Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 229: debated on Wednesday 21 July 1993

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Wednesday 21 July 1993

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business

Pwllheli Harbour (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments agreed to.

Highland Regional Council (Wester Bridge) Order Confirmation Bill

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers To Questions

Trade And Industry

Norway (Import Ban)

1.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ban imports from Norway.

I am surprised and disappointed by that response from the Government, who clearly do not take the matter seriously. I hope that the Minister has at least done me the courtesy of reading the publication that I sent him about the slaughter of whales by Norway.

Is the Minister aware that public opinion in this country demands something more positive from the Government? Selective sanctions against Norway would let that country know precisely how strongly people in this country feel. We want the Government to do something, rather than just ignore the subject. Is the Minister aware that Londoners will take action by telling the Norwegians precisely what they can do with their Christmas tree this year—and that we will not be suggesting that it is put in Trafalgar square?

I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that individual consumers will give Greenpeace's call for a boycott all the support that it deserves.

Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of the great bond of friendship that exists between this country and Norway? Will he further remind the hon. Gentleman that we must make due allowances, whatever differences of opinion we might have, for the different cultures and traditions of members and potential members of the EC? Is it not in our interest, and in the interest of the hon. Gentleman's cause, that we promote closer friendship and trade with Norway?

There is concern about the resumption of commercial whaling in Norway. I am sure that people will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend said.

Post Office

2.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the application of European Community regulations and developments to Post Office activities.

There are at present no European Community regulations which apply specifically to the Post Office, although the European Commission published a range of proposals in its green paper on the development of the single market for postal services in June 1992, which have been subject to widespread consultation. There is also a considerable range of European Community directives which have some bearing on the activities of the Post Office and with which the Post Office seeks to comply.

Does the Minister accept that Britain, with the most profitable and efficient postal service in Europe, is well placed to benefit in a single market? Does he agree that the Post Office needs a clear assurance about its future organisation, freedom to invest in and develop services, and a firm commitment to universal delivery? When will the Government come off the fence and give the Post Office the backing it deserves?

There is no question about giving the Post Office the backing that it deserves. Indeed, the Post Office had a good year last year, as its results showed. We have consistently made it clear that the maintenance of a nationwide delivery network with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom is of paramount importance. I agree with the hon. Lady that there are certainly opportunities for the Post Office within the single market.

Will my hon. Friend renew the assurance that has been given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that pensioners will be able to cash pensions at post offices as well as perhaps through banks, if they wish to do so? Will he join me in deploring the Labour party's continuing campaign to frighten pensioners into believing that they may not be able to cash their pension at a post office?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. No pensioner or other benefit recipient will be forced to use automated credit transfer. We have made it clear that those people who wish to collect their benefits from post offices will be able to do so. Indeed, as we have said several times, the amount of business transacted through the post offices on behalf of the Government increased in each of the past three years.

Is there anything in European Community regulations to prevent the delivery free of charge of talking newspapers to the blind and partially sighted? Will the Minister guarantee today that, if proposals are made to privatise post office services, such a service will continue to be provided free to the blind and partially sighted?

I know of no proposals from the Commission that would put any restrictions on the service that is provided. As I have often said, when we come to make our full decisions on the Post Office, the House will be the first to be informed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he has raised will be dealt with carefully.

Irrespective of what the EC has to say about post offices, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in any changes, due regard will be given to the importance of post offices in rural areas? In many rural areas, the post office is the only shop that is there giving a service to rural people. Perhaps, in any future changes to post offices, we could consider widening the services that they can provide to rural people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the provision of post offices in rural areas. Indeed, my constituency is similar to his in some respects. There are many rural post offices. It is worth remembering that most rural post offices are in private hands and have a great deal of flexibility in the services that they can provide.

Will the Minister explain how he can square his claim that the Government back the Post Office with the Government's instruction to the Post Office to treble the pay-out that is clawed back to the Treasury? Does he recognise that the Post Office can achieve such a dramatic increase only if it shoves up the price of stamps? Is he aware of the rumours that that is what the Post Office intends to do next month? Does he appreciate that, if it does so, the Government will have imposed a new stamp tax which will shove up the price of sending a letter for everyone who uses the Post Office?

I shall not go into the details of the price rises that were inflicted by the Post Office between 1974 and 1979. The Post Office is an efficient organisation, and it has made a return to the taxpayer. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might welcome that.

Export Statistics

3.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in total exports from the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1993 relative to the first quarter of 1992.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs
(Mr. Neil Hamilton

The volume of United Kingdom exports rose by 6·6 per cent. between the first quarter of 1992 and the first quarter of 1993. Thanks to the efforts of our exporters, exports grew faster than imports over this period, despite poor economic conditions in our main markets. I trust that the whole House will join me in congratulating our exporters on that impressive achievement.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the headquarters of the Ford Motor Company is in my constituency. Is he aware that Ford has played an important part in exports and that, in particular, 37 per cent. of its production of transit vans now goes for export? Does he agree that that is a remarkable achievement, considering that Ford now has half the market for that type of good in Britain? Will he congratulate the work force and the management on clearly demonstrating that if Britain produces the right goods at the right price, they will sell anywhere?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It shows what a good place the United Kingdom is to do business. I certainly congratulate the Ford management and the work force on the shop floor on their contribution to the success of that company, which has recently received a Queen's award for export.

Is not the Minister aware that, although the Government have recently admitted their long-term lack of interest in manufacturing, and have only just awakened to the real importance of that sector of the economy, our manufacturers in the west midlands and elsewhere have made heroic efforts in an increased export drive? Does not the Minister know that, for finished goods in the high street in the 12 months to May of this year, imports increased by 23 per cent. and exports by 15 per cent? Is that not a case of too little effort too late from the Government? When will they wake up to the question of our manufacturing sector?

It is a pity that the Labour party can never welcome good news when it hears it. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, although exports have gone up by nearly 7 per cent. in the most recent quarter, imports have not increased at all, so the trade gap has narrowed. That shows that the Conservative party recognises the advantage of a competitive industry that exports goods. The Labour party wants to load extra costs on business so that we can export jobs.

Whatever shape, form or colour the new Government of the Empire of Japan assumes, will the Minister undertake to make the strongest representations to them about the barriers to British goods entering the Japanese market, which are currently in place and ought to be eliminated as soon as possible?

I can tell my hon. Friend that there has been significant liberalisation in Japan in recent years, but no doubt there is always scope to do more. I am certainly a vigorous exponent of free trade; if other countries expect access to our markets, they must also expect to give us access to theirs.

Has the Minister seen the evidence given to the Scott inquiry by Mark Higson, the former Iraq desk officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who told the inquiry that the Government deliberately misled the public and Parliament about their decision to circumvent the arms embargo on Saddam Hussein? Will the Minister confirm the accuracy of that evidence, and is not it clear from Mr. Higson's statement that, yet again, on arms to Iraq and other issues, the Government will deliberately mislead the public and Parliament just to save their own skins?

Scaremongering to get a headline in the newspaper may be justifiable to the hon. Gentleman, but that is a matter for the Scott inquiry and I shall leave it to the inquiry.

I welcome the fact that the Minister can report some improvement in our export performance, but will he acknowledge that a short-term adjustment to the balance of payments deficit does not deny the fact that Britain has an underlying inability to compete and overcome our balance of payments deficit, and that that will be achieved only if we have a long-term strategy to build up our manufacturing industry? Will the Minister make a positive statement on how the Government propose to achieve that?

The Liberal party has had a long-term inability to compete with other political parties, so I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for such an issue. It is a great mistake of Opposition Members to seek to sell Britain short at every opportunity: after all, we have a good story to tell. Manufacturing output is up by 3 per cent., retail sales are up by 3 per cent., exports are up by 7 per cent., for the fifth month in a row unemployment is down, we have the lowest inflation for 30 years. and manufacturing wages costs are down by 3·5 per cent. this year. That is not evidence of an underlying inability to compete, but solid evidence of recovery and the improvement of our economic position.

Alternative Energy Sources

4. Mr.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards alternative sources of energy.

I propose to make a third order setting a renewables non-fossil fuel obligation for the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales, to run for 15 to 20 years as from November 1994 in respect of approximately 300 to 400 MW of new renewables capacity.

I have today placed a document with further details of the proposed arrangements in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer, which will be warmly welcomed by all involved in renewal energy production. Can he tell the House when the first bids for the regional electricity companies are expected, and when he expects the first projects to become operational?

I thank my hon. Friend for his response—it is indeed an important announcement that I have just made. We are hoping that bids will be submitted as from September, with the first projects becoming operational, we expect, within the next two years.

Until the Government can use this alternative form of energy, instead of using up the small reserves of gas, would it not make more sense to depend more on coal, now that we have heard about the 22 per cent. increase in productivity? The French interconnector link should be stopped, saving six pits, and the rundown of the industry should be halted. The £1·3 billion subsidy should also be taken away from nuclear power. Then we could keep the pits open and keep another 30,000 people in jobs so that they will not have to pick up dole payments.

If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be very worried—for once he seems to agree with those on his Front Bench.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement this afternoon will be welcomed by producers and potential producers of energy from renewable sources? Will the new tranches announced today also be available to existing producers of renewable energy or to producers who have been included in previous tranches but have not yet been able to start production?

I am hoping to announce a fourth order in 1995, and a fifth in 1997. Today I give notice of that.

As for projects that have not so far proceeded but which could have been covered by the second order: assuming the correct procedure is followed then they may well be able to benefit from the third order.

Nuclear Power

5.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current output from United Kingdom nuclear power plants.

In the first quarter of 1993, nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom supplied 21·8 TWh of electricity.

I thank the Minister for that somewhat delayed reply, which I think shows that the amount of nuclear energy, as a proportion of our total energy requirements, that we are using has not really changed for a number of years. Moreover, the fast breeder reactor programme has been shut down. If I am right, surely it is pointless to go ahead with the THORP facility, as it will only increase the amount of bomb-grade plutonium in the world and will not add to our energy supplies.

It is right to pay tribute to the nuclear industry, which has increased output from its stations, particularly from the advanced gas-cooled reactors, by a considerable amount.

There was a debate in the House on THORP, when the House made its view very clear.

Will my hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that it was part of Labour's great post-war energy strategy to give in to lobbying by industrial vested interests and boffins, and to reject cheaper, proven technologies in favour of complex, untried advanced gas-cooled reactors—the true cost of which was not even known until privatisation? Compounding that by opting for expensive domestic coal instead of cheaper, cleaner gas from which other countries were benefiting surely shows that, although decisions made by markets may not be perfect, they are a great deal less imperfect than decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats.

They are undoubtedly much better than those made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

Is the Minister aware that, in the wake of the announcement yesterday about the closure of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station and the loss of 500 jobs, a positive proposal is being put forward for Trawsfynydd to be adapted as a centre for decommissioning skills, which would enable the technology developed there to be exported to other areas? Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government will do everything they can to facilitate this, in order to provide replacement jobs for those that will be lost from our community?

I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about this, and to Nuclear Electric on a contingency basis, not only about potential plans for the use of the station site but more multi-skilling of the existing work force.

The hon. Gentleman knows that it will be some time before there are any significant job losses, although the details have not yet been released. There will be a phase when considerable numbers of employees will be needed. I know that Nuclear Electric is addressing those issues, and I would urge the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend to enter into discussions with Nuclear Electric's senior management.

Is it not as sure as night follows day that one day gas, coal and oil will be depleted? It is at that time that we shall thank our engineers and scientists for our reprocessing techniques and dry storage. It is very important for the future that we have a long-term nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, and that we are a long-term player.

I hear what my hon. Friend says. There is an important role for renewables, and we shall shortly embark on a nuclear review, when we will look at the future role for our nuclear industry.

Does the Minister agree that the announcement of the closure of Trawsfynydd is the first occasion on which the nuclear inspectorate has closed a power station on safety grounds? The safety authority is now clearly willing to take such tough decisions. In future, the debate about nuclear power in this country will revolve around economic questions, and the size of the subsidy that the industry should or should not receive.

Before the Minister starts on the nuclear review, will he say what guidelines he has given to those carrying out the review, so that we can understand how it will proceed? At the moment, as long as the nuclear industry continues to receive its massive subsidy, there will be suspicion about the calculations that are made about its future and economic viability.

