. It is that process which has been departed from, which has given rise to such disquiet about the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I point out that my understanding of the correct construction of Section 2 of the 1993 Act does not conform to that explained to the Committee by the noble and learned Lord. It is a complicated matter about which I shall be happy to write to the noble and learned Lord in due course.
However, my understanding is that to comply with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government have had to set up a tribunal, chaired by a judicial member of the Parole Board, to which all discretionary life sentences have to be referred once the determinate part has been served. It is not at the discretion of the Parole Board or the discretion of the Secretary of State when these individual cases come before the judicial tribunal. I am happy to perceive a nod on the part of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, which I hope is one which supports my understanding of the law, which I accept is a somewhat complicated area.
Lord Hope of Craighead: It might assist the noble and learned Lord if I say that the whole thrust of that section was to judicialise the process in the light of the decision to which he referred. The Parole Board has among its members judicial members who fulfil that very function. As I understand Section 2 of that Act, and indeed the amendment to the law which is proposed, the Secretary of State has no function; each step in the whole process of the administration of the life sentence is administered either by a decision by a judge or taken in a manner which is properly described as a judicial manner.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, sits down, is he happy to confirm my understanding of the law that once the determinate period has been served, the prisoner has the right to have his case brought before this tribunal, even though the tribunal has a discretion under Section 2(5)(b) of the Act not to be satisfied that the time has come to release the offender.
Lord Hope of Craighead: That is precisely my understanding. The whole point of the determinate part of the sentence is to fix a period which, as it were, freezes the position; but once that period has been served, there is a right to have the matter considered judicially by the Parole Board.
Lord McCluskey: I shall be happy to receive the letter that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate has promised me. No doubt that is the law

1751
but it does not spring off the page in Section 2 of the 1993 Act. My purpose is not to divide the Committee on a matter of this kind. In fact, I indicate that it is not my intention to divide the Committee at all. In the 12 years since I became a judge, I have never voted in this House in Committee, and I do not intend to do so tonight. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 11
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding subsection (2) above, it shall not be competent for a temporary Lord Commissioner of Justiciary in Scotland to impose a sentence under this section or to preside at a trial of a person on indictment in the High Court in respect of a qualifying offence to which subsection (1) applies.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment deals with an entirely different matter. It is a matter upon which I hope the Committee will have the benefit of the advice of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. Members of the Committee will see from the wording of the amendment that there is reference to a temporary Lord Commissioner of Justiciary in Scotland. Since 1990 a number of people have been appointed as temporary judges of the Court of Session, or temporary Lords Commissioners of Justiciary doing criminal work. Undoubtedly they have been of considerable benefit to the administration of justice in Scotland.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. The confusion which has arisen with these groupings has been, I am sure, much contributed to by my own utterances. But I think, in fact, he is now speaking to Amendment No. 11, not Amendment No. 10 which was the amendment that was called.
Lord McCluskey: Amendment No. 10 was not moved. I do not think the Committee has changed its composition so I will not repeat what I have said. The availability of these temporary judges to sit in criminal trials has been a great boon to the ordinary administration of justice because it gives the administration a great deal of flexibility. However, they were introduced during the time when my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead was the Lord Justice General. I do not want to get this wrong, but I think a decision was taken that these judges should not preside in murder trials. I am not sure whether that applied to any other trials but I believe it applied to murder trials. The thinking behind that included the notion that it would not be entirely satisfactory that a temporary judge should impose a sentence of life imprisonment.
Under Section 205A, as it will be, of the 1995 Act, a life sentence will be mandatory. "Exceptional circumstances" is a very difficult concept, as we shall soon discover, and, of course, the temporary judges are, on the whole, less experienced than the judges who are
1752
full-time Lords Commissioners of Justiciary. Accordingly, it appears to me to be consistent with the current position that they should not be called upon to sit in the High Court and impose life imprisonment in terms of the new section simply because they are not currently allowed to impose life imprisonment in murder cases. That is the reason that I have put forward this amendment.
I know that the Government consulted the present Lord Justice General. He was good enough to write to me yesterday, sending me a copy of a letter which the Lord Advocate undoubtedly has. He indicated that he had consulted with the current Lord Justice Clerk and he came to the view that this was not an amendment which would have their support. He indicated that it would be administratively inconvenient to organise sittings if temporary judges could not be used for this kind of case. He also indicated that, although there would be uncertainty, at least to begin with, as to the meaning of "exceptional" in the phrase "exceptional circumstances", nonetheless, if the judge applied the wrong approach this could be corrected on appeal. In these circumstances, and because of another matter with which I might deal later on, he thought that this was not an amendment that he could support. However, I should be interested, before I decide what to do, to hear the views of others who have experience of this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The question of temporary judges is one which has rather confused me since it was introduced—no doubt the fault is mine. But as I recollect the legislation which introduced the post of a temporary judge, he was given the full powers of a senator of the College of Justice. Anecdotally, I have heard of at least one occasion when the accused, counsel and witnesses were all in the High Court, but because it was either a murder or a rape trial (I cannot remember which) and because only a temporary judge was available, the trial did not proceed. One can imagine the consequences in relation to that.
Could the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate explain, even as a matter of information, why this restriction on presiding over trials is placed upon temporary judges. It seems inconsistent if we are going to have them anyway and they can try attempted murder in the sheriff court; and no doubt they can try attempted rape. But just because the classification of the crime is changed, the judge is not fit, as I understand it, to preside over the full-blown charge of murder or rape. It may very well be that it is costing the country quite a lot of money and inconvenience. I do not offer criticism in any way, except that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said that of course temporary judges are useful in freeing full-time judges; but if what has been said is correct, they seem to be treated as second-class judicial persons. It must be very embarrassing for them, to say the least, to be in that position. If the correct people are being appointed to the post under the terms of the legislation, with the full

1753
powers of a senator of the College of Justice, why not give them the full power? Either that or stop appointing temporary judges.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I wonder whether I may introduce some background information which may assist the noble and learned Lord. The 1990 Act imposed a number of very difficult decisions on me in my administrative capacity as Lord President and Lord Justice General. One of the difficulties that I faced was in giving effect to the measure to which the noble Lord referred; namely, the introduction of temporary Lords Commissioners of Judiciary. It is perfectly true that under the statute they were given all the powers that are given to all Lords Commissioners of Judiciary. But at the same time, there was a question of public confidence and, indeed, a question for the Bench as a whole over the extent to which they felt happy with the measure and were able to give it their full support.
It was in that light, after consulting the then Lord Justice Clerk, that I took the decision that I should give a direction administratively to the principal clerk and his deputies that the temporary judges should not be used in murder trials or rape trials without consulting myself as Lord Justice General. The purpose was to avoid having them sit as judges in those very sensitive cases which in Scotland we describe as "the subject of pleas of the Crown". I also included in the direction that they should not be used in cases where the trials were of unusual complexity. That was designed to deal with the problem of confidence in cases where perhaps a particularly complex trial might be thought to be better handled in the High Court by one of the permanent judges of that court.
Of course, there is a matter of practice and convenience. I am not aware of a case in which a trial had to be cancelled because a temporary judge had been assigned to it. However, I was consulted on one occasion when somebody had pleaded guilty to rape and the only judge available to take the plea without it being adjourned to another court was a temporary judge. I gave my consent, in accordance with the practice note, for that temporary judge to deal with the matter. He imposed a sentence which I do not believe the Lord Advocate thought proper to criticise after the event.
Against that background, let me say that I have not seen the letter from the Lord Justice General; nor, quite properly, did he feel it necessary to speak to me about what he said. But I am not in the least surprised by the words read out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
The Committee will appreciate that there is here a point of principle and a point of practice. So far as concerns the principle, I have no doubt that the Lord Justice General would wish to adhere broadly to the policy devised some years ago. But to lay it down as a statutory requirement that temporary judges should not sit in such cases would create the risk of administrative difficulty. The solution I adopted was one which I thought sufficiently flexible without demeaning the temporary judges who provide a very good service to the court. For myself, I should be happier to leave the
1754
matter on the basis of practice, although I entirely appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It may well be that effect will be given to that in reviewing the practice in the light of the measures which eventually come out of the amendments we are discussing today.
Lord McCluskey: The noble Lord is quite right in relation to the case of murder because he could look at the indictment. He knows that it is a case of murder and can say that as a matter of practice a temporary judge will not sit. But when it comes to a qualifying offence—10 are listed and about 17 are grouped there—he cannot tell whether or not it is a case in which the judge will have to impose a life sentence unless he knows that the accused has a previous conviction for a qualifying and relevant offence. So unless the Lord Justice General is to be privy to the list of previous convictions applicable to every case that may be indicted in the High Court, he cannot apply the practice. For that reason, I feel that the useful administrative distinction drawn between the law and the practice in that case—the case of murder and the case of rape—cannot be applied in this case. I would hope that the noble and learned Lord would acknowledge that right away.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I do not know whether it is proper for me to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about murder trials and rape trials presided over by temporary judges. Either now or at some future date, can he advise me of how many murder trials and rape trials have been presided over by temporary judges? I feel that the answer may be nil. I see that the noble and learned Lord nods his head. That underlines the point I made.
I was careful to say that I spoke anecdotally. I can give the noble and learned Lord the names of the counsel and the temporary judge involved in the postponed trial but I think that it would perhaps be improper to mention them in open Committee, so to speak.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: With regard to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I think that such inquiry ought to be directed at me. I shall ensure that it is passed on to the Lord Justice General so that the inquiry is answered.
As to points which arise out of Amendment No. 11 and which may arise from subsequent amendments, Amendments Nos. 22, 44 and 46, I venture to suggest that the discussion that has just taken place between the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord McCluskey, illustrates the importance and sensitivity of the use of temporary judges in Scotland. It may interest the Committee to know that currently eight persons hold such an appointment. Six of them are senior sheriffs and two are senior members of the Bar. All of them sit in a part-time capacity. Obviously, the two senior members of the Bar are in practice; the other six serve as sheriffs when they are not required to sit in the High Court.
This is not the occasion to discuss the full ramifications of the use of temporary judges. But I believe it is accepted on all sides that the heavy

1755
workload of the courts—both the civil court, the Court of Session, and the criminal court, the High Court of Judiciary—means that there is cause to call upon their services. It is recognised that they make a valuable contribution to the work of the Supreme Court in Scotland.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, explained the practice which he put in place when the relevant legislation (the 1990 Act) came into force. The Government are firmly of the view that it should be left to the court, and in particular to the Lord Justice General, after such consultation that he conducts, whether with his fellow judges or with anybody else, as to what is the best way forward. If there have been practical problems of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, no doubt some regard will be had to them. But the allocation of judges to individual cases and to judicial business in general is not the responsibility of government and, I venture to suggest, is not the responsibility of Parliament in the way that it is focused in this amendment and subsequent amendments.
On the basis of that explanation and of that helpfully provided by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and in the light of the views expressed by the current Lord Justice General in the letter which I have not seen—I do not know whether it was intended to be copied to me but I certainly have not seen it and I was not consulted before it was written—I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it appropriate to proceed with the amendment and subsequent amendments which touch on similar topics.
Lord Kirkhill: As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is about to resume his seat, perhaps I may ask him one question. When he refers to "senior sheriffs", does he include in that phrase sheriffs principal? If so, how many of those are within the six? I ask that question because I worry about the accused. I dislike the thrust of the Bill, as he may understand, and I dislike the concept of the mandatory sentence. But there is the question of the exceptional circumstance and its individual definition.
We heard earlier from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that he has a computer in his home. At the moment, the judges are apparently able—in balance, as I think he said—to reach the mid-point. If he did not exactly say that, it was the emphasis behind his remark. I put the question to him in the light of that background.
Lord Hope of Craighead: Before the noble and learned Lord answers the question, perhaps I can explain just a little more, since I was closely involved in the selection of the sheriffs who were to sit. The sheriffs principal, although they are of course senior to sheriffs, do not exercise day to day criminal jurisdiction. They have many administrative duties to perform. I did not think it right, and I do not believe that my successor thought it right either, to ask them to conduct criminal trials. On the other hand, the 'sheriffs whom I selected—I believe the policy remains the same—were all senior
1756
counsel, all of whom had had experience in the Crown Office and they were all very experienced sheriffs. The great advantage which they had was bringing to bear in criminal trials the background of their experience as sheriffs over a long time.
One feature of our jurisdiction in Scotland is that the procedure which is followed in solemn trials before juries is precisely the same in the sheriff court as it is in the High Court. It was possible for me to call upon a very specialised field of expertise in making my selection, so it may be that with these remarks the noble and learned Lord will feel able to reassure the Committee that these selections are made with great care, that they are made on the basis of experience and, so far as I am aware, they have not shown themselves to have been mischosen in the work which they have done.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments. The selection procedure is similar to that which is followed for the appointment of full-time judges. They are carefully selected. There is no doubt about them having the competence to do the work of the court. However, it is a matter for the court, as I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, indicated, as to whether with particularly sensitive cases it is appropriate to allocate those cases to them. That is a matter which the Government firmly believe should be left to the Lord Justice General to decide. Sheriffs principal have not been appointed for the reasons indicated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and their lack of day to day practical experience in the criminal courts is as good an explanation as one could seek as to why, because of the particular paths their judicial careers have followed, it would not be sensible for them to sit part-time in High Court work where, whether it is murder or rape cases on the one hand, or less serious cases on the other hand, it is nevertheless dealing with very important matters in the lives of those who are accused in the courts of Scotland.
Lord McCluskey: I trust that those who read this debate will understand that the practice hitherto followed whereby temporary judges are not used in cases where the obligation to impose a life sentence would follow conviction can no longer be maintained because of the provisions of Section 205A. We have a situation in which a temporary judge, having before him an ad hoc depute appointed for the week and assisted by a clerk recently promoted from the sheriff court, will preside over one of these cases and impose a life sentence. I do not regard that as very satisfactory but, plainly, there is nothing very much that I can do about it except to draw attention to it. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): If Amendment No. 12 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 inclusive.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("that") to end of line 17 and insert ("it would he in the interests of justice to impose another sentence").
The noble Lord said: I am not too happy about the drafting of this amendment. Rather than "another sentence" it should read "a sentence other than", but I will not detain the Members of the Committee with semantics for the moment.
The Bill envisages a life sentence which is not fixed by law. The Government have it in mind that there can be circumstances in which the mandatory life sentence—the so-called mandatory life sentence—will not be passed. Those circumstances they define by the words "exceptional circumstances". What this amendment and the amendment that is to be discussed with it propose is that the test should not be one of defining exceptional circumstances, but the simple test of what is just and what is not just. If, in the view of the sentencing judge, a sentence would be unjust, then he ought not to pass it. It is a perfectly simple, straightforward test. If the Government reject that as the test it will emphasise to the public at large the point that we have made over and over again, both in connection with this Bill and with the Bill affecting England and Wales, and that is the point that the Government contemplate the passing of unjust sentences. I seek the approval of the Members of the Committee to this amendment on the basis that the test is one of justice or injustice.
"Exceptional circumstances" is a very different concept. The Government say that a judge should not pass the sentence if there are exceptional circumstances. I have listened long and hard to some clarification of what the Government have in mind by that phrase "exceptional circumstances". We know, as the Lord Chief Justice reminded us on the Second Reading of the English and Welsh Bill, that exceptional circumstances are very narrowly defined. I made that point myself in the Committee stage of the English and Welsh Bill. They do not extend to matters that are within the usual experience, which is a wide experience, of the everyday running of the court.
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to explain at this point what are the exceptional circumstances the Government have in mind. For example, over and over again we who oppose the concept of mandatory sentences have put forward various illustrations of where injustice will arise: the gap in time, the sentence that is passed upon a boy aged 15 in relation to a qualifying offence and which leads to a mandatory life sentence, perhaps for something entirely different, a completely different type of offence, some 20 or 30 years on. Is that an exceptional circumstance? There is the difference between the offences themselves to which I have referred, the difference between the 15 year-old boy indulging in lewd and libidinous conduct with a small child, to which I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred, and an offence of attempted murder or manslaughter or something of that nature. It is a different offence, a different type of offence. Is that an exceptional circumstance, or is that simply to be
1758
regarded as one of the things that will happen under this legislation from time to time and there is nothing exceptional about it?
The degree of participation of the individual defendant is another matter. If, for example, he is a young man who is on the fringe of the activity and is drawn into a serious conviction through the doctrine of what is in English law a joint enterprise—I believe Scottish law has a separate expression for it, of which no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will remind us in due course—and if he is convicted, that in some offences requires a different state of mind, a different mens rea than that required for the person who takes the lead in that particular offence. Is that an exceptional circumstance?
Above all, supposing a court is convinced on all the evidence that is presented to it that the particular individual who falls to be sentenced is not a danger to the public, that there are reports showing there is no possibility of a repeat offence of a similar sort and that therefore the whole principle of an indeterminate sentence to protect the public, which lies behind much of the rhetoric that is put with this mandatory sentence concept, is not relevant. If there is no need to protect the public and the judge is satisfied of that, is that an exceptional circumstance?
Before those words are taken into the Bill and passed by this Chamber, some explanation of the scope of the words "exceptional circumstances" is required. I ask that in his reply the Lord Advocate address those questions I put to him directly. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I have no doubt that we will return to this question in the context of the English Bill, either at Report stage or before or after the coming general election, whenever that may be. However, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and ask the Lord Advocate to expand on one matter. He said, if I heard him correctly, in answer to the earlier debate on Amendment No. 1 in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the question of whether a gap of 20 years between one offence and another could amount to an exceptional circumstance, was an interesting matter and a matter that could be argued.
I believe I am right in saying that, on the authority of the Court of Appeal in a case whose name I cannot remember—the judge was the Lord Chief Justice—it was said in terms and was quoted on several occasions during the passage of the English Bill, that youth, good character and an early plea of guilty, either separately or in conjunction, cannot amount to exceptional circumstances. If good character for life, say over 40 years, cannot amount to exceptional circumstances, on what basis does the Lord Advocate envisage that a gap of 20 years between two offences can amount to exceptional circumstances?
If the Lord Advocate is right that it can amount to exceptional circumstances, to some extent I am bound to ask myself what we have all been doing here for the past few weeks. That is what we have been arguing; that is, that we should have a sufficient exception which

1759
allows a court to do justice in all the circumstances and to take into account matters such as the length of time between the offences and the age of the first as against the age of the second before deciding whether or not the mandatory sentence has to be passed.
I repeat, I shall be grateful if, when answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, the Lord Advocate will consider, if a gap of 20 years could arguably be exceptional circumstances, how he relates that to the present state of the law in England. Also, can he say whether it is the intention of the Government that matters of that character can amount to exceptional circumstances?
Lord Sewel: I join with other Members of the Committee and invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to use this amendment as an opportunity to give us his thoughts in a considered way on what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" in some sort of illustrative detail. That would be extremely useful for the Committee, both at this stage and perhaps at later stages.
The only precise illustration that I have been able to find of the Government coming close to defining "exceptional circumstances" is in the case of an informer. If that is the be all and end all of "exceptional circumstances" it falls far short of what many of us would wish to see. It falls far short also of the type of steer that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was giving earlier in the first debate.
That issue was raised in that debate in an interesting way and it is now incumbent upon the Lord Advocate to go on and expand and give a clear definition of what is meant.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. He referred to the Lord Chief Justice's case. I read all the Crime (Sentences) Bill debates in this House and in the other place and am familiar with what was said. But let us be quite plain. In the 1995 Act into which these sections are to be put, it is specifically provided under a Clause 2 type of case that the court may reduce sentence for an early plea. That is the effect of Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. When one looks at Clause 2 on page 5 of the present Bill, one finds at line 22 that,
"where a court is passing sentence on an offender under section 205B(2) of this Act"—
that concerns multiple drug offences—
"and that offender has pled guilty",
the court can take that into account and knock off a very strange number of days, to which I shall turn later. So, it being provided for in Section 205B, it is as plain as a pikestaff that it is not provided for in Section 205A. Therefore I offer the respectful opinion that, without a shadow of doubt, it is not an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of the Bill.
1760
People keep inviting the Lord Advocate to reply; I urge upon him caution. Because of the case of Pepper v. Hart decided by the Judicial Committee of this House some time ago by a majority of six to one, their Lordships decided that in order to discover the meaning of a provision in an Act of Parliament, it is now possible to go to the debates. In particular, it is possible to go to the debates of the Minister in charge of the Bill to discover what was in the mind of the Government.
I do not particularly like Pepper v. Hart, but I have to live with it. In fact, two of my speeches have been quoted in cases and I do not believe that either of them contributed much to the solution of the problem faced by the court. However, it is important to listen to the Lord Advocate's answer, and the reason is this. When judges sit down to discover the meaning of a word in a statute, they are asking themselves what was in the mind of Parliament when it used that word as distinct from another word. That is one of the principal approaches: why did Parliament choose that word? Parliament must have meant something; so one engages in an exercise to discover what Parliament meant.
If the Government drafted the Bill, as they commonly do, then one goes to the Minister to find out what he meant. If he meant it, the probability is that Parliament, which supported him, meant the same. It is important therefore to listen to the Lord Advocate's answer and it is important for him to say what "exceptional" means; nobody else seems to know. I do not know; I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has worked it out yet. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, did not know; Mr. Maclean seemed to think that it was confined to the informer, and a good thing too were his approximate words. Apart from that, no one seems to know what it means.
Let me turn to Amendment No. 13, which is grouped with Amendment No. 12. The only examples that I can find so far are the ones mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
The Earl of Courtown: Amendment No. 13 is not grouped with Amendment No. 12.
Lord McCluskey:I shall anticipate its arrival on the scene by continuing my remarks about it, because it deals with "exceptional circumstances". I apologise for that error; I have so much paper here that I have difficulty in following my own thoughts.
The two examples that were given were the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the one mentioned by the Lord Advocate; namely, that a long time may have passed between the first and the second offence. That is two examples of exceptional circumstances that have gone into the books.
If we look at the wording on page 2, line 16, the Committee will see that that subsection reads,
"if the High Court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not passing the sentence which that subsection would … require it to pass upon a person, the court may decline to pass that sentence".

1761
If we deleted the word "exceptional", it would read,
"if the High Court is of the opinion that there are … circumstances which justify its not passing the sentence which that subsection would … require it to pass upon a person, the court may decline to pass that sentence".
If you postulate a set of circumstances which would justify not passing a life sentence, the court says, "But that does not matter. We still pass a life sentence even though the circumstances do not justify that. We still have to pass a life sentence unless the circumstances are exceptional." That is an extraordinary position. Although there may be circumstances which justify not passing a life sentence, the court may be compelled to do exactly that simply because it cannot find that the circumstances are exceptional.
I have had great difficulty in finding out exactly what circumstances are "exceptional". The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, raised one point which I have sought to answer. The age of the offender cannot be an exceptional circumstance because in both Clauses 1 and 2 the words appear, "irrespective of the age of the offender at the time of the first offence" although age is specified for the second offence, the one for which life imprisonment is required to be imposed. Therefore, age cannot be an exceptional circumstance.
What if the offender rapes an old woman of, say, 75, 85 or 95? Is that an exceptional circumstance? Sadly, it is not an exceptional circumstance because in my experience there are quite a number of cases in which villains rape elderly, infirm and disabled people. There is nothing exceptional about that, although it is certainly tragic. I am afraid that I do not know what is meant by "exceptional".
I am worried about the possible situation of a judge being faced with what one might call—I hesitate to use these words—a "standard type" of rape—in other words, where the victim is not very young, not very disabled or not very old. Is the judge going to say, "This is not an exceptional case so I shall apply the exception and not impose a life sentence?" There would be an outcry if he did so, and with considerable justification.
I hope that the Lord Advocate will respond to the many invitations to give us something to think about—perhaps as we adjourn for dinner—and that he will tell us whether there are any circumstances which he can properly describe as "exceptional". I do not understand the Government's thinking. For the reasons of Pepper v. Hart, I hope that their thinking will be made plain tonight. I am sure that the Committee would welcome full and frank disclosure of the meaning of the term "exceptional circumstances" in the Government's mind.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As an ordinary lay person, I find these semantic arguments difficult to follow. "Exceptional circumstances" in any normal parlance are circumstances which make it possible to except what one does from what is laid down. I should have thought that it was a question of judicial discretion. I know that the noble Lord dislikes the whole thing, but surely this argument is absolutely basic to the Bill. I should have thought that the phrase means what it
1762
means in ordinary English. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate can say whether there is any other legislation in Scots law involving "exceptional circumstances". Is there a problem with the phrase elsewhere? When reading the Bill, I thought that a judge could operate the provision quite well. It seems to me that this is an unnecessarily complex argument.
Lord Hope of Craighead: There is a particular problem here to which I attempted to draw attention on Second Reading. The word "exceptional" is itself capable of interpretation and I have no doubt that, as case follows upon case, the Criminal Appeal Court in Edinburgh, which is not subject to review by your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, will be able to evolve a satisfactory meaning for the word. However, there is a problem which arises in relation to road traffic legislation where the word "exceptional" is not used, but where the word "special" is used. In certain cases, certain events can follow if the circumstances are "special". There is some authority for the view that the phrase "special circumstances" does not include the circumstances of the offence on the view that Parliament has laid down a mandatory disqualification and that that in itself is enough to justify the imposition of the mandatory disqualification, irrespective of whether or not the offence is serious.
It was for that reason that I asked the noble and learned Lord to consider on reflection and in the light of what I had said whether the Government were prepared to say at least that the phrase "exceptional circumstances" could cover the circumstances of the offence. Without committing himself to what the word "exceptional" might mean it would be of assistance if the noble and learned Lord were prepared to confirm that the Government understand the phrase to be wide enough to include not only the circumstances of the offender, but also the circumstances of the offence.
As I said at Second Reading, it would be perfectly understandable and intelligible if the noble and learned Lord were to say no to that question—in other words, that the circumstances of the offence were not to be taken into account. On the other hand, it would be logical for him to say yes. However, what I cannot understand is why the Government should not be prepared to give an answer to that question. In view of the fact that they have brought forward this legislation they must at least have some view as to whether the circumstances of the offence can be taken into account in deciding what is and what is not "exceptional".
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The invitation which has been extended to me by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee to amplify the Government's construction of the term "exceptional circumstances" has been urged on a number of my colleagues both in this House and in another place and it has been resisted until now. I have no intention of departing from that practice.
I believe that I am right in my recollection that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was not in the Committee earlier when, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I made it clear that the Government can see no

1763
reason why the court could not construe the term "exceptional circumstances" to include the circumstances of the two offences and those of the offender. It was for that reason that I invited the Committee to take the view that part of that first amendment was unnecessary. I refer to the subsection which was restricted to Clause 1. I believe that that position was also made clear by the Minister of State in another place when the Bill was in Committee there. Indeed, that has been the Government's position throughout and nothing that I have said so far departs from or amplifies that.
In response to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I said that a fact which indicated a period of 20 years or more between two offences is the sort of fact one would anticipate being used in advancing the argument, which would require to be advanced, that in looking at all of the circumstances before the court—not just the mere fact that there were 20 years between the two convictions—which could include the circumstances of both offences and those of the offender, it would be possible for the court to take the view that there were exceptional circumstances which would justify the court not imposing either an automatic life sentence or a mandatory sentence under Clause 2.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested a number of situations which might arise such as the mere gap in time between the two offences or a significant difference in the character of the offences. For example, a serious sexual offence, such as rape or unlawful intercourse with a girl under the age of 13 years, may be the first offence, while robbery with the use of a firearm is the second. The noble Lord mentioned the English concept of "joint enterprise" which we in Scotland refer to as "concert" or "art and part". I believe that that will arise in due course when we examine certain of the individual offences set out in the schedule of qualifying offences. He gave as another example a case in which the judge was satisfied on the information before him that there was no possibility of danger to the public. I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which a judge can be so satisfied when dealing with an offender who has been convicted for the second time of a serious sexual or violent offence, but I do not exclude the possibility that such a view can be taken.
All of these examples illustrate the point that I sought to make earlier. It is for the courts to construe the term "exceptional circumstances". No doubt if there is any ambiguity about it, the courts will, in accordance with the authority of Pepper v. Hart, have recourse to what has been said in this Chamber and in another place. They may feel that it is unnecessary to follow the route which that authority opens up, but it is for the court to construe it. That is the approach that the Government have taken, rather than setting out in detail and at length a great variety of different considerations that may or may not fall to be looked at by the courts when they construe the clause. Once a construction is decided upon, the court will apply it to the facts of the particular case.
1764
An invitation to expand upon this matter has been given in the past. The Government, having considered the matter very carefully, are firmly of the view that that is not the way forward. Courts day and daily have to construe provisions in Acts of Parliament. The matter referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is one example of that. Parliament could have given various examples and more guidance but chose not to do so. That is the route that we believe is the correct one to be followed here.
I know that my explanation will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—he has been asking for it repeatedly—but equally it will not surprise him. I hope that, having heard what he has already heard in the past, he will accept that there is no point in proceeding with either this amendment or the subsequent one.
7 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I express my disappointment but not surprise at the answer that has been given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. As a rugby referee, I have more guidance from the Welsh Rugby Union as to the meaning of the rules of rugby football than the noble and learned Lord has just given in respect of this Bill. While I am disappointed in one direction, my heart leaps in another. Given the definition of "exceptional circumstances" proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegie of Lour—which amounts to what is just and unjust—the noble and learned Lord has virtually accepted what she has said.
The noble and learned Lord says that the courts must construe this phrase; but he appears to forget that the courts seek to determine what Parliament intends. If Parliament in the guise of the Lord Advocate do not take this opportunity to expand a little further on it, it is for the judges to exercise, as they have over the centuries, their own beliefs as to what is just and unjust and what is right and what is wrong. I welcome the Pepper v. Hart decision which will enable the words that have been spoken on this amendment to be read by every judge throughout the land, just as if the Welsh Rugby Union were told, "Boys, is up to you what you do in determining what this phrase means". I am happy with that. If it is left to the judges we will get justice in this country. Because of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("exceptional").
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegie of Lour, that this matter is not one of semantics. The meaning of the expression "exceptional circumstances" is not clear to me or, so I understand, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who was the Lord Justice-General for Scotland. In the letter to which I referred from the present Lord Justice-General reference was made to the fact that at the stage of sentencing the judge would have to decide