Uncharacteristically, I think that the hon. Gentleman is, by implication, being unfair to the nuclear inspectorate. It is true that this is the first time that a station has been closed because of safety considerations, but the inspectorate has always had rigorous standards, and it is recognised around the world for imposing them. There are a number of issues that have to be considered while we are working towards an announcement on the nuclear review, and the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are among them.

Investment (North-West)

6.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage inward investment in the north-west.

The Government attach high importance to inward investment and have developed, nationally, a quality service to existing and potential investors. As a result, the United Kingdom is now the preferred European location for direct foreign investment.

In the north-west, my Department provides funding towards Inward, the regional development organisation, which has now achieved more than 150 inward investment successes, representing more than 8,000 associated jobs. Inward works closely alongside local authorities and other organisations in the region, as well as in co-operation with the English Unit and the Invest in Britain Bureau. It is carrying forward an extensive programme to promote the north-west in key overseas markets.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past year alone, three major international companies have come to the city of Chester that might otherwise have gone to Belgium, Malaysia or the United States of America? We very much value the excellent partnership between Chester and the Department of Trade and Industry's Inward team in Manchester. Long may it continue.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Not least among the attractions of Chester, of course, is its Member of Parliament. I am delighted to receive my hon. Friend's tribute to the work that so many people do in the north-west do to ensure that the rest of the world knows about the attractions it offers for locating industry.

Before the Minister drowns himself in false self-congratulation, what is he going to do, a few days after the closure of Cammell Laird, to ensure that industries which are world leaders are preserved?

There was no element of falsity in the self-congratulation. We all know that there are problems in certain parts of the north-west. Structural change is bound to bring disappointments such as that which has been felt in the hon. Lady's constituency with the closure of Cammell Laird. We have a wide-ranging programme, however, that will help to bring more jobs to the region, in particular to the Wirral, as well as to other areas that are affected by the long-term decline of certain industries. We cannot, however, set our faces against economic reality.

May I make a practical suggestion to my hon. Friend? If he wants to encourage inward investment, he should confirm that regional assisted status will continue to apply to Bury and Bolton. Will he have a word with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to find out whether an announcement about that can be made before we rise for the summer?

I will certainly have a word, as I frequently do, with my right hon. Friend. In fact, he is sitting next but one to me on the Front Bench and I am sure that he has heard for himself what my hon. Friend said.

The Minister will be aware that the Merseyside economy is based on shipbuilding and the port and has been subject to structural changes. No compensation has been offered, however, for the thousands of jobs that have been lost from Merseyside, not only from the port and shipbuilding but from related industries in the hinterland. When will the Government address that particular problem, so that jobs are created in that part of the world?

The hon. Gentleman played his full part, as a union militant, in the destruction of Liverpool's reputation as a shipping and port-based economy. He should rejoice in the fact that more traffic is passing through Liverpool port today than in its heyday in the 1950s. Since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme, that port has become competitive again.

New Car Registrations

7.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the figures for new car registrations in the United Kingdom for the first six months of 1993.

I welcome the 9·14 per cent. increase in new car registrations in the first six months of this year as compared with 1992.

In welcoming those impressive and encouraging figures, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has noted that virtually every car company has now committed itself to give to charity 30p-plus for every new car registered in the United Kingdom? As a result, more than £250.000 has already been raised for charities by the industry since the start of this year. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Rover group, Peugeot Talbot, Jaguar and others on this pioneering and admirable example of social responsibility in one of our major industries? Will he commend this model of charitable giving to other industries?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the car industry on what he has described as an admirable example of responsibility and charitable giving by companies. I hope that he accepts, however, that I believe that it is best to leave each company to decide how best to discharge its responsibilities in that respect.

I welcome the increase in car registrations. Would the Minister care to comment, however, on the plight of workers at the Peugeot Talbot plant in Coventry in my constituency, where 300 will be made redundant this summer because the company is taking work away from the United Kingdom and giving it to French factories? Would he care to comment on the fact that the French already enjoy the benefits flowing from the social chapter, yet they are denied to our workers?

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed with the management of the factory its relative competitiveness as opposed to that of the French factories. I f he were to do so, I believe that he would discover that the factory's ability to compete is much improved—

If the hon. Gentleman asks a question, he might have the courtesy to listen to the answer.

If the hon. Gentleman asked the management about the social chapter, I think that he would discover that, because of the great improvements in productivity that it has achieved in the past few years, it is able to compete with its French fellow producers of Peugeot cars. If that factory were saddled with the social chapter, there is absolutely no doubt that its costs would go up and it would become less competitive. That seems to he a splendid way in which to destroy jobs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Konver Programme

8.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if lie will make a statement on the Konver programme and its application to areas without assisted area status.

The Foreign Affairs Council this week adopted new regulations allowing areas not designated for objectives 1, 2 or 5(b) to receive under Konver not only European social fund grants but limited European regional development fund grants. The Government intend to make use of that new flexibility in the United Kingdom's 1993 Konver programme.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on getting that agreement out of the European Commission, as we in Dorset have been asking for that for a long time. I know that he is seeing a delegation from Dorset who will, I am sure, say what we need for Weymouth, Portland and Christchurch in the way of money that results from other than assisted area status. Will he tell us where we can pick up the forms to apply for the new money?

My hon. Friend has campaigned vigorously for a fairer basis for the allocation of Konver funds. I have been happy to act on his behalf with the Commission and I am glad that we have succeeded in getting recognition of the merit of the case that he made so energetically. We are working out the basis of regions' dependence on defence industries, as that will be one of the factors for allocating funds. I look forward to receiving an application from my hon. Friend's constituency, as I look forward also to receiving him and the delegation next Monday.

Assisted Areas

9.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer on 23 June to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), Official Report, column 226, if he is now in a position to announce his review of regional policy in relation to the assisted areas map.

I hope to announce a new assisted areas map before the House rises for the summer recess.

Is not the Minister aware that that is exactly the same answer that he gave last month when the question was put to him, and that we are now in a position of promises, promises, promises? Is he aware that the announcement should be made at a time when the House can properly debate it? Is not he aware of the conjecture and the leaks that have taken place, which mean that local authorities and those wanting to get involved in economic development are finding that difficult? I, for one, think that the delay is nothing short of a disgrace.

I am glad that the hon. Lady has appreciated the consistency in my answers. I have to tell her that we are still awaiting the approval of the European' Commission, which I hope to receive shortly. I am well aware of the points that she has made. That is why I gave the answer I did—I hope to announce the outcome of our review before the House rises for the summer recess.

May I add to what has already been said, as my constituents in the Ross-on-Wye Cinderford travel-to-work area are also impatiently awaiting the revision of the assisted area map? May I urge that their case is carefully considered before any final announcement is made, because they, too, will be immensely disappointed if there is any change in status in their area?

I assure my hon. Friend that I will take careful note of what he has said. The case made by that travel-to-work area, as, indeed, every other, has been carefully considered in our review.

Does the Minister recognise the deep unease caused by the rumours that he proposes to extend less help to towns that have more unemployment than they had before? How can he justify asking the Commission to cut regional aid to Darlington, Cardiff and Corby now that they all have more unemployment than they had three years ago? Has not regional aid been cut to the extent that it is now only one third of its level a decade ago? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he cannot solve a bigger problem on a smaller budget?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman would expect that the new map will reflect an assessment of structural problems as they are today and not as they were in 1984. That is surely the only fair and honest way of putting forward the map. It is on that basis that we put our proposals to the European Commission.

Competitiveness

10.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about Britain's international competitiveness.

Productivity has risen by 8·7 per cent. over the past year. Inflation is at its lowest level for 30 years and manufacturing output has shown the largest increase for four years. Those are all signs that Britain's industrial competitiveness is steadily improving.

As competitiveness is a race among nations and as that race is getting tougher, will my right hon. Friend outline the particular steps that he proposes to take to reduce the burden on business of regulation from Brussels?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that one of the ways to help British business to be even more competitive is to reduce the burden of regulation. That is why I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is taking such energetic action in pursuit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided yesterday over a meeting at which we discussed further progress on deregulation. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to give deregulation and lifting the burden of bureaucracy from business, particularly from small businesses, the highest possible priority.

If the Minister is so satisfied with Britain's international competitiveness, will he please explain why last year we had a record trade deficit in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s? The Government have presided over the worst growth rate of any Government since the war.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want anyone to be satisfied with our competitiveness because, whatever stage we may have reached, we can be sure that our international competitors will not be resting. They are also looking at their competitiveness. We find that Britain did particularly badly in the 1960s and 1970s when, for too much of that time, we followed the kind of subsidy policies that are still so energetically supported by the Opposition Front Bench. The interesting thing about the 1980s is that we did markedly better and. in terms of productivity, we did better than all our major competitors. We caught up a lot of ground, but we still have further to go. That is why the Government will continue to give priority to improving the competitiveness of British industry.

In fully supporting the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) and in supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative on deregulation, will my right hon. Friend give me and the House an assurance that, prior to the Government introducing any legislation in future, the implications for our international competitiveness will feature as part of the consideration of that legislation and its implementation?

I am delighted to give my hon. Friend just that assurance. That assessment of the impact on companies, particularly small companies, will precede any further regulations. It is perhaps because I am able to give my hon. Friend that assurance that I was interested to note that the Engineering Employers Federation's industrial strategy interim report says of my Department that we

"are supportive, positive and helpful and we"
the EEF—
"are happy to acknowledge this".

The House will welcome the Minister's statement that our competitiveness is steadily improving. The Opposition accept and welcome that, as we also welcome the attack on regulation. However, most of the regulations on the statute book are a consequence of 13 years of Conservative Government, and not the consequence of Brussels. If the Department of Trade and Industry's competitiveness unit uses gross domestic product per head as a measure of competitiveness, in accordance with the Department's leagues, we are 18th out of 24 in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league. How does the Minister propose to improve that record with improved investment and improved skills in our work force when we have a shortage of skills and investment?

Of course, skills in the work force are an important part of the input into the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry. That is one reason why we have already taken so many measures to raise skills in our work force. Almost all those measures have been opposed by the Labour party; they include the national curriculum, testing, training and enterprise councils, national vocational qualifications, investors in people, national education and training targets and training credits. Those measures have been consistently opposed by the Labour party.

British Telecom

11.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from those wishing to renationalise British Telecom.

I know of no such representations to renationalise British Telecom, even from the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am sorry. We still have some people who would like to see that. The Government are convinced that the privatisation of British Telecom and the introduction of competition into the telecommunications market has been largely responsible for British Telecom's transformation into a highly successful and internationally competitive telecommunications operator.

Does my hon. Friend think that that almost complete silence is due to the fact that a three-minute cheap rate telephone call is now half the price in real terms that it was 10 years ago? Is not it due to the fact that there are now 96,000 telephone boxes, of which 95 per cent. are operational, as opposed to 50 per cent. 10 years ago? Does my hon. Friend think that those improving statistics, of which we are all aware, may have been of benefit to people sceptical of the benefits of privatising the rest of the Post Office at the earliest opportunity?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that I have made the Government's position on the Post Office fairly clear in my answers to earlier questions, but he is right. There have been dramatic improvements in the performance of British Telecom, in spite of all the scare stories that we consistently hear from Opposition Members at times of privatisation. There were scare stories that telephone boxes would go. My hon. Friend is right to say that more boxes are in operation; what is more, they are working, which is quite a change from the position 10 years ago. There has been an improvement to the customer and to the country.

What were the costs of the advertisements to encourage people to register for British Telecom shares? Will the Minister have a word with a Home Office Minister to find out how that compares with the money that was spent on encouraging people to put their names on the electoral register? For instance, last year nothing was spent on the latter in Northern Ireland, although a considerable sum was spent there on encouraging people to register for British Telecom shares. Does not that display the Government's incorrect balance of values? They push ahead with privatisation, when people try to grab what they can, rather than being involved in the democratic process.

I was not sure from that question whether the hon. Gentleman was telling us that he favoured renationalisation. Since privatisation, the service provided by British Telecom has dramatically improved, and we even see occasional signs of approval from Opposition Members.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the risk from the Labour party is not simply of renationalisation but of other idiocies, such as a windfall tax on profits to cover up its overspending in other areas? Will he draw the attention of the millions of shareholders who subscribed to the successful share offer to the fact that they are likely to be savaged if there is another Labour Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the supposed windfall tax that the Opposition were talking about would do great damage to British Telecom's future investment. Opposition Members speak with different tongues, however, because only yesterday the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) issued a press release which ended by saying:

"These twin reforms, taken together, will benefit every industry, every citizen and every BT shareholder."
I have yet to understand how their proposed windfall tax would benefit shareholders.

Surely the Minister recognises that after many millions of pounds were spent pushing the BT share sale, a few weeks ago a prospectus finally emerged in which BT mentioned six major issues of fair competition and fair regulation, including one on which it is taking the Government to court? In the light of that, does the Minister advise new shareholders to hang on to their shares?

Here they go again, totally criticising our intention to create wider share ownership and trying to undermine what has been a very successful share offer. We are proud of the fact that we have returned British Telecom totally to the private sector and we are amazed at the turnaround by the Opposition Members. We are proud of our wider share ownership. We will not do anything to destroy it. The Labour party would.

Although one welcomes and supports competition in the telecommunications industry, is the Minister content with the fact that Mercury is creaming off the best business while British Telecom continues to meet the need to invest in and service the more remote rural areas, such as my constituency?

The hon. Gentleman raises a particular point. Many representations are made to the director general of the Office of Telecommunications. The director general will obviously consider the representations that are made to him. That is a very effective way of doing so. We should welcome competition in the telecommunications industry; it is beneficial to the consumer. Obviously, the director general of Oftel will judge all those matters when he makes his decision.

Deregulation

12.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on progress in lifting the burden of unnecessary regulation on business.

At the Prime Minister's progress meeting on deregulation held yesterday, Ministers welcomed progress on specific deregulation measures to reduce the burden on business and agreed to introduce an important deregulation Bill as soon as possible. Ministers also agreed to publish a document called "Working with Business: A Code for Enforcement Agencies" and a report on the operation of EC law in the United Kingdom; to review how duplication between enforcement agencies might be eliminated; to require a small business litmus test of the impact on them of any new regulations; and to set up an eighth task force focusing on charities and voluntary organisations.

I welcome the progress that is being made with the campaign to hack at red tape. Does not it contrast with the legislation, bureaucracy and interference that would follow from the adoption of the social chapter which is supported by two Opposition parties?

I know that dinosaurs have become much more popular recently as a result of films, but Opposition Members really must get rid of their neanderthal attitudes to the competitiveness of British industry. It is only by continuing to reduce the burdens on industry that we can take full advantage of international competitiveness, which will ultimately be reflected in increased employment opportunities.

Does the Minister accept that millions of people would welcome more regulations, particularly when dealing with companies such as Ever Ready, which has closed a factory in Wolverhampton, with the loss of 80 jobs? A constituent of mine visited Woolworths in Wolverhampton and found on sale Ever Ready batteries that were manufactured in China.

The hon. Gentleman must accept that bureaucracy and red tape do not do business in this country any good at all. The consequence of imposing extra legislative burdens on companies to increase their operating costs would simply make us less competitive. What we should be concerened about in the European Community is not what Mr. Delors called social dumping in moving jobs from France to Scotland, but moving jobs outside the European Community altogether to the deregulated economies of the far east and elsewhere.

When my hon. Friend considers deregulation measures, will he consider abolishing the statutory audit? In particular, will he listen to the views of business organisations, especially the Small Business Bureau, which have made it perfectly clear that there is no reason why there should not be total abolition of the statutory audit for all privately owned companies? It serves no purpose to any outside trader dealing with privately owned companies; therefore, let us get rid of it.I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to to do so very soon.

I am confident that we will be able to announce in due course a relaxation of the current audit requirements on small companies. The results of the consultation exercise in which we have been engaged for some time will be evaluated shortly. I am delighted that my hon. Friend and the Small Business Bureau have made representations to me as part of that consultation process.I hope that we shall he able to announce a radical change, to the benefit of business, in due course.

As the Minister has had a year to study the Institute of Directors' proposals to abolish 50 licences, including licences in respect of driving instruction, the retail sale of alcohol, the running of theatres and cinemas, and minicabs, will he repudiate the proposals to leave the public without proper protection and ensure that they are not included in his Bill?

I shall repudiate the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. They have done nothing constructive to contribute to the debate. There are many ways in which we can ensure effective regulation to preserve the interests of the wider public which do not involve licensing. As part of the deregulation review, we shall be reconsidering all the legislative burdens on business of any kind to ensure that they are proportionate to the benefits that are claimed to flow from them. It can never be in the interests of business or of the people whom business employs to impose unnecessary costs on them.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members are pleased to hear about the new initiatives to consult small businesses about the regulations that bear so heavily on the people who run those businesses? Is he happy with the means of consulting all small businesses? Has he any proposals to improve the consultation process?

We agreed yesterday that, in future, when we consult before legislation is put before the House, we will first view our proposals from the perspective of small business. Too often in the past, the Government have listened to what big business has had to say and to business organisations, which may not in themselves be wholly representative of all the small businesses that are active in their economic sectors. It is important that small businesses are encouraged because it is from small businesses that big businesses and future jobs will grow.

Domestic Gas Appliances

13.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to reduce the number of deaths caused by carbon monoxide poisoning in the home from unsafe gas appliances.

The number of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning from gas appliances is a matter of concern. That is why I welcome the introduction of the EC gas appliances directive, which sets new safety requirements for gas appliances.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but it seems highly inadequate given the estimate that each year there are 200 deaths in the home from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by badly installed and poorly maintained gas appliances. Does the Minister share with me and the Council of Registered Gas Installers the concern that there are 40,000 cowboys installing gas appliances, yet CORGI members are the only people legally entitled to do so?

Will the hon. Gentleman bring some influence to bear on the Health and Safety Executive to chase and prosecute the cowboys in what is basically a trade in death, rather than pursuing householders and landlords, which seems inadequate action in the face of such a threat?

Any death from carbon monoxide poisoning is tragic. We do hear of a number of such cases, although I do not recognise the number quoted by the hon. Gentleman. My information is that there are between 30 and 40 such deaths a year. However, arguing about the figures does not help. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Executive takes its responsibilities very seriously.

Pit Closures

14.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funding he will provide for British Coal to enable it to prevent pollution of the River Wear caused by the closure of pits in Durham.

It is for British Coal and the National Rivers Authority, in the first instance, to decide what action may be necessary in respect of any threat of water pollution which may be related to any proposed pit closure.

Is the Minister aware that the NRA is saying that if British Coal were to turn off the pumps at Easington when the pit closes, the River Wear—which supplies 20 per cent. of the water for the city of Sunderland—would be devastated by pollution? Is he further aware that British Coal is flatly refusing to accept any responsibility for the consequences of turning off the pumps, other than giving 14 days' notice? What is he doing to ensure that British Coal lives up to its responsibilities?

No, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. If he had read the letter to him from the NRA, he would know that he had misquoted it. As I understand it, the problem relates to pumping issues at pits above Easington that have been long abandoned. It is clear that there would be an issue were pumping and production at Easington to cease. There has been a careful examination of the matter, both by the NRA and by British Coal. There is no question of any rapid decision being taken to cease pumping in that section of the Durham coal mines.

I assure the hon. Gentleman, as he was assured by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment last night, that full consultation is being carried out and there will be appropriate levels of co-operation between British Coal and the NRA.

Research And Development

15.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policies to encourage United Kingdom manufacturing companies to increase their investment in research and development.

The best encouragement that the Government can provide is a stable economic environment with low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax, together with selective assistance, such as that provided by the Department in appropriate cases.

Are not United Kingdom manufacturing tools twice as old as German tools and three times as old as Japanese tools? Do not British companies spend twice as much on dividends as they spend on research and development? It is no wonder that we have such a massive trade deficit, which is unprecedented in a recession. When will the Government shake themselves out of the complacency shown by Ministers' answers this afternoon and learn from the Japanese and other Pacific rim countries, which are investing massively in research and development? Why do they not start by transferring savings from defence research and development to civil research? If they did, at least the Minister could boast that his Department's budget was somewhat larger than that of the Department of National Heritage.

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was trying to talk her question out. The fact remains that industry-funded research and development rose 28 per cent. in real terms between 1981 and 1991. Of the companies questioned by the Confederation of British Industry in an innovation trends survey, 50 per cent. planned to increase their research and development expenditure in 1993, which is very encouraging.

Complaint Of Privilege

3.30 pm

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised with me, as a possible breach of privilege, the willingness of a court on Tuesday of this week to hear an application based on allegations related to a Bill then before Parliament. The Bill was the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is now an Act.

The right hon. Gentleman complained that proceedings in Parliament were, on that occasion, being questioned in a manner contrary to article 9 of the Bill of Rights. He asked me to give precedence to a motion tomorrow relating to the action of the court in agreeing to entertain Lord Rees-Mogg's application, and referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

I have decided that it would not be appropriate for me to grant precedence to a motion based on this complaint, not least because, at the time to which the complaint relates, the Bill had been passed by this House but was proceeding in another place. It would therefore primarily be a matter for that House to pursue.

I do, however, take with great seriousness any potential questioning of our proceedings in the courts, which is why I have chosen to deliver my decision on the complaint in this way, as the rules entitle me to do, rather than to write privately to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, as would normally be the case.

The House will be aware that, following a recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of Pepper v. Hart, the courts now allow themselves to assess the significance of words spoken in this House during the passage of Bills in order to assist in the interpretation of statutes. That has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in a way that was previously thought to be impossible.

There has of course been no amendment of the Bill of Rights, and that Act places a statutory prohibition on the questioning of our proceedings. Article 9 of the Act reads:
"that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."
I am sure that the House is entitled to expect, when the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman begins to be heard on Monday, that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Court.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your statement in response to the letter that I sent you, which was much better than a reference to the Committee of Privileges. You will recall that I expressed my concern explicitly that Lord Justice Watkins and Mr. Justice Auld would be in breach of article 9 of the Bill of Rights were they to hear the case.

Whatever the merits of the Maastricht treaty, you, Madam Speaker, have reaffirmed the historic view that it is not in order for the courts or anybody else to question our proceedings. You have told the courts today, in language that I am sure they will understand, that we do not interfere with their jurisdiction and they do not interfere with our jurisdiction and that the question of judicial review cannot be used as an encroachment of the rights of the House of Commons.

You referred to the Pepper v. Hart case, which purported to give the judges the right to review our proceedings. If this practice is not stopped, it will be open to anyone to seek a court injunction preventing Members of Parliament from doing the work for which they were elected by their own people.

I hope that the gravity of your statement is understood, and that the judges concerned, who are appointed rather than elected—appointed, I might add, by the royal prerogative—will drop the case brought by Lord Rees-Mogg. To proceed after what you have said would possibly constitute a breach of privilege. I believe that your statement of the primacy of the House of Commons—which I would rank with the statement of Mr. Speaker Lenthall—will be a warning to any other person, whether that person is responsible for using the royal prerogative or for using any other powers, that the House is determined to protect the rights of those we represent.

Arts Council (Review)

3.35 pm

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Arts Council.

Last December I told the House that I would commission consultants to review the structure of the Arts Council. I subsequently commissioned Price Waterhouse to undertake that review, and I made available to the House on 4 June copies of the working papers that they presented. Their study was a thorough and professional undertaking, which has informed my consideration of the future of the Arts Council, following the transfer of responsibilities for the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils from next April. I have now also had the benefit of advice from the Arts Council itself, and the wider arts community has made known its views.

For the purposes of this statement I should like to concentrate on five main areas in turn: the arm's-length principle; the size and composition of the council; relations between the council, its clients and the regional arts boards; the core functions of the Arts Council; and the structure of the organisation. I am writing separately to Lord Palumbo on a number of detailed issues, and I am arranging for a copy of my letter to be made available in the Library.

I reaffirm my commitment to the arm's length principle, and agree that this should be stated clearly so that the respective roles of my Department and the council can be clearly understood. Put simply, I see the primary role of Ministers as setting the council's legal, financial and institutional framework, including appointments to the council and the structure of arts funding and management. Within that framework, the role of the council is to steer the general direction of artistic policy and decide the allocation of funding in line with the exercise of its artistic judgment. It is not for the Government to seek to intervene in matters of artistic judgment, although there can be occasions when Ministers can properly act as a conduit for public and political opinion.