1765
whether to apply the prescribed sentence because of exceptional circumstances, and doubtless there would be uncertainty at least to begin with as to the approach to be applied. Therefore, he confesses to some uncertainty as to the meaning of that phrase. I hope that when it comes to deciding the meaning of the expression there will be some guidance provided by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said in the course of today's debate. But one would be surprised if, when looked at closely, it yielded the meaning that one would hope to get on the basis of Pepper v. Hart. In the circumstances, I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21, 37, 38, 40, 53 and 55 which fall within the third grouping on the list. The purpose of Amendment No. 18 and the related Amendments Nos. 53 and 55—the new clause after Clause 2—is to remove convictions for which the offender has received an absolute or conditional discharge from the definition of "conviction" in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill which, on further offending, may lead to an automatic life or minimum sentence. These amendments arise out of our further consideration of the provisions of the Bill in the light of comments made at Second Reading and in another place, and our conclusion that such convictions should not fall within the scope of the definition. At the same time, the amendments will add convictions under military law to the definition and fill a gap that would otherwise exist in the provisions of the Bill.
I hope that the amendments will go some way towards addressing the concerns that possibly underlie Amendment No. 19 which stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, although the noble and learned Lord will no doubt make that clear in due course. His amendment seeks to remove from the Bill that part of the definition of qualifying conviction which makes it clear that convictions involving admonition, absolute or conditional discharge or a probation order will be regarded as qualifying convictions. The amendment in my name would achieve this for absolute and conditional discharge. While it is not wholly clear what the effect of removing the remainder of the definition would be, it is possible that the court would conclude that these other convictions should not be regarded as qualifying either.
Clause 1 seeks to deal with offenders who, despite having been convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence such as rape and the other serious offences set out in the schedule, go on to commit a further such offence. We have already dealt with the question of "exceptional circumstances". In so far as the circumstances of the first offence can be taken into account, part of those circumstances will be the disposal. That will be one of the many factors that the court will
1766
have to consider in deciding whether in the circumstances of the second offence exceptional circumstances can be applied. However, where persons are convicted of such offences for a second time, I believe it is reasonable to provide that in the absence of such exceptional circumstances liability to an automatic life sentence should arise.
The other amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would remove convictions obtained elsewhere in the United Kingdom from the definition of qualifying convictions. While I acknowledge—I believe that I mentioned this earlier in our deliberations—that there are some differences in the definitions of offences between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other, the Government do not think it reasonable that someone who is convicted of one rape in England and who then commits a second rape in Scotland should expect to be treated differently from someone who commits both rapes in Scotland. One can find endless permutations of how, if the noble and learned Lord's amendments were accepted, such curious results would occur.
The notion that by moving between England and Scotland one might avoid the full force of the law when one is engaging in serious criminal activity and committing further serious and dangerous offences is not one which anyone, I venture to suggest, would wish to encourage. It would not fit well for such freedom of movement to bring about different results of the nature that I have indicated.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 37 respond to suggestions made to the Government by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on Second Reading. His view, which the Government accept, is that the work of the courts and others concerned with the legislation would be assisted if the full lists of the relevant offences in England and Wales and Northern Ireland were set out on the face of the Bill. That is what Amendments Nos. 21 and 37 are designed to achieve. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): I have to inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I am unable to call Amendment No. 19.
Lord McCluskey: As I was the author of Amendment No. 19, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to speak at this stage. Unfortunately, because I am in Scotland, I did not receive a copy of the government amendments until shortly after noon today when I arrived here. However, as I understand the Lord Advocate he is accepting the point which is contained in my Amendment No. 19, so that a person who has merely been admonished or received an absolute discharge does not thereby earn a qualifying offence. If that is right, there is no need for me to pursue the matter further in Amendment No. 19.
The provision in the Bill as it stands, before amendment, is of course an absurd one, because plainly if a person appears in the High Court on one of the qualifying offences, and is given an absolute discharge or is admonished, manifestly the circumstances must have been exceptional, even though one does not know

1767
what they are, because it is highly exceptional to have someone merely admonished or given an absolute discharge in the High Court in Scotland in respect of one of these offences. Accordingly, I support the Government in relation to this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am sorry to reject the noble and learned Lord's unqualified support. I apologise if he did not receive as much notice of the amendments as he might have done. If he turns to Amendment No. 55, which was the last one I mentioned in the list to which I was speaking, he will see set out there a new clause which will come after Clause 2 in which admonition is included. So the purpose of the Government amendment is to remove absolute and conditional discharge but not admonition.
Lord McCluskey: That means that I have to return to the fray. This might give us a little assistance in relation to what exceptional circumstances are or might be. If a person appears in the High Court and is convicted of one of the offences listed in the schedule—culpable homicide, incitement to murder, rape, attempted rape, use of a firearm and so forth—and is admonished, then the circumstances must have been exceptional; otherwise he would not have been admonished. If he had been admonished and the circumstances were not exceptional, the Crown would have used its right of appeal to go to the Appeal Court to say that that was an unduly lenient or inappropriate sentence. Does it not follow that the logic of that is that if a person subsequently obtains a qualifying offence, and his previous one was one in respect of which he was admonished, the circumstances must, almost by definition, have been exceptional? Does not the Lord Advocate accept that?
Lord Sewel: May I ask whether I am beginning to understand this? Is it that under Amendment No. 55, although an admonishment would count as a conviction, it would be open to argument that the nature of the disposal—the admonition itself—was the basis of an exceptional circumstance?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: This illustrates the value of leaving this to the court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has expressed a view as to what must be exceptional circumstances. It is not for me to say whether he is right or wrong on that, but it illustrates the point I seek to make, and have sought to make throughout this afternoon: that those who sit in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, and their counterparts in England, are more than capable of looking at a term in a statute and a set of facts to see whether the facts can be described as exceptional circumstances.
My response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is that the fact that an accused was admonished on the first occasion is a fact which could be relied upon in advancing the argument that there were exceptional circumstances. I do not for a minute concede that in every case in which there is an admonishment it would automatically follow, as night
1768
follows day, that exceptional circumstances apply. The fact that it did occur is clearly a fact which indicates that a further inquiry of the full circumstances of the earlier conviction may be productive. I would anticipate my colleagues at the Scottish Bar and solicitor advocates would be more than happy to follow along that route.
Lord Sewel: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, how would the court find out whether the offence had occurred 20 years ago and there had been an admonishment? What material would be available to the court hearing the second offence upon which it could make a judgment that the admonishment, in the context of the case, was a recognition of the exceptional circumstances?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can enlighten me. I have listened to the debate with interest. I understand that he is prepared to trust the judges to say what are exceptional circumstances, but he is not prepared to trust them with the ordinary circumstances of sentencing.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that is rather more a comment on my argument than a matter upon which he expects a response. I have heard him make it before. In fact, as I recollect, he made it on Second Reading. I have already explained at some length my position and that of the Government on automatic life sentences.
I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about the practicalities of the situation. It is a valid point. It is one which is obviously of importance and which will require to be addressed. The Crown's practice is to retain papers, not to destroy them. In the course of my service as Lord Advocate over the past year or so, I have been surprised by the number of occasions when dusty sets of papers have been brought out, and cases which I prosecuted as an advocate depute, and which others prosecuted before me, had to be looked at for whatever reason. That is a matter which will be required to be discussed by the Crown with the court and with those charged with the defence of those who appear as accused persons in the High Court, the Faculty of Advocates, solicitor advocates, and those who instruct them. It should be possible to work out procedures, whether Acts of Adjournal are required to be passed by the court is a matter which will have to be looked at. Agreed practice may be another option to be explored. I see no practical reason why we cannot make sure that where a particular accused wishes the court to address the circumstances of an earlier conviction, no bar is placed in the way of him seeking to do so.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Is it not a fact that the only papers which are kept on a long-term basis are those of murder cases? The papers of other cases are disposed of in due course, just as the police destroy papers. I ask that merely as a matter of information. The only papers available would be those for cases of murder with the relevant productions and recognitions. In a case other than a case of murder or culpable homicide, it would not be possible to trace the

1769
background of the admonition. I am merely seeking information. It is a long time since I was in the Crown Office.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: That does not accord with my understanding of the procedures. It certainly does not accord with papers which I have seen, one in particular involving the prosecution of a rape in the very early 1980s. I have looked at cases dating back earlier than that. Again, that is a question of practice about which I am happy to make further inquiry.
Lord Sewel: It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could look at the qualifying offences to see the extent to which there has been a habit of retaining those documents. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will write to us about that.
Lord McCluskey: Another matter arises. Having regard to Amendment No. 55, at which I have had an opportunity to glance during the course of the proceedings, there is reference to Section 181 of the 1975 Act. Is there some provision which enables one to have regard to the fact that a person received an absolute discharge or some kind of admonition for an English conviction; that is, a relevant offence under the second part of the schedule? If so, is that to be put into the Bill at some stage? In other words, in the same way can one have regard to admonitions and absolute discharges in respect of relevant offences which have been proved and established in England and Northern Ireland?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am sure that the answer is to be found in the latest print of the Crime (Sentences) Bill which I have before me but I must confess that I cannot find it at the moment. I shall inform the Committee later about that or write to the noble and learned Lord after the Committee has taken place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 47, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 3 on page 3.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Any Judge of the High Court who imposes a sentence of imprisonment for life or of detention for life under subsection (2) above shall make the following public statement at the time of passing sentence—
"It must be clearly understood that although by Act of Parliament I am obliged to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life (or detention for life, as the case may be) the actual period during which you will be detained in custody will not be the period of your natural life but will be such period of years as results from the application to the sentence now passed of the other provisions of this Act and of the 1993 Act or any other relevant legislation in that behalf".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is self-explanatory. I hope that I have the reading of it correct because only today I collected a copy of the Marshalled List and a number of changes have been made to my amendments by the Clerks. Basically, it is concerned with honesty in sentencing and it raises a point which has been raised already by other Members of the Committee in the course of today's proceedings.
In various public announcements, the Government have espoused the notion of honesty in sentencing. That is a notion which, as far as I can tell, started life in the United States and in the Commonwealth; the first example of it is to be found in report of the Commonwealth Law Commission which the government of New South Wales acted upon in 1989. Therefore, the principle was one of honesty and truth in sentencing.
Under the present Bill, we are required, if we are judges who are imposing a sentence mandated by the new Section 205A, to say to the prisoner, if he is over 21, "I sentence you to imprisonment for life". There is nothing honest about that because we know perfectly well that whatever else happens in his life, he will not be imprisoned for life except in most unusual—I hesitate to say "exceptional"—circumstances. Normally a person who is sentenced to imprisonment for life will not be in prison for life. Therefore, in order to introduce some honesty into the proceedings, I propose that the judge will use a form of words which I have set out in the amendment:
"It must be clearly understood that although by Act of Parliament I am obliged to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life…the actual period during which you will be detained in custody will not be the period of your natural life but will be such period of years as results from the application to the sentence now passed of the other provisions of this Act and of the 1993 Act".
That at least would be an honest statement.
I hope that the Government will welcome my support for the principle of honesty in sentencing and will embrace with enthusiasm that wording which I hope makes it abundantly plain to everyone. For example, Private Lee Clegg was sentenced to prison for life and was allowed out after a couple of years. The Government pray in aid the memorandum by the recent Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Ross, echoing to some extent what was said by the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, that sentencing is to some extent a charade because the judge knows that he is not telling the accused or the public the truth.
In the circumstances of this Bill, I should have thought that it would be appropriate to have such a form of words so that everybody in the court, including the accused, the press and the public who sometimes crowd into the public galleries would know that that was an honest judge who was telling it like it is. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope that every time the press are in court in Scotland and hear a judge passing a sentence, they proceed upon the assumption that judges are honest, because clearly they are.

1771
I understand what leads the noble and learned Lord to put forward the amendment, in which I detect some intrusion of his tongue in his cheek in the formulation of the words that he has chosen. I hope that there is nothing between us in acknowledging that in bringing forward the proposals, the Government have never sought to imply that when an automatic life sentence is imposed, it will mean that the offender to whom it is applied will spend the rest of his days incarcerated.
On the contrary, Ministers elsewhere have sought to stress, both in Parliament and elsewhere, the provisions which I have mentioned this afternoon—the importance of the fixing of the relevant part, release by the Parole Board and the licence which follows thereafter. We have sought to emphasise the flexibility of the life sentence which allows for punishment and deterrence and release when it is considered safe to release the offender into the community.
No doubt given a free hand, we could all produce texts of what judges might say in the High Court of Justiciary but, for my part, I do not think it either wise or necessary to do so. I suspect that most offenders, at the point of sentence, will be well aware of what is going on. However, I rather doubt that they are in a mood to listen to the detail of a statement such as that set out in Amendment No. 22. In the event, after sentence, the position will be explained to the offender by his lawyer and on arrival at prison, the prison authorities will do likewise.
I should like to think that with the interest that this legislation has attracted, victims and the general public will be sufficiently aware of the fact that those made subject to such sentences may be released in the future and that will mean that, provided it is safe to release them into the community, imprisonment does not mean imprisonment for life. I doubt, therefore, that the proposed statement would add any additional clarity to the position which is currently understood and will be understood by the public.
Further, as the noble and learned Lord will I hope acknowledge, it has not been the universal practice in Scotland for judges to give detailed reasons at the point of sentencing for imposing a particular sentence. If, for the purposes of an appeal, detailed reasons are required, the trial judge can provide a report for the Appeal Court. I am not persuaded that any regulation by statute is either desirable or necessary. As with some other amendments, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press this one, although I understand why he tabled it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I believe the practicalities of life in court are in fact that when people are sentenced to a fairly lengthy term of imprisonment, very often they do not know what has happened to them. They are rushed away by police officers and it takes some time for that information to get through to them. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I believe that the language used in his
1772
amendment is rather flowery. Indeed, the last four lines of the wording would not mean much to an accused and probably even less to members of the public.
Lord McCluskey: I am sure that the language of my amendment could be improved upon and, had we but time, I would do it. Under the Bill, a sentence of life imprisonment does not mean life imprisonment. That is a serious point. Therefore, I am attracted by the proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that one could have a kind of protection of the public order. Accordingly, the judge would say to a defendant, "You will spend the next 10 years in prison and, at the end of that time, an order will apply to you under which you will not be released until the Parole Board decides that it is safe for you to be released". That would make perfectly good sense.
Of course, that would have echoes of the sentence which I believe was abolished in 1949; namely, a sentence of preventive detention. That is really what the Government are talking about. For example, you take a person who has proved himself, by consistent recidivism in a particularly nasty way, to be unfit to be out. You preventively detain him and then you give the Parole Board the power to release him. It seems to me that that would be an appropriate kind of name to use. No doubt the Government, in pursuing the notion of honesty in sentencing, will think again about the words. In the hope that they do so, I do not propose to press the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before
8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Anelay of St. Johns.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licensing outside Greater London]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 1.
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("where") to end of line 16 and insert ("there is substantial evidence of a serious problem relating to the supply or use of controlled drugs at a place in respect of

1773
which has been granted an entertainments licence under paragraph I above or at premises near such place which are under the control of the holder of the licence, and—

(a) the chief officer of police has served a written caution on the holder of the licence setting out the nature of the serious problem relating to the supply or use of controlled drugs at the place or nearby premises and requesting the licence holder to supply to the chief officer of police within 14 days from the date of service of the caution details of all steps which the licence holder has taken or proposes to take to deal with the problem; and

(b) not less than 14 days from the date of service of the caution the authority by whom the entertainments licence was granted have received a report from the chief officer of police that the police have substantial evidence that there is a serious problem relating to the supply or use of controlled drugs at the place or at premises near such place which are under the control of the holder of the licence.").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 12, 16 and 22. I promise that this group of amendments is the only group to which I shall speak at any length. On Second Reading there was, quite properly, support from all sides of the Chamber for the principle of the Bill. However, concern was also expressed about how it might work in practice. In particular, there was concern about the fairness and the consistency of the procedures which might operate and there was also concern about the looseness of some of the wording. Some reassurances were given by the Government on Second Reading, but I have to say that they were not very convincing.
The first reassurance was that the powers to be given by the Bill would normally be used only as a last resort. The difficulty about that proposition is that there is no indication of it on the face of the Bill. It provides no preliminary procedures or safeguards for fairness. It is meant to be a tough Bill and I repeat that we support its principle. But its very toughness reinforces the need for some more apparent fairness.
The second reassurance given was that most local authorities already hold hearings before deciding to revoke a licence. The difficulty about that is the fact that the holding of a hearing is not universal and the procedures are not uniform; for example, there are no underlying rules setting out even minimum standard requirements for such hearings. The third reassurance given was that Home Office guidance would be issued to accompany the Bill when it became law. However, the guidance was not even in draft form on Second Reading, let alone being the subject of consultation with the various interested bodies. Since that time, the noble Earl has been good enough to send us a preliminary draft of the guidance, but the difficulties remain. It will only be guidance and will not be binding. I understand that in other areas of licensing law, even where there is some form of guidance, it is not necessarily adhered to. There remain variations of practice and of procedure, inconsistencies and anomalies, all of which tend to encourage appeals.
The first group of amendments relates to Clause 1 which governs licensing outside Greater London. In fact, they could all be applied to Clause 2 but I have not further burdened the Marshalled List. They seek to improve the Bill in a number of ways. First, they would require there to be substantial evidence of the serious
1774
problem of drug supply or use which the Bill addresses. Secondly, where the problem is not at the licensed premises but somewhere nearby, they would require the nearby place to be under the control of the licence holder. In its present form, the Bill's lack of definition of the phrase "near the place" will, I suggest, generate a considerable number of inconsistent decisions as between different licensing authorities.
Thirdly, the amendments would require the police, as a first step, to serve a written caution on the licence holder setting out the problem perceived by them and seeking details from the licence holder of what he has done, or what he will do, about it. In that respect, I suggest that paragraph 9 of the draft guidance is remarkably limp. Finally, the amendments would require a licensing authority to be satisfied that not renewing the licence or revoking it will substantially reduce the problem.
As regards that last part of the amendments, I should say that I recognise that the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would insert the word "significantly". I certainly do not want to argue about adverbs. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the phrase within the amendment which states that the licensing authority must be satisfied that revoking or not renewing the licence will substantially reduce the problem is preferable to the phraseology which would be within the Bill if amended as the noble Baroness proposes: namely, that not renewing or revoking the licence,
"will assist in significantly dealing with the problem".
I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has outlined the reason why he has introduced this amendment; namely, the need for a written caution. Most of those who spoke at Second Reading introduced the concept of the requirement for this written caution. This amendment proposes that a written caution should be introduced and gives the licence holder 14 days to supply the chief officer of police with details of all the steps to be taken as regards the serious drugs problem that has been identified by the police. This matter was dealt with at Second Reading and has been ably introduced tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I believe that this gets to the heart of the matter and would overcome the difficulty of a club being ambushed by the police—this has been mentioned to me—often when that club considered it had a satisfactory relationship with the local force.
I know there is a problem as regards promoters who use premises and who might not be so careful as regards supervision or doormen. There is also the rather nasty difficulty of the operators of one club trying to disrupt the trade of a rival by unscrupulous means. The amendment would give the licence holder 14 days' grace before the local authority is informed. That is a matter of his putting his house in order or getting his house in order if this serious problem has been

1775
identified. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has indicated, the concept of "near" is defined in the amendment as somewhere which is,
"under the control of the holder of the licence".
Mention has already been made of the guidance notes. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Courtown for circulating them. I understand that they are in draft, but it is interesting to see the sort of outline that these guidance notes will take. The guidance notes are particularly weak as regards the reference to "near". Although they explain that the Bill does not elaborate the meaning of "near", the guidance notes also proceed to duck the issue.
The worry of the industry is that local authority licensing committees act in an inconsistent way across the country at present. I refer to children's certificates. The committees will continue to act in an inconsistent way. I believe that the guidance notes should be much more prescriptive than they are at present. However, they are not all bad, and I welcome them. The guidance notes indicate at paragraph 13 that there is now an important requirement to be fulfilled in that revoking a licence would have to be of assistance in dealing with the problem. My noble friend Lady Anelay wishes to insert the word "significantly" into that requirement. Paragraph 13 further states:
"If a local authority considers that the problem would continue unabated even if the premises were shut, then the test will not be met".
That is helpful. However, it makes the need for reasons, which we shall discuss in the next group of amendments, even more important. I shall have a little to say about that when we reach it.
As I indicated on Second Reading, the guidance notes do not help at all as regards the definition of a serious drugs problem or the definition of "near" the premises. We have requested those definitions. I hope that the guidance notes will be made more helpful in that regard, otherwise the courts will have to decide the matter, and that is a slow and expensive process. I doubt that my noble friend Lady Anelay or the Government will accept this amendment. I regret that, but realistically I accept that that will be the case. Therefore we have to rely on the guidance notes which suggest that,
"it would be unusual for a licence holder not to be aware of police concerns before a chief officer reports to the local authority. It is expected that the report itself will refer to previous exchanges with the owners or managers of the premises".
That is helpful. The guidance notes continue,
"It would be good practice in other than emergency cases for the local authority before reaching their decision to inquire into the extent to which the owners or managers have been made aware of the drugs problem".
That is helpful, but I believe it places far too much faith in the local authority and its officials. There must be a clear duty placed on the local authority to consult with all relevant parties before acting. I believe this group of amendments achieves that objective. I commend them to the Committee. At Second Reading I indicated that I had an interest to declare; namely, I am a director of Rank Leisure Limited which operates clubs which have a public entertainments licence.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: Not long after they were published I added my name to all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, because it was immediately evident that they admirably resolve all the fears and reservations that were expressed in various quarters of the Chamber at Second Reading about the possible injustices that might result from this Bill as originally published. As regards this group of amendments, any problem must be serious, any evidence must be substantial, any caution must be in writing, and any drastic action provided for by the Bill can take place only if it will substantially reduce the problem. Above all, where drug offences are committed nearby rather than at the premises in question, the nearby location in question must be,
"under the control of the holder of the licence"
if a closure is to be contemplated; in other words, if the licence is to be withdrawn.
I would never claim for a moment that all club proprietors are as pure as the driven snow. However, I guess that most of them would not condone or facilitate drug taking. It would be quite wrong if innocent people were to lose their livelihoods merely because their clubs happened to be situated near an unfenced public park open 24 hours a day, or near an area such as Epping Forest where drugs can easily change hands with little fear of detection.
Lord Rea: This Bill concerns the use of various drugs, particularly Ecstasy. I noticed during the Second Reading debate that that was never defined as methyldioxymethylamphetamine, which the Committee will recognise puts it in the family of the amphetamines, the commonest form of speed. The use of various of these drugs by adolescents and young adults will not go away even if certain clubs are closed where there is a "serious problem". If the use of these recreational drugs on the premises by a sizeable proportion of a club's clientele were held to constitute a serious drugs problem then probably the majority of nightclubs where dancing takes place could have their licences revoked under the provisions of this Bill. The severity of the problem and the definition of "near" or "nearby" is left so open that even after taking account of the amendments of the noble Baroness there could be an uneven use of the provisions in different parts of the country. A local authority taking an authoritarian or even draconian view of the drugs problem could close most of the clubs in its jurisdiction if it so wanted. Local authorities with a more permissive outlook may seek to change the situation without recourse to the provisions of the Bill. I submit that that approach might well be more effective in bringing the drug situation more under control than use of the Bill.
However, the amendments attempt to remedy some of the defects of the Bill and make it a little more even in its use throughout the country. I strongly support them.
The Earl of Dundonald: First, I apologise for not having had an opportunity to speak at Second Reading of the Bill. Secondly, I declare an interest. I am a

1777
director of a small entertainments company based in Scotland. While not necessarily directly associated with the Bill, nonetheless I am involved in family entertainment, although not specifically with club entertainment. However, as a result I have some experience with the licensing legislation in Scotland.
I, too, support the amendments for two specific reasons. First, as regards the matter of the notice period and giving owners and managers of premises reasonable time and warning of problems, my experience in Scotland is that managers and doormen of these types of clubs in Scotland can be the cause of the problem in the first place. It is important that the directors of the companies operating the clubs are given an opportunity to put right anything that might be going on without their knowledge. That is my concern. I am not sure that 14 days is required, as long as some form of notice has been given to the registered offices of the company concerned.
Secondly—a number of noble Lords have spoken on this point—I refer to the words "near the place" in the guidance notes which the Minister has been kind enough to circulate. Number 13 states:
"Essentially there must be some causal link between the fact that the club is open and the drugs problem which occurs on the premises or nearby".
Perhaps I may highlight a problem that we experienced in Scotland in our premises in Aberdeen. The problem does not relate to drugs but to under-age drinking. We have premises close to the university playing fields on the outskirts of town. A number of local grocery stores have been supplying drink to children aged between 12 and 14. A number of those children hung around our premises. The police helped us initially and then gave up. We had to involve a security firm to remove the children from our car-parking area and the general surroundings of the building. But that does not deal with the problem. We removed the problem from our immediate surroundings but it simply went further afield. The pavilion on the university playing fields was extremely badly vandalised. The children moved into the car park of the local Asda store which was not a million miles away.
The point is this. Children—under-age drinkers—will congregate near a place of entertainment. I submit that it is highly likely that anyone likely to use any form of these recreational drugs is likely to congregate near these clubs. It is not fair to ask the owners and managers of clubs to clear the entire area. That is the responsibility of the police. I am quite certain that responsible owners and operators of clubs in this country will co-operate closely with the police in order to move matters forward. But it is not fair to put the entire onus of responsibility on club owners for drug abuse in the proximity as defined in the guidance notes. For that reason I believe that it is important that an amendment along the lines put forward is made to the Bill.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for letting us see the draft circular. From the first reaction, I think that there will be some interest in tightening it up.
1778
In effect, the amendment wrecks the Bill. As we all know—we talked about it at Second Reading—youngsters go to raves, discos and nightclubs. Sometimes they obtain drugs inside those premises, but not infrequently they obtain drugs before they go in—in a local authority car park, a pedestrianised town centre or a bus shelter. Drugs are bought from dealers outside the premises. If the police can demonstrate that there is a causal or purposive link between the activities of dealers in, say, the car park and drug misuse in the nightclub, and that revoking the licence will significantly assist in dealing with the drug problem, then I believe that the authority should have that power to use in emergencies.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that that could prove a great injustice to a club owner who had nothing whatever to do with the provision of the drugs outside the club?
Lord Gladwin of Clee: Theoretically that may be so. But as we all know, before an authority uses the power that the Bill provides, there will undoubtedly be much discussion and consultation with the licence holder.
Baroness Anelay of St. John: I can give the Committee the same assurance as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston: that this will be my longest response to the amendments tonight.
I am aware of the concerns of the club trade which underlie the amendments; namely, that the police and local authorities could be over-zealous and inconsistent in enforcing the new powers contained in the Bill. Some of those concerns were raised during the Second Reading debate. Let us be clear that the new revocation power is a tough measure to deal speedily with the worst cases. It is a power that local authorities should have available to them. It is a power that should not be watered down.
But these amendments would have just that effect. The requirement for a written caution would build in delay which would defeat the whole objective of the Bill. Likewise, too narrow a definition of the location of a problem or attempts to define the nature and weight of the police evidence or what impact revocation should have on the problem could again result in delay while those points are argued over.
I sought to keep the Bill simple and to find other ways of promoting fair and reasonable practice in enforcing the new powers. At Second Reading, and again tonight, frequent reference has been made to the Home Office circular which it is intended should be issued before the new powers come into effect. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked for a draft of the circular to be made available to the House. As we learned tonight, that has been done. However, it is very much a first draft. Consultation has yet to take place with the local authority associations, the police and the trade. It is not intended that the circular should be prescriptive. It is designed to illustrate and promote the many examples of good practice that already exist up and down the country. Local authorities, the police and the clubs already work closely together to provide safe

1779
environments where people can enjoy themselves. The draft circular in its present form therefore deals with many of the issues that these amendments address. Where an effective relationship exists between the police and club owners there is close liaison on such matters as security, the handling of drug-related incidents and the effective exchange of information. It would be very unusual for a licence holder not to be aware of police concern before a chief officer reports to the local authority. I do not believe that there is evidence of any widespread failure on the part of the police to link up with clubs at an early stage about their concerns. The circular will, however, serve to encourage the good practice that already exists.
The new power requires local authorities to apply a two-stage test. The first stage is that there must be,
"a serious problem relating to the supply or use of controlled drugs at or near the place".
The second is whether the action by the local authority will,
"assist in dealing with the problem".
I have endeavoured in the amendment that will come before the Committee in due course this evening to address questions about police evidence and the test that the local authority should apply in deciding whether revocation of a licence is appropriate. Understandably, there is much interest in these definitions. The circular states the obvious in that what constitutes a "serious" problem in this context is a matter for determination by the local authority and will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.
It can be stated with some certainty that organised drug dealing in connection with events held on the premises obviously comes into the category of a "serious" problem. So, too, will evidence of significant numbers of customers suffering the adverse effects of drug misuse. But all the circumstances of the case and the available evidence will need to be reported by the police for consideration by the local authority.
There has also been debate about "at or near the place" and whether the licence holder can be responsible for a problem that exists near, rather than on, his premises. Whether a problem is "near" for these purposes is again a matter of fact, to be determined by the local authority according to all the facets and facts of a particular case. Any elaboration on the meaning of "near" by defining it, for example, as being at a particular distance from the club concerned, would simply be too limiting. We must remember, however, that before an authority can exercise its new power it must be satisfied not only that the problem is at or near the place but also that revoking the licence would assist in dealing with the problem. There must therefore be, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, mentioned earlier, some causal link between the fact that the club is open and the drugs problem that occurs on the premises or nearby. As the circular suggests, if the local authority considers that the problem would continue unabated even if the premises were shut, the tests will not be met.
1780
As I indicated, the views of the local authority associations, the police and the club trade will be sought on the guidance in the circular, and further clarification of the issues may well emerge. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is better to proceed in this way, building on good practice, rather than complicate the Bill any further. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will see this as the way forward and will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I followed the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with some care. However, I found it wholly unpersuasive. Let us determine straightaway those matters on which we agree. Do we have a major drugs problem? Yes, of course we do. Is part of that problem related to clubs? Yes, most certainly it is. Is it necessary to take vigorous action to deal with it? Yes, most certainly. But the question arises: is the Bill as presently drafted the appropriate way to deal with these problems?
On hearing the noble Baroness's argument on "at or near", I found it extremely difficult to believe that we are seriously being invited to decide whether to destroy someone's business, possibly even a small business, on the basis of evidence of that sort. We really do have some responsibility as a revising Chamber to make sure that we do not pass nonsensical legislation, or legislation which is believed to be addressed to a specific problem but which has the most unfortunate secondary effects, as I believe will be the case under the Bill as presently drafted.
If the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, will forgive my saying so, I do not regard this amendment as even remotely a wrecking amendment. It merely sets out a procedure which would make the Bill far more acceptable to all those who will approach the problem in a mood of moderation and with some degree of restraint. The Bill as presently drafted is wholly unsatisfactory. In particular, the "at or near" issue worries me greatly.
As we all acknowledge, we live in the real world. We are probably within three weeks of the dissolution of this Parliament. Let me be quite blunt with the noble Baroness. Unless we achieve some form of acceptable compromise on this issue, the prospect of the Bill ever reaching the statute book is remote. That is blunt reality. Speaking for my noble friends, we are certainly anxious to ensure that a Bill dealing with this problem gets on to the statute book. There is no gulf between us on that matter. However, we remain deeply concerned about the Bill's drafting. I have no doubt about the noble Baroness's good intentions; however, I am afraid that the consequences of agreeing to the Bill as it is set out at the moment is very difficult for us to go along with.
In the draft circular that the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, very kindly sent to my noble friend and others, he accurately points out that the Home Office has yet to consult the local authority associations, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the club trade on the draft, which in any case may have to be amended in the light of any changes made to the Bill as it passes through Parliament. I recognise that the noble Baroness is in a difficult position, dealing with this Bill so late in

1781
the present Parliament. Although my noble friend may well withdraw this amendment (or, on the other hand he may not) I very much hope that between now and Report stage we will try to reach some agreement. It would be a great pity if the Bill simply died because of a significant difference between us on its drafting. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Meston and others, including the noble Viscount Lord Ullswater—indeed most of us—accept the existence of a significant problem, one which we all want to address but in relation to which some of us find it very difficult to accept legislation which in our view would have wholly undesirable secondary effects.
Lord Rea: I believe that it is permitted at Committee stage to have another bite of the cherry. The idea of closing down a club because there is a serious drugs problem "near" that club seems very iniquitous if the club itself is in no way to blame—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Perhaps I may intervene. When we discussed this matter at Second Reading, I tried to explain, as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that there is no thought that a local authority would simply move in—nor could it under the powers in the Bill—to close down a club because there happened to be a serious drugs problem nearby. It has to be satisfied as to the causal link; namely, that only by closing down the club will there be a change in the drug dealing. The noble Lord will appreciate that I wish to put forward other amendments which would mean that it would be an action which would significantly assist in changing the pattern of drug dealing nearby. That was certainly a major part of discussions on Second Reading.
Lord Rea: I was going to draw the analogy of a chicken farm which is attacked by foxes. It is rather silly to close down the chicken farm when the source of the trouble is the local foxes. Surely it is the job of the police to deal with the dealers who are situated at or near the premises concerned?
The Earl of Courtown: We have had a very useful short debate on the first group of amendments. I re-state the Government's firm view that the tough powers in the Bill are needed to help responsible local authorities to deal with the problem of drugs in clubs.
We expect that the new powers will be used very sparingly, but local authorities should be able to deal swiftly in extreme circumstances. If these powers are diluted, as would be the case if the requirement in the amendments before us for the police to issue a caution to club owners were accepted, the purpose of the Bill would be undermined.
We are aware of the concerns of the club trade that owners and promoters might not be aware that the police regard them as having a serious problem with drug supply and misuse until a report is made to the local authority. I have to say that we have seen little evidence to justify that concern. What is apparent, however, is that many police forces and clubs are already working together to keep drugs out of clubs. Where that is
1782
happening communication between the police and clubs is regular and two-way. The Home Office circular, which Members of the Committee have seen in draft, will be used to promote good practice. It will also assist in defining some of the issues in the Bill. I reiterate that, as my noble friend said, this is only a draft Home Office circular. A great deal of consultation must take place. The Government's view is that we should avoid changing the Bill by attempting to provide tighter definitions when the fact is that only by considering the particular circumstances surrounding each individual case and by applying the two-stage test referred to by the noble Baroness can cases be resolved.
I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, and my noble friend have said. The draft circular says that, if the local authority considers that the problem would continue unabated even if the premises were shut, the test will not be met.
The Government have given an undertaking to consult the local authority associations, the police and trade representatives on the terms of the circular. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will agree that this is the right way forward and that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that someone will respond to the suggestion that I made a few moments ago. If people do not respond, this Bill will die; that is certain. I have suggested that we might try between now and Report stage to reach some form of accommodation. There is no desire on our part to frustrate the intentions of those who have produced the Bill. Our concern is with the drafting. I hope that people will accept our good faith in this matter and agree to consider the possibility of some form of discussions.
The Earl of Courtown: The Government and, I am sure, my noble friend will take full account of everything said at Committee stage. Prior to Committee stage a number of noble Lords had a constructive meeting with the Minister at the Home Office. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was unable to attend that meeting. My door is always open on the subject. My noble friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and I have talked to noble Lords who have an interest in the Bill. Never have we not been open to suggestions from noble Lords. However, we shall take due account of what has been said with regard to this amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: I accept that the Government have responded in some measure to the points made at Second Reading by offering the meeting, which I regret that I was unable to attend, and by producing the preliminary draft guidance rather quicker than was envisaged.
In no way are these amendments intended to wreck the Bill and I dispute that they do so. They represent a serious attempt to give effect to the concerns about the Bill expressed at Second Reading and by the various responsible interested bodies. Perhaps I may deal with two matters before I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

1783
First, several noble Lords referred to the provision for a caution. I agree with the point that the introduction of a caution procedure will encourage co-operation with the police rather than confrontation, as must be at least potentially possible if the Bill stands as it is presently drafted. A caution will concentrate the mind of the licence holder, who may not be culpable but perhaps has become a little careless. The responsible licence holder will want to respond promptly and to co-operate with the police, and be seen to be doing so.
Secondly, a caution, if not responded to, will provide the police with the best evidence for revocation in the event that the licence holder has not responded satisfactorily.
I turn to the question of the guidance. I accept that we have only seen a provisional draft but the guidance relating to the definition—or perhaps I should say the non-definition—of a place near to the premises is, frankly, unhelpful and indeed emphasises that there is a deliberate policy within the Bill as presently drafted not to seek a definition. I understand the argument. But it is said, rather blandly, that there must be some causal link between the fact that the club is open and the drug problems which occur nearby. Surely, without having to define what "nearby" or "proximity" mean in the context of the Bill, it must be right that the licence holder should be in a position to do something about the problem if his licence is to be put at risk? There must be some failure on his part, even if it is a failure to provide proper security at the door or surveillance within the club. That is why I believe that further thought must go into spelling out in the guidance, if not in the Bill, what causal link must be established before the licence is in any way at risk.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, that the guidance needs to be more focused and more prescriptive. At present it does not even have the statutory status of the Highway Code. Surely if this guidance is to provide consistent good practice throughout the country, it needs to be beefed up and to be given a greater status on the face of the Bill.
Those are perhaps points to which I can return at Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, after ("police") insert ("stating").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 13, 14, 30, 31, 33 and 34. These amendments are designed to address the concern of club owners about the nature and weight of the evidence that the police have in proceeding to report a serious problem of drug misuse at or near a club.
We know that the club trade is seeking protection from the possibility that the police will go to the local authority with flimsy evidence. I believe that that is unlikely and that it is just as unlikely that a local
1784
authority would then accept either inadequate evidence or mere assurances that the police have evidence. However, some additional provision can be made in this Bill. By providing through this amendment that a chief police officer must give his reasons for saying that there is a serious problem, we are requiring in effect that the police have evidence to support their case and supply a summary of that evidence to the local authority. In doing so, the strength of the police evidence can be clearly established at the outset. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I welcome this group of amendments which I believe assist with the task. I congratulate my noble friend on persuading the Home Office, following the very useful meeting which we had, and on coming forward with this amendment. I think it was with regard to our concerns that it has been moved and I believe that the amendment, as it stands, helps to identify why the police consider that the problem is serious because they have to give their reasons for it.
However, I cannot give it 10 out of 10 because it only does half the job. I should like it to go on and do the other half of the job and say why, for instance, the refusal of the transfer of the licence or revocation of the licence, depending on which section it goes into, will significantly assist in dealing with the problem. That seems to me to be the other half: we have the first part stating the reasons. That indicates the seriousness of the problem and I believe that it should go on and say why the action to be taken, the revocation of the licence, will significantly—which is another amendment coming up later—assist in dealing with the problem. I believe that it is an operational matter for the police and it is the judgment of the police that the local authority must be aware of before they try to make up their mind about whether the licence should be revoked or there is a refusal of transfer. So, whereas I cannot give my noble friend 10 out of 10, I thank her for this amendment; but I should like her to take matters a little further and I hope she may give some thought to that.
Lord Monson: I too welcome this amendment so far as it goes. But at the risk of sounding as if I am being carping, I have to point out to the noble Baroness that giving reasons is not the same as giving evidence—hard, solid evidence.
The Earl of Courtown: The Government's view is that these amendments deal with the club trade's concerns about what evidence the police would supply to the local authority to substantiate that there is a serious problem of drug supply or misuse. As regards the basis of the police evidence, I suggest that it is very unlikely that a Chief Officer of Police will make a report to the local authority on the basis of unsupported allegations by his officers. No doubt he will look to provide, and the local authority will expect, facts and figures about arrests, incidents of disorder or casualties from drug misuse, therefore requiring the chief officer to give his reasons for saying that there is a serious problem should clarify the issues for all concerned.

1785
The Government fully support my noble friend's amendments. They are the first of several that address concerns expressed on behalf of the club trade and I hope they will be accepted by the Committee.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I note what has been said. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1. line 16, at end insert ("and giving reasons for his view that there is such a problem.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 3 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1. line 16, at end insert—
("( ) A copy of any report from the chief officer of police received in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above shall be sent by the licensing authority to—

(a) the holder of the licence;

(b) in the case of an application for the transfer of the licence, the person to whom the licence would be transferred if the application has been granted; and

(c) the last known owner of the place.").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 4, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 15 and 18. These amendments are self-explanatory. I suggest they provide elementary fairness and commonsense in proposing that a copy of a police report should go to those most affected by it and it should go to them before the licensing authority considers its decision. Surely the licence holder is entitled to know what is said about and against him and what is said about the alleged problem. Surely also the authority should not consider the drastic action of revocation until after the licence holder has received a copy of the police report which is to be the basis of the decision which may be made about the licensed premises.
I also suggest that the last known owner of the premises is entitled to know what is said to be going on. He, the landlord, may have his own rights and remedies as well as his own legitimate interests to protect. It may be, following through the thinking behind the Bill, that a stick waved by the landlord may be just as effective as a stick threatened or waved by the police and the licensing authority.
It has already been suggested that my earlier amendments were seeking to water down the Bill. I deny that suggestion and indeed I have not sought, as certain outside bodies were seeking to persuade me to do, to introduce complex procedures as a preliminary to the exercise by the licensing authority of its powers under this Bill. The time limits provided for are not intended to be generous. It should enable swift action to be taken, but at least to be taken fairly. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: This group of amendments is very much less far reaching than our first group of amendments, as I am sure everybody will agree, and
1786
I do not think anybody could seriously accuse them of being wrecking amendments. For that reason, I hope they can be accepted by the noble Baroness.
Viscount Ullswater: I only rise to support the concept that the owner should be included on the provision of any report. The guidance notes state that good practice should include this close liaison between the police and club owners and managers on the handling of drug related incidents. Also, the local authorities should inquire into the extent to which the owners have been made aware of the drug problem. I believe that this amendment, with the inclusion of the last known owner, makes certain that the owner, rather than necessarily the licence holder, is included in that notification. It is a very minor amendment and I hope that my noble friend may consider that the Government's objective of tackling drugs together could be well served by this.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: Some consideration has already been given to the content of the police report in such cases. The Home Office draft circular contains some guidance on the content and processing of the police report. It is not possible to anticipate in advance the range of circumstances that might amount to a serious problem and should be reported to the local authority. However, it is possible to conceive that the police might need to report to the local authority while an investigation is on-going and where suspects still have to be charged with offences. In these circumstances, the publication of sensitive information might well have operational implications for the police or indeed be prejudicial to the individuals involved.
With this in mind, I am opposed to any requirement for a detailed police report to be served on a licence holder. I suggest, however, that this issue could be examined in the course of consultations with the local authority associations, the police and the club trade on the draft circular as a whole to see what further guidance might be offered.
In addition, there is the question of delay which would be built in if the police report had to be served on a licence holder and the last known owner. This again would delay emergency action from being taken in the worst cases. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will agree not to press these amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Baroness says every time that she hopes the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will not press his amendment; but it requires a more adequate explanation than the noble Baroness has just given. I can understand the point, but the first argument she deploys is: what happens if there is an on-going investigation? That is a problem. I assume it is not a problem raised by the police. The letter of the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, makes it quite clear that the Association of Chief Police Officers has not yet been asked to express their views on this matter. Therefore, this is not a police concern given the fact that the police have not yet been consulted according to the noble Earl.
Then the noble Baroness uses this argument which freezes the blood in my veins: the danger of delay. There can be certain circumstances when one is

1787
investigating possible criminal offences when there are problems associated with delay. But we are talking here about the potential destruction of someone's business. Are they not entitled to some element of delay which enables them to understand why, in fact, it is being suggested that their business should be destroyed? I find it astonishing that while noble Lords opposite talk with great regularity about small businesses—and I agree with their views entirely—when it comes to a small businessman in this area, their interests are swept aside as being a matter of no account whatever.
I have already said once—I shall not boringly repeat it—that I very much hope that we shall address these issues in some form of informal discussions between this Committee stage and Report stage. Frankly, unless we try to reach some form of agreement on this matter, I fear that this measure, which in my view is potentially of quite considerable value, will perish and that would be a pity.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: I am sorry to have tried to interrupt the noble Lord earlier. I should like to make just one point, and my noble friend may have already mentioned it—I think I have in one of my speaking notes. The fact is that these measures will be used in exceptional circumstances. There will be a proved background of drug abuse—and more than drug abuse, drug peddling. We have to take that into account.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I understand the "exceptional circumstances" argument. But no words like "exceptional circumstances" appear on the face of the Bill. None of us doubts that there is a real problem here. It is a very substantial problem. Anyone who has gone round the police forces in this country knows perfectly well the number of occasions on which this particular problem has been raised. I do not have to be persuaded that there is a problem. I need to be persuaded that this Bill, as drafted at the moment, will satisfactorily address the problem, without doing grievous damage to the interests of people who will have their businesses wiped out of existence without a proper opportunity of explaining the position and having adequate protection.
I hope that this matter will be looked at seriously between now and Report stage. Otherwise, I fear that the consequences as regards the Bill will be very disagreeable.
Lord Meston: These amendments are not concerned with the content of the police report but only with its direction and the potential for it to be received by those who will most likely be affected. It is certainly not intended to delay what I accept should be quite a swift procedure in urgent cases.
I do not find convincing the argument that there is a reason for not sending the report to the licence holder; namely, that the material within the report may somehow be sensitive. Surely by the time the police have decided that it is appropriate to seek to have the premises shut down or the licence altered in some way,
1788
the police will have their tackle in order. The evidence will be already assembled and must be sufficient to persuade the licensing authority that the drastic action proposed by the Bill has to be taken. I simply do not see the likelihood of information that is still sensitive having to be put in the report or, indeed, having to be left out of the report if it is to be sent to the licence holder.
I respectfully agree with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. My intention was that the owner of the building rather than necessarily the owner of the business should have a copy of the report because, as I said, he may have rights, remedies and interests of his own.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that that matter may be satisfactorily covered in a further version of the guidance. I hope that it may be. But the fact that she has just said so reinforces, in my view, the need to give the guidance a proper status on the face of the Bill and ensure, before the Bill becomes effective legislation, that the guidance is in proper form. On that basis—and that basis alone—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 19, after ("will") insert ("significantly").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 23, 32, 35 and 36. In the light of views expressed by the club trade about the basis on which the local authorities might take decisions to revoke or not renew a licence, I looked again at the test to be applied. At present the Bill requires a local authority to apply the test. The revocation will simply assist in dealing with the drugs problem in question. However, I readily acknowledge that the authority ought not to revoke when it considers that the improvement will be negligible or minor.
In trying to improve on that, we are again presented with linguistic difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested that the test should be that a non-renewable licence will substantially reduce the problem. However, I do not believe that that will quite do, as it implies that there is some acceptable level of drug misuse which should be allowed to continue unchallenged.
Instead, these amendments adopt the test: the revocation or renewal will significantly assist in dealing with the problem. If accepted, revised guidance on the issue will be included in a circular. The current draft already establishes that the authority must be satisfied that revoking a licence will assist in dealing with the drugs problem and if the authority considers that the problem will continue unabated, even if the premises are shut, the test will not be met. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Courtown: The Government's view is that these amendments deal with the club trade's

1789
concern about what evidence the police would supply to the local authority to substantiate that there is a serious problem of drug supply or misuse.
As regards the basis of the police evidence, I suggest that it is very unlikely that a chief officer of police will make a report to the local authority on the basis of unsupported allegations by his officers. No doubt he will look to provide, and the local authority will expect, facts and figures about arrests, incidents of disorder or casualties from drug misuse. Requiring the chief officer to give his reasons for saying that there is a serious problem should clarify the issues for all concerned.
The Government fully support my noble friend's amendments. They are the first of several amendments that address concerns expressed on behalf of the club trade. I hope that they will be accepted by this Committee.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) The authority shall not refuse to renew or to transfer a licence on the grounds set out in sub-paragraph (2) above without affording the licence holder and (in the case of an application for the transfer of the licence) the person to whom the licence would be transferred if the application had been granted an opportunity of being heard by the authority and of making representations to the authority.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 19, 21 and 24. Again, the amendments are self-explanatory. They provide the licence holder with the elementary right of an opportunity to be heard.
The guidance, in its original form, refers to natural justice. But the fact is that, even where good practice is operated by licensing committees, I understand that there is no uniformity of practice or procedure. Sometimes the licence holder would be allowed only a few minutes to speak at the start of the proceedings, if at all.
As presently drafted, the Bill allows for representations only after the event; in other words, on the face of the Bill the first opportunity for the licence holder to put his point of view comes after the decision has been made and that may possibly have been a decision which would not have been made if he had had a proper opportunity to speak beforehand. As has already been said, the decision, once made, may come too late for him to save his business. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I should like to draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 19. It offers the licence holder an opportunity to be heard.
Revocation on a report from an officer of police is a new situation and there is no precedent for granting a hearing. This amendment provides that opportunity. The guidance notes are helpful in that they state that it is
1790
clearly important that the requirements of natural justice are met when a local authority is considering taking such action. At that point, the guidance refers to the non-renewal or revocation of a licence. The guidance notes go on to state that it will be good practice to continue the current arrangements, and the current arrangements are that when there is a non-renewal of a public entertainments licence there will be hearings in relation to that. They provide the licence holder with a similar opportunity to be heard when a local authority is to consider acting upon a police report of a serious drugs problem. However, this is in the guidance notes; it is not on the face of the Bill.
This is a new situation. It does not offer the operator an opportunity of a hearing. It suggests that the guidance be followed. What we are interested in is that there should be consistency offered by the local authority licensing committees and that they should give the opportunity of a hearing. This amendment puts that right, if I can call it a right—I believe it is a right—on the face of the Bill. There is always a disclaimer in the guidance notes because of exceptional circumstances, and they can be overridden.
I will not say any more during the course of this Bill because I have come to the end of what I want to say. If the guidance notes are all we are going to have, then I hope that the Home Office considers very carefully what all the people who are going to be consulted have to say about them. I know that my noble friend has said that they are in draft; they are perhaps a little loose and need tightening up. As the noble Lord from the Opposition Front Bench said, they probably need quite a lot of work done on them. I believe that they do, and I have pointed out some areas where they are loose and need to be tightened up. I hope my noble friend Lady Anelay and my noble friend on the Front Bench will give consideration to this.
Lord Monson: I support this group of amendments because they accord with natural justice. The term "natural justice" has been used quite a lot in the last few minutes. There is nothing wrong with that; I do not believe that it can be stressed often enough. That is what we are aiming for.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: At the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey made two succinct points. First of all, he made it clear that he wished to see this Bill go through and did not want it destroyed by complicated legal amendments. Secondly, he said that he would listen to amendments but would not be convinced by amendments which seek to remove the central purpose of the Bill, which is immediate revocation. These amendments deny the local authority the ability to act quickly in an emergency. Therefore, we cannot support them.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am becoming increasingly concerned about the quite extraordinary arguments being deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin. The idea that one is going to punish a person without hearing from him, is the proposal that is being

1791
made, on the basis of what the noble friend of the noble Lord may or may not have said when this Bill was debated on Second Reading. I hope that when we are discussing legislation we are going to take some account of the many honourable, honest people who are involved in this business. The idea that one would punish people first and listen to them second is a principle very difficult to accept in any form of democratic society. I am most surprised to hear it from the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin.
I fear that I am being boringly repetitious, but I hope this matter can be looked at between now and the Report stage of this Bill. Having said this now on a number of occasions, I will not say it again.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I certainly hear and understand what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, means by his comments. He referred earlier to his blood being chilled by some of the things I said. If he had been able to take the opportunity to take part in the Second Reading of the Bill, he would have learnt then that my blood runs cold at the attempts of the very small minority of bad club owners who do not take away the livelihood of small businesses, but take away the lives of young people. I appreciate that the club trade is quite properly anxious, in the event—I would hope very rare—that the police report to the local authority that a club is considered to have a serious problem of drug supply or drug misuse, that it should have the chance of a fair hearing.
My understanding is that it is the current practice of local authorities to hold hearings where the non-renewal of a public entertainment licence is a possibility. In such circumstances the licence holder is able to attend and be represented. Some consideration has been given in a draft Home Office circular to the basis on which local authorities already hold hearings and some guidance is offered. This recognises that the consequences of non-renewal or revocation under the new arrangements are serious. I take that point, given that the licence holder will not be able to operate the club pending the hearing of any appeal. Therefore, it follows that it is important that the requirements of natural justice are met when a local authority is considering taking such action.
The Bill does not prescribe any procedure in this respect, and it is for local authorities to decide what procedural safeguards to adopt in the interests of fairness. The draft circular suggests that it would be good practice to continue the current arrangements and provide the licence holder with a similar opportunity to be heard when a local authority is to consider acting upon a police report of a serious drugs problem.
However, this Bill is particularly concerned with the exceptional cases where urgent action will be necessary, and in such cases a local authority may have to decide to depart from its normal procedures. With this particularly in mind, I would not wish to see a local authority required to hold a hearing in every single case. We know already that the Home Office circular will be subject to a consultation process and the conduct of
1792
hearings will undoubtedly receive further consideration at that time. In view of that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will agree to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Meston: The fact is that ideas of natural justice vary between different bodies, different employers and different organisations. It is because of that and because of one's experience of that fact that I have sought to put this on the face of the Bill rather than relying on a passing reference to it in the guidance notes or circular, or whatever it may be.
It is certainly not my intention to complicate this Bill with unduly legal amendments. On the contrary, I would suggest that amendments along the lines that I have been proposing will in many ways make this Bill lawyer-proof, proof against applications for judicial review and possibly even immune to applications to the European Court of Human Rights. However, that point is not something to develop at this stage. The fact is that practice without regulation from central government or the Home Office on the face of the Bill will continue to allow for the diversity of practice which those who operate in the field are complaining about. That is something to which we must clearly return at a later stage of this Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
8.50 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hope of Craighead moved Amendment No. 23
Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("murder,") to end of line 12.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to the five amendments in my name grouped with it—Amendments Nos. 25, 28, 31, 36 and 39. The amendments relate to various matters arising on page 3 of the Bill in relation to the proposed Schedule 5A. The first five deal with a list of qualifying offences and the last raises an issue in regard to relevant offences. Some of the points are purely drafting suggestions; others raise issues of perhaps greater substance. I shall try to deal with them briefly.
Amendment No. 23 relates to paragraph 2 in Part I which lists the Scottish offences which qualify for the mandatory life sentence. That group deals with attempted murder, to which is added the phrase,
"incitement to commit murder or conspiracy to commit murder".
Amendment No. 23 seeks to delete that reference.
So far as I am aware, incitement to commit murder in Scottish terminology is built into the notion of "art and part" which was referred to earlier. The question I pose for the Lord Advocate is whether it is necessary to repeat that phrase (which, for understandable reasons, is found in the English equivalent of this paragraph) in legislation which is intended to apply to Scotland. It would be enough to rely on the doctrine of concept and on the fact that in relation to Scottish practice an incitement to commit murder will probably involve the offender in a charge of attempted murder—art and part—with the principal actor. Alternatively, it may be that he will be found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, which is why I bring that into the amendment. I would be content for the words "incitement to commit murder" to be deleted and the reference confined to attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder. That would be more consistent with what I understand Scottish practice to be.
Amendment No. 25 relates to paragraph 5 which deals with sodomy or attempted sodomy. The phrase brought under scrutiny is the concluding passage of the paragraph which talks about it applying in either case, where one party does not consent. I confess that I find it difficult to follow the phraseology. The amendment is intended to try to simplify the concept in accordance with what I understand to be normal prosecution practice; that is, to bring these crimes before the court where a specific individual is named as a complainer. It would be easier to understand in practice if the wording I suggest were to be substituted.
Amendment No. 28 deals with the group of provisions involving the common law crime of assault. Paragraph 6(a) deals with the question where the assault has been aggravated in certain circumstances. It deals with aggravation by assault to severe injury and aggravation to the danger of the victim's life. It is a common experience in the Scottish courts to find a charge includes also as an aggravation, in suitable cases, assault to the permanent disfigurement of the victim.
I raise that point because it would be better to cover all the various aggravations and avoid the possibility that a jury, in returning its verdict, might delete the bits that are in the Bill at the moment and leave standing an aggravation by permanent disfigurement which, if I understand the philosophy of the paragraph, is intended to be included. It is to safeguard the possibility of some distortion resulting from a jury's verdict, or possibly the way in which a plea has been negotiated, that it would be wiser to make reference here to "permanent disfigurement".
Amendment No. 31 is a small point and relates to the wording of the paragraph relating to robbery where the offender,
"had in his possession a firearm or an imitation firearm".
The wording which causes me some difficulty is the phrase,
"at some time during the commission of the offence";
That sounds too specific. I would prefer the word "any" to be added. Indeed, I believe there is a proposal to delete the words altogether. The broad idea is simply that if a robbery has been committed, where at any time
1794
in the course of the offence a firearm or an imitation firearm had been produced, that would be an aggravation which would qualify for the purposes of the mandatory life sentence. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to consider an improvement to the wording to that effect.
Amendment No. 36 raises a point more to do with prosecution practice than anything else. It is designed to deal with paragraph 10 in the proposed schedule. That brings into the list the offence,
"unlawful intercourse with a girl under the age of thirteen years".
In previous amendments, which have not been accepted, consideration was given to the issue of setting a minimum age on the commission of the first offence. That was raised because of the provision in Clause 1 which qualifies the first offence irrespective of the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the offence.
I am raising the question of what is to be done in a case where somebody has committed this offence while under the age of 16 years. It may be that the Lord Advocate will tell me that it would not be the policy of the Crown to prosecute in the High Court in those circumstances. However, if it is the policy, it would seem a harsh measure to include that offence in that case. It is with a view to finding out what the Lord Advocate's position is on that specific matter, without distorting his general policy on the age relating to the first of those two offences, that I tabled the amendment. I do not need to dwell on the circumstances in which the offences are committed. I have had experience as a judge of cases where the offence was committed and both the complainer and the offender were comparatively close in age. That raises an issue which deserves consideration.
Amendment No. 39—the last amendment in this group in my name—relates to what I might describe as the Gretna Green problem. It is a matter to which I alluded at Second Reading. In the Scottish list we included the offence of,
"lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour or practices".
As I read it, the English list contains no counterpart. It strikes me as unsatisfactory that one could have an offender who had committed those offences or their equivalent south of the Border, who was then found to have committed one offence north of the Border and who does not qualify for the mandatory life sentence whereas somebody who was just north of the Border and in the same position did so qualify.
I do not pretend any expertise in the nature of these offences in England. But for the purposes of discussion I have introduced Sections 14, 15 or 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. At first sight they seem to have some relationship to the Scottish offence of,
"lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour or practices";
and Section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. Those lists are already far too long and, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out earlier, to some extent I am to blame for lengthening them by previous comments. But if we are to have a list of this kind, we should make every effort to see that it is as complete and logical as possible. If that is not achieved, cases will be thrown up

1795
which will bring the new process into disrepute. There is enough risk of that already, but it would be unfortunate if, through possible defects in the draftsmanship, possible omissions, or possible failures to match the position in Scotland with that in England, there were such imperfections. With those rather broad thoughts in mind, I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I refer briefly to Amendment No. 30 and to an issue which is similar to that to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred. I refer to the phrase "at some time". We must ask whether that phrase is necessary and whether it adds anything to the clause. Our concern is that the inclusion of that phrase opens up the possibility of the relevant period stretching back indeterminately from the actual committing of the offence to,
"at some time during the commission of the offence".
Could "at some time" stretch back so far as to cover someone who happened to have a gun at home when the act was planned or thought about? What about the situation where an offender is driving to commit a robbery and has in the boot of the car his son's or daughter's toy gun or cowboy pistol, leaves the car some distance from the scene of the crime and proceeds to enter the bank and to rob it without the use of that gun, which he did not know was in the car?
The phrase "at some time" seems to take the period under consideration back to much earlier in the formulation of the act than the actual commissioning of the act. Therefore, we must ask whether those words add anything of importance to the clause.
Lord McCluskey: I regret to say that once again I deplore the grouping. Each of the amendments raises a different point. I support Amendment No. 23 which, as the noble and learned Lord explained, seeks to delete the words "incitement to commit murder" and so on. For the reasons outlined by the noble and learned Lord, I shall be happy to see that deletion. However, I do not support Amendment No. 28, which relates to "the victim's permanent disfigurement". As a matter of law, as I understand it, a permanent disfigurement means simply a scar. Therefore, quite a small scar, if it is permanent—and it normally will be—could be described as an aggravated assault and would accordingly extend the list substantially. That is quite distinct from the matter dealt with in Amendment No. 25.
I also support Amendment No. 36, as is obvious from my earlier remarks on one of my own amendments. I propose in due course to deal with the other amendments, but I repeat that it does not seem to make any sense to group amendments simply on the basis that they deal with qualifying offences under Part I of what will be new Schedule 5A.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The amendments in this grouping to which noble Lords have spoken seek to widen the scope of the list in the schedule in some
1796
respects and seek in other respects to reduce its scope. I should like to deal with the amendments which have been mentioned specifically. I hope that I have a note of all of them, but if I trespass into debates which have yet to come, I apologise.
I turn first to Amendment No. 23, which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of why he thinks the amendment is necessary. The Government, however, are not persuaded that it is necessary and I am in a position to inform the Committee and the noble and learned Lord that in the course of the past few months there has been a case in Scotland in which a single accused was prosecuted—and, as I recall it, pleaded guilty—for incitement to commit murder and was sent to prison. I confess that I have no recollection of having heard of such a case previously, but that was a clear case of that particular crime. It was a serious matter which merited the accused being sent to prison. If the noble and learned Lord is interested, I shall be happy to provide him with the details of the case which are now in the public domain. For those reasons, the Government are not persuaded that that amendment should be accepted.
I turn now to Amendment No. 25, which also stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. This amendment deals with a point which is similar to that raised in an amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, and to which we shall come in due course. The intention of the Bill as currently framed is that only convictions for non-consensual sodomy should be relevant for the purposes of Clause 1. The wording currently used seeks to achieve that objective by stating that sodomy or attempted sodomy shall be a qualifying offence where one party does not consent. In the context of sodomy, it is clear that the person against whom the act of sodomy is perpetrated—or the victim—is the party whose lack of consent is relevant. The person who perpetrates the act clearly always consents to it. Replacing the reference to the "party" who "does not consent" with a reference to "the complainer" who does not consent will, it is believed, be of little, if any, practical effect.
To take a fairly technical view of the matter, in some cases the victim of the act of sodomy does not complain to the authorities about the behaviour of the offender and it comes to the attention of the police by some other route. While such individuals may in some instances be commonly referred to as complainers, on one view they are not. For those reasons, the Government are not persuaded that the amendment is either necessary or helpful. As we are dealing with fairly technical matters, I undertake to read carefully what has been said about this and other amendments. I am open to further persuasion by informal means that the matter requires to be looked at further.
I move to Amendment No. 31, also in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The amendment proposes that the words,
"where at some time during the commission of the offence, the offender had in his possession a firearm"

1797
should be changed to "where at any time". The amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, also raised this particular issue. The view of the Government is that in this context "some" is the same as "any". While I do not believe that there is anything between us in principle, we are not persuaded that the change is necessary. However, as the point has been raised I am happy to consider it further.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that the use of the words "at some time" might lead to confusion as to whether or not the offender was guilty of a qualifying offence, as set out in paragraph 7 of the schedule. He cited the example of an offender who had a gun at home and was thinking about committing a crime or had a gun in his car and drove to commit a robbery but did not use it. In the latter example the gun was only an imitation.
Lord Sewel: I referred to his son's cowboy gun.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am obliged to the noble Lord. These are practical issues that require to be addressed in the context of establishing questions of guilt or innocence. From time to time when charges of assault and robbery are prosecuted there is an issue as to what time the commission of the crime begins and whether those involved in it as principals or under the doctrine of art and part fall properly to be convicted or should be acquitted because of an insufficiency of evidence. Obviously, the Bill has no plans to change the law in that respect.
The next amendment referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was Amendment No. 36 which he correctly indicated touched upon issues of prosecution policy as much as anything else. The amendment does not seek to delete the offence from the list but to qualify it so that such offences—unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13 years of age—will count as qualifying offences only where the offender has attained the age of 16 years at the time of the commission of the offence. While one appreciates the concern of the noble and learned Lord that one should not deal harshly with youngsters who may almost unwittingly commit this offence, Clause 1 is directed to offenders who have been convicted twice in the High Court of offences. This offence would have to arise as the first of the qualifying offences for this amendment to have any relevance.
If such an offence were serious enough to warrant prosecution in the High Court, in accordance with the approach that the Crown takes to the prosecution of youths of that age, and it resulted in a conviction, it would be serious enough to warrant inclusion in the list, albeit that the circumstances of the particular offence might be relevant to the question of exceptional circumstances as discussed earlier. For example, one could imagine a 15 year-old youth being found guilty of an offence involving a girl of eight or 10 years of age. While not being prosecuted and convicted of rape, it could result in a conviction for a contravention of Section 5 of the 1995 Act. For that reason the Government believe that it should remain on the list. I hasten to assure the Committee that only in very few cases would offenders under 16 years be prosecuted in the High Court for that particular statutory offence.
1798
I move now to Amendment No. 28 which seeks to add a reference to "permanent disfigurement". The Government believe that on its own permanent disfigurement is not a sufficiently serious aggravation to warrant inclusion in the list, for reasons similar to those referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. Any assault resulting in serious injury would be relevant to severe injury to the victim or to the danger of his life, irrespective of the permanent disfigurement which might arise.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 39. I understand the concern expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the Scottish common law offence of lewd, indecent and libidinous practices or behaviour, which can be committed against children only, is broader than any offence in the English list of offences. Conduct which would result in such a conviction in Scotland would not result in such a conviction in England of an offence which would be a qualifying offence in England and Wales.
As I said earlier today, achieving a mirror image between the two lists is just not possible. The approach we have instead followed is to include in the lists for both jurisdictions offences which we consider to be of the same order of gravity or seriousness. Widening the list of relevant English convictions in the Bill by adding the four offences suggested by the noble and learned Lord would widen the scope too far.
I have looked in detail at the particular provisions in the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Indecency with Children Act 1960, to which the amendment refers. Offences against the first Act can be committed against adults as well as children. None of the offences specified attracts the penalty of life imprisonment, which is the common characteristic which runs through the lists in Scotland and in England and Wales. Indeed when one turns to the Indecency with Children Act 1960, the offence mentioned attracts a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.
The noble and learned Lord will be aware that there is currently under way in England a review of the penalties for statutory offences of a sexual character, particularly those directed against children. If the outcome of that review were to increase the penalties or in some way to revamp the offences, the constitution of the English schedule in this Bill and the English Bill would have to be looked at again. The view taken at the moment is that it would be wrong to introduce into the lists, north or south of the Border, any offence which does not attract life imprisonment, which they all currently do.
For those reasons, and on the clear undertaking that I shall look carefully at what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, I hope that none of the amendments will be pressed. If I have omitted to deal with one of the amendments, I apologise.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is the list now closed or shall we have some additions to it by Report? Those of us who have to look closely at the Bill would like to know.