With that degree of independence for the Arts Council in the use of the taxpayer's money comes also the responsibility for explaining its decisions fully and clearly, not least to this House; and I shall be exploring with the chairman ways in which current levels of accountability might be improved. But this analysis of our different roles should not obscure the fact that these are objectives that the council and Ministers share and to which each should contribute for example, in encouraging the widest possible access to the arts. In this connection I should like to stress the importance I attach to the council's role in promoting touring to ensure that the best of our arts reaches the widest possible audience.

As to the size and composition of the council, Price Waterhouse recommended a reduction from its present membership of 20 to 12. I welcome a streamlining of membership. However, I am not finally convinced that a council of 12 members will sufficiently represent all those interests which should be part of the decision-making process. With the Arts Council's endorsement, I therefore intend to move to a council of 16 members, including the chairman and vice-chairman. This will allow the inclusion of five regional representatives, each of the seven art form panel chairman and four independents.

The Arts Council's relationship with regional arts boards and directly funded clients is most important, and the integrated planning system should underpin this; but it is not yet working as it should. I endorse Price Waterhouse's view that all involved should make its success a high priority, and I am glad that the council confirms that it will seek to do so. I am also glad that the council has accepted that the planning and finance functions should come more closely together, and that arrangements for contractual funding should be developed. I am making clear in my letter to Lord Palumbo what my Department requires from the planning process, and the need to develop better performance measures.

That brings me to the core functions of the Arts Council. As I told the House in December, the council has three main functions: providing a strategic policy framework for the arts at national level; managing grant-in-aid; and the monitoring and appraisal of arts organisations. Those were endorsed by the Price Waterhouse report, and I am pleased to restate them today. Price Waterhouse also stressed the council's role as an advocate for the arts. I readily endorse advocacy as a natural component of all the council's work, but I do not see it as a free-standing function. It arises naturally out of the responsibilities of members and senior management.

Price Waterhouse questioned whether the Arts Council's activities are sufficiently focused within its core functions. As public money is involved in supporting the Arts Council's activities, it is important that there should be a clearly identified need for them. I have therefore asked Lord Palumbo over the next two or three months to conduct an analysis of the entire range of activities undertaken by the Arts Council, and to report to me on how they fit in with its core functions. That work will need to reflect the need for market testing, and the specific ideas for streamlining put forward by Price Waterhouse. It will, I hope, focus attention on providing services for which there is a real demand. It must also, of course, reflect the new responsibilities that the national lottery imposes on the council as distributor.

Much of the public interest in the report has been in the three structural options put forward by Price Waterhouse. I do not intend to press for the adoption of a specific option but, as part of the planned activity review, I think that it is helpful to set the Arts Council a benchmark for the level of savings that it might achieve. So I am asking the council to assume an illustrative 10 per cent. reduction in administrative costs, and as part of the activity analysis to make the case for restoring it incrementally in tranches. That will not be an easy process, but it is important for all of us to ensure that overheads are kept to a minimum and as many as possible of the available resources are passed directly to the funding of artistic activity.

The process of change is never easy, but I hope that what I have said today will help to reduce uncertainty by giving those working in the arts community a clearer framework within which to operate. The debate on structures has been prolonged. It should soon be concluded, so that we can all concentrate on the wider issues of the quality and accessibility of the arts themselves.

These are difficult times for the arts. Does not the Secretary of State realise that his statement will have done nothing to reassure our deeply troubled arts organisations? Once again, he has offered further delay and procrastination. Is his Department not giving us yet more delay and paralysis, caused by yet more analysis?

All the ideas for restructuring the Arts Council suggested in the Price Waterhouse report are nominally about reducing waste and inefficiency and redirecting resources to arts organisations. The Opposition are wholly in favour of reducing waste and inefficiency and of maximising the sum spent directly on the arts. To that extent, we welcomed the setting up of the Price Waterhouse review, with its remit to examine the structural organisation and staffing of the council. However, the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, having spent about £60,000 on.the report, has opted for even more consultation will cause some disbelief. Does his decision mean that he accepts the charge made by some commentators that the review is partial, ill informed and littered with errors?

We have argued for some time that there is a case for reform of the Arts Council. Nevertheless, it would be wrong, out of enthusiasm for the report, to throw the baby out with the bath water. We believe that the Arts Council has done a notable job over the past 50 years. Its structure has been copied all over the world, and its slow death by a thousand cuts would not be welcomed.

Our real concern about the review is the motive for instigating it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the reforms represent further cost savings for the Treasury and not any commitment to make more resources available to the arts? Will he further acknowledge that, whatever savings these reforms may produce, they will in no way offset the cut of £5 million from next year's arts budget?

Is it not the case that, merely to stand still, the arts need an increase of £10 million on the current spending plans for 1993–94, and if administrative savings are made, will the Secretary of State pledge that the resources released will be actually spent on the arts?

The Labour party has traditionally believed that the Arts Council has an important part to play in the artistic life of the nations of Britain. Has the Secretary of State read the view of the artistic director of the Royal Court theatre, who said last week:
"We have an Arts Council that is collaborating in its own suicide and a Government that is not committed to supporting the cultural life of this country".
We note the points made by the Secretary of State about improving accountability. He has promised to consult widely, and hopefully it will be more widely than merely consulting Lord Palumbo.

The Labour party is strongly committed to an enhanced role for regional arts boards which have an important element of local democratic accountability. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if more powers are to be devolved to the RABs, sufficient resources must be available to them to fulfil their enlarged responsibilities? Will he also promise to consult the regions on the appointment of five regional representatives to the Arts Council?

Does the Secretary of State now accept that the meddling interference of the Government and the resulting subservience of the Arts Council have destroyed the last vestiges of any claim to respect the arm's-length principle? As Lord Rix put it after his resignation,
"the Arts Council has been viewed with barely concealed contempt by successive Arts Ministers and their Departments … We have had to creep and crawl every year for our funds … When magnanimity has been displayed, we have gobbled up the crumbs with unseemly haste, raising fawning voices in praise of the Minister concerned."
Perhaps that is precisely what the Government want.

The Government have a long history of political appointments and the Arts Council has not been exempt. Property tycoon Lord Palumbo has already brought the worst features of the Government's ideology to the Arts Council. Will the Secretary of State deny this afternoon press reports that Jocelyn Stevens, the well-known custodian of England's heritage, may be appointed to replace Lord Palumbo next year?

The Arts Council allocation decisions announced on 8 July involved a long list of losers: Agenda, the Poetry Society, the London City Ballet, Millstream and Glyndbourne Touring Opera were all chosen for cuts, as were London orchestras. Is the Secretary of State content to see the closure of one and possibly two of London's four orchestras?

Why cannot the Secretary of State get the Arts Council to do its own dirty work instead of appointing a High Court judge to make the decision for it? Can he also tell us why regional theatres appear to have been singled out to be the sacrificial victims of Arts Council cuts? Will he confirm that there is a hit list of 10 regional theatres from which the Arts Council is intent on withdrawing funding with a real threat of closures? Is it by coincidence or design that almost all those theatres are extremely well supported by their Labour local authorities? Does he realise that, if the closures go ahead, it will leave only one major theatre in the whole of the south-west, the Northcote theatre in Exeter?

Has the Secretary of State no sense of shame that this could mean the virtual dismemberment of the system of regional theatres? Is he aware that regional theatres are the backbone of what has made British theatre among the best in the world? Does he know that all the great British actors and actresses, from Gielgud, Olivier and Albert Finney to Antony Sher, Ian McKellen, Julie Walters, Judy Dench and Glenda Jackson, came up through the regional theatre movement? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Andrew Faulds?"] And, of course, Andrew Faulds.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the extent of opposition to the proposed withdrawal of funding from the 10 regional theatres? Does he know that, at the press conference of the Arts Council on 8 July, 10 of the 11 members of the drama board threatened to resign if the Arts Council announced that it and the regional arts boards supported the policy?

Is it not evident that the Government's arts strategy is in complete disarray? Was not The Independent right last week when it said:
"Mr. Brooke should realise that chipping away at a few Arts Council posts here or selling off a bit of property there is neglecting the real problem—the Government's failure to give the arts sufficient funds to enable them to plan with stability"?
The Government, who were elected on a commitment to defend arts spending, have ratted on that promise and now propose a savage cut of £5 million from the arts budget. Perhaps the Secretary of State should take time off from predicting a by-election defeat in Christchurch and spend some time sticking up for the arts. If he does not have the will or the clout to do so, he should make way for someone who has.

The hon. Lady asked me at least two dozen questions. I know that she will forgive me if I say that they were variable in quality. I shall resist the temptation to say 17 yeses and seven noes.

The hon. Lady started by referring to what she described as "delay and procrastination". It may be a difference of opinion between Labour Members and Conservative Members, but given that it is the Arts Council that will be affected by the changes, it is much better that the council should be involved in the changes that will be made rather than that it should be imposed by fiat from the Secretary of State.

The hon. Lady referred to some scepticism about the report and suggested that it might contain some errors. I acknowledge that, in the nature of the report that was made—time was of the, essence—some factual corrections need to be made in the working papers. However, none of them will affect the final analysis conducted by Price Waterhouse.

I join the hon. Lady in her praise for the Arts Council over the past 50 years. I disagree with her suggestion that we are involved in the death of the Arts Council. We are involved in its renewal and its future over the next 50 years. The hon. Lady said that the whole exercise was engaged in cost savings. If it had been engaged in cost savings, one would have taken the simple step of telling the Arts Council that it had to make the following savings in its administrative costs. But that is not what we have done.

In terms of the cut in funding of £5 million, it is a fact that the policy that the Arts Council brings to its decisions affects the use of the money. Indeed, the reactions that have already occurred in terms of some of the council's decisions show that other hon. Members share that view. I can give the hon. Lady an assurance that the savings will go to the arts. I am glad that she joins us in our preoccupation with accountability. As she knows, the matter will receive further debate.

In terms of the regional arts boards and the extra responsibilities that will be devolved to them which I announced in December 1992, the Arts Council will be engaged in a review of the ability of the regional arts boards to carry its new responsibilities during the balance of this year. In terms of consulting the regions on their choice of who should represent them—which chairmen of the regional arts boards should sit on the Arts Council —the number that we have selected is such that it will be possible for there to be a rotation on a national basis with reasonable regularity.

One of the profoundest services of the Price Waterhouse report was, by the nature of the people it consulted, both in the Arts Council and in the artistic community, to show that there were misgivings about the way in which the arm's length principle was working. To reassert it, as I have done, is the right step forward. As always, actions speak louder than words.

The hon. Lady quoted the remarks of Lord Rix. All I can say at a personal level in response is that the Minister is not seeking praise for his decisions; he is hoping that history will judge that the decisions were well exercised during his time of office.

I repudiate utterly the hon. Lady's remarks about Lord Palumbo's chairmanship. He has given distinguished service, not only to the council, but to the state. We have not yet begun the process of choosing the next candidate for the chairmanship of the Arts Council. Therefore, it would not be useful to have a series of questions about future candidates in our remaining time.

On the financial planning decisions for next year that the Arts Council announced on 8 July, the hon. Lady is not fully informed about the orchestras. The function of Lord Justice Hoffman to make recommendations to the music panel of the Arts Council, which will make the decision.

The hon. Lady made a series pf references to regional theatres. I am sure that, as at Question Time last week, they will have been heard outside this House. It is for the Arts Council to make those decisions. The Arts Council made its decisions at Woodstock. It is right that it should stand up and defend and explain them. If I may say so, the hon. Lady is threatening an immediate invasion of the arm's-length principle if she wishes me to substitute my judgment for that of the Arts Council.

Order. The initial exchanges have taken some time and gone rather wide of the statement, so I hope that questions and answers will be brisk.

Is not the hon. Lady a misery? Britain is the arts capital of the world and spreads tremendous happiness. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the arm's-length principle to remain acceptable, it is essential for Arts Council decisions to remain broadly consistent with the public will? That is why it is welcome that my right hon. Friend said that the Arts Council should be made fully and clearly answerable to Parliament for its decisions. Far from death by a thousand cuts, this should have a tonic effect.

It would be wrong for me to judge whether the hon. Lady is a misery. That is a judgment from which I should certainly resile. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reassertion of the importance of the arm's-length principle.

I am glad that I can give a broad welcome to the Secretary of State's statement. It amounts to a suspension of final judgment on the present Arts Council, at least until its activities analysis has been presented, as the right hon. Gentleman has asked, by the end of October.