1799
The observations that have been made in the course of this debate make it clear that it is an act of folly to try to introduce crimes committed in England under a system which is statute based into a Scottish system which is based on the common law. We are not comparing like with like. That is why a substantial degree of unfairness may be introduced into the whole matter leading to a mandatory life sentence.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may join in, because I have now discovered the meaning of Amendment No. 25 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, which, as has been pointed out, is similar in purpose to my Amendment No. 26.
Contrary to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has just told the Committee, the word "complainer" is a well understood word in Scots law. For example, it appears three times in Section 270 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which I have before me. It states:
"This section applies where … evidence is led by the defence … impugning the character of … the complainer".
It states also:
"This section applies where … the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to tend to establish … or to involve imputations on the character … of the complainer".
Subsection (4) states:
"In subsection (1) above, references to the complainer include references to a victim who is deceased".
Therefore, the word "complainer" is perfectly well understood in everyday Scots criminal practice as meaning a person who is a victim. In terms of the Act, which was passed by this House as a consolidation measure in 1995, it includes even a deceased victim. Therefore, the word "complainer" is perfectly well understood. It is for that reason that I tabled Amendment No. 26. The present wording of the provision is, I would submit, quite ludicrous. The qualifying offence appears on page 3 at line 15 where it states:
"Sodomy or attempted sodomy where, in either case, one party does not consent".
I suggest that the words "one party" should be deleted and the word "complainer" substituted. Therefore, the Bill should refer to sodomy or attempted sodomy where the victim does not consent because it is the absence of consent by the complainer or victim which turns consensual homosexual intercourse into a serious sexual assault. It is the complainer's absence of consent which matters. You cannot charge the offender if he did not consent. That is too ludicrous to even think about. You cannot charge the person who commits the sodomy of another and say, "Well you did not consent". That is just absurd.
I may have missed something in all this if there are three or more parties to a sodomy. But that is not my understanding of the term as it is used in Scots law. Accordingly, the provision is meaningless as it stands and the proper course is to take out the words either on the basis suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord
1800
Hope of Craighead, or, alternatively, to substitute the words "complainer". At the moment, it looks like some kind of silly joke.
Lord Hope of Craighead: In relation to Amendment No. 23, I am reassured by the observations of the noble and learned Lord that my experience is the same as his and that until recently the offence of incitement to murder has not appeared in Scottish indictments. But in view of its recent appearance, I recognise that there may be some point in its inclusion in this paragraph and I am content to withdraw that amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 25, I hope that in the light of my observations and in particular those of my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will give further thought to that matter. It seems confusing. I found it quite difficult to understand. My noble and learned friend mentioned the oddity which might arise if there were three parties involved in the enterprise, two of whom were trying to commit an offence against another. The essence of the matter is that something is done to somebody who is properly described as a complainer which I should have thought would qualify the sodomy or attempted sodomy for inclusion in this list. On the understanding that the matter will receive further consideration, I am content to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment No. 28 is intended to deal with the possibility that there had been an oversight in the Government's thinking in relation to what should be included on the list. I suggested the inclusion of the words, "the victim's permanent disfigurement". Of course, my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey is right to say that, in many cases, it is not a serious offence. It is somewhat reassuring to find that the Government are prepared to recognise that some offences prosecuted in the High Court are not, after all, serious offences. As it appears that this is not an oversight and the matter has received consideration, I am content not to press the amendment.
As for Amendment No. 31, that is an amendment to which I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to give further consideration. It is a matter of finding the proper form of words to express the concept which is being described. The word "some" has its origin in the English Bill, but I do not see why we should be tied to that phraseology if we can find a better form of words for ourselves. It is really for the reasons that I outlined and which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mentioned that I suggest that it would be worth thinking about another way of expressing the concept.
I turn now to Amendment No. 36. I am reassured by what the noble and learned Lord said about prosecution practice. However, I should like to think that from now on one of the factors which a Lord Advocate will take into account when deciding whether to prosecute for that particular offence, in the case of an offender under the age of 16, is its effect for the future. That applies not only to the sentence which might be imposed for that particular offence but also to the consequences if it were to be prosecuted in the High Court in the future should there be a further offence.

1801
Finally, in regard to Amendment No. 39, it is an unfortunate situation that people who commit the offence of lewd conduct, to express it shortly, in Scotland will already, so to speak, have lost one life if they venture south of the Border and find themselves committing an offence on the English list. It is that kind of distortion that led me to suggest that this should be included in the Scottish list. I do not see why we should be affected by the fact that English legislation is defective in failing to set proper minimum penalties.
On the other hand, I understand that the matter has received careful consideration and I am grateful for that fact. I also understand that the whole problem of such offences in England is to be considered and it may be better to leave the matter over to allow that consideration to take place. I have no doubt that one factor that will be brought into account, if the Crime (Sentences) Bill is enacted, is whether the kind of offence to which we are referring this evening should be included in that list. If amendments to the English legislation are needed in order to achieve that aim, no doubt that will be done and no doubt the opportunity would then be taken to reflect that fact in Scottish legislation. For the various reasons that I have outlined, I am content not to press any of my amendments. With the leave of the Committee, I shall withdraw them in due course.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may correct a possible misapprehension on his part as to what I said earlier about assault to permanent disfigurement. I may be wrong, but I am unaware of it ever being the practice of the Crown to prosecute individuals charged with assault to permanent disfigurement in the High Court. If I gave that impression in my earlier remarks, I would not wish that to be understood by Members of the Committee. As the noble and learned Lord is well aware, the normal practice is for that aggravation to be added to assault to severe injury. That is the reason why the Government have adopted their position in relation to the matter. However, I can certainly repeat the undertaking that I gave earlier to look at the matter further. Indeed, I need say no more in that respect.
I am reminded that I may not have dealt explicitly with Amendment No. 27, although I believe that I referred to it in passing when dealing with one of the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I am grateful for that reminder. The effect of this amendment would be to restrict the category of aggravated assaults which are qualifying offences to those which are aggravated through not only causing severe injury to the victim but also causing the victim's permanent disfigurement. This amendment would seek to require both elements to be established before an offence would qualify.
The Government believe that this would be an unnecessary and undesirable restriction because of the fact that severe injury may not always be accompanied by permanent disfigurement. I give an example which must occur from time to time in cases prosecuted in the High Court where a victim is the subject of a beating or a kicking with hands and feet. It is not uncommon for
1802
him to sustain serious internal injury without there being any permanent disfigurement whatsoever. That is why the amendment is deemed to be undesirable.
With regard to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, as to whether the list was closed, I must say no for the reason that we have yet to deal with some of the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The list cannot be said to be closed because it depends on what the Committee makes of those amendments. Equally if, on further reflection of what has been said this evening, the Government seek to amend or alter some of the qualifying offences, the list could not be said to be closed in that respect either. If Members of the Committee opposite wish to propose an addition at Report stage that can be looked at too. As present advised, the Government have no proposals to bring forward amendments to the list subject to the comments that I have already made in dealing with those amendments which have been spoken to so far.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: With respect, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate misses one of the points. The indictment may contain a charge of assault with the double aggravation of severe injury and permanent disfigurement. It is open to the jury to delete both aggravations or either or neither. A jury is directed that the question of whether an injury is severe is not a question of medical seriousness but is a jury question. It may well be that a jury would return a verdict of assault to permanent disfigurement even though it was not the practice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to charge such an assault. I accept that that would not be his practice.
The difficulty is to understand why assault to severe injury should be a scheduled offence but assault to permanent disfigurement should not be. That is the difficulty that is raised by the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. Why should assault to severe injury be regarded as warranting the loss of one of the two "lives"—I rather like that metaphor—when assault to permanent disfigurement does not? What is the thinking that distinguishes between these two?
Lord Hope of Craighead: My noble and learned friend has picked up precisely the point that I wanted to make in reply to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. There was certainly no misunderstanding on my part about prosecution policy in this regard. I would not have believed for a moment that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would prosecute on its own assault to permanent disfigurement. I believe I have repeatedly made the point that Scottish juries can deal with indictments in a way which English juries cannot deal with counts in an English indictment. It is that kind of problem that has to be anticipated in the drafting of this particular schedule. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey: I take it that it is not technically possible to go back to Amendment No. 24. I see the

1803
shaking of heads. That is a pity. I shall come back to it on Report. I was confused by the listing. I confess that I have forgotten the number of the amendment being called.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: We are now at Amendment No. 26.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("or to ravish").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 29 has not been discussed. It has nothing to do with the groups set out in the Marshalled List. The amendment refers to the wording at line 20 on page 3 of the Bill. The concept included in paragraph 6 of the qualifying offences schedule is,
"Assault, where the assault was carried out with an intention to rape or to ravish".
I do not know what that means. An intention to rape or an intention to ravish are interchangeable terms, as I understand it. I know of no difference between them. "Ravish" is a rather old fashioned way in Scots legal language of saying an attempt to rape. Perhaps the Government can explain.
I am sorry that I cannot ask them to explain where on earth "clandestine injury to women" in paragraph 4 came from. I have a good deal of authority to suggest that perhaps there is no such crime in Scotland, and certainly no nomen iuris for such a crime. I shall have to come back to that on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Perhaps I may be forgiven for suggesting to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that if he is interested in the inclusion of "clandestine injury to women" in the list, he might refresh his memory by reading the Committee stage in another place. It was suggested to the Government, I think by the Opposition, that that was a serious omission from the list. The Government were persuaded to take it on board, proving that the list was not in fact closed. If the noble and learned Lord seeks to take on both noble Lords opposite and myself at a later stage, we shall await with interest what he says.
The Government believe that Amendment No. 29 seeks to restrict the list in an unacceptable manner. As the noble and learned Lord is aware, assault with intent to ravish is a term currently used in the criminal courts of Scotland. In the first full week of this year I prosecuted in the High Court an accused on a charge of rape and, withstanding an insufficiency of evidence to justify seeking a conviction of rape, I sought from the jury, first, a conviction for attempted rape, or assault with attempt to ravish. That was the charge upon which the accused was convicted. There may be no difference in legal terms between an assault and an attempt to rape and an assault with intent to ravish. But both terms are used in the courts and to avoid misunderstanding as to whether one is included or one is not, and to avoid any accusation that the Bill is intended
1804
to amend the common law of Scotland so far as concerns the definition of offences, paragraph 6(b) is in the terms it is.
Lord McCluskey: One of the unfortunate difficulties is that when the English determine whether or not a relevant offence in their terms has been committed, they will find this curious expression:
"Assault … carried out with an intention to rape or to ravish".
It appears to me that, since there is no difference, the Act ought simply to go for one term or the other. I would prefer the more modern term, "to rape". I cannot understand why both terms are there when they both mean exactly the same thing. It will certainly confuse judges in England when they come to regard an offence of this kind under Schedule 5A as being a relevant offence for the purposes of the Crime (Sentences) Bill. Surely the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will acknowledge that.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It is no part of my responsibility to deal with any problems that judges in England may have in construing Scottish legislation. I merely say that, having sat through many hours of debate on the English Bill, among the many arguments deployed against that Bill from the Cross-Benches, populated by not a few noble and learned Lords, no one made that point. It may be, however, that we shall hear about it on Report.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is the problem not created by including the word "or" in paragraph 6(b)? It suggests that they are two different offences. With respect, the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is that they are one and the same thing. There is no need therefore to include the word "or", since it might suggest to people that the assault was not carried out with an intention to rape or to ravish. The two words mean exactly the same thing. Surely, since it is left to the judges to interpret the words "exceptional circumstances" before they impose an automatic life sentence, it will be open to the judge to explain that the word "rape" includes the word "ravish". Can it not simply be left to the judges and can we not delete "or to ravish", as the amendment suggests?
Lord McCluskey: I gather that the silence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate means that he does not intend to make any further reply. It is a pity. The Government drafted this Bill in an extraordinary hurry. I know the details of the drafting and early printing of the Bill when it actually "hit the stands". It came out with great speed. Yet the Government are determined to defend almost every word of it. I suppose that is to ensure that it passes hastily through both this Chamber and another place. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will take the opportunity to reflect on this matter before Report stage and decide whether he needs those words in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 23, after ("offender") insert ("personally").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment raises a matter that has not yet been discussed. At line 23, on page 3 of the Bill the Committee will see that the person referred to is an offender who,
"had in his possession a firearm or an imitation firearm".
I am concerned with that notion of possession.
An offender might well be held to be in possession in the ordinary legal sense although, to the ordinary layman, he did not possess at all. In other words, there can be a kind of constructive possession. It is not uncommon in Scotland to find a person starting out the evening with a firearm or another kind of weapon who then parts with it to a companion—very commonly, a female companion—and is then not in a lay sense in possession but is in a legal sense in possession of the firearm.
Accordingly, by adding the word "personally" the amendment seeks to make sure that the offence, which appears as a qualifying offence, is an offence where he personally has possession of a firearm or imitation firearm during the commission of the offence. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: This amendment touches on issues similar to those discussed previously in relation to Amendment No. 30. As I mentioned when dealing with that amendment, there is a concern that amendments along these lines would unduly narrow the circumstances in which robbery with the use of a firearm would be a qualifying offence for the purposes of an automatic life sentence.
As I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would be the first to acknowledge, when the doctrine of art and part is being explained to juries in all manner of cases, the practical example given in many instances is that of the bank robbery when one person has the gun, one person has the bag to put the money in, one person stands out in the street as the look-out and the fourth person is in the car. In that situation, if they are all proved to have been involved in the carrying out of the bank robbery with the use of a firearm, they are so convicted, even though three of them may never have touched the weapon from the beginning of the commission of the offence to the end of it.
It would be most unfortunate if this provision in the schedule were to be amended in such a way that only those offenders who had a weapon in their personal possession were to be caught and the others were not. However, I will look at the provision again in the light of what has been said. If it can be recast in a way which meets the concerns expressed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I will promise to bring back a tidying-up amendment at Report. However, I feel that both the amendments, and in particular the one we are
1806
now discussing, would have a seriously restricting effect on the Bill. For that reason the amendment is not acceptable.
Lord McCluskey: I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord will look at the matter. He will find when he does so that the word "possession" appears in paragraph 7, to which this amendment relates, and also in paragraph 8(a) where there is reference to the possession of a firearm in terms of Section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968. Those are closely related in terms of the provision and it is important that the Government should know what the intention is in relation to constructive possession.
I am rather alarmed to hear the noble and learned Lord say that a person who never enters the bank but sits outside in the car is a party to the possession of a firearm by a person inside the bank. He may be guilty art and part of an armed robbery, but to say that he is guilty art and part of the possession of a firearm is a strange thing indeed. However, I shall await the result of the noble and learned Lord's further consideration. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, leave out line 32.
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 33 relates to a matter that we have not discussed. The provision at line 32 on page 3 includes among the qualifying offences lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour or practices. We have had some discussion of that. Hitherto we looked at the fact that there is no exact equivalent in England. However, the offence in Scotland is described in a number of cases which are conveniently summarised in Christopher Gane's book Sexual Offences. I refer to page 74. He says—and I respectfully agree—that:
"It is an offence at common law to engage in 'lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour' towards children (girls or boys) below the age of puberty, with or without their consent."
I pause to say that this provision in the Bill does not refer simply to children but to any lewd, indecent or libidinous practices. Gane goes on to say:
"The offence may take the form of an indecent handling of the child by the accused or inducing the child to indecently handle the accused. There is no need for any physical contact between the parties and knowingly to engage in indecent conduct in the presence of a child may constitute lewd and libidinous practices".
There is also a case in which a husband had sexual intercourse with his wife in the presence of a child. That was held to be him engaging in lewd and libidinous practices for which he could be prosecuted, and he was prosecuted quite recently. I wonder what the Government's thinking is in relation to this matter and why it is that an offence which is capable of being so extremely minor should be included in the list of qualifying offences. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As I think has been made clear earlier, if a conviction for lewd and indecent and libidinous behaviour or practice was to be relevant

1807
to the automatic life sentence provisions, it would have to be a conviction in the High Court. The view has been taken that such convictions do amount to convictions for serious sexual offences, whatever minor contraventions of that common law crime may occur, and might be prosecuted in the law courts: whether sheriff and jury, sheriff summary or the district court. That is the reason why, for the purposes of protecting those who are the victims of serious sexual offences, paragraph 9 of the schedule exists.
I can do no more than remind the Committee of what I said at Second Reading, that it would be for the prosecutors of the day, when this clause comes into effect, the Crown counsel, to decide whether or not the circumstances warrant the case being heard in the High Court. If such a conviction followed on as a minor charge in a High Court indictment where other more serious charges had not been proved, then that would obviously be the circumstances of the particular offence, whether it be the first or the second, and it would be going over old ground to go over what we discussed earlier as to whether or not those facts could be prayed in aid by counsel in seeking to persuade the judge that this was a case where there were exceptional circumstances which entitled the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, not to impose an automatic life sentence.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I would like to support Lord McCluskey's amendment to this extent, that it again raises the problem of the freedom a jury has to deal with the charges before it in the indictment. The noble and learned Lord has referred to one possibility which is where a whole series of charges are brought into the indictment, some of which are comparatively trivial but they need to be charged together with the others for evidential reasons, and due to some accident of evidence or the way in which the jury approach the case, all the serious charges are deleted and a few, possibly only one very minor charge, which would have gone to the sheriff court on its own, is all that is left. The fact is that the prosecutor does not control the jury. The jury have complete freedom in these matters under the direction of the trial judge to decide what to do. For my part, I fully support the broad idea that an offence of this kind, committed against children, is one of the most pernicious offences and requires very careful consideration by the Government. The problem is created by the width. I have tried to think of a way of qualifying the phraseology. I confess I have not been able to come up with any words which I am prepared to put forward by way of amendment. But it may be, on further consideration, the Government will be able to find some words.
There is one other point I should make, and that is this. This offence has been considered recently by the High Court in Scotland and the view was taken in a case, the name of which escapes me, that it is not confined to offences against children. It may be worth considering whether one way of qualifying this to deal with the particular point to which I think it is directed is to include a reference to children so that it is at least limited to that and does not include some of the more
1808
bizarre examples of lewd conduct committed between adults where there is no reason to think that anybody is seriously affected by the conduct. So, to that extent, I support what Lord McCluskey has said.
Lord McCluskey: I am grateful for that support. I should simply draw the Lord Advocate's attention to the possibility of using the notion of the complainer being below the age of 16, or some such thing. That would ensure that where an adult used lewd and libidinous practices towards a child within the meaning of the 1995 Act—approximately a person below the age of 16—then that would be a qualifying offence. One can understand that more readily.
My noble and learned friend took the words out of my mouth in relation to what the jury can do, but I want to go on from that. The prosecutor may decide to put the accused person in the High Court on a much more serious charge and the jury may do as they are entitled to do and reduce the charge, so that it comes out in effect as a charge of lewd and libidinous practices. The circumstances may not be in the least exceptional. There is nothing exceptional about an older brother, a babysitter or the boyfriend of the mother interfering and using lewd and libidinous practices towards the child. At the moment, such offences tend to be charged summarily. But the offender can be convicted in the High Court by a jury if it is decided to dilute the charge in some way.
What worries me about that is that, if the prosecutor found that the jury did not accept his principal submission—namely, that the accused should be convicted of a more serious offence—but returned a verdict which was essentially for lewd and libidinous practices, and the prosecutor says to himself, "I would never have brought this case for such a result into the High Court", then the prosecutor will not move for sentence. If the prosecutor does not move for sentence, that person, instead of going to prison for life, walks free. I do not think that the public will readily understand that unreviewable exercise of a prosecutor's discretion when he simply declines to move for sentence.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will give some thought to that particular matter, which is very serious indeed.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: This debate could go on incessantly. I responded to the noble and learned Lord's amendment. I promised to look at it further. Further contributions have been made by both noble and learned Lords. I do not think it is appropriate to respond in detail to the points made. I feel that we should move on to the next amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I do not pretend that that is a satisfactory answer but obviously I do not seek to divide the Committee at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, leave out lines 33 to 35.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment relates to item 10 in the list:
"Any offence committed by contravention of section 5(1)"—
that is to say, unlawful intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years.
I should just like to understand the Government's thinking on this matter. I understand the general thrust of the provisions to be that the Government seek to protect the public. In what sense is this type of offence indicative of a threat to the public? In what sense is it associated with public danger? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: This amendment seeks to remove from the list an offence which I am sure many noble Lords would view as potentially very serious indeed. That is borne out by the fact that Parliament enacted that the statutory penalty for conviction can be up to that of life imprisonment.
In order to obtain a conviction for rape, the prosecution must prove that the act was committed against the will of the girl involved—the complainer, as that term has been discussed in earlier amendments. Requiring a young girl who would be covered by the provisions of this Act—namely, a girl under the age of 13 years—to give evidence about the issue of consent is, I am sure the Committee will agree, neither desirable nor appropriate. Presumably, that is why Parliament enacted this provision, which was consolidated recently as Section 5(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.
As I acknowledged in earlier discussion, it is possible that this offence could be constituted by somebody under the age of 16 engaging in sexual experimentation with somebody just under the age of 13 but, if those were the factual circumstances, in my submission, it would be very unusual indeed and very difficult to contemplate that that would result in a High Court conviction. On the other hand, to cite an example I gave earlier, if the girl involved was aged eight, nine or 10 and the offender was much older than in the earlier example I mentioned, not only would there have been considerable danger to the girl involved in the particular offence, but the risk of that recurring undoubtedly results in a risk to the public.
That is why, following the policy which must have lain behind Parliament allowing the penalty of life imprisonment for a conviction under this section, the Government believe that this provision should be tenth in the list of qualifying offences.
Lord McCluskey: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining the position. He has given an indication, now as earlier, that he will have regard to the age of the offender, which is the subject matter of Amendment No. 36 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. Given his
1810
assurances in relation to that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 35.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert—
("11. Any of the following offences committed in England and Wales, namely—

(a) an attempt to commit murder, a conspiracy to commit murder or an incitement to murder;

(b) an offence under section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (soliciting murder);

(c) manslaughter;

(d) an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, or causing grievous bodily harm, with intent);

(e) rape or an attempt to commit rape:

(f) an offence under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (intercourse with a girl under 13);

(g) any offence committed by contravention of—

(i) section 16 (possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury);

(ii) section 17 (use of firearm to resist arrest); or

(iii) section 18 (carrying a firearm with criminal intent)

of the Firearms Act 1968;

(h) robbery, where at some time during the commission of the offence the offender had in his possession a firearm or imitation firearm.

12. Any of the following offences committed in Northern Ireland, namely—

(a) an offence mentioned in subparagraph (a) to (e) of paragraph 11 above;

(b) an offence under section 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (intercourse with a girl under 14);

(c) an offence under Article 17 (possession of a firearm with intent to injure), Article 18(1) (use of a firearm to resist arrest) or Article 19 (carrying a firearm with criminal intent) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981; and

(d) robbery where, at some time during the commission of the offence, the offender had in his possession a firearm or imitation firearm within the meaning of that Order.

PART III
INTERPRETATION
13. In paragraphs 7 and 11(h) above "firearm" and "imitation firearm" have the meanings respectively given to them by section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: This matter has been the subject of some discussion before now. I deeply regret—and I have not made any secret of it—the Government's

1811
sudden decision in June 1996 to introduce American-style mandatory sentencing. It has been said by us, the critics of the Bill, and admitted today by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, that this matter was preceded by no external consultation whatever. I do not know what consultation there was within the Government. I should be interested to know whether the Lord Advocate himself was consulted before the Government's intention was announced.
The Secretary of State, I believe, was asked for, but refused, an independent inquiry into the Maguire case, which gave rise to his concern in this matter. What he did do, however, was make the announcement which is now enshrined in Clause 1. There was no consultation whatever about the principle. We have to ask what is the principle.
The principle enshrined in the clause is that a man or a woman should go to prison for life if twice convicted in the High Court for any one of a huge number of offences. It is difficult to get the exact number but it is certainly in Schedule 1 something in the order of 19 or 20. The principle that is swept away on the basis of this one case, the tragic Mhairi Julyan case, is a principle which has been part of Scots law since time immemorial. It was much praised by Baron Hume and was commended by the previous Secretary of State, Ian Lang, in relation to an earlier Bill in another place.
However, this kind of mandatory sentencing is not without precedent. We can find it at both federal and state level in the United States, and the movement in both state and federal jurisdictions has been a movement towards removing judicial discretion. In California it started in 1976 and the discretion of the judges which, until that time, had been absolute and unreviewable, was removed for most serious offences. In 1994 the California legislature adopted the "three strikes and you're out" policy; in other words, two serious felonies followed by one felony meant one had to go to prison for not fewer than 25 years and it could be substantially more. The result is that in California the prison population in 20 years has trebled.
Those are undeniable facts. The Government know them and do not face up to the fact that our prison population will rise in a dramatic way because of provisions of this kind. In California the court system has been thrown into chaos because of reasons mentioned by Members of this Committee and the Committee on the Crime (Sentences) Bill. There is no point in pleading guilty to the second offence or in California to the third strike, because one is bound to go to prison for 25 years or more and the judge there, as here, has no discretion. The other horrific factor is that the prosecutor in California can enter into plea bargains, and does so. He reduces charges to avoid people pleading not guilty and accepts crimes as misdemeanours which are truly felonies in order to avoid the application of the principle of three strikes.
The cost of building prisons in California is absolutely prohibitive. It is the greatest growth industry in the state. It is wellknown among lawyers and others in California that there is a proposal to erect road signs on the borders of Nevada and Arizona reading,
1812
"Welcome to California, the wholly-owned subsidiary of the California Department of Corrections". That expresses the point that it is a huge growth industry.
When I visited California some two years ago looking at this matter, there was no discernible effect upon crime rates. Closer studies since that time have indicated that there is no correlation between a rising prison population and a falling crime rate. The curious thing is that so many crimes are committed in California that one of the great difficulties is to pick a jury where the members of the jury are not themselves either victims or related to perpetrators of felonies within the state.
It is the crime rates that matter. That is why so many people who were consulted—the Lord Advocate has access to the consultation papers—did not say, "Let the punishment fit the crime"; they said, "Let the punishment reduce the crime". That is an entirely different matter. Quite apart from state law, exactly the same phenomena happened in federal law. Until 1984 federal judges in the United States had total discretion and that discretion was unreviewable. There was no national sentencing policy. Then the Sentencing Reform Act 1984 was enacted.
The Act was sponsored by two senators—Edward Kennedy and Strom Thurmond from the liberal and right wings respectively. Senator Kennedy was anxious to arrive at equality of sentencing for minority groups, especially blacks, who tended to come out much worse as a result of the penal system. Strom Thurmond was anxious to double or treble the sentence for all criminals. They therefore combined forces and produced the Sentencing Reform Act 1984 with what are called "mandatory guidelines", though that is an oxymoron, as Members of the Committee will recognise. In the event, judges are supplied with a matrix containing about 300 boxes and they simply use a computer or calculator to find their way into the appropriate box, having regard to the characteristics of the offence and the offender, and end up having to give a sentence in respect of which there is almost no discretion.
Experience in relation to those federal practices shows that judges go below the guidelines, as they are allowed to do in exceptional circumstances, in 1.5 per cent. of cases. Prosecutors can move to go below the guidelines and do so in 15 per cent. of cases, so the prosecutor exercises the power to go below the guidelines 10 times as often as the judge. That is what has given rise to what is called the "co-operation paradox". American experience, particularly of drugs cases, demonstrates that when you have the supply of drugs on a commercial scale within a community, the person in charge is usually a white and the persons who are doing the donkey work are usually members of minority groups. When the police bust the ring and require evidence, the person who can give the best evidence is the leader of the ring, so he co-operates with the prosecutor. He is then not prosecuted for the serious offence; he is charged with a misdemeanour. He gets up to four years in prison, but is usually out before that. The "donkeys", who are usually blacks or members of other minority groups, get a minimum of 14 years in relation to any trafficking in drugs.