There has been some risk that analysis will lead to paralysis. Many in the arts world have felt that they have been living in the twilight of the Arts Council as it took some of its, apparently, more bizarre decisions, not least putting out to tender the job of judging the future of London's orchestras. The Arts Council appears to have been threatened externally by cuts and internally by a certain loss of direction.

Following the Secretary of State's decision, will he ensure that the council's survival is dependent on the sharpness of its focus in answering the questions that he put to it, and that the accessibility and quality of the arts are not put at risk by further delay and dither?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that uncertainty is bad both for the Arts Council and for the artistic community, which is why I seek to bring matters to a conclusion. I take the opposite view from the hon. Gentleman: I think that, if we bring matters to a successful conclusion, we can avoid paralysis and secure something much more constructive.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the sharpness of focus that needs to be directed from now on. The process of inviting the Arts Council to look at its tasks on an incremental basis is the same process to which it subjects its clients and therefore one with which it will be familiar.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that by far the most eloquent plea against the £5 million cut has come from the chairman of the Arts Council? Will he heed that plea?

When my right hon. Friend reconstitutes the Arts Council, will he bear in mind that it is wrong to preclude people from the position of chairman because they cannot afford to do the job?

No, I am not.

There would be a wide welcome in the arts world if the job were made a paid appointment so that people could afford to take it on.

I wholly concur with my hon. Friend that, in his open letter to me, the noble Lord Palumbo was demonstrating the advocacy recommended by Price Waterhouse. On the second half of my hon. Friend's question, the Arts Council charter will require revision because of the transfer of responsibilities to Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the issue whether the chairman should be paid can be considered within that revision.

:.I thank the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me to see a copy of his statement in advance.

I hope that the restructuring will be successful, not only in terms of administration but in empowering the Arts Council to carry out its principal duty, which is to deliver artistic opportunity and artistic experiences to people throughout the country.

The Minister has again properly supported the Arts Council's arm's-length role, but he expressed a view about which I hope he will think again. He stressed the importance that he attached to the council's role in promoting touring. Although touring companies give people in the regions a pleasant opportunity, they are no substitute for firmly based and rooted regional companies delivering arts to their areas. The loss of companies such as the Bolton Octagon and the Oldham Coliseum would be sad. The company that operated at the Forum theatre in Wythenshawe, which has now sadly closed due to lack of funding, was such a centre of excellence that it made possible the performance of Sondheim musicals in the west end of London. The same can be said of the Haymarket theatre in Leicester.

It is not touring that is most important to us in the regions, but having our own companies rooted in our communities to provide experiences for us where we live.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his observations about the delivery of artistic opportunities and experiences. We shall continually return to that subject as it should be the guiding light of the Arts Council's activities. I do not seek to make touring a substitute for activity on the ground all round the country. I hope that the decision that I announced last December about the transfer of 42 artistic organisations from the Arts Council to the regional arts boards is testimony to my concern that the arts should be served on the ground in the regions.

The House is never as bad as when it sits here pompously considering the future of the arty-farty world. It is ridiculous that we are wasting parliamentary and ministerial time on these matters. If my right hon. Friend really wants to contribute to cost cutting, why does he not close the Arts Council, and his Department with it? The sooner he does so the better so that we can utilise the money for something worthwhile.

When my hon. Friend reads the report of today's exchanges, I do not think that he will necessarily take the view that we are all conducting ourselves pompously. There is a particular character part which he plays, and he plays it to perfection.

The right hon. Gentleman failed to comment on the project "Arts through education". What are the implications of the review on "Arts through education", an immensely important project? Does he agree with me that the introduction of the national lottery into this whole area of arts funding is simply a means of getting the Government off the hook of their funding responsibilities, and will inevitably lead to a lack of proper provision for all the arts functions throughout the country?

The hon. Gentleman seeks to widen the debate with a general question on the issue of education. I know that he will have been encouraged by the fact that, in the statements which it made on 8 July, subsequent to its meeting at Woodstock, the Arts Council said that education was one sector in which it wished to see its role expanded.

One can take a variety of views on the lottery. In the context of the arts, where the emphasis will be on capital funding and there is a series of problems of capital deficiency which are crying out to be resolved, I do not think that the lottery will interfere with the basic function of the Arts Council, which will distribute the money for capital purposes.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the arm's-length principle. Does he accept that moves to strengthen the accountability of the Arts Council to himself and the House sit delicately with that principle? Does he agree that the arts are a spendid investment for this country, generating jobs, tax revenues and benefits for the balance of payments? That fact must have something to do with the past ministrations of the Arts Council. Therefore, I welcome my right hon. Friend's cautious and pragmatic approach to reform of the Arts Council.

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, in his conversations with the Treasury during the summer, he will vigorously stress the fact that the Government's role is to provide a stable, secure and generous contribution to the arts?

My hon. Friend has articulated very well the role which Governments of all colours have played in the arts world. When he reads my statement, I do not think that my hon. Friend will think that I was asking for accountability to myself. I was concerned that there should be accountability to Parliament. I might serve as a conduit through which some of that accountability could be exercised.

I also welcome the arm's-length relationship between the Secretary of State and the Arts Council. Surely the most important aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the activities will be the way in which it brings light to bear on some of the mysteries about the way in which the Arts Council has conducted itself.

The success of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis will be judged on how much light it sheds on some of the Arts Council's peculiar decisions, particularly its decision to transfer its responsibility to a judge. I know that that responsibility will go back to the Arts Council, but that was an extraordinary decision. I want to know more about how such decisions are made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's analysis will bring some of the decisions to light.

My analysis may have the virtue of restressing the arm's-length principle and subsequently, by actions which are louder than words, upholding it. In that way we shall give the Arts Council the confidence of knowing that it will not suffer interference from Ministers but will retain accountability to the nation through the House. The Arts Council will then feel so empowered as to make it clear why it makes its decisions and, if necessary, defend them.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the central purpose of his statement is to ensure that more of the funding is-spent at the sharp end, delivering arts, rather than on the machinery by which the money reaches those who pro vide the arts? Is he aware that, among the people at the sharp end, there has been concern about both the openness and the accountability of the Arts Council? There was particular anxiety that, given the extra funding that will come to the Arts Council through the national lottery, we need to be assured that the Arts Council is acting in an open and accountable way to improve the quality and range of arts available to the general public whom it seeks to serve.

My hon. Friend follows a similar question asked by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) a moment ago. The House will join my hon. Friend in wishing that the funding that goes to what he described as the "sharp end" is not diluted on the way.

If the Minister will not intervene in matters of artistic judgment, will he intervene in matters of artistic misjudgment? How can the stated aim of the Government to present the best of our arts to most of our people possibly be carried out if the Arts' Council pursues its proposition of closing 10 regional theatres?

If that proposition is due to underfunding, the Minister should argue vehemently with the Treasury that cuts in the arts budget should be expunged. If it is a serious proposition, the Arts Council should be called to account by the Minister. Does he agree that, if we do not have regional theatres, we may not have London theatres in the future?

The hon. Lady is seductive in her suggestion that I should in fact abjure the arm's-length principle as soon as I have stated it.

It may be helpful if I remind the House that the first of the Arts Council's three charter objectives is to develop and improve the knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts. The second is to increase the accessibility of the arts to the public throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady might have received more support in the House if she had implied that the second objective would need to be explained by the Arts Council if the widespread regional provision was to be removed.

Does the Minister accept that his somewhat delphic statement on the future of the Arts Council has done nothing to improve the demoralised state of the arts world that has resulted from two decisions? The first, for which the Minister is directly responsible, concerns the future cuts in Arts Council funding. The second concerns the deplorable situation regarding regional theatres, such as the Oldham Coliseum, which are on a hit list. While nothing has yet been defined, does the Minister agree that such a list would represent a threat to theatre in the regions and that that would have a detrimental effect on everyone?

I do not know the. precise circumstances under which the Arts Council has decided not to be specific about the list of theatres about which it might be making decisions. Enough has happened to enable hon. Members to air the subject, so the Arts Council may listen to the debate without having put its proposals forward.

The hon. Gentleman said that I had been "somewhat delphic". I do not know about the Labour party, but it is said in my party that morale starts in the Chamber and spreads across the nation. My preoccupation is that morale is restored within the Arts Council and that that morale then spreads across the nation.

The Arts Council is facing clear difficulties in reorganisation and in cuts in administration, personnel and finance. Would it not be prudent of the Minister to re-examine the allocation of the administration of the national lottery funds through the Arts Council?

The Minister must be aware of the widespread dissatisfaction in the film industry and, for example, the British Film Institute at the decision to award the administration of the national lottery funds to that body. Those in the industry feel that the Arts Council has neither the enthusiasm nor the expertise to deal with the film industry.

Philistines see the film industry only as some kind of machinery. Successful British films have an enormous cascading effect on British industry. They indicate standards of excellence and manufacturing in many ways. Does the Minister agree that it is essential to encourage the British film industry so that that important element is maintained and improved?

The hon. Gentleman and I share an affection for the game of cricket, and we have latterly discovered a mutual enthusiasm for film and the film industry. I therefore support his interests in the subject.

However, criticism was made in a debate on the Bill that I, as Secretary of State, was reserving for myself powers concerning the distribution of funds. The ability to ensure that appropriate care and attention is given to film is one such power which I would exercise through the Act. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman's question went a little wide of my original statement.

May I take this opportunity to refer to John Bute, who died this morning. He generously lent many of the most beautiful pictures by British artists and rendered great service to the arts in Scotland in many different capacities.

The Secretary of State said that integrated planning was not working as it should. What analysis has been done as to why it was not working?

I join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the late Lord Bute, whom I had the privilege of meeting in connection with some of the work that I do in my Department.

Integrated planning is a process that embraces the combined activity of the regional arts boards with the Arts Council at the centre. The conduct of integrated planning is necessarily somewhat new, because the transfer of substantial responsibility to the regional arts boards is itself new; but I believe that everyone who has so far been involved in integrated planning would agree that it is working less than perfectly. That is why Price Waterhouse flagged it up, and it is one of the reasons why all of us —I as Secretary of State, the Arts Council and the regional arts boards—will seek to make it work a great deal better.

Does not the Secretary of State understand that the crucial question which faces the arts is not the structure or composition of the Arts Council but the appalling lack of funding by the Government? Arts funding in Britain is one of the lowest in Europe at 0·3 per cent. of public expenditure. Is not that the issue?

Is not the consequence of that and of the further £5 million cut that he has announced for next year's Arts Council grant only too clear? The consequence is the loss of two major international and national orchestras and of 10 regional theatres. If those theatres close, they will not reopen, just as the 10 pits will not reopen, and the damage will be not only to theatre throughout the country but to the communities and town centres which, particularly at night, depend on those theatres to be a live focus for the community.

Will the Secretary of State deal with the issue of funding and, before it is too late, start fighting in Cabinet for more investment?

I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of Parliament during the period of office of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 when his distinguished father was a Member, but the funding which this administration provide for the arts exceeds by 44 per cent. in real terms the figure which the Labour Government bestowed in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to say that 44 per cent. is not enough, but the fact remains that his Government regarded a much lower figure as desirable for the arts in those days.

In answer to the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, of course I give him the assurance that we are anxious to see as much money made available for the arts as the nation can afford.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he had received a copy of the statement. I happen to think that it is perfectly sensible and courteous of the Secretary of State to give a copy to my right hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee. However, if the Chairman of the National Heritage Select Committee receives one, why does not the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—[Interruption.]—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow—receive a copy?

There is an argument for putting copies of statements in the Vote Office at 3 pm. The result would be that questions would be a little more informed. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—sauce for Gorton and sauce for Bolsover.

It was courteous of the Secretary of State to make the statement available to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but it was a private arrangement which had nothing whatever to do with the Speaker.

Bill Presented

Limitation (Amendment)

Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Angela Eagle, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Malcolm Wicks and Mrs. Llin Golding, presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 so far as they relate to time limits for actions in respect of personal injuries and to the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as under a disability for the purposes of that Act; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 July, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]

Broadcasting (Amendment)

4.19 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 so as to require the transmission of a major evening news bulletin at ten o'clock; to make provision for centres of excellence of television production in the regions; to enforce strict compliance by franchisees with the terms of their franchise applications; to provide safeguards to support a United Kingdom-based television industry comparable to the safeguards protecting national television industries in other European countries; and for connected purposes.
My Bill would amend the appalling Broadcasting Act 1990. I should declare an interest as a member of the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Cinematograph Technicians Union and a member of the National Union of Journalists, and also as someone who worked for a while for Central Independent Television, although I emphasise that I have no financial interest in the matter.

I am deeply concerned about what is happening to broadcasting. Much of what is wrong with it is attributable to the workings of the Broadcasting Act. Broadcasting, for those of us who care about it, is at the crossroads of either becoming American-style, advertising-led broadcasting or having a chance to remain as it is—a public broadcasting service that is properly and democratically regulated and that, up till now, has been admired throughout the world. Like so many other institutions in Britain, however, I fear that it is under threat from the Government's legislation.

Broadcasting is not like any other industry, because it is central to our way of life and certainly central to our recreational activity. On average, we spend 25 hours a week watching television. Televisions are in 98 per cent. of households. Massive audiences watch British television —20 million people regularly watch Coronation Street, and at peak viewing time on Christmas Day, as many as 30 million people watch television. It is something worth caring about and doing well, but, sadly, if present trends continue it will not be done well for much longer.

Television is vital for the dissemination of news and information. Public opinion shows that far more people trust broadcasters, and especially television, in the transmission of news and current affairs than trust any other medium. In a recent poll, 72 per cent. of people said that they trusted television, while only 11 per cent. trusted newspapers. I am surprised that it is as high as 11 per cent. for newspapers, but the message is crystal clear: broadcasting is essential for the transmission of news and current affairs.

We are currently facing a massive increase in the number of channels. Most of us are used to one, two, three or perhaps four channels, but by the turn of the century there could easily be as many as 130. It is no use having dozens of channels if they are transmitting tripe, which is the case in many other countries where there is a totally unregulated system.

Despite all the importance of broadcasting and the increase in the number of channels, morale among the people who make programmes is at an all-time low. The comments of Mark Tully, in his lecture in the past week, were representative of many people who work in the industry.

Not all the ills of broadcasting are directly attributable to the Broadcasting Act 1990, but many are. I shall point out some of the damage that has been done to the broadcasting industry that is directly attributable to the Act.

First, there has been tremendous pressure on the budgets of programme makers. That is partly due to the absurd lottery of the Act, which means that Yorkshire Television, for example, pays £38 million a year, whereas other television companies such as Central Television—I am delighted to say that it beat the system—and Scottish Television pay £2,000 a year. Why should the viewer have to suffer and the amount of money available for programme budgets be decreased on the basis of that silly system of allocating franchises, which has been described as poker?

There has also been tremendous pressure on budgets because of the predictable and unfair competition from cable and satellite television. It makes no sense at all that there are good and strict requirements on home-based production, which apply to the BBC and to ITV, but not on satellite and cable. The figures for the home-based production programme content of television programme hours are quite horrifying.

In 1985, 56 per cent. of transmitted television programme hours were produced in the United Kingdom. Because of the proliferation of channels, that had fallen to 19 per cent. by 1992, and it is estimated that the figure will be 13 per cent. by the year 2000. That is not surprising: it is much cheaper to bring in material from, say, the United States market, where drama can be produced for about £30,000 an hour, whereas home-produced drama, which has to make all its profits in the United Kingdom, can cost as much as £400,000 an hour or more.

It is therefore no wonder that the unregulated sections of the television industry buy in programmes from abroad. It is no wonder either that our balance of payments—it does not always seem to worry everyone in this House—in television programme production, which was in surplus to the tune of £24 million in 1985, was in deficit to the tune of £100 million by 1991—and the deficit is worsening.

I cannot see why the Independent Television Commission does not have the same powers over programme content and quality in cable television as it has over the independent television sector. When "News at Ten" was threatened with being moved to another time, pressure was rightly brought to bear to stop that happening, and the ITC intervened. But cable and satellite can do what they like with programmes. They can take them off the air or close down channels, because they are not subject to regulation or control.

Another predictable result of the Act was a drift of programming southwards, and a weakening of television in the regions. That should be a matter for concern to all who value local production facilities. The closure of studios and the drift to independents inevitably mean a drift to the south.

Another issue that will assume dramatic importance next year is the threat of the takeover of British television companies by foreign companies—which will inevitably happen if we do not apply the same rules to our industry as other countries do to theirs. Most Governments have the sense to give their national television industries some protection and do not want them owned or controlled from abroad purely for profit.

The final sickness in the system to which I shall refer was shown up in the ITC's quarterly report, published last week. It says that the commercial pressures on programme makers to reduce their budgets have forced them to cut corners in a way that I never thought would happen in British broadcasting. Products are being displayed in programmes in prominent positions as a form of advertising. That is the thin end of the wedge; it deeply damages our system and the integrity of broadcasting.

People ask what I would do. I believe in a good old-fashioned dose of democratic regulation and control of the industry. That idea has been out of fashion—at least it was in the 1980s, when the prevailing madness was that everything could be governed by so-called free market forces. They simply do not deliver. With the progressive release of these market forces in broadcasting, the advertisers and the accountants have taken control. People no longer ask how good a programme is; they ask how much money it will make. Programme makers and viewers have lost out.

I am proud to say that what is required is a look back to find out what made our system the best in the world. The answer is: democratic regulation and control, to ensure standards, to provide the money properly to pay for jobs in the industry, to see that people are properly employed, and to make certain that there is none of the endless short-termism and lack of training that characterise industries not subject to democratic control.

Those who care about broadcasting—that includes almost all of us, as we spend 25 hours a week watching television—may agree with me that it is too important and too precious to be left to the whims of advertisers and accountants. It is time that we instituted democratic control, through this House, and made the system once again one to be proud of.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce Grocott, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Don Dixon, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Dennis Turner.

Broadcasting (Amendment)

Mr. Bruce Grocott accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 so as to require the transmission of a major evening news bulletin at ten o'clock; to make provision for centres of excellence of television production in the regions; to enforce strict compliance by franchisees with the terms of their franchise applications; to provide safeguards to support a United Kingdom-based television industry comparable to the safeguards protecting national television industries in other European countries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 July, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]

Estimates Day

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY, 2ND PART]

Estimates And Supplementary Estimates, 1993–94

Class Viii, Vote 1

Home Office

Domestic Violence

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1992–93 on Domestic Violence (House of Commons Paper No. 245-I) and the Government Response thereto (Cm. 2269.)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further sum, not exceeding £1,807,298,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on compensation for criminal injuries, probation, police and superannuation payments for police and fire services.— [Mr. Maclean.]

I understand that with this it will be convenient also to discuss the next three motions relating to estimates:

That a further sum, not exceeding £745,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on police, the forensic science service, emergency planning, fire, the Fire Service College, court services, other services related to crime, probation and after-care, miscellaneous services, prevention of drug abuse, control of immigration and nationality, issue of passports etc., community services; and on administration (excluding the provision made for prisons administration carried on Class VIII, Vote 2).

That a further sum, not exceeding £427,760,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the court service, magistrates' courts, legal aid administration, tribunals, the court building programme, certain other legal services and a payment to the Land Registry Trading Fund.

That a further sum, not exceeding £135,693,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service on administrative costs including the hire of private prosecuting agents.

4.29 pm

It is not always appreciated by our constituents that Parliament—and particularly this House—often pauses in its headlong rush to get laws on to the statute book to consider general issues of national and social concern. Hon. Members do so without drama and frenzy, and without the harangue, diatribe and vitriol of party politics. One example of that vital work will be debated this afternoon as we consider the subject of domestic violence.

I am sorry that so many of our colleagues are not present at this important debate. I hope that they are at home—repairing the ravages of this Maastricht-ridden life that we have been pursuing—and that there is domestic tranquillity back at their roots.

The Home Affairs Select Committee, consisting of six Conservative Members and five Labour Members and of which I am privileged to have been elected as Chairman, decided a year ago to look in some depth at the devastating social problem of domestic violence. The evidence that we received from interested groups and individuals was prodigious, and the witnesses who gave evidence in person were many. Our report is comparatively long and we have made 42 specific recommendations for improving the way in which we tackle the problem in society.

I warmly thank my hard-working colleagues on the Committee, our dedicated Clerk, Paul Silk, and his staff, those who took the trouble to give evidence to us and those whom we met on our visits in London—the police, social workers and the victims. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the Liaison Select Committee for choosing this subject for debate today.

Our inquiries left us with no illusions about the prevalence of domestic violence in society today, or its enormous cost in financial as well as, more importantly, human terms. Paragraph 136 of our conclusions defines
"that most basic of a citizen's rights: the one of living a life where violence is not feared and individual dignity is respected."
That is simply not possible when the menace of violence lurks where there ought to exist a haven of peace and tranquillity—the home.

In paragraph 6 of our report, we stress that men as well as women are affected by domestic violence, perhaps more frequently than many realise. All our recommendations therefore apply equally to men and to women.

There are many forms of domestic violence: adult children may abuse their parents and grandparents; fathers, uncles and other relatives may abuse their daughters, sons, nieces, and so on. We have had to concentrate our attention on violence between partners and ex-partners in order to keep our inquiry within manageable proportions. I hope that the House will understand and accept that.

We do not pretend that we are the first to address the subject. Our report supplements and complements the work recently done by Victim Support and the Law Commission in particular. Eighteen years ago, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Violence in the Family reported, and much has been achieved since then. There have been changes in legislation, in the way that agencies such as the police, the judiciary, social workers and the churches approach the problem, and in the attitude of Government.

The more attention has been focused on the problem, the more its full extent has been realised and the more the problem has been seen to grow. The general achievement of the attention has been to ensure that domestic violence is now treated as a serious crime by the police, prosecutors and the courts.

As the problem seems to be getting worse, either because more abuse is coming to light, or because our society is less stable and its citizens more intolerant. and less tranquil, a great deal remains to be done to improve things. Most of our recommendations are for specific action which we believe needs to be taken. In our view, there is a need for better facts and statistics, to monitor arrest rates, make police domestic violence units a more central part of police work, for the Crown Prosecution Service to monitor police performance in that area and for the courts and prosecutors to adopt more victim-friendly procedures and practices.

We believe that victims should be further helped by making more child contact and victim access centres available through the establishment of a central co-ordinated policy for the provision of refuges throughout the country. Furthermore, we believe that such provision, far from increasing costs, could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken.

We make recommendations for the perpetrators of domestic violence. Taking such attacks more seriously and punishing the perpetrators through the courts will help to increase deterrence. We recommend programmes in prison that encourage men to recognise their violent behaviour towards women and then try to change it. We recommend a variety of schemes in the community that are designed also to make perpetrators confront the iniquity of their behaviour and stop it. We address, too, the particular problems that the black and ethnic minority communities can face and the need for sensitivity in dealings between them and the criminal justice agencies.

We highlight the role of Government in addressing domestic violence. We welcome the establishment of a ministerial group on domestic violence and recommend that priority is given to tackling the problem by all Departments. We believe that the Treasury in particular should participate in the consideration of domestic violence issues, and that encouragement should be given by the Government to local inter-agency co-operation.

One of the most important aspects of our Select Committee system is that, when a Committee has reported, the Government must make a response. Such reports focus Government attention on the subject of the inquiry, as the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have clearly and carefully done with our report.

The Government's report has been measured, detailed and positive, and we would like to place on record our appreciation of the attention that has been given by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. In the spirit of the courts charter, they have taken on board many of our recommendations, particularly in respect of proposals for the police, Crown Prosecution Service, court procedure and the support and protection of witnesses and victims, which justifies our raising the matter substantially under the estimates programme.

During the inquiry, a number of issues of particular interest and importance emerged, but as so many colleagues wish to speak I shall confine myself to mentioning just three of them briefly.

So much of the problem of violence in the home arose quite simply out of inadequate housing provision. Some issues were outside the remit of our Select Committee, which scrutinises only the work of the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and their agencies. However, that did not stop us—particularly after having seen something of the work of Chiswick Family Rescue, now renamed Refuge—making recommendations about the need for refuges, for more sympathetic housing allocation for victims and for welcoming interdepartmental co-ordination by the Government which, of course, involves the Department of the Environment.

Another matter that emerged was the importance not only of criminal law but of civil law. We found that to be in a rather confused state and, as such, not so helpful as it might be in protecting the interests of victims of domestic violence. As long ago as 1984, Lord Scarman, giving judgment in the case of Richards v. Richards and speaking of the proliferation of powers and remedies for dealing with violent cohabitees, said:
"The sooner the range, scope and effect of these powers are rationalised into a coherent body of statute law, the better."
Since then, the frustration of the legal profession in dealing with such cases has grown.