1813
The result of all those experiments in the United States is, first, that since 1984 the federal prison population has more than doubled; the biggest villains escape the long terms; and the minority groups get very much longer in prison than the whites. Accordingly, the Chief Justice of the United States, William Rhenquist, in testimony to a congressional committee warned that we were in a state of facing what he called,
"the law of unintended consequences".
One sets out with what may be described as excellent intentions, but achieves almost the opposite. There is no satisfactory evidence of that policy having any deterrent effect on crime in the United States. Worse still, rehabilitation, which was at the heart of the American penal system until the mid-1970s, has virtually disappeared. It has become too expensive.
Against that background and given the experience that one can see across the water, why on earth have the Government gone so wholeheartedly for this proposal? Why, after studying the matter, have the Government decided to do a kind of U-turn? Why have the Government done that in the face of opposition from the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland, the judiciary and many other bodies, including the University of Dundee?
The university has produced an extremely articulate paper on the matter. The Lord Advocate no doubt has a copy; I have one and have read it. How do the Government answer the criticisms which were outlined in that paper? That paper points out the fact that the practical difficulties are absolutely enormous. It states that the pressure on the prosecutor to plea-bargain would increase; the defence would insist on pursuing the case to trial and some juries might be reluctant to convict. Many ethical and other issues are raised in that paper, which also refers to studies which illustrate that the judiciary has significantly increased sentence length for serious violent and sex offences over the past 10 years in Scotland. Given that background, is it necessary to move to mandatory sentencing when all the experience of that policy in the United States is so alarming and disappointing? That is why I oppose the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support everything that the noble and learned Lord has just said. I had hoped that we might get a little more light from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate which might assist judges in the future. During our debates on Clause 1, there was a reference to the article in the Glasgow Herald by the Solicitor-General, Mr. Paul Cullen. It is interesting to see what he says in that article:
"Equally there is nothing unprecedented or revolutionary about mandatory sentences. Such penalties have long been the norm for offences ranging from murder to drink-driving.
Nothing in the Bill will reduce judicial discretion. Life sentences of this kind are already available to the courts in dealing with the worst cases of serious crimes. What the Bill proposes is that, save in exceptional circumstances, life sentences should apply automatically to those convicted for a second time of serious violent or sexual offences".
1814
Those words have been put to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on a number of occasions to see whether he agrees with the Solicitor-General. He has told us that he approved the article before it was published and had sight of it. No doubt that is his interpretation of the purpose of Clause 1: that nothing in the Bill will reduce judicial discretion. He told the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that the overall discretion of the sentencer was not altered by the Bill. I will check it tomorrow in Hansard, but that is my note of his understanding of what the Solicitor-General said.
What is the purpose of introducing this Bill if the overall discretion of the sentencer is not altered? On this interpretation it is still open to the judges to determine the appropriate sentence simply by using the words "exceptional circumstances". In the course of this debate, I have asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to explain his understanding of "exceptional circumstances". His response is that it is for the court to construe it; in other words it is for the judges in Scotland who have the duty of carrying out the provisions of this Bill to decide for themselves what are exceptional circumstances. That is the message that goes out from the Lord Advocate to the judges for their understanding of the Bill.
This opens up all kinds of possibilities. Not a single limitation has been placed upon this interpretation of "exceptional circumstances" by the Lord Advocate. He has not suggested that the courts should do anything other than apply what they consider to be just and proper in their interpretation of the Bill and in the sentencing exercise that they carry out. Although I oppose this clause, the result of today's proceedings is to demonstrate that the courts may make of "exceptional circumstances" what they will, and judges may continue to do what they consider does justice in the circumstances of the individual offender who is before them.
Other reasons for attacking Clause 1 have already been referred to. I make three very short points. As far as concerns the additional number of prisoners that results from the passing of this Bill, mainly under Clause 1, the Explanatory Memorandum states that there will be an increase in the prison population of as many as 2,200 five years after implementation. Therefore, the envisaged increase in the prison population of Scotland is from 6,200 to 8,400 over five years. The cost of that in terms of expenditure on prison places will be £65 million to £100 million per annum at current prices. Is this justified? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said, does the American experience teach us that an investment of that degree of resources is worthwhile? I suggest that the evidence is to the contrary.
As for juries, at one point the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to what I said during the course of the Crime (Sentences) Bill, that, naturally enough and if appropriate, I would reveal to a jury the fact that my client had committed a qualifying offence and was likely to receive a life

1815
sentence if convicted of the offence for which he was before the court in the particular case. He expressed some surprise.
I am sure that in the course of his career the Lord Advocate must on many occasions have revealed his client's record for a variety of purposes. It may be that if one is defending someone on a charge of rape one would not reveal a recent rape conviction, but there are circumstances which might arise under the Bill where the qualifying offences are of such a varied character that it would be appropriate to reveal the fact that a life sentence awaited the defendant if convicted. He suggested that that would be unprofessional. I do not accept that for a moment.
If one is instructed by one's client to put forward the fact that he faces a life sentence as a result of a conviction on the offence upon which he is before the court, then one would do that. One would certainly advise him to do it if it were appropriate.
The third matter to which I want to refer is that mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—plea bargaining. It is undoubtedly the case that there would be pressure upon both the prosecutor and the defendant to come to some compromise which would avoid the drastic consequences of a mandatory life sentence. It happens in all jurisdictions. It happens in this jurisdiction that lesser charges are offered and lesser pleas are accepted. This is a disaster of a clause. I am certain that were it ever to come into force it would quickly prove to be unworkable.
Lord McCluskey: I appreciate that I have already spoken, but in view of what the noble Lord said, the resource implications dealt with on page viii relate to Part III of the Bill, not Clause 1. However, Clause 1 is dealt with towards the foot of the page where it states:
"It is anticipated that the proposals in Clause 1 for automatic life sentences will have very little impact on the prison population in the initial years following implementation",
and it gives reasons for that. It is for that reason that I asked the question to which I received the answer that there are 3,300 people at risk. As the recidivism rate is extremely high for that type of offender within a period of two years from leaving prison, I should like to know from the Lord Advocate when it was that they first discovered the figure of 3,300. I suspect that it was when they looked it up in answer to the question that I asked.
Curiously enough, what the memorandum goes on to say in the last paragraph of that page is:
"The proposals in Part III and in Clauses 1 and 2 are likely to have significant implications for the work of the Sheriff and High Courts … It is likely that a proportion of accused people who currently plead guilty will choose to maintain not guilty pleas and to pursue appeals against conviction".
They acknowledge that there is likely to be an effect upon the criminal justice system of a very disruptive kind.
1816
The last point that I wish to mention—I shall not speak further in relation to this clause, I hope—is that the Dundee study refers to the fact that there is a wealth of criminological research on risk prediction. It states:
"These studies suggest that such a proposal"—
that is, in Clause 1—
"is in danger of under-identifying those who are likely to commit serious crimes in future and of over-predicting the number of offenders who will re-offend. While a previous history of offending is a key predictor of future offending, it must be combined with other factors, should be more than two incidents and does not necessarily predict offending of the same type or at the same level of seriousness".
Those are important matters which have been the subject of serious study which the Government seem to have swept aside.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In the course of responding to a number of amendments this evening, I have set out the reasons why the Government believe that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. For that reason, having regard to the lateness of the hour, I see no point in repeating what I said earlier other than to confirm that the Government believe that when one is dealing with people who have offended repeatedly and who have been convicted in the High Court on a second occasion of serious sexual or violent crimes, this should be the procedure by which they are dealt with.
However, I should like to deal with a number of points raised by Members of the Committee who have spoken. First, I deal with the matters raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I have sat through the proceedings on the English Bill and this Bill and, until the noble and learned Lord's speech, nobody had suggested that the Government's proposals for automatic life sentences equiparate with the "three strikes and you are out", which apply in various states and federal jurisdictions in America. On the contrary, as I indicated earlier this afternoon, it has been acknowledged, as was confirmed by my noble friend Lord Carlisle, that the introduction of automatic life sentences need not necessarily lead to any increase at all in the prison population. Whether it does depends on the individual assessment by the Parole Board of individual prisoners in the light of the information then available.
It may be that the difficulty which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, had with the provisions of the 1993 Act lie behind his assertion that automatic life sentences would lead to a rise in the prison population; I know not. But it has been acknowledged—and I say correctly acknowledged—that that need not be the case.
The noble and learned Lord asserted also that there will be no point in pleading guilty. Whether under the automatic life sentence provision in Clause 1 or in relation to the mandatory sentence for drug traffickers provided in Clause 2, there is a benefit in pleading guilty in that the period spent in custody as prescribed by the judge can be reduced in both cases to take account of a plea of guilty. As it is now proper for the courts in

1817
Scotland to have regard to a plea of guilty in fixing a period spent in custody, there is no reason to suppose that those provisions will not have some effect as well.
As I said on Second Reading—and I stand by it—in relation to plea bargaining, it will be the duty of any Lord Advocate and his advocate deputes, Crown counsel, to respect the Bill if it becomes law in the same way that judges would be required to respect the Bill if it became law. Time and time again, indeed since Second Reading, as Lord Advocate I have to take decisions as to which charges to prefer and which pleas to accept. I know that as night follows day that will have an effect, and sometimes a significant effect, on the period of time which an individual will spend in prison or, indeed, if he will spend any time at all in prison. That is the role of Crown counsel and the Lord Advocate and I see no reason why that role should not continue to be discharged in a perfectly responsible manner.
A point was made by the noble and learned Lord about the cost of building prisons. As he said in his intervention, the increase in the prison population depends on the provisions in Part III and the extent to which, if at all, judges in Scotland reduce their sentences in the event of those provisions coming into force. The Government have set out their position in the Financial Memorandum and we can no doubt return later to those issues. I do not have available to me information as to when the 3,300 figure was first collated, but I think I dealt with that earlier in the debate by referring to the fact that, whether or not there were life sentences, if any of these individuals was convicted, he would run a strong prospect of being sent back to prison.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the additional prison population has already been answered. With regard to the practice of revealing previous convictions to a jury, in my experience as a defence counsel, I do not recall ever having done it. I am not saying that it has never happened. All I do say, on the basis of my experience of having defended many accused persons as a solicitor, having defended quite a few as a counsel and having prosecuted on many occasions, is that it is not normally the practice in Scotland for the reasons articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. As he said, it is so in England, although I have to say that the views he expressed, both today and on a previous occasion, have not been supported from many quarters as being the way in which defence counsel are likely to proceed. The point about plea bargaining has already been dealt with.
I accept that certain Members of the Committee do not support the policy but, in my submission, it is a policy which the Government have laid fairly before the House. I therefore invite the Committee to accept that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
10.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 10.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Coleridge, L.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Chancellor.]

Ferrers, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Goschen, V.

Marlesford, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Inglewood, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsay, E.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Carlisle, E.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Hope of Craighead, L.

Monson, L.

Hylton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Kintore, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

McCluskey, L.

Wigoder, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
10.40 p.m.
Clause 2 [Minimum sentence for third conviction of certain offences relating to drug trafficking]:
[Amendment No 41 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 4, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("was") in line 22 and insert ("at any time after the commencement of section 2 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997, and one of the two other offences").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to avoid retrospectivity in relation to the application of the clause. In case your Lordships missed that in the hubbub from those leaving the Chamber, having voted and not having listened to the earlier debate—I hope that they will not prevent your Lordships from listening to my remarks on this amendment—I shall repeat what I said. The purpose of the amendment is to avoid retrospectivity in relation to the new Section 205B(1).
A person can become qualified to receive the mandatory sentence envisaged by this new section if he has pled guilty before the Act comes into force; for example, in the sheriff court. It appears to me a matter of principle that, when one decides whether or not to look at previous convictions of this kind, one should bear in mind that when people pled guilty to such offences in the sheriff court on earlier occasions they had no idea that they were thus becoming qualified to receive the minimum mandatory sentence imposed by the new section. It is simply because of the point of principle that I raise the matter. I shall return to the principle of the clause at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The amendment would have the effect of allowing the court to ignore

1819
any convictions obtained prior to commencement of this section which an offender might have for trafficking in Class A drugs. The Government consider that it would be very undesirable for that to occur. It would set back the practical implementation of the provision for some considerable period of time.
As I said earlier when the issue of retrospection arose, when the clause comes into effect people will be aware that, if they have such convictions from the past, the legislation will not impose any additional penalty on them; but if they re-offend in the future, it will. I believe that that is a perfectly respectable policy to adopt; it is a perfectly respectable policy for Parliament to approve; and, indeed, it does not raise the issue of retrospection as it is normally understood. Therefore, there is no sound reason for accepting the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 25, leave Out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment raises again the question of judicial discretion. I shall put the point very shortly this time. The main objection that I have to the clause is that I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which a person appearing on indictment in the High Court on a charge of trafficking in a Class A drug with two previous convictions for such an offence would not get at least seven years.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could answer this question—he could easily find it out by reference to the information system—how many cases have there been in the past one or two or five years in which a person has been convicted in the High Court of trafficking in a Class A drug and has been sentenced to fewer than seven years when he has two previous convictions of the same character? I think he will find the answer will be none. I think we are entitled to know that in case it has any bearing upon the assessment of costs because it looks from the explanatory memorandum as if the Government do not expect any addition to the cost of anything as a result of the provisions in this clause.
My real objection is that here we depart from the principle of allowing judges judicial discretion and we do so for reasons which are purely gestures. This clause, if enacted, will make no practical difference to the sentencing policy or the sentencing practice in any case at all. I cannot think of exceptional circumstances that would enable a judge not to send a person to prison for at least seven years for a third such offence. Indeed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be well aware of the case of Lee in which a first offender aged 17 or 18 with no previous convictions, handling about £500 or £600 worth of a Class A drug, was sent to prison on his first conviction for four years by the Appeal Court. That sets the standard for the first conviction. Therefore the idea that one needs this clause makes no sense to me at all. Can the noble and learned
1820
Lord the Lord Advocate explain how many cases there have been in which judges in similar circumstances have imposed a penalty of fewer than seven years? That would enable me to consider whether I pursue this matter. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to explore whether the statistics to which the noble and learned Lord has referred will enable me to answer the precise question regarding the one or two-year period as he requested. At the present time, as he fully recognises, this amendment would render the clause meaningless. On that basis it is unacceptable to the Government. I should like the noble and learned Lord to withdraw it.
Lord McCluskey: I think the noble and learned Lord has missed my point which is that the clause as it stands is meaningless simply because no judge could possibly refrain from imposing a sentence of at least seven years for a third conviction for trafficking in a Class A drug. If there is a justification for this clause, it must be that judges have refrained from imposing such sentences in the past. Surely that is the only justification for bringing forward a clause of this kind. Surely the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can deal with that question, and surely he ought to know the answer to my question as to how many convictions of this kind there have been within any significant period of time where the judges have refrained from imposing such a sentence? Can he not answer that?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, he cannot have it both ways. He cannot ask me to provide precise information to enable him to pursue the matter at a later date if he is not prepared to allow me a similar opportunity to look at the statistics to deploy the argument that I would wish. I remind him of an argument which I advanced earlier which is that this provision would deal with convictions under a Great Britain-wide statute. One has not just to look at the position in Scotland; one has to look at the position in England as well. I am unaware of any statute where offences apply north and south of the Border but the penalties are different. That is part of the policy that lies behind this clause, as has been made clear when the Crime (Sentences) Bill was debated, and as has been made clear on a number of occasions this afternoon when this Bill has been debated. I believe it would be more profitable to the Committee to answer the factual question which was asked. With respect, that is what I would prefer to do.
Lord McCluskey: I shall look forward to receiving the answer to the questions I have put. Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, line 39, at end insert ("and the foregoing circumstances shall include any known circumstances relevant to the commission of the two other offences").
The noble and learned Lord said: I hope that Amendment No. 50 will allow me to obtain some information from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, whether now or at a later stage. The amendment refers to page 4, line 39 of the Bill. The Committee will see that there is no mention of circumstances relating to the known circumstances relevant to the commission of the two other offences.
I should like to know from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, first, whether he will explain what provision in the Bill allows the judge, when considering the question of exceptional circumstances, to look at the known circumstances or any of the earlier offences. Secondly, given the fact that Scottish criminal records as made available to the courts do not disclose whether a trafficking offence was in respect of a Class A, Class B or Class C drug, how will the provision work? Have the Government some way of determining whether or not the previous convictions listed in the SCRO list as simply Section 5(3) or Section 4(3)(b), or whatever it may be, are trafficking in a Class A, Class B or Class C drug? Thirdly, if the circumstances of any of the earlier offences may be relevant to the judge's exercise of his duty under the section, what proper records are there of the circumstances of the earlier offences?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As regards the first question, Clause 205B(3), as introduced into the 1995 Act by Clause 2 of this Bill, would entitle the court to look at the known circumstances both of the offence before the court and the previous conviction. That has been the consistent position of the Government throughout this legislation as I have explained already today. The noble and learned Lord is quite correct. The lists of previous criminal convictions as issued by the Scottish Criminal Records Office do not contain detail about the particular type of drug. That is why there was value in the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, earlier today: that the procedure for laying details of the circumstances of the first qualifying offence before the court will have to be addressed. I make no secret of that. But for the reasons I explained earlier, I see no practical reason why, with common sense on all sides, and the assistance of an act of adjournal passed by the court, if the court deems it necessary, the necessary procedure cannot be followed. I hope that that provides reassurance in response to the amendment which I understand is a probing amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCluskey moved Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Where the court has imposed a sentence in terms of subsection (2) above, it shall also require the person so sentenced to attend a drug awareness programme.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51 and speak to Amendment No. 52. I was invited by SACRO to advance Amendments Nos. 51 and 52, and I do so. They both relate to the same point.
In essence, SACRO suggests—and I agree with the suggestion—that the best means of reducing the crime rate in relation to drug-related offending is through the treatment of the offender; in other words, through counselling and education for users of drugs, especially those who are engaged in drug trafficking in order to support their habit. There is a good deal of experience to suggest that such people can be cured if they are properly treated. I suggest that this amendment will enable the Committee to inform the Government that we should like to see people who are convicted in this way being required to attend a drug awareness programme. That programme could be within the prisons, because the persons to whom this provision would apply would be going to prison for something of the order of seven years. I am interested to know if the noble and learned Lord is able to confirm whether funds are to he made available for curing such people, as well as funds being made available, at a cost of about £30,000 per head, to warehouse them in our prisons.
The second of the amendments relates to the nature of the drug awareness programme. It refers to,
"a programme of instruction and counselling in relation to the abuse of drugs which is approved by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
The idea is that the Government should set up the parameters of this type of drug awareness programme and counselling. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to agree with the noble and learned Lord that offenders in custody should be encouraged to address their offending behaviour and to tackle any problems they may have, which can include the problem of drug addiction. Clause 31(3)(b), to which we shall come in the fullness of time, seeks to increase that encouragement and award prisoners who respond to it.
However, like my colleague the Minister of State who spoke to virtually identical amendments in another place, I am not convinced that the programmes referred to in these two amendments should be prescribed in the manner suggested. Nor am I persuaded that it is necessary to approve programmes under a statutory regulatory system.
To elaborate on some of my concerns in relation to these amendments, first, I draw attention to the danger of setting a precedent that the court should attach conditions to custodial sentences. This could lead to demands for a whole range of conditions which might make it difficult for those involved, both in the Prison Service and in local authorities, to respond in a flexible and sensible manner to the changing needs of individual offenders. It may also be difficult for the court to assess at the point of imposing sentence which programmes it would be most appropriate for the offender to undertake.
Some offenders who will be sentenced in terms of Clause 2 undoubtedly will be people with drug problems; but others will not. Those others will simply

1823
be criminal businessmen, if I might use the term, who have become involved in the drugs trade not because of any wish to feed their own addiction but for purely mercenary purposes. Compulsory attendance at a programme of counselling for such individuals would be a waste of time and resources. Indeed, their compulsory presence at such courses which they did not wish to attend might be counter-productive and interfere with the work being done with other prisoners who are in need of such help. Attendance at a programme of counselling is clearly ineffective if the individual offender is unwilling to participate. While the clause to which I referred earlier will seek to encourage participation in such courses, it cannot compel it, and it would be unrealistic to expect it to do so.
As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the Scottish Prison Service already challenges prisoners to participate in programmes which seek to address offending behaviour. That is not limited to drugs offenders but certainly includes those who fall into that category. There is a large number of progammes across the prison estate dealing not only with drugs but with alcohol abuse, sex offending and anger management. Funds are available for that. I do not have the precise figure available to me at the Dispatch Box. However, if it is of interest to the noble and learned Lord, I am happy to provide it.
The success of Clause 31, to which I have referred, will in part depend on the existence of such programmes. I believe that all sides of the House are agreed on the desirability of them; there are varying degrees of realism as to how much can be afforded. Clearly there is a commitment on the part of the Prison Service to provide as many of these programmes as is practicable. I hope that on that basis it will prove possible for the noble and learned Lord to withdraw this amendment and the following one.
Lord McCluskey: In relation to the point of principle which the Lord Advocate has mentioned—the difficulty of attaching conditions to sentences—I do not see any reason why one should not make a judgment on the merits of each proposal and decide whether to do it. If by attaching a condition one can reduce the risk of re-offending, it surely must be worthwhile considering.
The person who is caught and convicted for a third time of trafficking in a Class A drug is, in my experience, extremely unlikely to be one of the "Mr. Bigs". He is very likely to be an addict. It is addicts who get caught in this kind of way, because they are feeding their habit. It is very likely that the people dealt with under this clause will be people who need treatment for drugs.
I shall study the Lord Advocate's reply, perhaps tomorrow, and see whether I want to take the matter further on another occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 5, leave out lines 8 to 18.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, leave out line 30.
The noble and learned Lord said: I can deal with this amendment very shortly. The curious thing is that according to the provision on page 5, lines 29 and 30, a judge might in certain circumstances hear himself saying to the accused, "You will go to prison for five years, 219 days". I should be rather ashamed to pass such a sentence; I should feel that I should render myself ridiculous. I should like to know what the basis of the provision is. I have been trying hard to work out where the five years 219 days comes from but my arithmetic is not up to it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be good enough to explain where he gets that figure from and what its justification is. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The figure comes from deducting 20 per cent. from seven years. I have to confess not to having checked the arithmetic myself, but that is what this part of the clause seeks to achieve.
It is accepted that a provision of this kind is unusual in Scots law but it is required in order to enable the court to take account of a guilty plea in a Clause 2 case, as I indicated earlier it could do, and to impose a reduced sentence which it might otherwise be unable to do because of the statutory minimum sentence.
The phraseology of the terms in this clause is slightly different from that in the English clause but the objective is the same: to have a 20 per cent. discount from the seven-year mandatory sentence. I hope with that explanation it will prove unnecessary for the noble and learned Lord to press the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I do not intend to press it. I tried to do that calculation, allowing for leap years, and did not manage to get the result. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will have the arithmetic checked and, if it does not work, he will go on to explain it.
Perhaps I may add two points in relation to this matter. First, it is a pity that the Notes on Clauses, which I thought were rather poor in relation to this Bill, did not explain a matter of that kind. It would have saved me having to ask the question.
Some newspapers of a certain kind have been carrying information based upon briefings supplied by persons I know not who which indicate that I have put down a large number of wrecking and destructive amendments designed to delay the progress of the Bill. Is the Lord Advocate able to confirm that that is not so or, alternatively, to name which of my amendments that have been discussed during the course of today fall into that category?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not think that supplementary observation arises directly out of my

1825
response. I am happy to concede that as far as this amendment is concerned there can be no question that it could be described as a wrecking amendment. It might be possible to accord that description to others, but I do not think it would be a profitable exercise at this point of the evening to go through each and every amendment we have discussed. No doubt if the noble Lord wishes to discuss it further, we can do so informally and not trouble other noble Lords.
Lord McCluskey: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question but, having regard to the discussion we have been able to have in relation to the amendments, I do not propose to maintain that position.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
MEANING OF "CONVICTION"
(". After section 205 of the 1995 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Meaning of "conviction" for purposes of sections 205A and 205B.
205C.—(1) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of each of sections 205A and 205B of this Act "conviction" includes—
(a) a finding of guilt in respect of which the offender was admonished under section 181 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (admonition); and
(b) a conviction for which an order is made placing the offender on probation,
and related expressions shall be construed accordingly.
(2) This subsection applies where a person has at any time been convicted of an offence under—
(a) section 70 of the Army Act 1955;
(b) section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955; or
(c) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957.
(3) Where subsection (2) above applies and the corresponding civil offence (within the meaning of the Act under which the offence was committed) was—
(a) a relevant offence within the meaning of section 205A of this Act; or
(b) a Class A drug trafficking offence within the meaning of section 205B of this Act,
that section shall have effect as if he had been convicted in England and Wales of the corresponding civil offence.".").
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
LORD ADVOCATE TO EXPLAIN CERTAIN PROSECUTION DECISIONS
(" . After section 205 of the 1995 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Lord Advocate to explain certain prosecution decisions.
205C.—(1) When the Lord Advocate decides to indict a person in the High Court on a charge of committing a qualifying offence within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 5A to this Act or of committing a Class A drug trafficking offence as defined in section 205B(5) of this Act at a time when he is a person to whom section 205B(1)(b) applies, the Lord Advocate shall prepare a full written statement of his reasons for indicting the person in the High Court rather than the Sheriff Court, and—
(a) a certified copy of that statement shall be placed before the trial judge after the person has been convicted and before he has been sentenced or otherwise dealt with; and
(b) the trial judge shall have regard to that written statement before imposing any sentence of imprisonment or detention.
(2) When the Lord Advocate decides to indict a person in the Sheriff Court on a charge of committing a qualifying offence within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 5A to this Act or of committing a Class A drug trafficking offence as defined in section 205B(5) of this Act at a time when he is a person to whom section 205B(1)(b) applies, the Lord Advocate shall prepare a full written statement of his reasons for indicting the person in the Sheriff Court rather than the High Court, and—
(a) a certified copy of that statement shall be placed before the sheriff after the person has been convicted and before he has been sentenced or otherwise dealt with; and
(b) the sheriff shall have regard to that written statement before imposing any sentence of imprisonment or detention.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 56 which has not been discussed. The purpose of the amendment is, I think, plain from its terms. It arises from a concern which I have expressed both today and at Second Reading, namely that the Lord Advocate takes his decisions in secret and he is not answerable either to Parliament or to anyone else in respect of them. I give an example. In a recent case four persons were charged with murder and attempted murder and appeared in the High Court. On the morning of the trial the Crown accepted a plea of guilty to murder in respect of one of them and not guilty in respect of the other three and pleas of not guilty from all in respect of the attempted murder charge. These were people who had been held in custody for in excess of a 110 day period. The Advocate Depute was not able to explain the decision in court and the Lord Advocate, to whom I wrote about the matter, replied chiding me for raising the matter and suggesting that this was not a matter to be raised in public.
I only mention the case to illustrate the point that there can be cases in which the Lord Advocate takes very important decisions of this kind and no one understands them. There was a case many years ago which became quite notorious, the Sweeney case, in which something of that kind happened.
When we come to the provisions of this Bill, particuarly in relation to Clause 1 and the mandatory life sentences, the power of the Lord Advocate will be very considerable indeed because he always has a choice as to whether to indict a case in the High Court or to indict the case in the sheriff court. When he exercises that choice and takes the decision, his decision is taken in secret. It is unreviewable, it is not ever explained and if, indeed, one asks for an explanation of such a

1827
decision, as I did when the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was the Lord Advocate, the Lord Advocate will refuse to give it.
Given the general background of plea bargaining, as happens in jurisdictions where there are provisions of a similar kind, particularly in the United States but not confined to the United States, I think we have to be very careful about the use of the power of the Lord Advocate.
Accordingly, the purpose of the new clause is to require the Lord Advocate to prepare a full written statement of his reasons for indicting the person in the High Court rather than the sheriff court or vice versa and to place that before the court so that there is some public scrutiny and some public answerability in respect of these vitally important decisions which can affect a person's life so dramatically. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As the noble and learned Lord acknowledges, the new clause would require the Lord Advocate to give reasons for the choice of court in which to prosecute any qualifying offence or a drug trafficking offence where an accused had two relevant previous convictions. Where the provisions set out in this clause apply, the court would have to have regard to the statement containing the Lord Advocate's reasons for the choice of court.
Noble Lords may be aware that at present proceedings are taken in the High Court where that is required by law; for example, in cases of murder, rape or treason, or where the court considers that the offence is sufficiently serious, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the accused's previous convictions, to merit a sentence which only the High Court can impose. Exceptionally there will be a small number of cases which are prosecuted in the High Court because of their particular complexity or sensitivity, even though the sentence which might be expected would be one which would fall within the jurisdiction of the sheriff.
Neither Clause 1 nor Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to interfere with the Lord Advocate's discretion to choose the forum in which to indict a case. Nor will this new clause do so, because its only effect would be to require the Lord Advocate to give reasons for exercising his discretion. The noble and learned Lord will be well aware that there is a long-standing convention that the Lord Advocate does not give reasons for such decisions. As he knows, that convention also applies to the Lord Advocate's accountability to Parliament. The Lord Advocate is accountable to Parliament for his actions, but it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that Parliament would seek to have the Lord Advocate explain the reasons for a particular decision. What this new clause would do, however, is to make commonplace what only happens at present in the most exceptional of circumstances.
The noble and learned Lord made reference to some correspondence about a particular case. Obviously, I do not have that correspondence before me, but even if I did, I am doubtful whether it would be helpful for me to refer to the detail of what passed between a senator and the Lord Advocate in private correspondence about a particular case.
1828
The Lord Advocate's decision as to which forum to choose will be based on the whole of the circumstances of the case as known to the Lord Advocate or his Crown counsel at the stage at which the decision to serve indictment is taken. The information which influences that decision, as the noble and learned Lord knows well, is confidential, a fact borne out by the passage from Hume to which I referred in the Second Reading debate. It would be unprecedented for the Lord Advocate to breach that confidentiality by disclosing the information on which the decision was based.
To the extent that the new clause would not require the Lord Advocate to refer to the facts of the case when giving his reasons, I do not understand what the clause seeks to achieve. If the facts of the case are not to be discussed, then the only reason that the Lord Advocate would give for the choice of court would be that the particular court was considered to be a suitable forum in which to trial a case, having regard to the sentencing power of the court and the circumstances of the case as known to him at the date the case was indicted. The Committee will appreciate that that will be little more than a statement of the obvious. But that is almost certainly all that could be said in relation to a qualifying offence where the accused did not have a previous conviction for a qualifying offence. The explanation for the decision might be more complicated in those cases where there was a conviction in the High Court which would require the imposition of a mandatory sentence under Clause 1 or where there were previous convictions relevant to Clause 2.
If it were the Lord Advocate's policy always to prosecute such cases in the High Court unless it appeared to him that the court was likely to hold that there were exceptional circumstances which would justify departing from the imposition of a mandatory sentence, then the noble and learned Lord's new clause would result in the following. Where proceedings were taken in the High Court, the Lord Advocate would give as his reason the fact that this was a case in which the court would be required to impose a mandatory sentence. On the other hand, if proceedings were taken in the sheriff court, the Lord Advocate would state that the case was being prosecuted in the sheriff court because it was anticipated that the court would be likely to hold that there were exceptional circumstances such as to justify not imposing a mandatory sentence. That is if the policy of the Lord Advocate was always to prosecute, unless it appeared to the Lord Advocate that the court was likely to hold that there were exceptional circumstances. Whether that would be the policy that any Lord Advocate would follow I would not begin to commit myself to at this stage.
Again, I have great difficulty in seeing what all this would achieve. There is, however, another objection. If, as I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey intends, the intention is to force the Lord Advocate to make his position clear before the case is called to court, that is fundamentally objectionable. The decision as to forum is taken in the light of the facts and circumstances as known to the prosecutor at that stage in the proceedings. As Hume, as I recollect it, has said, it is well known that the Lord

1829
Advocate may have private information available to him. As the noble and learned Lord knows well, what happens at the trial would require to be taken account of by the judge in addressing the issues which we have been discussing on more than one occasion as the afternoon and evening have worn on. Therefore, I doubt whether any practical purpose would be served in departing from this very longstanding convention, which is central to the system of the independent public prosecutor in Scotland.
For all these reasons, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be persuaded that it would not be appropriate to have a clause in the Bill in the terms set out in Amendment No. 56.
Lord McCluskey: Of course, I accept that the tradition to which the Lord Advocate refers is a longstanding one, and indeed a greatly respected one in Scotland. The terms of the clause which I have suggested make it plain that the revelation of the reasons of the Lord Advocate is made to the judge. There is no public disclosure. The trial judge in the High Court or the sheriff in the sheriff court will receive a copy of the statement, not before but after the person has been convicted. At that stage he can have regard to it. It becomes plain then that a judge or a sheriff who has seen such a statement can go, if he feels disquiet about the decision-making within the office of the Lord Advocate, either to the Lord Justice General or to a Sheriff Principal to try to raise the matter and to see whether something can be done about it.
The point that I seek to make through the amendments which deal with this matter is that when the Lord Advocate decides to send a case to one court rather than to another, his decision is made privately, not publicly. When a judge decides to send a person to prison for five years or 15 years or simply to put him on probation, whatever it may be, his decision is made publicly. He can be called upon to give and does give reasons, and those reasons are subsequently published. There is a very considerable difference between the fact that the Lord Advocate exercises what are quasi judicial functions privately and unreviewably, whereas the judge exercises them publicly.
Lastly, in relation to the exercise of such a discretion by the Lord Advocate, when three or four people appear in court all charged with murder and pleas of not guilty are accepted on the morning of the trial without one word of evidence having been led and they simply walk out of the court, surely the public have some right to know why it is that people who have been detained for four or five months and brought to court on a charge of murder, are then released. Perhaps it is time to review even the longstanding tradition to which the Lord Advocate refers. I believe that he has given me all the answer that he seeks to give me tonight and if that is so, as I detect it is from his worn smile, I simply beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Imposition of supervised release orders on conviction of qualifying offence]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 57:
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("on passing sentence") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I had intended to move Amendment No. 57, and to speak to the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 58 and 59.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In view of the lateness of the hour, it may assist the noble Lord if I indicate that I wish to reflect further on what lies behind these amendments. I have some anxiety that the existing provisions are not appropriate and I intend to discuss the matter further. I will do so informally if that will save speaking in detail to these three amendments.
Lord Sewel: I am pleased to accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate says. At this stage I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 5, line 47, at end insert—
(" An example of an "exceptional circumstance" would be where the social work department was unable to provide adequate resources to enable a supervised release order to he adequately fulfilled.").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 61 extends subsection (1A). The Committee will be familiar with the fact that statutory services for offenders are provided by Scottish local authorities, social work departments and also some voluntary organisations such as the Apex Trust and SACRO.
It is an unusual fact that most of the offender social work is funded 100 per cent. by central government, and hence by the Scottish Office. Though not declared, there exists a glass ceiling through which offender services funding may not rise. My point is that when a local authority social work department is unable to provide a full or adequate service to offenders and the courts, it is not because the local authority's budget does not run to it; it is because the Scottish Office has not funded the service.
Provision of offender services and the supervision of supervised release orders in particular are at the whim of central government, and the amendment is necessary to begin to secure those services. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The protection of the public is not something which should be dictated by resources; it is a function of local authorities throughout Scotland to provide post-release supervision for offenders and to submit their strategic plans for offender service provision to central government as part of the operation of the 100 per cent. funding mechanism.