We have therefore welcomed the Law Commission's initiative and we urge the Government to introduce legislation along the lines of the Law Commission's draft Bill which would deal more sensibly with the plethora of exclusion orders, non-molestation orders, occupation orders, ousters, property rights, attachment of powers of arrest and who should be entitled to exercise those powers.

We believe that those matters are too urgent to gather dust on library shelves like so many other Law Commission reports, and we are saddened to hear the Government's response that the timing of legislation would depend, in that old phrase, on the availability of parliamentary time.

We dissented with the Law Commission on only one proposal—the proposal to give the police third party rights in civil domestic violence actions. As a Committee, we believed that the police should concentrate on normal policing, in respect of which they are already overstretched. For the rest, we believe that the Bill should be included in next Session's programme because it is essential that a more coherent structure be introduced into the civil law in this area—and without delay, if much unnecessary suffering is to be avoided.

The third area that I want to deal with, and which during our inquiries seemed to stir public and media interest following controversial cases in which husbands and wives had killed their spouses or cohabitees after long periods of domestic violence, relates to the law of homicide, which we dealt with in paragraphs 85 to 99.

It is a defence to a murder charge—reducing the killing to manslaughter—if the killer was provoked to retaliate. At present the law states that retaliation must take place in the heat of the moment and must be in response to provocation that would have led a reasonable man to lose his self-control and to retaliate as the killer did. Cumulative provocation does not justify the defence, although the triggering act of provocation can be relatively minor.

The women's groups who gave evidence to us, in particular, told us that provocation had been used more successfully by men who killed their partners than by women and that a nagging wife might be enough justification in some cases. The crux of the dissatisfaction was that the provocation had to be sudden, when women's resentments were often cumulative. There has been some softening of that approach in recent cases in the Court of Appeal.

While feeling sympathy towards defendants who have suffered prolonged abuse at the hands of the persons they had killed, the Committee did not want to see revenge killings committed while defendants were fully in control of their emotions and that being used to reduce murder to manslaughter.

However, we feel that there is a need for more clarity in the definition, and we endorsed the Law Commission's recommendation that one condition of the defence should be that the provocation should, in all the circumstances —including any of the defendant's personal characteristics that affect its gravity—be considered by the jury to be sufficient ground for the loss of self-control.

More generally, we propose that the Law Commission should produce a consultation document on the law of homicide and that the Government should bring forward proposals on the law in that area in the light of that consultation exercise. Unfortuantely, in their response, the Government do not believe that the Law Commission's proposals would result in more clarity and certainty. We do not share their view.

This is an estimateds day, and estimates debates are about the financing of improvements in our society. In our report on what has been a fascinating, important and urgent matter, we have proposed a variety of new measures which will undoubtedly cost money. If we were asked, we could not say precisely how much our recommendations would cost. It would be impossible to estimate such a figure. It should be obvious that it is also impossible to estimate the costs of inaction—costs which will inevitably be very substantial.

I am satisfied, and I believe that the Committee is satisfied, that the costs of domestic violence in financial and human terms far outweigh the costs of our recommendations. Spending money on reducing the scale of domestic violence at its earliest stages will undoubtedly save money which is now being spent on housing, health, education, social services and justice in an effort to remedy the misery caused by violence in the home.

As we conclude in our report in paragraph 137, we look now for a
"wide vision of what can be achieved and an ambitious programme for action."
If that does not happen, we have little doubt that it will be the victims of domestic violence who will suffer most—and no one in the House wants that to happen.

4.45 pm

I want first to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on his speech and I would like to thank my colleagues on the Select Committee who spent so much time on this very important subject.

I am delighted that this was the first subject to be considered by the Home Affairs Select Committee in this Parliament. That demonstrates the importance of the subject, about which very many people, particularly women, feel very strongly, and the Select Committee considered the matter very seriously. I also pay tribute to the Clerks and to the witnesses.

We heard from our witnesses, and in written evidence, tragic and horrific tales of brutality against women and children and of huge public costs in terms of policing, courts and the national health service. However, we also heard of the greatly improved quality of policing of domestic violence.

As a London Member, I am aware of the excellence of my domestic violence unit which serves Hornsey and Wood Green. That improvement is not true simply in respect of my constituency: it is true throughout the Metropolitan police area. The Met deserve to be congratulated on the improvements, and particularly on the domestic violence units which have been established.

However, that is not just a unique feature of policing in London and policing. There are many other examples of good policing elsewhere in the country. One of the strong recommendations of our report is that those examples of good practice should be reproduced in the rest of the country.

The Government have given us a comprehensive response to our report. However, I believe that there are many areas where much more needs to be done and where there could have been a much better response. The first of those areas, with which I wish to deal, relates to refuge provision.

One of the strongest recommendations of the report is:
"the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country. We believe that this could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken."
As the report points out, and as has already been said, the present number of refuge places is less than one third of the number, recommended as an initial target by the Select Committee on Violence in the Family which reported in 1975, of one family place per 10,000 of the population.

Witnesses from a variety of backgrounds—women's aid groups, police organisations, social worker representatives, local authority associations and others—emphasised the lack of provision and its consequences: crime cannot be prevented as easily, women may be deterred from following prosecutions through, and community-based sentences for offenders can cause danger to victims if refuges and refuge provision are riot in place.

A crisis is taking place in refuges. I know, for example, that Refuge—an organisation that has done a tremendous amount of work—has a funding crisis. Many refuges affiliated to the Women's Aid Federation, face similar crises. The federation has made a large contribution to the debate and has done a great deal of valuable work. Haringey Women's Aid, an excellent organisation in my constituency, has to spend too much of its time raising funds every year.

Look at what has happened to child care workers in refuges. It is often forgotten that children are victims of domestic violence, but child care workers are almost an endangered species in refuges simply because there is not enough money to pay for them. We need a much greater and better Government response to that problem.

Let me quote the statement of the noble Baroness Cumberlege in another place on 29 April. When asked whether the Government had any plans to encourage the provision and funding of women's refuges, she replied only:
"the provision of funding for women's refuges is primarily a matter for local agencies."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 1993, c. 433.]
I strongly reject that view. What happens if a woman is the victim of domestic violence? Quite understandably, she does not want to go to the local refuge. Why? Because, when she walks down the street she might see the man who has subjected her to violence. The refuge might be round the corner from where the violence took place.

She might therefore go to a refuge in another borough, which will ask why it is funding refuge provision for women from elsewhere. All that emphasises the need for a national co-ordinated strategy, and that funding for refuges has to be put on a proper national footing.

What will be the Government's response to the interdepartmental working group on domestic violence? The Home Office should be the lead group, and it is good that there is an official working group on domestic violence, chaired by the Home Office. I gather from answers to parliamentary questions that I have recently tabled that that organisation has met twice. However, it is in the interests of open government that a variety of Government Departments should be involved.

In answer to my question about the frequency of meetings, the Minister of State said of the group:
"It will continue to meet as and when appropriate".—(Official Report, 9 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 300.)
When the Minister makes his contribution to the debate, will he agree that, in the interests of open government and in the spirit of working together to alleviate the problems of the victims of domestic violence, it will be useful to know more about the workings of the group? Exactly what is its remit, how and when is it intended to meet, and how will the results of its deliberations be disseminated? Perhaps publication of its recommendations could be considered.

We also considered court procedure. Welsh Women's Aid, in its written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, gave graphic accounts of women's experiences in court. In one case, a woman called
"Elisabeth had to sit in close proximity with the man who had abused her physically, sexually and emotionally. There was absolutely nowhere else for her to wait."
Another woman
"was waiting in the waiting area of the court when she was punched in the mouth by her violent ex-partner. He also threatened the barrister"
who represented her
"and was abusive to the judge. He was threatened with 'contempt' but this was not followed through".
Another victim said:
"I went to a magistrates court for a protection order. It was awful, I wanted to run away but I needed that order. The entrance hall was full of men mostly in handcuffs. I was afraid of them but there was nowhere else to go; they all stared at me."
With cases like that, it is a miracle that women ever press charges.

Of course, not all court experiences are as bad as that: there is some excellent practice. I hope that the House will forgive me for mentioning my constituency again, but Wood Green Crown court, which I visited on Friday, is one of the pioneers of witness services. I met the volunteers who staff the service on Friday. They are well trained, committed and courteous and, while being careful not to interfere with the details of the case, provide support in the form of a comfortable waiting area, explanation of court procedure and a tour of an empty court. They also give emotional support and practical help with childminding, liaison with employers and transport to court.

All the people I spoke to at the court, from the clerks to the Crown Prosecution Service, spoke highly of that witness service. It is important that more such services are introduced, because 38 out of 74 Crown courts do not have them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what will happen in those courts.

The victims charter says that the latest design standards for new Crown court buildings provide for ample witness waiting rooms per courtroom, with separate doors leading directly to the witness box in the courtroom. What is happening to courts which are not new build and have not been specially designed? What provisions will be made there?

Perhaps more importantly, what is happening in the magistrates courts? Magistrates courts are frequently in very old buildings and—as a member of the Bar who has practised in the courts, frequently on this type of case—I know at first hand that the accounts that I quoted are accurate, because women have to go through quite an ordeal in magistrates courts before their case starts. That is a high priority if we want more women to come to court and more proceedings to take place.

I also want to mention organisations that help women who are members of the black and ethnic minority communities. I pay tribute to the work of Asian Women's Aid in my constituency, and I recently had the pleasure of helping to launch Jewish Women's Aid. Perhaps the most famous organisation is Southall Black Sisters, which has done impressive work with black and ethnic minority women. It gave excellent evidence to our Committee and was able to describe the plight of women who come into the country to join husbands, or whose husbands have refugee status, and who have no rights of their own. Under our immigration rules they come in for an initial 12 months.

What happens to those women if they are the subject of domestic violence during that time? They cannot call on public funds. The rule is that they must have no recourse to public funds during that period, which often makes them totally dependent on their husband and his family. If they leave the family, the Home Office often wrongly assumes that the marriage was only one of convenience.

As Southall Black Sisters said in a submission to Amnesty International's hearing on human rights on 8 June this year:
"We come across many cases of women and children who have experienced violence and abuse and are unable to seek help for fear of being deported. This double bind can become life threatening. The choice is stark—on the one hand, women risk their lives, and those of their children, if they stay in violent situations, on the other hand, they risk being deported to their countries of origin, where they face open hostility, intense discrimination and risk to their health and lives".
I emphasise that only a few women are involved, but the cost to those women's lives is absolutely vital.

It is an important omission—again, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments—that the ministerial working group on domestic violence does not include the immigration and nationality department, given the serious problems for women whose immigration status is not secure. Will the Minister ensure that that section is included in future? It is a very important issue.

I would be extremely interested to know how many women are deported each year after leaving their violent husbands. The Government, in their response to the Select Committee, assert that the immigration and nationality department is alert to the difficulties faced by some women who have insecure immigration status and a violent partner, but the experience of groups campaigning for women contradicts that.

My own view is that no woman should be deported when there is even a possibility that she is suffering at the hands of a violent partner. Unless something is done about the problem, such women will continue to die or face a living death.

Hon. Members will wish to comment on provocation. It is a great pity that the Government could not agree with the Select Committee and the Law Commission. We believe that the law should be changed and clarified. We also await the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on legal aid—a vital matter. If women are to obtain injunctions and have the protection of civil remedies, they need a proper legal aid system.

In our report we say that we wish to return to the subject of domestic violence. I was extremely glad that the Government agree with the Select Committee on the importance of increasing public awareness of domestic violence. The Metropolitan police referred to Canada. Sandra Horley, a witness who appeared before the Committee, has made a great study of the system in Canada, where, because of publicity campaigns, there is heightened awareness of domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a crime—it is that message that we have to get across. We have to change the culture of our society from an early stage. A properly funded and directed campaign of public education would bring together the other recommendations in our report. I hope that, by the time the Select Committee returns to the subject, such a campaign will have been undertaken and will have lessened the incidence of such a shocking, tragic and brutal crime for so many women.

5.2 pm

I have had the privilege of serving on the Home Affairs Select Committee for six years. In terms of seniority in this House, a period of six years does not count for very much, but such has been the changing membership of the Select Committee that I am now one of its longest-serving members.