1831
I can assure the noble Earl, who, as we all know, has extensive experience of social work, that since the introduction by the Government of 100 per cent. funding for this service, there have been no difficulties of the nature he describes and sees. In fact, the funding level for 1996–97 has been acknowledged as being sufficient to enable services to develop and in some cases expand.
The essential point is that where a court considers that supervision is needed to protect the public, it should make the appropriate order. It is for the local authority to make arrangements for the delivery of that supervision and to plan in connection with central government, who pick up the bill, that the appropriate services can be delivered. I hope, with that clear statement of the Government's position, that the noble Earl will not insist on his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I can assure the Committee that I am not looking for such difficulties. I am the last person who would wish to see supervised release orders not carried out. I partially accept what the noble and learned Lord says, and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): If Amendment No. 62 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 63 and 64.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 6, line 22, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 63, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 64. I should first make it abundantly plain (in case it is not plain to the noble and learned Lord) that I am entirely in favour of the introduction of supervised release orders of the kind envisaged by the clause. Indeed, I made my support for that proposal plain in my response to the White Paper last summer.
I am anxious to increase the power to impose a supervised release order—or rather, at least to increase the duration of such an order. I have experience of a case—a particularly notorious case; it is all in the public domain and so I can mention it—of John Cronin whom I sent to prison for life. The appeal court took a different view. The real problem with that offender, as I perceived it, was that the psychiatrist could not predict that he would ever be able to be released with safety. Had it been possible for the appeal court (when it imposed a sentence of six years in place of the life sentence that I imposed) to impose a supervised release order for a substantial period, that might have given some further protection to the public.
I support the general proposals and simply invite the Government to respond to my invitation to explain why the supervised release order cannot be longer than is envisaged by the clause as it now stands. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I readily acknowledge the noble and learned Lord's support in
1832
connection with this type of order and I can assure him that we have given careful consideration to the issue of the supervision periods as set out in the Bill. Supervision is recognised as being at its most effective in the early stages of an order. Thereafter, it builds constructively on that early impact. The clear indications are that the supervision will be most effective if the resources are targeted at ensuring that a significant effort is made with prisoners at an early stage of their release. To focus resources effectively, we must of necessity ensure that the total period of supervision is also focused on individual need and is not simply imposed as extensively as the amendments suggest. To that extent, therefore, and with a measure of regret, the Government are not persuaded to accept the amendments.
Lord McCluskey: I am satisfied with that answer. Given that the amendment would involve the expenditure of extra resources and that there may therefore be a technical objection to it, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 63 and shall not seek to move Amendment No. 64.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
CONDITIONAL LICENCE FOR PERSON CONVICTED ABROAD
(" .—(1) A person who is a United Kingdom citizen or who otherwise has an absolute right of abode in the United Kingdom and who is resident in the United Kingdom and who has been released from prison on conditional licence from a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by a court outwith the United Kingdom for an offence for which a court in the United Kingdom could have imposed a life sentence. may be served with a notice by the Secretary of State making him subject to the same conditions which he could have been subjected to if he had been released on licence from a life sentence imposed by a court in the United Kingdom.
(2) A person served with such an order shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the relevant Parole Board within the United Kingdom as if the original sentence of imprisonment had been imposed by a court in the United Kingdom.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment stems from information passed to me about the McCafferty case. I believe that the person concerned intends to return to the UK from Australia. When he gets here, our authorities have no power to supervise him nor to recall him should his conduct imply that he is not behaving himself or should be recalled.
The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to do that. In many respects, this amendment would cover a position similar to that of a person who has been repatriated during his sentence. That is the way in which I am hoping to sell the idea. If he had been repatriated during sentence rather than at the conclusion of his life sentence, he would have been released on life licence and would have been supervised and subject to recall.
I have one or two wee points to make about the amendment. It deals only with cases in which deportation from the UK is not available. That is

1833
because the person is a UK citizen. The power could not be used to deter people from entering the UK if they have a right of abode here. I suspect that a deterrent power could be in breach of international law. The power in the amendment is limited to lifers but could be extended to all persons released on licence or parole. It would perhaps be advisable to restrict the amendment to lifers and consider other cases at a later time if the principle was established in this case. I also suggest that the power should be restricted to cases where English and Scots law is broadly similar to the law of the overseas country. I hope that Australia has laws that are fairly similar to ours.
The power is permissive. The Secretary of State is not obliged to do it but merely has the opportunity to do it. The amendment is intended primarily to protect the public, but it is also fair in that it treats the individual in the same way as other lifers and makes available social work services and supervision. I am advised that this provision is necessary to confer powers on the relevant parole board. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I understand what lies behind the amendment moved by the noble Earl. The case of Archibald McCafferty, a life prisoner in Australia—whose name may be familiar to some noble Lords—highlights that there is no statutory means by which he can be made subject to the same licence conditions as would be applicable to a life prisoner who was released in the United Kingdom. The proposal is that he should be released in Australia, and, being a citizen of the United Kingdom, he has the right to enter this country notwithstanding his Australian conviction.
Noble Lords can be assured that the Government recognise the need to protect the public from offenders such as McCafferty who have been convicted of serious offences. The number of such offenders may be small but the risk that an individual may pose is potentially very significant. For that reason the Government are currently giving consideration to the introduction of legislation to provide for the supervision of serious offenders such as McCafferty. The intention would be to devise legislation that applied throughout the United Kingdom.
The issues involved are complex. There are fundamental legal as well as significant practical issues to be addressed. Among them is the need to consider how we can, in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, place someone on licence and make him subject to recall to prison when that individual has not been convicted of any offence in this country. Moreover, there is an issue as to whether it is appropriate to impose licence conditions on someone if no such conditions exist in the sentencing jurisdiction.
There is the further knotty and very difficult problem of the retrospective application of a change of law to those who have served, or are currently serving, very
1834
long prison sentences in different parts of the world. The proposal is that they would have to be subjected to conditions in this country which did not flow from anything that they had done in this country but something that they had done previously which had not been aggravated in any sense by any further criminal offending.
On the practical side, arrangements would need to be put in place so that the United Kingdom authorities could identify the offenders when they returned to this country and could be formally placed under licence upon their arrival. As noble Lords are well aware, those who hold UK or European Union passports, and many others with a right of abode in this country, are not subject to immigration control and can enter the United Kingdom freely. Although it would be more usual for foreign nationals to be deported to their countries of origin, it might still be possible for them to return to this country. We will need to look very closely at such a possibility and how it is to be handled by our immigration authorities. Further, we will have to make arrangements to ensure that the prisoners concerned are aware of their obligations before they return to this country or, at the very latest, at the point of arrival.
I am sure that noble Lords fully appreciate the practical and legal difficulties that require to be addressed. However, I assure the Committee that the Government are giving close consideration to these issues. They are not easy to deal with and a solution may not be imminent, but the importance of addressing the issues involved is not minimised. I am grateful to the noble Earl for having raised the issue. With my explanation, I hope that he will find it possible to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: There is a point I should like to make before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment. We have already established that supervised release orders are separate from the sentence. They are not part of the sentence. So such a person could be dealt with in that way. Mr. McCafferty would not be dealt with by licence; he could be put on a supervised release order on arrival. I shall leave that point.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his answer. I am interested that appropriate legislation is being considered to deal with this serious situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
The Examiner's certificate that the further standing orders had been complied with ordered to lie on the Table; Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Local Government and Rating Bill
Tuesday, 4th March 1997.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Grand Committee. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause, noble Lords will speak standing, all noble Lords are free to attend and participate, and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. But the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in this Committee. Any issues on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should also explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
NON-DOMESTIC RATING: RELIEF FOR URBAN SETTLEMENTS
(". Schedule (Non-domestic rating: relief for urban settlements) shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 1 and would like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 10 and 12. This is an important part of the Bill. The amendments are concerned with a number of related matters to do with the definition of rural settlements and rural areas, the possibility of extending discretionary relief outside rural settlements and other matters such as extending the mandatory rate relief provisions to general stores and post offices outside rural areas.
Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment, so it is not of any substance. Perhaps I should start with Amendment No. 3, which is a probing amendment, as so many of my amendments are intended to be. It is based upon the DoE consultation paper which said that the DoE had identified all the parishes in which there are rural settlements of 3000 people or less, using data from the Rural Development Commission. The DoE had also identified rural settlements of 3,000 or less which exist outside rural parishes. It was intended to use this data, I understand, to define rural areas. I wonder
CWH2
whether that is still the intention, and I also wonder which metropolitan districts contain what might be defined as rural areas. For example, are there any London boroughs which contain areas which might come into this category, and will it be for the billing authority to decide what is a rural settlement? Those are very specific questions about that amendment. I would now like to move on to Amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 4 is also concerned with the definition of a rural area. The Bill places a duty upon billing authorities to maintain a list of rural settlements located in rural areas, designated by the Secretary of State. However, the Bill says nothing about how rural areas and rural settlements are to be defined. This, again, is a probing amendment to allow discussion as to how such a definition might be arrived at.
Amendment No. 10 is concerned with extending discretionary relief outside rural settlements. The point here is that Schedule 1 also introduces other provisions extending discretionary relief to hereditaments in rural settlements which the local authority determines are used for purposes of benefit to the local community. The rural settlement constraint can be overcome by simply inserting a new condition for the granting of discretionary relief. So the purpose of the amendment would be to extend the benefits of this part of the Bill outside specifically defined rural settlements.
Amendment No. 12 would extend the mandatory rate relief provisions to general stores and post offices outside the rural areas. Such stores and post offices face very similar difficulties to those in defined rural areas. For example, one might find a housing estate on the edge of a small country town where the distances that the inhabitants would have to travel to the centre of the town were prohibitive. Indeed, in all other respects, the future of such stores or post offices would be subject to the same threats as to those in small and isolated villages. The intention here is therefore to enable the benefits of the Bill to be extended to such stores and post offices. The arguments are very similar for these amendments as for the main part of the Bill relating to small villages with the populations as stated. However, it would be a benefit to some of the areas I have described if the Bill were to be extended in this particular way. Those are the main arguments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He has identified a number of very interesting and important points which would extend the benefits of the Bill. My amendment in this group, Amendment No. 2, is concerned with stability. I believe that the whole of the Committee would accept that it is important for any small business to have as great a degree of stability as can reasonably be achieved and my concern in this amendment is that the stores in question, within a settlement of 3,000, should not be faced with the prospect of being outside that settlement simply because of a small fluctuation in numbers of population locally in the very near future. My amendment seeks to allow for a two-year view, if I may put it that way, so that once a store obtains the benefit of the provisions the owner knows that the benefit will last for at least two years.

CWH3
In supporting small shops and small businesses generally, it is right to seek that kind of arrangement. In another place the Minister said (I quote from Standing Committee B on 21st November, col. 38):
"The important point is that people should know where they stand and that they should not be faced with unexpected decisions which would be difficult to cope with".
He went on to say, in dealing with an amendment which was rejected in another place:
"Once a rural settlement list comes into play, it will apply for the whole of the financial year, irrespective of any changes in the community. Businesses will be certain of continuity during the year. We want an annual review of the list so that people have a good early warning of any changes".
That is an annual review to give good early warning. An arrangement which allows the ratepayer to see beyond the end of one year has much to commend it.
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for having explained his series of amendments to this part of this Bill. They would allow local authorities to give both mandatory and discretionary rate relief to businesses within urban areas, as he pointed out, as well as those in rural areas.
The Bill is designed specifically to help rural communities. We all know that because of the changed patterns of shopping, shops in these kinds of communities find it difficult to remain viable, and the comparative isolation of these communities can spell disaster for the elderly and those who have no access to a car if their local store is forced to close. The problem of the village shop, therefore, is essentially one of numbers, and the rate relief scheme is designed to provide assistance in these circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is concerned as to how a rural area will be defined. The rural areas in England have been defined in housing legislation and we are minded to accept those definitions for the village shop scheme. However, we will consider this and consult again during the summer to make quite sure that we have the correct definition.
The noble Lord was also concerned that some small shops ought to be covered which are, I think he said, outside small towns to which people in the country would go, and if they were to suffer then the people in the country would also suffer. We have to draw a line somewhere and once a shop comes in a town it is of essence an urban shop. The shopping systems in the towns are different and the nature of shops in towns are different. Urban shops are often isolated; they can be on blighted estates; they can be trading against a background of vandalism and crime and the social problems of an urban community. I know that might not apply to the particular shops which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, had in mind at the edge of a town, but because the underlying causes are different, the solutions must also be different as between the urban shops and the rural shops. The rate relief scheme would be of little assistance in helping those urban shops to remain open because of the nature of the conditions in which they
CWH4
trade. We are, therefore, addressing the problems of these shops through other schemes, such as the single regeneration budget, of which there will shortly be some 500 schemes throughout the country. These are aimed at some of the specific economic problems of urban areas and they can, therefore, be of far greater assistance to them.
What we are trying to do here is a fairly simple thing. We are trying to put available resources where they will do the most good. Our proposals for a rate relief scheme for rural businesses do that. That is the reason we ought to limit it to the rural areas.
With regard to Wales and Scotland, there is no similar housing legislation, and my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland are discussing with local authorities the best ways in which to define a rural area.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also asked about how local authorities would identify rural settlements. We have consulted the local authorities and they do not find any difficulty in defining rural settlements. They will have to identify the boundaries of the settlements and that will probably be on a map. For all those reasons, I hope the noble Lord will consider that it would be better to retain the proposals as they are in the Bill. They are there specifically to help those shops in rural communities which are facing considerable difficulties.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although on similar lines, is different in so far as it would entitle businesses to continue their rate relief for a year after their settlement would otherwise have been removed from the rural settlement list because, for instance, the size of the village had grown to over 3,000 people. The intention is to provide ratepayers with certainty as to their future bills. But, if I may say so, the amendment of the noble Baroness is not necessary for this reason.
Once a rural settlement list comes into effect it will apply for the whole of a financial year, irrespective of any change in the size of the community during that year. Ratepayers will know, therefore, that the rate relief which they will enjoy will continue to be available for the whole of that year. The local authority will be under a duty to review the list during the course of the year and, if any changes are needed, they will have to draw up a new list for the following financial year and that list will have to be made available for inspection from 1st January. Ratepayers, under those circumstances, will therefore have three months' notice of any withdrawal of the rate relief.
Indeed, in reality they are likely to be aware of the possibility of rate relief being withdrawn long before that happens, because they will know, for example, that their village, which may be close to a population of 3,000, is likely to go over the limit because they will know of any new housing developments which may be under consideration or under construction. The removal of the settlement from the list is, therefore, likely to come as no surprise and, if it were to be removed, they would have three months' knowledge of the fact that that was going to happen.

CWH5
Again, it is better for the Bill to remain as it is, which is perfectly clear. Where a shop under certain circumstances is entitled to a rate relief, the entitlement to that rate relief would be for the whole year. They will know in advance that they will be entitled to that for the year. It is only when the circumstances change that they will certainly know three months in advance, and probably a good deal more in advance. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that the Bill in that respect is best left as it is.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for the helpful comments he has made regarding some of my amendments. May I press him a little about the point that I made concerning small shops at the edge of country towns, where he was less helpful than on the other amendments? Perhaps I did not make myself clear the first time I spoke.
I have seen small country towns with council housing at the edge where there may be an isolated shop or post office. The distance for the people living near that shop or post office to any other shop or post office may be as great, and the journey may take as long, as for people in the village-type community to which the Bill is principally addressed.
The question is whether we are not left with something of an anomaly. The Minister talked about regeneration grants and such like. I wonder whether such grants would be available in the instance about which I am talking. For all practical purposes the difficulties faced by such an isolated post office or shop and the service that that post office or shop provides to local people are identical to the situation for the shops in small villages to which the Bill refers.
We are talking about a small extension to the scope of the Bill in order to prevent such small shops dying for the same reason that village shops are dying. The position is so close that, whether a rural area has a small village in it or whether it is a small country town with similar conditions adjacent, is a technical distinction only and the spirit of the Bill would be met by including the other sorts of shops to which I have referred.
Lord Mottistone: I intervene to say that I sympathise greatly with what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said. As we do not have to vote, I am happy to be able to support him wholly in the principle of what he is saying.
A town that is only six miles away from where I live is very spread out and one could say that part of the town, which is nominally a town by any other means, is like a village. But its closest point is 500 yards from where the town really starts.
It is a terribly complicated matter, and I would like to leave it with my noble friend, in the same way as he has promised to look at the definitions of villages and urban areas. There are so many variations—one can think of them all the time—and it will be extremely difficult for the shopkeepers who are on the edges of relatively small towns and who find that they are not being treated as well as the people who are in more obviously genuine villages.
CWH6
I am delighted that the Bill goes as far as it does, but it will be frightfully difficult to be fair about the border areas.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I find that the grouping is a little confusing. There is a danger of conducting two completely different debates. Therefore, although I regard the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to my noble friend Lady Hamwee as being not very satisfactory and I would like to take it further, I propose to do that by moving Amendment No. 2 when we come to it, rather than mixing it up with this other debate, although I entirely support, as does my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Earl Ferrers: I quite understand the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, wishing to move Amendment No. 2 separately. He is entirely entitled to do that. I see his reason for that because, although the amendments are grouped, they address rather different subject matters. My regret is that he did not find my reply to his noble friend Lady Hamwee very helpful. It was supposed to be enormously helpful. I thought it was very convincing. I have convinced myself, but I shall have to try my best to convince the noble Baroness a little more.
To come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I see what he is getting at. I referred to urban areas because the effect of his amendment would have been to cover urban areas too. I see that he wants to cover those shops at the edge of towns. It is perfectly possible that rural areas can be in metropolitan councils, and they could therefore be covered if the definition were right, but of course they are not in urban areas.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to try to help rural communities. My noble friend Lord Mottistone said that where he lives the town is spread out and is like a little village, and it is therefore relatively straggly. That may be so, but, as he said, the town is spread out, and the purpose of this is to help the villages and not to help the towns. By definition, if my noble friend's way were to hold sway, he would actually be helping a town. Even if we were prepared to do that, for a variety of reasons, one has to remember that small towns are likely to have more than one general store and more than one post office. The criterion is that the legislation helps only the last general store or the last post office. It is likely that expanding towns have more than one shop and one post office.
Returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, he is trying to help those other people in rural areas who have to travel to the edge of the town to get to their post office or shop. We are trying to help the integration of that village itself, not, which is a perfectly laudable argument, trying to help people who have to travel to a post office. We are trying to encourage the village itself to remain as a corporate entity. That is why it would be better not to try to extend the legislation so that it covered shops at the edges of towns.
Lord Dubs: I suppose one cannot have everything in a Bill of this kind. I have listened to what the Minister has to say and I thank him for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

CWH7
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Relief from non-domestic rates for general stores etc. in rural settlements: England and Wales]:
4 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 19, line 17, at end insert ("or on the last 31st December before the beginning of the year immediately preceding the chargeable financial year in question,").
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl has given an answer to this point, but it is not tremendously helpful and the amendment falls into a different category from that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. What little he might hear relates to genuinely rural villages but with the population limit just about on the borderline. We are talking, therefore, about stores which, because they have been given rate relief at one moment, are genuinely the kind of shops that we are trying to help in order to support the kind of communities that we are trying to help.
No one can deny that there has to be a cut-off point and that there has to be a level of population where the relief no longer applies, and that there has to be a time limit. It seems to me, however, that, having once given a shop or post office this kind of rate relief, it is very important that it should be able to continue its work for at least some time, secure in the knowledge that it has this guaranteed position. Obviously, when facts change sufficiently that it deserves to lose that relief it should have a considerable time in which to adapt. If the worst comes to the worst, of course, it is time to get out of the business and hope that someone else will come in, but that is not the object of the exercise: the object of the exercise is that these shops should continue, and for that they need some security.
My noble friend and I wonder whether there would be scope for some kind of amendment whereby they would be given longer if they were within a certain range of the population limit. We are not necessarily talking about big new populations and big new housing estates being built in the area. That may be one of the things that happens, but the population may also increase through the number of children that people have. There may be a perfectly natural, and not very fast, expansion of that kind.
It would be helpful if the noble Earl could look at the possibility of giving this kind of small business, which is, by definition, one we want to encourage, which is not obviously thriving and which needs this kind of encouragement, a rather greater leeway. It would be helpful if he could look at this again before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I am most grateful to my noble friend for developing the argument. He is entirely right. The development of a village that I had in mind was a human development, not by way of building. I entirely appreciate that, if a village is to change its character substantially by means of a group of extra houses, for
CWH8
instance, on the edge, of course the shopkeeper will be aware of that and will see the houses going up. My concern is to assist the business, and through the business the viability of the settlement, by maintaining that stability to which my noble friend has referred.
I would be more than happy to develop this by means of a slightly different amendment, which, for instance, put a top limit on the population number in the second year such as 3,300. That is rather picking a figure out of the air, but I mention it to see whether I can tempt the Minister to make any further comment at this stage.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness is always good at trying to cajole one into moving a little bit further down the road, and I always listen to her with interest. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made a number of valuable points. However, what we are coming down to is where one draws the line. One can always draw the line in a different place, and I am quite surprised that, having recommended a figure of 3,000, somebody has not said, "We ought to have 4,000, or 2,500", or whatever it is. You have to draw the line somewhere and the line is drawn at 3,000.
Of course, one can say if the population is 2,998 and somebody has three children, then the settlement goes over the top of the 3,000 level and gets excluded. However, that will not happen, because authorities can take a common sense point of view. They do not have to scan the births and deaths registers to see exactly how many people are in a village. The purpose is to reflect, for instance, housing developments and so forth. If there were a housing development taking place near a village people would know that: there would be more people, there would be more trade, so that could be argued to help the business.
The noble Baroness asked whether she could tempt me by suggesting that there should be an upper limit of, say, 3,300. But, again, that is moving the line. If a village which had been under 3,000 and received the rate relief was allowed to continue the rate relief when it reached 3,300, it might be unfair to the next village which had a population of 3,100 and therefore had been excluded from the start.
I see what the noble Baroness, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, want to do, which is to give some kind of continuity for these places. In fact, they will get continuity. The examples which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord give are likely to happen only in very rare and exceptional cases. The fact is that they will get this relief as long as they qualify by being a particular small area, and provided that it is the only shop and the only post office in the village.
The situation is quite difficult. One is inclined to say, "They had it once and therefore they ought to have it for the next year, too", when the next year they do not qualify and others who likewise do not qualify also do not get the rate relief. I shall consider the points which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have made, but I do not think there is an easy way of changing the position without being unfair to other people and

CWH9
without altering the entire system. The line is drawn at 3,000 people. Once you move that line you must move it for every area.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend will respond in a moment but I should like to pursue the point about the steps that the authority has to take in assessing the numbers. I should know this. It probably appears on the face of the Bill and I cannot find it. But if the Government issue guidance as to the steps to be taken this needs to be clarified. The words in Schedule 1 are:
"appear to the authority to have had a population of not more than 3,000".
One can imagine there might be references to the district auditor and other types of challenge to an authority by disgruntled ratepayers who feel that the rate burden spread across those who are not getting relief might not have been there if the authority had been more careful in counting heads. I would like to know that there is not room for making too much mischief in the system.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think there will be too much mischief made about this. The noble Baroness is quite right in what she says. New Section 42A(3)(b) states:
"appear to the authority to have had a population of not more than 3.000".
The authority is not meant to be obliged to go on a head count and say, "Mrs Smith has just had a baby and therefore that makes a difference". It is what appears to the authority to be the number. Most local authorities know what their villages consist of and where the boundaries are. We will consult with the local authorities as to how they would best go about doing this. If they say, "Quite honestly, we would like some guidance on this", we shall consider giving them guidance. But it is unlikely to be a matter over which great mischief and trouble will be made.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I would like to thank the noble Earl for the points which he made in reply to the arguments I put forward. I still have a slight problem in that I am not entirely certain, if we do as we are suggesting, to whom it would be unfair. It would not be unfair to another shop in the same area, because there is, by definition, no other shop in the area. If it is a question of being unfair in terms of global resources, that does not apply either, because each of these situations is being looked at on its own.
We have to lay down what is, I would say in no pejorative sense, a bureaucratic limit—a straightforward limit. We also have to look with humanity at an organic situation, where there is a shop which is the life-blood of a community which is on the edge of succeeding or not succeeding. Rules must be made. But I would have thought we ought to be able to offer more leeway in the time given to adjust. I am heartened by the fact that the noble Earl says, without any commitment, that he will look at the points we have made, and we ourselves will look at the matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 20, line 26, leave out from ("amount") to ("and") in line 27 and insert ("determined by the billing authority,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5 which is linked to Amendment No. 11, which is a consequential amendment. In the debate a few moments ago the Minister said it was necessary to draw the line somewhere. As regards this amendment the issue is not whether a line should be drawn but who should draw it; that is to say, in relation to rateable value thresholds. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State is given powers to prescribe the rateable value thresholds for hereditaments eligible for mandatory and discretionary relief. The point of this amendment would be to give that power to billing authorities; namely, the main local authority in the area.
The argument is simply that by having across the country a flat rateable value threshold we lose flexibility. There may be some areas for which it might be on the low side and others for which it might be on the high side. It is difficult for the Secretary of State to get it right by setting one level across the whole country. If, however, the power were to be given to local authorities—not parish councils but the main local authority in the area—they could make a more sensitive decision as regards the appropriateness of applying the benefits of the Bill to a particular shop, post office or whatever.
Local authorities know their areas and can be sensitive to needs, to local conditions, to the viability of the local shop, and so on. For the Secretary of State to set a level across the whole country might mean that some shops that deserve support will simply fail to get it.
The fairness depends somewhat on rateable values in particular areas. They can be higher in some parts of the country than in others, although the need for support might be the same across these areas. The same level of rateable value threshold might require an adjustment to meet the needs of certain shops, or they might be missed out, whereas the local authority at the local level knows what the situation is and might be best able to make the judgment.
Earl Ferrers: The intention is that this scheme should be directed towards small businesses within the community. It is these which our research has shown suffer disproportionately from the non-domestic business rates. In order to qualify for mandatory rate relief the general store or post office must have a rateable value below a certain threshold. In the Bill we suggest that the threshold should be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.
We have previously indicated that the threshold for mandatory relief is likely to be set at about £5,000, and the overwhelming majority of those who responded to our earlier consultation document felt that was about the right figure. Schedule 1 also allows the Secretary of State to prescribe a rateable value threshold by order for the discretionary scheme and this allows relief to be aimed at smaller businesses. It would not, though, be

CWH11
appropriate to set the same threshold as the one enjoyed by the mandatory scheme. Whereas the mandatory relief is aimed at a small general store and a post office only, we want to be able to give local authorities more flexibility with the discretionary scheme so that they can help other small shops and other businesses in general.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already indicated that he is minded to set a higher threshold for discretionary relief and a figure of £10,000 was mooted in the consultation paper and that appears to command fairly widespread support. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, provide, as he has explained, that the thresholds should be determined by each billing authority. I can well understand his concern that there ought to be regional thresholds to recognise the fact that the rateable values differ from region to region. We are of the view, however—and I believe the consultation bore this out—that the thresholds we have proposed would catch most, if not all, of the small businesses within villages, and setting a uniform rateable value threshold across the county will by definition help more small shops and general stores in areas of lower rateable value, because a higher proportion will fall within the mandatory threshold. It is our intention to consult with local authorities again before we finally set the thresholds. If, on closer examination, it appears necessary to set different thresholds for different regions, then we will do that. There are already powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which allow this to be done.
However, I must say that I would be reluctant to go down the path of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, though I can see the reason why he put forward his amendment. If we are going to allow rateable value thresholds to be determined by each individual billing authority, this would raise the prospect that adjoining councils could set different thresholds with the result that businesses in villages, which might be only a mile or two away from each other, could be treated differently. I do not know that that would be a good thing to do.
As we have consulted on this, as the thresholds which have been proposed seem to command fairly widespread support and as we intend to consult again before we make the order, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will think that it would be better for the Secretary of State to do that, and that it should apply uniformly, rather than have each billing authority setting its own individual levels.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister again for giving a detailed response to the arguments I put forward in supporting this amendment. He talked about treating all shops in the same way. Of course, the problem is that I could use that argument in favour of my approach as much as the Minister can to support his. One might find two similar shops. One of them happens to have a rateable value which lifts it above the threshold, and the other is below the threshold. So the two shops would in effect be treated differently, though the intention would be to treat them the same. It is, therefore, quite difficult to be fair and treat shops equivalently.
CWH12
Perhaps I may pursue one other point the Minister made. He talked about having gone through a phase of consultation, and he also said that there would be further consultation. I wonder if he could say a little more about how the consultation is getting on. Are we likely to know what the results of the consultation will be, given that the way in which the Secretary of State is going to use his powers seems to me to depend upon how the consultations will influence him?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is of course perfectly right that you can use these arguments in all ways. You will never find two shops of a different nature and of a different size necessarily being strictly comparable, whatever you do. That is why we feel it is better to have the scheme as it is outlined in the Bill.
We did consult the local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, might care to bear in mind that they were content with the thresholds which we proposed, and they felt that this was about right. He asked how the consultations are going. They are not actually going at the moment, because, so to speak, they have gone before we put the Bill before Parliament. Once the Bill is law, if your Lordships agree to that, then of course we will consult again on the detail before the secondary legislation bringing the mandatory and discretionary figures is laid before Parliament by order.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister again, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 20, line 30, leave out from ("office") to end of line 32.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8 with which it is linked. These two amendments concern the definition of a general store and post office.
To qualify for mandatory relief a hereditament must be used as a qualifying general store or post office, or must satisfy conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State by order. These powers would be rather wide, and would give the Secretary of State a great deal of influence in terms of how many shops qualified. The amendment deletes the prescriptive power and enables us to have some discussion about how the Secretary of State might wish to use his powers.
Amendment No. 8 is also concerned with definition. A general store is defined as a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale by retail of both food for human consumption and general household goods. This is likely to be a contentious definition. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance. I appreciate that in many villages it is relatively easy to identify a general store or a post office, but it may not always be straightforward. In the Standing Committee in the other place the Minister, Mr Curry, said:
"It may be as difficult to define a general store as it is to define an elephant, but we all know what it is when we see one".
I suppose that is true, but it may not help us very much because some people may have a different sense of what an elephant is from others. It leaves it somewhat vague,

CWH13
and it may be helpful if we could have a better understanding as to how it is proposed to arrive at these definitions. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: If we were to accept Amendment No. 6, we would remove a very important power from the Bill. The Bill provides mandatory relief to the last general store or post office in a village. These shops stand alone in their importance to the community and this is why the Bill treats them as a special case. However, we would be short-sighted if we legislated just for today. At some time in the future some other category of rural business may be equally deserving and, if that were the case, then the power which this amendment seeks to remove would allow us to add that category of business to the mandatory relief scheme through secondary legislation.
The Bill provides that an order which is made under this power would have to be approved by both Houses. It is only right that such a step should be required to have the positive approval of Parliament, after proper opportunity for debate, and the Bill ensures that this is done. If we remove the power, then these amendments would simply delay the ability of the Government of the day to take any action to safeguard rural businesses, by requiring new primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, knows how difficult that is to achieve. It would delay the possibility of businesses being helped, and that would not be in the interests of rural settlements. That is why I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will agree on reflection that his amendment would slow the process of helping the villages down, rather than expediting it.
Amendment No. 8 is different in so far as a general store is defined in the Bill as a retail trade or business consisting, as he reminded us, wholly or mainly of the sale of both food for human consumption (excluding confectionery) and general household goods. We have tried not to make the definition more prescriptive than this because we do not want to stifle the diversity which is essential to the viability of rural shops. On the other hand, we do not want the definition to be so wide that virtually any retail business can claim to fall within it. By linking food for human consumption with general household goods, we felt that we had captured the essential nature of the village shop or store.
We have consulted widely on the rate relief scheme and included in the consultation was the definition of a general store. As a result of that consultation there was widespread support for our proposals. Amendment No. 8 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance for interpreting the definition that would have to be followed by billing authorities. We discussed the practical aspects of implementing these provisions with the local authority associations. They concluded that guidance on this matter and the drawing up of rural settlement lists might be helpful. However, they did not see any need to put that guidance on a statutory footing in the way envisaged by the noble Lord's amendment. We are talking further to the local authority associations about the precise points they would like to see covered in guidance and we shall publish such guidance well in advance of the provisions coming into force.
CWH14
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will realise that his anxieties will be met by the guidance we will produce, but I suggest that it will not be necessary to put it on the face of the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds to that, I wonder whether I could check that I understood the Minister correctly. Is he saying in reference to subsection (6B)(c)(ii) on page 20 that the Secretary of State cannot take out of qualification for the purposes of the Bill a general store or post office? In other words, does the secondary legislation allow the Secretary of State to add to the categories but not to reduce them?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness, as usual, is bang on the point. The Secretary of State can add but he cannot reduce.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister. I welcome his undertaking on behalf of the Secretary of State about the issue of guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 20, line 41, leave out from ("there") to end of line 44.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 9 to which it is linked. These two amendments concern removing the only shop and only post office conditions; in other words, that the provisions of the Bill should not simply apply to a shop that is merely the type of shop described or that is only a post office.
It seems to me that there are many instances where a post office combines with a village shop and the two represent one viable unit, although, alas, all too often it is ceasing to be a viable unit. If there is a case for supporting a village shop where there is just one or supporting a post office where there is one, why is there not an equally powerful case for supporting a shop which combines the functions of a village shop and post office? In many instances, this has been what shop keepers have been obliged to do in order to survive. They have relied upon the turnover of a post office business to help them with the shop business as neither of them alone would be sufficient to provide an adequate living.
I suggest that this sole store condition gives rise, or could give rise, to anomalies and unfairness. Removing it would surely be an improvement on the present position. I suppose one way forward in order to avoid there being an unnecessary increase in costs would be to play about with the rateable value eligibility to thresholds, although I would not be too keen on that. But there might be ways of enabling a combined village shop and post office to benefit from the provisions of the Bill which I understand it does not now do. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I can give the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, a little satisfaction and contentment, even if I start off by saying that he has it wrong. He was concerned that

CWH15
a small post office can get a relief and a small shop can get a relief, but a shop which combines both a store and a post office cannot get relief. In fact it can. If it is the last post office in the village and it has a store attached to it, it will be able to get relief. If there was a post office and a store in the village and there was another store in the village which did not have a post office attached to it, that other store would not get the rate relief because there would be two stores in the village. But the first one would get rate relief because it would be the only post office, even though at the same time it did sell goods.
Lord Dubs: I am just trying to think through the implications of what the Minister said. One possible difficulty is that one could see that a shop and a post office might be combined where they are small and are within one set of shop premises, but there might be situations where there is a slight separation between them, and indeed they might be rated differently. They might have separate rateable values, in which case I suppose they would not apply. I suppose it depends on whether the rateable value is for one business or for each of the businesses. I can see some difficulties about this.
I hope I did not cause any confusion by not being sufficiently clear when I first spoke, but there is a difficulty in the only shop and only post office condition. The Minister has explained what would be the case where there was a store in the village and where there was a second post office and store, but he has not quite explained to me what would happen if there were different rateable values for adjacent shops which effectively were one but which in technical terms might be seen as two separate ones. Would they get the benefit or would they not?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was courteous enough to say that he hoped he did not muddle me when he made his first speech. I did not consider he did so at all; he was as clear as a bell. He only muddled me when he made his second speech. The noble Lord is worried that if there are two shops standing next to each other and one is a post office and one is a store, and they are contiguous and are rated differently, they may not both be able to qualify. They will both qualify provided that they are within the threshold. If one of them is outside the threshold then of course it will not qualify. If the business is run as one then the rateable value will be the rateable value of the business as a whole. I do not think there is any difficulty there unless it be in the noble Lord's mind, or lest it be that I have not quite understood the noble Lord's concern. I shall read again what he has said to make sure that I have given him the answer to the question which he asked.
The real point is that either a post office or a village store, if it is the only one in the village and if it comes within the threshold, can be entitled to rate relief. If one organization does those two jobs then that will qualify for rate relief provided that it is the only post office. If
CWH16
there were as well another shop then that other shop would not qualify because it is a second shop in the village.
Lord Mottistone: Do I understand, therefore, that if there are two small shops and a post office and they are all separate businesses, neither of the two small shops or general stores can get rate relief, just because there are two of them?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is absolutely right, because the whole purpose of this part of the Bill is that it refers only to the last shop in the village, and if there are two stores, there is not one last shop because there are two last shops.
Lord Mottistone: It depends in which direction you are looking.
Earl Ferrers: But there is either one store in the village or there are two stores, and if there are two stores neither gets rate relief; if there is one store then it will get rate relief.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I understand the logic of that. I understand the purpose of the provision, and I agree with it. Listening to the noble Earl's response earlier on, it suddenly occurred to me that post offices have taken on little bits of extra business, which is usually how they come to be a post office and store. It may be the other way round, but it may happen that way, with the post office taking on extra businesses. That post office may not be providing a good service as a store; it may merely have taken on a few extra things which it thinks are worth while. If that means that a store for a village of, say, 2,500 people which is providing a full service does not get the relief, is that not a rather hard case?
This is important. I have not yet found anywhere in the Bill a definition of what is meant by a "store". Is it there? Does it answer the question I am putting—that a post office which offers just a few extra things like stationery, for instance, but is not a full store would not then get the rating relief for a store, although it might get it as a post office?
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I can help the noble Lord. He asks, if the post office is just a post office selling one or two other things, will that be acceptable, for mandatory relief? The answer is that it would be acceptable, because it would be acceptable by virtue of being a post office. When he asks what is the definition of a general store—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I understand that it will be acceptable because it is a post office. But what I am interested in is whether a shop in the village which stocks a full range of articles, as opposed to just the few things which the post office stocks, is by that disqualified from rating relief?
Earl Ferrers: The definition of a general store is in Schedule 1 on page 20, in subsection (6c). I see what the noble Lord is getting at. If there is a genuine store in the village selling everything, that ought to qualify,

CWH17
but if the post office happens to sell a couple of toothpaste tubes as well, he asks whether that would ditch the store. The answer is that it would not ditch the store, but it would depend on the amount and quantity of what it was selling. If its job is primarily that of being a post office, then it would not prevent the other store from getting rate relief. But that is quite an important point. Perhaps I could reflect on the matter and write to the noble Lord.
There is one other point I should have made. We have been talking about what is mandatory relief. But the local authorities will have discretionary relief for premises with a rateable value of up to £10,000 for which they can give relief if they feel that that is desirable. That may cover many of the anomalies which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has in mind. It enables them to give this relief if they think it is desirable, but it will not be one that they have to give.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his answers, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3, 6, 4, 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Reviews of parishes by local authorities]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 4, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 5 and insert ("It shall be the duty of a district council, or a unitary county council, to keep under review").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will know from Second Reading that I am advised on all the amendments by the National Association of Local Councils, and I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, its president, with us.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to return to the arrangements for review of parishes by local authorities in the 1972 Act. Since the 1992 Act, parish reviews can only be undertaken by the Local Government Commission at the instigation of the Secretary of State, leading to an unnecessary bottleneck for certain areas such as, for example, East Cowes in the Isle of Wight, where the majority of the local people wish to establish a parish council, and under the 1972 Act rules would by now have had one, but this has had to be held up because of the 1992 change.
Provisions in the Bill, as amended, would return to the district and unitary county councils power to conduct parish reviews and also to allow local petitions to trigger parish reviews. The amendment is based on similar wording in Section 49(8) of the 1972 Act, which was repealed by the 1992 Act. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): In recording the proposal of
CWH18
Amendment No. 13, I should inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 14 or 15.
Lord Feversham: I would very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as he drew the Committee's attention to the fact that I have an interest to declare in that I am President of the National Association of Local Councils.
At Second Reading, which unfortunately I was unable to attend, the Minister advanced some arguments on this topic, and he may advance them again today; I do not know.
It seems to me that most of those who argue against having a statutory obligation to carry out parish council reviews seem to wear rose-coloured spectacles. There is a sort of fairy world in which hitherto councils who have had statutory obligations have not necessarily carried them out very enthusiastically. Remove the obligation, I presume it is hoped, and immediately the countryside will be fizzing with districts wanting to carry out these reviews. This may be very creative thinking and it may lead to a fairyland, but I am a little dubious about it and, as a parish councillor, I would be happier if there was a statutory obligation in the Bill.
There was a rather mysterious occurrence when I first came here in that I saw that Amendment No. 15 was in fact grouped with this amendment and has disappeared from the grouping. That is a type of amendment that deals with spasmodic obligation, and there will be one every eight years. However, we cannot talk about it with the present amendment because it has moved away.
I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I hope that we can move closer to having a statutory obligation.
Lord Sandys: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I am advised by the Association of Charter Trustees and Charter Town Councils. It seems to me that this clause is one of the most important parts of the Bill, and it is amazing that this should be a permissive power and not a mandatory one. For that reason I support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, most strongly. If the Bill remains as it stands, we have a clear description in what the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, said.
Earl Ferrers: I understand why my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, would like to see a statutory obligation to carry out reviews put in the Bill, but I believe that we have to be careful about this. The amendment in the name of my noble friend would place a duty on every district and unitary county council that they must undertake parish reviews from time to time.
That would be a fairly harsh step to take, because if we were to impose such a duty it would in many cases be a waste of time. It would make a lot of extra work when it may not be necessary, because every single such council would have to do that. But many districts will only have to undertake reviews if something exceptional occurs and there is a fairly major change. That might,

CWH19
for example, be when there has been a major population change.
Not only that: the imposition of a duty would not guarantee that those councils which were reluctant to carry out reviews would do so properly. If there is a reluctance on the part of a district council or a unitary county council to create a new parish, the obligation of carrying out a review could result in one being carried out technically but with a conclusion to which the council comes being that to which it wished to come. The Bill allows for other means of initiating reviews.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am afraid I must interrupt the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. There being a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will stand adjourned for 10 minutes and reassemble at 5.2 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.52 to 5.2 p.m.]
Earl Ferrers: I would not wish to labour the Committee with hearing again what I said before. In summary, I said that if we accept this amendment we would place an obligation on each council to carry out a review every so often, irrespective of whether that review was necessary. I also said that it would not necessarily achieve the desired effect because if councils are reluctant to carry out reviews they might do this so as to ensure that the result of the review—which would technically be carried out—would be one at which they might wish to arrive in the first place.
The Bill allows for other means of initiating reviews. The Secretary of State can direct the Local Government Commission to undertake a parish review and local electors can petition for a new parish. The Secretary of State will be able to implement a proposal for a parish presented in the form of a petition as long as it contains the signatures of at least 10 per cent. of the electors for the area of the proposed parish, or 250 such signatures, whichever is the greater. Bringing either of these options into play will be a much more effective way of securing a proper review than the duty which the amendments propose. These would cover every council, whether that was necessary or not. Thus the concerns of my noble friend and of the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, are covered by the procedures which are available to parishes and to people to require a review if they so wish.
Lord Feversham: In that case, I wonder whether I might ask about the petitioning process. I may misunderstand the situation, but, so far as I can see, in the Bill it only applies to the creation of new parishes in areas which are unparished wholly or partly. The petitioning route cannot be used to seek alterations to existing parish boundaries, to warding and so on. That concerns me, and I wonder whether this petitioning route will be as successful in answering all the problems
CWH20
as the noble Earl suggests. I wonder if he can help me on that.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is correct about that. The trouble, we have found in the past, lies mostly with the districts which did not want to have the parishes in the first place. Once they had the parishes, there was no problem. That is why the Bill is directed at that end.
Lord Mottistone: I note what my noble friend has said and will certainly have a good look at this. The fact of the matter is that, broadly speaking, in the Isle of Wight, for example—I do not know about England—the situation for creating new parishes was much better under the 1972 Act than it has been since we have had the 1992 Act. When parishioners wanted parish councils established, we were able to do that quite simply by going through the procedures which then applied.
I shall reflect on what my noble friend the Minister has said. However, one of our districts—we had two districts but now have a unitary authority and so that no longer applies—was keen on parishes, and is now completely emparished. The other one was more reluctant; I put it no stronger than that. Obviously there may be a way of modifying the position so that we retain the best of the 1972 Act procedure without making it more difficult in the sense of what my noble friend said about reluctant districts.
I will take this away and hope to put something together for Report stage which gets round the problem as we see it now. I called the present procedure a bottleneck. On the one hand the Minister and his department are too busy, and on the other, the Local Government Commission is too busy. As they have to be involved in the 1992 set-up, matters do not progress nearly as smoothly as they used to.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Mottistone is always kind enough to bring to your Lordship's attention the peculiarities of the Isle of Wight, which seem to be considerable. He is quite right in that the procedure sometimes has not worked as well and as conveniently as it might have done. We have tried to pull together the best of the old regime with the new part which allows people to petition. In his example he has two councils, one of which is quite happily emparished, so as to get everything, and the other which, as he put it, is reluctant to parish.
It is precisely for those reasons that we have this system whereby if people want to be emparished, provided 10 per cent. of the people apply and 10 per cent. of the people signify that that is what they want, that is bound to go to the district council, or unitary authority, for its comments and it has to pass that on to the Secretary of State for his decision. He will take into account the requests made by the parishioners and the views of the district council or unitary authority. Therefore, the views and wishes of the parishioners or potential parishioners should be met.

CWH21
I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend, but I suggest he considers the matter and if he wishes to contact me between now and Report stage, he may do so.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend. This petitioning business did progress, but became stuck with the Secretary of State.
Earl Ferrers: I am sure there was a very good reason why it was stuck, but I am bound to say I am not familiar with it.
Lord Mottistone: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14
Page 5, line 4, at beginning insert ("A London borough council,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 19. All these amendments deal with the proposal that there should be the possibility for parishes in London. The thrust of Part II of the Bill, as I read it, is that where there is a demand for a parish that demand should be translated into action. London is, in my view, doubly disadvantaged. It has no government at the strategic level other than central government. It does not have its own strategic government, nor at the very local level does it have parishes or community councils.
I appreciate that there is a move, a fairly slow move but nevertheless a move, towards neighbourhood groups or authorities—"authority" suggesting that they have more power than they do—but a more localised delivery of service and a more localised method of discussing matters of concern to Londoners. Those neighbourhoods are dependent upon the borough council setting them up and, inevitably, the role of the non-elected members or advisers is very limited. The decisions are in the hands of those who are elected at borough level. With these amendments I am seeking, in a manner which is not inconsistent with the growth of neighbourhood councils, to allow Londoners to make use of statutory procedures to bring in their own parish councils.
During the Committee stage in another place the argument against similar amendments put by my honourable friend, the Member for Newbury, was that there seemed to be no demand in London for parishes. If there is no demand then no demand will be expressed and the statutory provisions would lie there but no group would implement them and no particular harm will be done. The point was made that when there were parishes, urban parishes which were abolished by the London Government Act 1963, these acted only as rating areas. It does not seem to me to be an effective argument to say that when there were parishes they had no powers and, therefore, there should not be parishes now with some powers. My amendments are intended to enable the creation of parishes, not to impose them, and I feel that they are entirely in line with the thrust of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Feversham: I strongly support these amendments. For a long time I believed that people in
CWH22
urban areas were considerably disadvantaged by not having parish councils. A few years ago there was an experiment to set up community councils in Birmingham which came to grief, unfortunately, but I remember shortly after that seeing a letter, I think from the department to the Prime Minister of the day, whoever she was at that stage I cannot remember, which said that unfortunately the Birmingham experiment had failed and apparently there were no identifiable communities in Birmingham.
That is the sort of argument that is usually advanced when it is suggested there should be parish councils in urban areas, and it is absolute tosh. I would dearly love to see parish councils in urban areas and these amendments are very progressive amendments.
Lord Sandys: I should like to support this amendment to the extent that I was very glad that during the course of the Second Reading of the Bill I introduced last year the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of London. It is a matter of great interest. We may wait for decades for another London government Bill because of the magnitude of the concerns that have been expressed, and therefore the opportunity of bringing this forward in this Bill seems to me entirely appropriate.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken have said they are keen to see parishes available in the Greater London area where this is desirable, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that if there is a demand for a parish then action should be taken.
We start off by saying "What is a parish?". A parish is traditionally an identifiable and specific area which you tend to find in the country and do not find in metropolitan cities. The issue in Greater London is not dissimilar to that which exists in the other metropolitan counties; those of Tyne & Wear, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and the West Midlands. There are 230 or so parishes in those counties which are on the rural fringes of the cities, and they are there because of their involvement in rural life. But there has never been any demand for parishes in the middle of those metropolitan centres. There is a legal provision for parishes to be created there, but nobody has asked for them. Neither has there been any demand for parishes to be created in London where there is no legal basis for them. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has not said there is a demand for one. All she has suggested is that we put the machinery in place so that if somebody says, "I want to have a parish in the middle of Victoria", there is a method by which that can be considered.
I do not believe we are in the business of putting on the statute book provisions which are not likely to be required and provisions for which there has been no demand, and provisions for which when placed in other places there has also been no demand. What I would say to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, is that I understand the theoretical position which they put forward that some inner cities ought to

CWH23
have parishes. However, I feel it is impractical and would suggest that one merely has to look around, say for the sake of argument at Kensington and Chelsea, or Westminster, or Victoria, and say, "Where on earth would you start with your parishes?". What would be the identifying factor that makes Victoria a parish and does not make Kensington or Westminster a parish? There is no demand for it. Parishes are essentially rural areas and it would be wrong to put on the statute book something which is very unlikely to be required.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I have lived in London for the past 30 years, since the appalling piece of legislation was passed which put all the boroughs together in vast mega-boroughs. I lived in the Borough of Camden when I lived in Hampstead; I lived in Kew when I lived in the Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames; and I now live in the Borough of Lambeth as I live in Clapham. In each of those areas I have been governed by a local government unit which is far too big and which gives far too little opportunity for the development of local feeling.
I will give one particular example which shows that the noble Earl's argument that there are no identifiable areas is not so. It is also true of Hampstead and Clapham, but in Kew it is absolutely true. There is a thing which has been called in literature "the Kew peninsular", which is bounded on one side by the river and Kew Gardens and on the other two sides by major roads which for once edge an area rather than cutting straight through it. The village of Kew is a parish in any real sense of the term. I am not saying that there is any great demand for it at the moment—one of the reasons is that we have very good local council and therefore there is not much feeling of being neglected. However, it is not true to say that there are no identifiable areas. It certainly is true that the units of local government that we have at the moment are far too big. I hope that this amendment will at least be looked at again.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for the support I have received on this amendment. My noble friend Lord Beaumont has encapsulated the point which I was going to make. He says there is no demand, but patently, as a Londoner, he demands it, and as a Londoner I demand it. I know, too, that my noble friend Lord Tope will demand it if he is able to be in the House at the Report stage of this Bill. I mentioned on Second Reading that he was responsible for bringing forward a Private Member's Bill some 22 years ago in another place. Two of the Minister's right honourable friends were sponsors of that Bill at that time.
I find it interesting that the Minister talks in terms of an identifiable area. If you talk to a group of people, they know what group they belong to. It is their demands—to the extent that there are demands and, of course, those are variable—which I am seeking to promote. The Government are not normally very coy about bringing forward extra legislation or legislative provisions, and so I take that response with a pinch of salt. This is a matter that I shall return to at a later stage and on that basis I withdraw the amendment.
CWH24
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 4, after ("may") insert ("at any time and shall, not less than once in every eight years,").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 15 takes us back to the debate about district councils' and unitary councils' review of the introduction of parishes. I was surprised at the de-grouping of this amendment from Amendment No. 13, but it does give us a second bite at the cherry.
In proposing that each council should be able whenever it wished to conduct a review, but should have a minimum obligation to do so, I was approaching the issue addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and those who supported his amendment with the same concerns and simply from a slightly different direction. I believe that there should be a statutory obligation; certainly not one which is so cumbersome that it distracts from other duties, nor one which is treated in a rather off-hand fashion. If it were to be an annual review, it would become a matter of routine and would not be considered in any great depth.
I understand that the guidance note proposes that there should be consultation on the creation of new parishes every 10 years. I believe that a good deal less than 10 years would be correct, but in order to concentrate on the obligation to review rather than the time limit I have put in a very unambitious proposal of every eight years. Whatever period the guidance note suggests, that is not a statutory obligation, and it is that obligation which it would be helpful to have on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is in a very forceful mood this afternoon. She wants to put all sorts of things on the statute book even though it may not be necessary. She says that she wants to ensure that the eight years is put on the statute book.
The amendment is not dissimilar to the amendment that my noble friend Lord Mottistone moved earlier and which we have discussed. It would place a duty on every district and unitary county council to undertake parish reviews, and the amendment would oblige them to do so every eight years.
The same arguments apply to the noble Baroness's amendment as I ventured to portray to your Lordships over the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, but to an even greater extent. It is not the duty to carry out a review that matters; it is the outcome of that review. If a district council supports parishing in its area there is no need for a duty to be imposed upon it to carry out a review. If the district council is opposed to parishing, forcing it carry out a review may well be a waste of time for the reasons that I gave during our debate on the earlier amendment.
What the proposals in the Bill do is to address that problem more directly. We provide for petitions to be put forward which do not require the agreement of a district council. That enables the district council to give its views but the petitions can be put forward to the Secretary of State. I believe that that is a more practical way of doing it to get over the problem that the noble

CWH25
Baroness puts forward, to ensure that those people who are not parished properly but who want parishes should be able to have their views considered. I believe that that is the right way of doing it.
There are district areas which are fully parished and it would be absurd to oblige them to be reviewed every eight years. The only result of that would be that the parish boundaries might change. There are, of course, some districts that have areas which are unparished and those areas have the provisions in the Bill addressed specifically for them.
I hope that the noble Baroness will see that her concerns are covered in the Bill, and, I believe, covered in a way that is better than the one she proposes.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that reply, which was not unexpected. I shall be interested to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, can find a way of progressing his approach to the issue at the next stage. I dare say there will be some common ground between us. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Procedure on a review]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Petitions for new parishes]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 18 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 are concerned with petitions for the establishment of new parish councils. They deal particularly with extending the period of time that a local authority would have to consider and give its recommendations on such petitions. They change especially the two periods: the first from three to six months and the second from six to nine months.
These are essentially probing amendments. They are designed to seek assurances from the Government that due consideration has been given to the processes through which local authorities must go when considering a petition. The Bill, as drafted, places a duty on principal councils to send a petition to the Secretary of State within three months of receiving it, together with their views. Amendment No. 18 relaxes that requirement to six months. The argument is that three months is a fairly short period in which to form a view on such a petition. Amendment No. 20 would allow a council nine instead of six months to make its recommendations on matters relating to the petition following its decision on electoral arrangements and boundary changes.
We want neither to give local authorities so much time that the impetus for setting up a parish council simply goes away or people feel frustrated and disappointed, nor to impose upon them such tight time limits that it is difficult for them to arrive at a proper
CWH26
and balanced view about what is intended in the petition. The purpose of these amendments is simply to give local authorities a little more time without giving them so much time as to frustrate the purpose of those putting the petition forward.
Before forming a view, the principal council would in any case wish to consult fully and gather the necessary information on which to make its comments on the proposal. It would need to indicate whether it agreed with the proposals contained in the petition and summarise any information which it had about opinions held by local governments elected in the areas concerned. It might have to pass through a committee process. Given the timetables of local authority committees, that itself could require a minimum of two months. We are suggesting a somewhat longer period so that these petitions can be dealt with sensibly and properly.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 deal with a slightly different point. They deal with the Secretary of State's power to modify recommendations on parish reviews. The Bill as drafted allows the Secretary of State the freedom to make modifications to any proposal to establish a parish council without having to consult the bodies involved in processing that proposal. I wonder whether such a procedure is in keeping with the concept of local democracy. It would in effect allow the Secretary of State to make orders modifying recommendations made to him by local authorities, by the Local Government Commission or by local public petition without the benefit of the views of the other local authorities or the Local Government Commission; in other words, the Secretary of State could change the proposals, and that modification would not be the subject of any consultation.
The Secretary of State's powers to modify could, I submit, be something that might be contested, and local authority associations feel that, if the Secretary of State consulted local authorities before modifying recommendations from parish councils, it would be far less likely that they would feel the need legally to contest the exercise of his powers.
These are sensible suggestions, and I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for explaining these amendments and for saying also that they are probing amendments to try to find out what the Government have in mind. I will do my best to give him the answers and hope to satisfy him, which is always a pleasurable pastime.
What the noble Lord wishes to do in these amendments is to extend the period which is available for district or unitary councils to consider any petitions which they may receive. We are anxious to ensure that any proposals for new parishes which are brought forward in the form of petitions should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, whether that is by the district council or by the unitary county council. That is obviously desirable because one wishes to get any uncertainty over as quickly as one reasonably can.

CWH27
When we had our consultations on the proposals, the view was expressed to us that three months was too short a period for councils to research the issues and the local views involved. That is a similar view to the first two amendments which the noble Lord has put forward.
I would only emphasise that we are not expecting these councils to do a great deal of research about a petition for a parish. Most councils worth their salt will know more or less straightaway whether any case for a new parish which is proposed in a petition has serious flaws. They will not need to embark on lengthy investigations, so it should not take too long for an authority to decide whether it agrees with a proposal.
In a similar way, if there is a groundswell of local opinion against a parish, the district or unitary county council will be aware of it. Our draft guidance about parish reviews indicates that local opinion on the proposal might well come from correspondence which is already on file, from surveys, from other petitions, or from the views which have been expressed direct to councillors. None of this information should take more than three months to collate.
If the Secretary of State feels that he has insufficient information to enable him to exercise his judgment about a petition, he can refer the matter to the Local Government Commission for consideration. It is at that point that further investigations might be carried out—not while the petition is with the district or unitary county council.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will forgive me for saying that he seems inadvertently and uncharacteristically to have gone over the top a little. The amendments seek that any modifications which the Secretary of State might make to the proposal should go back to the district council and to the Local Government Commission, if it has been involved. The Secretary of State will have neither the intention to change significantly the nature of recommendations or proposals, nor the power to do so. He is, however, clearly bound to consult the local authorities on a draft order.
I will give the Committee a view of what happened a short while ago. It is worth bearing in mind that when the Secretary of State decided to create the new parishes which had been recommended in the recent structural review of the shire counties in England, the Secretary of State was not required to consult on any modification which he might have made in those recommendations. He used the powers of modification which had been given to him under the Local Government Act 1992 in a very limited way to change the detail of the proposal.
If I were to give the Committee an example, it would be the area which was proposed by the Local Government Commission for the new Leigh-on-Sea parish in Essex which was modified to exclude half a dozen houses. Had that modification not been made, electors living in those houses would, on the same day, have been in the absurd position of having to go to one polling station to vote for their parish councillor and to
CWH28
a different polling station to vote for their district councillor. Therefore, it seemed correct and reasonable to modify the proposals to avoid that.
I should also point out that, before an order is made to implement any recommendations or any proposals which the Secretary of State may have received, the relevant local authorities and other interested bodies are as a matter of course consulted on a draft. This is for the very simple reason that the Secretary of State would not wish to put before Parliament an order which turned out to contain some absurd peculiarity. This consultation is undertaken, whether or not it is intended to modify the proposals. That is obviously sensible, and it does help prevent errors being made.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will agree that the timescales for submissions of petitions are reasonable, and that they do not require amendment. I hope he will feel that I have satisfied him on his concerns. There is a regime in place to take account of people's concerns. Where there are major concerns, that could go back to the Local Government Commission and it would be at that point that the detail and research might have to be carried out. However, the chances of that happening are fairly slender.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds to that, I feel the Minister glosses over the timescales that apply in local authorities. They are often much too long, but three months is quite short for an authority which may not have a meeting itself until towards the end of the period, and may feel that it is its own role to make certain investigations and perhaps to gather in views of those in other areas, not within the area that is supposed to be parished, but perhaps neighbouring on it. I support any proposal that allows the district authorities to have a major role in the progression of a petition. It is to the benefit of the community and a group of communities if the discussions can be held locally rather than the Local Government Commission, as some kind of kindly, or not so kindly, uncle, taking a greater role within what might be sorted out in the immediate family.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may reply to that point because it is an important one. I agree with the noble Baroness that three months might be on the tight side if the local authority knew nothing about this at all, but that is unrealistic. When somebody wants to petition for a parish, it is unbelievable to think that the local council will know nothing about it, and suddenly, out of the blue, rather like a scimitar at a council meeting will come this proposal which will shake everyone rigid because they have heard nothing about it before.
The fact is that those in the area will know what is going on and it will not come as a surprise. A certain amount of homework is bound to be done by the local authority before the proposal ever reaches the authority. In that respect, I believe that three months is reasonable, but I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be very short if in fact people knew nothing about it at all. However, I do not believe that that is likely to happen.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may comment, first, on Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, and then say a little about the last discussion on Amendments Nos. 18 and 20.

CWH29
As regards Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, if I summarise the Minister, he said that I have gone over the top, but the Secretary of State is bound to consult so these amendments are unnecessary. I take that as an assurance that the Secretary of State will consult. I certainly know that the next Secretary of State will consult, but the noble Earl has also given me an assurance that the present one will, so that is fine. The Minister looks worried at what I have said.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord need not worry at all, because when I am the next Secretary of State I shall consult.
Lord Dubs: I do not know whether the Minister is a betting man, but I am quite happy to do something that I do not normally do which is to have a bet on that. In personal terms, I am not against it; in political terms, I would be unhappy about that.
If I may turn to Amendments Nos. 18 and 20, I was thinking about what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was saying. She is currently a senior councillor in the London Borough of Richmond and has a great deal of experience in these matters. Some years ago, I served as a councillor on Westminster City Council. Listening to her and thinking back to my experience, it is sometimes quite difficult for local authorities to make decisions as quickly as the Minister suggests.
If everything is straightforward, of course the local authority ought to know that a petition is on its way. It ought to be prepared and ought to be familiar with the areas to be covered. Occasionally, however, other situations might occur. For example, a district council might have received two different petitions at the same time from adjacent areas, such that there was some overlap between what one petition wanted and what the other one wanted. That would take quite a bit of time to unscramble. It might not happen very often but I can see a situation where there might be some need to go in for some consultation on the part of the district council to make sure that the petitions were all four square with each other and avoided an overlap.
I can see situations where the timetable might be a little bit tight, particularly if petitions arrived at the beginning of the summer when council committees do not sit. They would then effectively have a shorter period of time and the timescale might not allow two cycles of committee meetings if a particular council committee wanted to consider it at one of its meetings and wanted more information before making a decision. There would be a further delay of three months, or whatever the council committee cycle is, and they could run out of time.
In the normal course of events that would very seldom happen but there might in exceptional cases be some difficulty. That was the point of the two amendments. I wonder whether the Minister has any sympathy for the argument that Baroness Hamwee and I are putting forward on this.
Earl Ferrers: I always have sympathy for the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, puts
CWH30
forward because he does so usually, not always, with very good reasons behind them. He has a point over this and I must say that I had not thought before of the peculiar position where you may get two petitions being put forward at the same time which would conflict with each other. In that case, it would be reasonable for a local authority to say to the Secretary of State that it had only this short length of time in which to consider these petitions which are difficult because they overlap. The local authority would give its initial views but ask the Secretary of State not to make up his mind too soon because it would like a little bit longer to add to those views.
There would be nothing to stop local authorities doing that and no Secretary of State, even in the purest chance of the Secretary of State coming from a different party from the glorious one of which he is a representative at the moment, would ever say, "I am going to go ahead. You have not answered quickly enough. Therefore, I shall disregard any views that you might put forward in the future". That is not likely to happen. The fact is that the Secretary of State will not want to make orders which are unworkable or inappropriate. In those kinds of conditions I should have thought that he would be content to have submissions put to him after the initial ones had been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, finds the most bizarre example. The chances of that happening are fairly slender. I think also that it would be a pity to extend the consultation for six months in all cases simply because it would mean that in the majority of cases there would be an unnecessary wait when in fact the matter could be resolved more quickly. My guess is that the three months' period would be the better one to retain.
Baroness Hamwee: We find ourselves moving towards the position which allows supplemental views to be given to the Secretary of State and to be taken into account. I am not yet persuaded that that is the best way to deal with the matter. Perhaps the Minister will look at the drafting of Clause 12 which refers to his considering the views sent under Clause 11. As Clause 11 has in it the time limit, it may be necessary to look at the wording of the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State can consider those further views.
Earl Ferrers: I shall certainly consider that point because it is an important one. I think the answer I have given is correct—that the local authority will have a certain specified time in which to give its views. If the matter was so complicated that it said, "These are our initial views, but we would like a little longer", no Secretary of State would ever say, "You have had long enough, I'm going to make the order", because the Secretary of State has to act reasonably. But I will certainly check the matter and look at it in more detail, as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, have put that point to me.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister. He has indicated that there are ways in which the Secretary of State could be flexible, and therefore local authorities would have a little more scope than they might have if one interpreted the Bill in its most rigid form. On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

CWH31

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Views of local authority about the petition]:

[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Implementation by Secretary of State]:

[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Consultation with parish councils]:

Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 28, at beginning insert—
("(A1) Subsections (1) to (6) shall only apply to the area of a county or district council where the Secretary of State so notifies that council, subject to the requirement that he may not so notify that council if—

(a) it has in place an agreed process of consultation with parish councils within its area; or

(b) he has not received a written request from a parish council within its area.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 23 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 27, 29 and 33. Amendment No. 23 concerns consultation with parish councils. The amendment would make it clear on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State's power to designate subjects on which councils must consult is a reserve power. Designation would only come into force when it had been shown that voluntary arrangements either did not exist, or do not work. Paragraph 7 of the Guidance on Consultation prescribes subject matters for consultation which fall into two categories. The first is one where issues are very much matters to which people living in the immediate area have an obvious input, and which are fairly uncomplicated and uncontroversial; for example, the siting of a bus stop, planning permission or leisure facilities. On the whole, these matters are probably the subject of statutory consultation anyway, even without the Bill.
The matters listed in the second group are more controversial. There are matters upon which the principal authority has a duty to decide and needs to take into account the effect of a housing strategy, for instance, on the entire district. While it is good practice to involve as many people as possible in consultation on such issues, it must be up to the principal authority to decide how best to handle this to avoid unnecessary conflict between competing communities. The subject matters should not be prescribed too much.
The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the subjects on which a local authority must consult with parish councils within its area. This is probably an undue centralisation of power to the Secretary of State, and might cut across local agreements between local authorities and parish councils. The Guidance on Consultation states that the Secretary of State's power is a reserve power, and that
CWH32
guidance is based, I understand, on the model of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, though it is different in some respects. Paragraph 5 of the guidance is the important paragraph, which makes it quite clear that it is a reserve power and it really weakens the legislation.
Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 29 concern the parish councils with which consultation should take place. It is possible that more than one parish council might be affected. The Bill as drafted would require a local authority to consult all parish councils within its area, even where the proposal affects only a part of the authority's area or, say, only one parish council. The guidance does not define an area in which consultation should take place. Let me give an example. Let us take the proposals relating to a school which has a catchment area which does not include the whole of the authority. The parish council outside the area affected will still have to be consulted. I suggest that that would be somewhat illogical if those parish councils are outside the area and their jurisdiction has no effect at all on the catchment area of the school. It would mean that the local council would have to go through an unduly bureaucratic process of consultation with some of the parish councils in the area which might have no interest at all in the subject. I would have thought it would be easier to say that the consultation should be only with those parish councils which are relevant to the particular point at issue.
I now turn to Amendment No. 33. This replaces an existing clause and would introduce a voluntary rather than a compulsory system to regulate consultation between parish councils and local authorities. The Government seem to favour the compulsory approach, but my understanding is that local authority associations see that the consultative relations between different tiers of local authorities should be a matter for local determination and agreement rather than of central control and imposition. It would be wrong in principle therefore for central government to seek to impose the way in which consultation takes place as it appears on the face of the Bill.
Local authority associations also believe that a compulsory system would be wrong in practice. A proper consultative relationship, with consultation a feature of it, depends on local agreement and local good will, and it would be difficult to achieve that good will by forcing it to happen. There are many examples of locally agreed charters and other agreements between parish councils and local authorities based on a voluntary approach and voluntary agreement. The local authority associations fully accept that this is an area in which the Secretary of State might wish to promote best practice. The associations strongly support continued improvement in voluntary consultation arrangements between parish councils and local authorities. The proposed new clause goes a long way to securing this common objective. I beg to move.
Lord Feversham: I have no problems with this little raft of amendments, Nos. 25, 27 and 29, which seem to make a great deal of sense. I am a little worried about Amendments Nos. 23 and 33, not least with Amendment No. 23 because it provides that:

CWH33
"the Secretary of State so notifies that council, subject to the requirement that he may not so notify that council".
That is the kind of language I always feel pulls an amendment down. I wonder whether Amendments Nos. 23 and 33 are necessary. I do not feel that the parish council would feel that they were necessary, and as a parish councillor I do not feel they add a great deal to the Bill. The Association of Parish and Town Councils is not a member of the local authority association mentioned by the noble Lord, so I am rather suspicious of those two amendments, but would support him in Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 29.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord for his support for three of the amendments. I am embarrassed that he has drawn attention to what is appalling English in one of the amendments. I have had a little private campaign against bad English coming from government departments and will have to plead guilty in public to the same offence, which is something I had hoped not to have to do. I take that point; it is appalling drafting and I can only plead that I was given help with the drafting. I should have been more strict with the wording before putting it down. I await the Minister's response.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I do like to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, apologising in public. Some of us have to do that from time to time, and usually over something rather more draconian than the English language. Winston Churchill once said that periodically one has to make a meal of one's own words, and he added: "It's not an unwholesome diet either!". I take the noble Lord's apology in the way in which it was made.
The provisions on parish councils and parish consultation had a pretty good run in another place. Some views were in support of a less prescriptive approach and some went the other way. I thought it might help your Lordships if I were to try to outline the way in which we see this coming about.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the voluntary approach is much the best way of achieving improved consultation between principal authorities and parish councils. Successive consultations on this matter have shown that many principal authorities already have voluntary agreements in place to consult parish councils.
However, our consultations also showed that some principal councils are not consulting parish councils despite requests for them to do so. We took the view that while legislative provision is required, it would be unnecessarily prescriptive as well as running the risk of upsetting existing voluntary agreements to set out in legislation the content of consultation agreements. What we intend to do, therefore, is to issue guidance which will make it clear that principal authorities are expected to establish voluntary consultation agreements with parish councils on certain specific matters. In addition, there will be a list of subjects upon which consultation should take place when the parish council requests it.
If the voluntary approach does not work, the Secretary of State can use his powers in this clause to designate matters on which principal authorities must
CWH34
consult parish councils. That can be done in one of two ways. Under the first, principal authorities would be required to consult all parish councils in their area; under the second, they would be required to consult only those parish councils which had given written notice that they wished to be consulted on a particular matter. The Secretary of State will also have the power to apply those two provisions flexibly.
The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to designate lists for different purposes. One list might set out matters on which all parishes in a principal authority may have an interest and the other might set out matters which may be of interest to some parish councils but not to others.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would effectively remove the Secretary of State's ability to put matters into the first list; that is the list on which all parish councils should be consulted. I would expect that there would be few matters that would go into that list. But we feel that we should keep that option. There may be a matter—for example, the provision of a district-wide service which is not included in the existing voluntary consultation agreements—on which all parishes should be given the opportunity to comment.
Amendment No. 33, which the noble Lord has proposed, would be quite unacceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, did not say that it would he unacceptable but he did not think that he could quite go along with it. I would go a little further than that and say that it would be unacceptable because it would in fact remove entirely the Secretary of State's power to set up a statutory scheme at all. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that it is much better for this to be done on a voluntary basis, but we have to have statutory powers to require principal authorities to consult parish councils if it is clear that the guidance on voluntary consultations simply is not being followed.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure your Lordships that we do not intend to apply the powers in the Bill in a draconian way, but I believe that we need to have the provisions of the Bill in order to ensure that the voluntary system will work. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is desirable for those reasons.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for that. I should have said at the outset that Amendments Nos. 23 and 33 were probing amendments to get the Government's response and I am grateful that I have now had that.
I should like to ask the Minister about Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 29, which deal with consultation only with relevant parish councils to avoid a district council having to consult parish councils in its area but not affected by a particular proposal. Has the Minister any thoughts on that? These possibly carry more force in themselves than being merely probing amendments.
Earl Ferrers: The amendments would allow the principal authority to decide upon what areas are affected. The difficulty comes if the parish councils do not agree. Some might think that they are affected even though the principal authority does not. That is why we

CWH35
feel it is best to leave the arrangements as they are in the Bill. It makes it fairly clear that the arrangements should be made on a voluntary basis. If they are not, then of course we would have to take the necessary steps.
The difficulty comes when one side thinks that they ought to be consulted and the other side feels that they ought not.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate there is a difficulty and there may be instances when, if the amendments were to be in the Bill, the parish council would say that it should have been consulted and the district council would have said it saw no reason to consult it because it was not affected. So I appreciate that there are difficulties. On the other hand there may be bureaucracy in doing it the other way, which the amendments were intended to avoid.
However, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 12, line 31, after ("councils") insert ("and the chairmen of parish meetings").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 24 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 28 and 30 to 32. The amendments seek to extend consultations by superior local authorities to parish meetings for parishes which have no councils.
As I am sure my noble friend the Minister is aware, there are about 1,500 parishes in England without councils, all with very small electorates. I should add that there are even more parishes which join with others to form the total area of a parish council. The parish of Mottistone in the Isle of Wight, for example, forms part of the wider Brighstone Parish Council area and does not have or seek to have a separate parish meeting at any time. I hope that my noble friend will have some sympathy towards the amendment, even if the wording could be improved. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend has explained that these amendments seek to ensure that the parish meetings of parishes which have no councils should be included in the consultation process. I am all in favour of the consultation process being as easy as possible for both parties. That is very important. District councils and unitary county councils are themselves often constrained to completing consultation by a particular date. If a parish meeting is required to meet only twice a year—although it may do so more frequently—it means that in many instances consulting the parish chairman would be exactly that. It would only be the chairman who could be consulted, not the whole meeting. The views of the parish meeting itself would not be represented.
Of course, if an issue arose which the parish chairman felt justified a meeting, it would be possible for him to convene one. But one wonders how often that is likely to take place in a small rural parish. I do not see the likelihood of meetings like that being necessary, which
CWH36
justifies the extra administration which would be associated with a duty to consult the parish chairman. I would like to emphasise that we do not wish to disregard parish meetings. Our draft guidance on consultation provisions suggests that county and district councils may well want to consider special arrangements whereby they can consult parish meetings. Indeed it also mentions the need for special arrangements for communities where there is no parish at all.
We feel that parish meetings are best served by a voluntary approach to consultation; after all a parish meeting is not a local authority in legal terms, it is just a collection of local people from an area. It may be the case that the parish meeting is very serious about wishing to be consulted on a regular basis, and local circumstances may be such that issues of importance to it might arise frequently. For those parish meetings the obvious answer would be that they should consider becoming a parish council and having that form of status. I hope my noble friend would feel that the reasons for not consulting parish chairmen as such are sufficiently strong not to include them in the Bill. It would complicate the matter a good deal and might well result in the views of the parish itself not being taken into account but only the views of the chairman, however eminent and well intentioned those views may be.
Lord Mottistone: I take the points that my noble friend has made. The trouble is that with all these little areas, parish meetings to my mind are only needed because parish councils have not been established. I must confess, having worked with them now for 20 years, that a parish council is so necessary out in the rural areas that we ought to have them everywhere. However, I see the point that my noble friend is making. I am not so frightened of the chairmen of parish meetings as perhaps he implied he is, because they soon get sharp treatment from the rest of the meeting members if they do the wrong thing. We are talking only about very small communities. However, I take what he said and will give thought to it. I may come back on Report, but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 25 agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 34:
Before Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
POWERS OF PARISH AND COMMUNITY COUNCILS

(" .—(1) Parish councils and community councils may apply to exercise a power not otherwise available to them, in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) If at any time the majority of parish or community councils in the area of a county or unitary council determine that they wish to exercise such a power they shall, after consultation with the county or unitary council and in the case of a council within the area of a district council, the district council, apply to the Secretary of State.

(3) For the purposes of this section a majority of councils means councils in whose areas in aggregate there are registered the majority of electors registered in the county or unitary council.

CWH37

(4) Following such consultation as he thinks fit the Secretary of State may by order provide that such a power may be exercised by each applying council.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulation make any incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision he thinks necessary or expedient for the purposes or in consequence of any such orders made by him under this section or for giving full effect to such orders.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the question of powers generally for parish councils. My party would like to see a power of general competence for local government. The amendment does not seek that, though it is a small way along the road to that. I admit that fact freely but hope that it will not be regarded as too threatening, either by the Government or indeed by parish councils. I make that second point because the Minister in another place said that there was not an enormous demand for vast new powers. That followed his comment at col. 1130 of Hansard of 23rd January.
"If I were to recommend to the House that we vote for a new clause 1, there would be a corporate heart attack among parish councillors. They constantly tell us they want to be consulted and listened to more effectively.… We must be prudent, so that we give them realistic and sensible powers that are relevant to local circumstances".
It would not be appropriate for me to comment at length on what I regard as a rather top-down, perhaps even patronising, approach, but I am seeking to allow parish councils to pursue the possibility of exercising powers which they think they might helpfully exercise. In other words, this would not be dumping on them a whole new raft of powers which would make them take fright.
This proposed new clause would allow parish and community councils, having identified powers which are missing, to apply to exercise those powers. It would not enable a parish council which simply took it into its head that it would be quite nice to exercise some new power to do so by itself, but only if a majority of councils agreed. And it is implicit that they would be in consultation with one another and I have made it explicit that they would consult their superior council. If a majority, defined in the way I have sought to define it, comes to a view that they should be able to exercise a power which is not available to them, they could go to the Secretary of State and ask to be able to exercise that power.
The Committee will know that I am not an enthusiast for leaving a huge amount of power in the hands of the Secretary of State to stop things happening, but this might be a useful way of developing the proposal. It should allow the Government the comfort of knowing that matters could not become rapidly out of hand, because there is intended to be a structure to this. I have suggested that, after the consultation locally, the majority of councils might approach the Secretary of State and he would pursue consultations and then be able, by order, to allow that power to the councils which apply to him.
Although I accept that the detail of this amendment begs a good many questions, I hope the general thrust of it will appeal to the Committee and that it might be something on which we could build. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said earlier this afternoon that, since we
CWH38
are not likely to have this sort of Bill for a little while again, it would be a pity to allow the opportunity to extend the powers of parish and community councils, in a way which would be very welcome, to pass. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Feversham: This seems to me a very progressive amendment from the noble Baroness, and it certainly appeals to me. Parish councils would not feel that they were having powers dropped on them. The great advantage of these "soft shoe shuffles" towards general competence is that they allow the parish council to take up powers it feels able to pursue. This is very important when you have parish councils of so many different sizes and so many different rateable values. There are one or two cathedral cities, for example, which are parishes and could probably carry out quite a number of activities on their own. I certainly welcome this amendment and hope that the Government, even at this very late stage in the Bill, will find some attraction in it.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, described this as a progressive amendment. However, it is not the simple modest amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested. It is a critical blockbuster of an amendment, in fact, because the clause which she has proposed comes close to providing parishes with a power of general competence, subject to the agreement only of the Secretary of State.
Your Lordships will remember that the subject of general competence was one which was addressed by the House of Lords Select Committee on Central/Local Government Relations. In reply to that, the Government are now reviewing the scope for action within Section 137 of the Local Government Act. They are considering whether a more general power of local competence would be practical and advisable and, if so, what this power should be. In addition, the Environment Select Committee of another place recommended in its report on the rural White Paper that the Government should review the limits to parish spending under Section 137 of the 1972 Act.
Under this power, parishes can spend up to £3.50 per local government elector on anything which brings direct benefit to the area of their parish and for which the parish has no other specific power. We have recently commissioned research to explore the extent to which parishes do, in fact, use their Section 137 power, what they use it for and whether there is a case for a change to the financial limit.
The noble Baroness's amendment would have us pre-empt the outcome of those deliberations, which would be a pity. It would, in addition, saddle us with a system which I am sure the Committee would not welcome.
It would give the Secretary of State carte blanche to give extra powers to a tier of local government by simply making orders. It would be a Henry VIII clause to beat all other Henry VIII clauses. It would enable a future Secretary of State, who might takes his responsibilities rather more cavalierly than the present

CWH39
incumbent—the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, shakes his head; I cannot think who he thinks I am thinking of—to give almost any power which one cares to mention to parish councils, subject only to making an order.
I suggest that it would be better for the Committee to await the outcome of our deliberations before embarking on a proposal of such a radical nature as the noble Baroness suggests. The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, calls it progressive. It is progressive, but far too progressive for me.
In any case, the provisions which are already in the Bill are designed to meet the aspirations of parish councils. From the hundreds of responses to the rural White Paper which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State received, it is clear that what parish communities most want is the opportunity to express their views. They also want to be able to take a more active role in the provision of crime prevention and in community transport measures. I believe that that is what is required.
To take on the noble Baroness's amendment would be inappropriate for a Bill of this nature and would be untimely. It would pre-empt any outcome of the consideration and research which have been going on into this matter.
Baroness Hamwee: I am flattered to be called progressive and radical and to have produced a blockbuster of an amendment. Perhaps it is better than I thought it was. The Minister does not say when the review will be concluded. Perhaps he could tell the Committee when we might have some outcome on this. But I have to say I am not hugely convinced by his arguments. I would, of course, be convinced if I thought that there were any likelihood of some real, fundamental review, but what his arguments boil down to is not an answer to whether this particular tier of local government should have wider powers. However, I am not surprised because I know he and I have different views on that. Perhaps he will tell the Committee when we might expect the outcome of the review.
Earl Ferrers: I always find the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, particularly difficult to satisfy. I do my best, but she does take views which, as she says, are rather different to the ones that I take. So I suppose it is not surprising that I cannot always be in the agreeable position of feeling that she is content with what I have said.
With regard to when the result of the research is to be known, I am afraid I cannot tell her the answer to that. We have let the contract and at the moment I do not know quite how long the project will take. If I find that I am in a position to let the noble Baroness know I will do so, but I am afraid I cannot say at the moment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that. Perhaps I would be as unhappy as he would if we found what we agreed on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
CWH40
Clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION FOR GRANTS BY PARISH AND COMMUNITY COUNCILS
(" . In exercising any of the functions conferred on them by sections 26 to 29 of this Act—

(a) a parish council shall be entitled to apply to the Rural Development Commission for a grant from the Rural Transport Development Fund on the same terms and conditions as apply to any other person or body (including any local authority), and

(b) a community council shall be entitled to apply to the Secretary of State for a grant under the Rural Transport Innovation Grant scheme on the same terms and conditions as apply to any other person or body (including any local authority).").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 35, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 37. They are grouped with Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I shall wait to hear what he has to say about them. I believe, and the National Association of Local Councils believes, that there is a need for some mechanism for local councils to have access to central funds to carry out the duties conferred on them by statute. This especially applies to new duties, when it should not be necessary to have to rely solely on the precept raised from council tax payers in the parish. As my noble friend the Minister has told the Committee in relation to Amendment No. 34, under Section 137 of the 1972 Act a local council may spend in any one financial year up to £3.50 per elector on anything for which it has no express power, provided that the expenditure is for the direct benefit of the parish, or some or all of its inhabitants.
There is a good argument for widening this provision for a variety of services which it is appropriate for parish councils to provide. Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 are, however, specifically limited to the extra powers conferred on parish councils by Part III of the Bill. Having looked at an enormous list of the other services which parish councils can provide, in due course perhaps one might seek to expand this extra financial provision to those. However, at this point in the Bill I am really looking only for extra financial powers in relation to the items that are within the Bill.
Amendment No. 35 identifies the suggested mechanism for assisting such councils financially with regard to transport facilities described in Clauses 26 to 30, and Amendment No. 37 does the same for crime prevention facilities described in Clause 31. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 36 and 38, which are grouped with the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has just been speaking. There is a very welcome provision in the Bill, and that is that parish councils are given responsibilities as regards transport, traffic-calming measures and crime prevention.
As I understand it, there are no similar powers given to other local authorities in this country. Desirable as it is that parish councils should have these powers, it seems to me a pity that other local authorities do not

CWH41
also have powers to deal with traffic, traffic-calming measures and crime prevention. It is the intention of these two amendments to move a little bit down the path of linking the work of parish councils in relation to these powers with local authorities in their areas.
Let me speak to each of the amendments in turn. As regards Amendment No. 36, clearly the idea is that any community safety or crime prevention plans published by a local authority would be such that the parish council would be able to consider them and make its plans accordingly. I had hoped to put down some other amendments which would have taken a bit further my proposition about giving to other local authorities in the area powers relating to crime prevention and transport, but these were not in order so I was not able to put them down. I am limited to what appears here.
There is concern that local authorities, other than parish councils as planned here, do not have any specific powers of expenditure on crime prevention. That applies to counties, metropolitan authorities and district councils. All they can do is to incur expenditure under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. A study carried out on behalf of local government associations in July 1996 found that 52 per cent. of authorities said that their inability to spend money on crime prevention was one of the three obstacles to having an effective crime prevention programme. They saw that as something which prevented them being as active in crime prevention measures as they would wish to be. I am hoping that there is some way in which one can move towards giving local authorities the same powers as parish councils. I agree that there are difficulties in relation to the Long Title of the Bill and the kind of amendment that might be permitted.
Amendment No. 38 will allow the subject of the wider efforts to address problems of transport and crime prevention and to provide the possibility of making a case for powers of expenditure for all local authorities. Local government generally in this country is committed to seeking to achieve both more sustainable patterns of transport use and successful local crime prevention schemes. While the Bill introduces the power for parish councils, it would be better if that power could be extended to other levels of local government. I am obviously constrained in how much I can argue this point because the amendments I have tabled do not go as far down that particular path as I would wish.
I conclude as I began by welcoming the particular crime prevention and transport and traffic-calming measures that are there for parish councils and put the case that I would like to see parish councils being able to link their efforts more with local authorities than they are now able to do.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Feversham: I would like to support all the amendments in this raft, perhaps naturally rather more fiercely than the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. On Second Reading a number of noble Lords mentioned that a little more power will devolve to parish councils sooner or later if this goes on, and if parish councils grow in their usefulness and activity in
CWH42
the community some thought about finance is going to have to be given. One cannot fudge the issue for too long. It may not be the right place in this Bill to take it up too strongly. I feel that if parish councils are to be developed one way or another, whether progressively or not, in the long run someone is going to have to think about finance.
There is a slight whinge that parish councillors have. They feel that they are slightly unfairly treated with regard to the business rate, as do all local authorities. Certainly parish councils have always felt rather badly.
There is a slight feeling among parish councils that they are not somehow quite on a level plain. As they have to do more and more things, as seen by the electors, some parishes, which no doubt are doing an excellent job, may seem to be spending a great deal more money than the parish next door or than an authority that is not parished. I am not sure that the present financial arrangements for parish councils quite solve that problem, and it has to be solved if one wants to make greater use of parish councils at the end of the day.
Having said that, I certainly support the noble Lord's amendment and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I could deal with the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mottistone first. I understand why he tabled the amendments, but I hope to reassure him that they are unnecessary. The scheme rules for the Rural Transport Development Fund already allow for parish councils in England to apply for grants under the fund on exactly the same terms as other bodies. Similarly, the rural transport innovation scheme can provide grants for community councils in Wales. These arrangements will not change as a result of the Bill.
In fact, there are a good number of examples where the Rural Transport Development Fund has been used to support schemes that have been put forward by parish councils. One is the provision of a community bus service in Pirbright in Surrey which benefited from a £14,000 grant, which was 50 per cent. of the start-up costs of the project. There is, therefore, no bar on parish or community councils putting together funding from their own precept, the Rural Transport Development Fund and other sources. In a similar way, on crime prevention there is no suggestion that parish councils will in any way miss out on any crime prevention schemes which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary may make.
Turning to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I can understand his frustration that he cannot apply his amendments to a wider area because of the Long Title of the Bill which limits the contents of the Bill to parishes in England and community councils in Wales. But proper consultation is vital if we are to get the best from any crime prevention or community transport scheme: there must be proper consultation. There is no doubt that it will be sensible and good practice for parish and community councils, in exercising their new community transport or crime prevention powers, to take into account the policies of

CWH43
other local authorities and, where relevant, to consult with them and with other interested bodies, including neighbouring parish councils. Parish councils are bound to consult local people. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary to require them to do so on the face of the Bill.
Local authorities, though, are not the only partners in crime prevention and community transport provision. The police, local people, local businesses and voluntary organisations also need to be involved. There is a danger that if we single out one body above all the others, these amendments could be misleading to parish and community councils.
I am sure that those councils that want to support crime prevention and community transport will take care to consult properly. I cannot see that there is any way in which anyone trying to introduce a crime prevention scheme or a bus service in a locality could not consult; it would be unthinkable. Clearly, the local authority is of major importance and parish and community councils will be anxious to work with it in a constructive way. Indeed, we will consider including advice on the kind of consultation which ought to be undertaken in any guidance which we may give to councils on their use of the new powers. However, I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to include the proposed form of words on the face of the Bill, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will agree that what is in the Bill addresses the consultation which is necessary and which is bound to happen in any event.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his comments. I would like to think about what he said, because I still believe there is a problem about the effort that local government in this country generally can put into crime prevention and into transport and traffic calming measures. We could move further, because I see local authorities as being able, if they are given the full powers, to play a very important part in crime prevention. I therefore welcome the responsibility given to parish councils in the Bill. It would be helpful in local areas to give parish councils that type of new responsibility, and when the time comes I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendments or not move them.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his response. There is just one small question. When he was talking about Amendment No. 35 he said that already parish councils can call for funds from the Rural Transport Development Fund. He went on to mention
CWH44
that the precepts that they can draw upon under Section 137 of the 1972 Act and other sources. I just wondered what "other sources" he had in mind.
Having talked about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, my noble friend moved on later to the question of financing the crime prevention activities, but he did not give much indication as to where that money was coming from. Unlike the Rural Transport Development Fund, there does not seem to be any particular fund which is available to call upon for the crime prevention activities in which local authorities might be interested.
Earl Ferrers: I had in mind when I referred to "other sources" that parishes do often have other sources of income. Sometimes they are left money in trust for various purposes for the parish, and those are the sort of things that can be put together to help to create these sources of money which are required.
Lord Mottistone: I am afraid that in my part of the world people are not that generous as to leave money to parishes.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend obviously lives in the wrong part of the world. In my village there are two trusts which were left years ago for the purposes of the village and can be used in an appropriate way. But perhaps the people in Norfolk are more generous than people in the Isle of Wight.
Lord Mottistone: I suspect they are, and wealthier. I thank my noble friend for what he said, which gives me a line on the way the thinking is going. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Crime prevention]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Remaining schedules and clauses agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): This concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at sixteen minutes before seven o'clock.

  Animal Carcase Incinerators
  Animal Carcase Incinerators
  Hedgerows: Draft Regulations
  Hedgerows: Draft Regulations
  Child Crime: Prevention
  Child Crime: Prevention
  Data Protection Directive: Responses
  Data Protection Directive: Responses
  International Development Association: Funding
  International Development Association: Funding
  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Nuclear Reprocessing