I am not sure whether six years is long enough to show the validity of my point, but no Committee produces more reports than ours—seven or eight each Session. I have never known the Select Committee to spend so much time carefully discussing the issues in our report and coming to our conclusions. That was not difficult, because often there was a party political dispute between the two sides of the Committee.

We very carefully considered all the evidence that we received, which was carefully prepared and painstakingly given. Some issues in our report need great consideration, and answers to them are not easily found. That is particularly true about whether there should be a change in the law on murder.

The Select Committee often sat until almost midnight, even though the House had adjourned some hours before, and long before 10 o'clock. It is fortunate that hon. Members have understanding families.

I welcome the opportunity for another debate on the Floor of the House. We have published our recommendations. The Government's swift, detailed response is also available to hon. Members. In this debate, we need merely to draw attention to some key issues.

We must consider how big a problem domestic violence is. It is very difficult to provide precise statistics, but, at the end of our inquiry, I was left with the clear impression that the incidence of domestic violence in Britain today is infinitely worse than the figures show.

Hon. Members who visited the domestic violence unit at Islington will recall that the staff in the little office there seemed to be doing a tremendous job for the local community. They appeared to have a record of a domestic violence incident in one out of every 30 families in the borough of Islington. We were told that that was by no means extraordinary in that inner-London Metropolitan police district. That is a staggering figure, and it shows the huge social cost which domestic violence represents for society today.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out, although our inquiry concentrated on assaults on women by men, it became increasingly clear that, in many families in which domestic violence is prevalent, it is the children who suffer greatly. Hon. Members see the effects of abuse of and violence to children in our constituencies, even in some of the more affluent parts of Britain. It is right and proper to pay tribute to the work not only of refuges that support some of the women who have been on the receiving end—the victims of domestic violence—but of some child support agencies.

The next issue is to what extent we should treat domestic violence differently from other forms of violence. Violence is violence, and as such is unacceptable. Murder is murder, and serious assault is serious assault. Whether violence occurs in the home or in the world at large should not affect the seriousness with which we treat it.

Another problem is that, unless we can identify violence in families throughout Britain, we cannot possibly hope to begin to deal with it. To that extent, we need different solutions and programmes to remedy what is going wrong. One is challenged by the thought that the circumstances of violence could be a mitigating factor or could make the violence much more serious and less acceptable.

As our inquiry unfolded, and as we visited refuges in London, it became apparent that some women have been the victims of violence but have retaliated against it—only to find themselves in court charged with assault and, in one tragic case, with murder.

What response should the police make to incidents of domestic violence? Should it be different from their response to violence in other circumstances? Over recent years, the police have made great strides in the way that they deal with the problem. As the House knows, during the 1960s I served for five years as a policeman in London's west end. The police culture then was that domestic disorder was not a matter for the police service. If I remember correctly—it was 28 years ago—some of our training pointed us in that direction.

Of course, that attitude is no longer acceptable. It should reassure hon. Members to know that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and chief constables throughout the country, have made considerable progress in ensuring that the police give a more appropriate response to incidents of domestic violence.

What should the police do when they are called to such incidents? Should they arrest the husband who has beaten his wife? What happens when that man is released from the police station, where he may have been for some hours? Where does he go? Obviously, he goes home. Discussion of these matters throws up challenging issues. There is a need for the highest possible standard of training and the dissemination of best practice throughout the police service, so that an appropriate response is made in each case.

In the Metropolitan police area, priority has been given to the creation of domestic violence units. Parts of my constituency, especially the rural areas, are often 20 or 30 miles from the nearest police station, which is not necessarily manned 24 hours a day, as many of them close at night. Therefore, it would not be easy for the North Yorkshire police force to set up special units similar to those in Islington and other parts of London.

My constituency may be more sparsely populated than inner-city areas, but we should not ignore the fact that domestic violence occurs throughout the country. It does not occur just in inner cities, albeit that, because of the concentration of population, they have more incidents. We must remember that when we respond to the Government's White Paper on the structure of the police service, and when we decide what to do about the Sheehy report.

Police in rural areas have to be jacks of all trades, with the training, skill and professionalism to deal with all possible incidents. There is not enough manpower, and never could be, to staff the specialist units enjoyed by the Metropolitan police.

Best practice and training does not stop with the police service—it extends to the Crown Prosecution Service in the processing of cases. I am pleased that the Government's response to our report included the republishing of the CPS guidelines on how domestic violence cases should be treated. Just as the police have a difficult decision to make on whether or not to arrest, so the CPS has a difficult decision to make on whether or not to prosecute a husband or partner still living in the same house as the woman. Prosecution might make the position worse. Despite that, the Committee felt that prosecutions were not brought often enough.

One reason for that view is that, if someone is prosecuted and pleads guilty or is found guilty by magistrates or a jury, the court then has some influence over his punishment, and may direct that he has some treatment. If the treatment were voluntary, the offender could quickly give up, but with the compulsion of the court order as part of his sentence, there is a better chance that the treatment will continue and eventually produce a statisfactory result. Another benefit of bringing such a case before the courts is that agencies that can support the family can be brought into play more easily.

Recommendation No. 5 in the report says that resource limitation should not be an excuse for inaction. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, the Chairman of our Committee, mentioned that. The truth is that refuge provision is inadequate. Those of us who visited the refuges and met some of the women living in them found vivid examples of the ludicrous problems caused by a lack of flexibility in housing provision.

In one refuge in Hammersmith, a woman with three or four children had been living in a single room for nine months. It would be an insult to the refuge to paint too grim a picture of her living conditions, but those of us who saw them felt that they were quite unsatisfactory. That woman was in receipt of housing benefit in two separate locations and there appeared to be a total inability to Lind an answer to her problems because of the inflexibility of the two local authorities involved. I am sure that there are many similar cases.

We therefore welcome the response from the Department of the Environment, contained in the Government's response, about improved guidelines for housing authorities. It is simply not good enough to say that a woman fleeing with her children from serious violence against her in the matrimonial home is making herself intentionally homeless, and is therefore not eligible to be housed by the local authority.

We must also look to the future. We need to change the guidelines and to encourage greater flexibility and better practice, but we also need to ensure that people do not abuse the system. In calling for a more flexible approach, I believe that we should go even further than what was recommended in our report.

Most of my constituency no longer has council houses, because they have all been successfully transferred to housing associations. That provides a good opportunity to increase housing provision and the level of repairs to the existing stock of property available for rent. I want housing associations to make an assessment of the problem in the areas they serve—particularly those associations that have taken over council homes—and to make the necessary provision.

As to whether the Government should reconsider aspects of the law on murder, I echo the disappointment expressed by my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) at the Government's response. We did not reach our recommendation lightly, but responded to evidence that the present law is unsatisfactory. Given that our view was in line with the Law Commission's recommendation, I find it difficult to understand why the Government are so relucant to re-examine that issue.

Since making our report—this relates to a different issue, but one related to the law on murder—there was the shocking case last week of the acquittal in a murder trial of Joseph Elliott, whose defence counsel successfully argued that Elliott had acted in self-defence. I am sure that the whole House feels that the law on self-defence, as well as on provocation, needs to be re-examined.

The Government may, after further examination, reach the negative conclusion that change would be difficult, but many of us feel that the present situation is unsatisfactory. We do not pretend that there is an easy solution, but that issue ought to be considered.

Having chided the Minister in that respect, I should add that I welcome much of the Government's response, which was largely positive, and highlighted the great steps that are already being taken. I hope that the interdepartmental working party will find practical solutions to many of the problems that our inquiries identified.

As our report itself concluded, unless improvements are made, it is not right hon. and hon. Members, or even the great majority of the British people who will suffer, but the victims of domestic violence.

5.22 pm

I welcome this opportunity to debate domestic violence, especially as we have discussed family values extensively over the past few months. Not all families hold to the values that we expect. Half the women killed are killed by their husband, partner or ex-partner. One third of reported crimes against women are crimes of domestic violence, and one quarter of all assaults occur in domestic circumstances. Those statistics are not generally acknowledged. We tend to view family life through rose-tinted spectacles, assume that all families get on well and believe that children are best brought up in a family atmosphere—but they are not if that atmosphere includes violence.

Much of the improvement over the past few years is the result of the establishment of domestic violence units. Many more women now feel more able to report domestic violence—but not Asian women, many of whom still feel that there is a stigma attached to reporting domestic violence. Many of them are 20 years behind the rest of the community in that respect. I hope that will improve, and we must do all in our power to encourage Asian women to report domestic violence in the same way as other women. Many other hon. Members and I have dealt with such cases.

Before domestic violence units were established in London in 1986, there were only 860 reported cases of domestic violence. By 1991, that figure had increased to 8,000. We must congratulate those responsible for that success. They are not always brillant, but the situation is far better than in the past. Many women do not report domestic violence to the police but go to hospital casualty departments. I should like women social workers in particular to be immediately on hand there, to help women who turn up at the hospital with a black eye, broken ribs, a broken limb or any of the other injuries synonymous with domestic violence. A social worker could then do follow-on work with the family.

Although the situation has improved, a large problem remains. Recent evidence from Canada suggests that a woman has to be assaulted 30 times before reporting domestic violence, and I am sure that the experience in this country is very similar—that is extremely frightening. Many women fail to report violence against them because of lack of money. They fear that they will be unable to survive on their own. They see leaving their husband or partner as the inevitable result of reporting violence and are afraid of then being unable to manage financially. They fear reprisals, not only from their husband or partner but from his relatives.

Alcohol is a predominant factor in many incidents of domestic violence. Turning Point and Alcohol Concern say that between 50 and 60 per cent. of domestic violence involves alcohol and alcohol abuse. I urge the Government to reconsider removing the ring fencing of the drug and alcohol abuse budget. If a man who seeks help—having acknowledged that he is abusing his wife and that his children are being affected—cannot find a way out by entering a Turning Point hostel or getting help from another agency, the violence will continue.

Unemployment and poverty also lead to a lack of self-esteem. When someone lacks self-esteem, he wants to make someone else feel lower than he does. That person is invariably his partner or wife. The individual with low esteem will take it out on his partner, so that he feels big, adequate and masculine. We all know that that is not true, but such an attitude is usually brought on by low self-esteem.

Twenty-four hour helplines are also needed. The Department of Health is funding the Women's Aid Federation to the tune of £136,000, but it cannot operate a 24-hour helpline. I understand that that is the only money coming from central Government. Compare that £136,000 with the situation in Canada, where spending to combat domestic violence is $136 million.

Local authorities are responsible for refuges, of which there are very few. I agree with other hon. Members that a national strategy is needed to provide them throughout the country. At present, 27 per cent. of local authorities provide no refuges, 11 per cent. provide only one and only 5 per cent. provide more than three. That is not acceptable, given the continual increase in domestic violence. Proper national funding would ultimately prove cost effective, reducing the number of problems—especially those related to health—that currently force Government Departments and agencies to pick up the pieces.

Women's Aid and Chiswick Family Rescue—now known as Refuge—estimates that it needs £270,000 a year just to keep going. It is finding it difficult to cope. It is not raising the money that it needs, and it has already had to cut services. It will cut others next month, and it has said today that it fears that it may have to close completely in 1994 if the money is not forthcoming. It is scandalous that the first women's aid refuge to be set up should face such a funding crisis. We should be finding more money to set up more refuges, rather than allowing money to be taken away. In today's economic climate, people find it difficult to give to charities.

The problem is the same throughout the country. What happens to women when refuges close? They have nowhere to go but the streets. The current homelessness problem makes life very hard for them. The Rochdale safer cities project estimates that 25 per cent. of Rochdale's homelessness is the result of domestic violence. That problem, too, exists throughout the country.

Today's debate concerns abuse of partners, but children who witness such abuse are scarred for life. It has been recorded that more than half the children living in a violent home in West Yorkshire witnessed or experienced abuse. One third of those children tried to protect their mother. We do not do enough to counsel and help such children; services are cut time and again, and, without the necessary counselling, love and affection, the children may ultimately become abusers themselves. That is well documented. It is a great shame that we cannot do more.

As others have pointed out, it must be made easier for mothers to cross local authority boundaries. Even if an authority can rehouse a women, and accept that she did not make herself homeless intentionally, what women wants to be rehoused in the same street as a violent partner, or a few streets away from him? Women fear that, when they are out shopping, they will bump into the person who has abused them persistently for years, or that their children will be terrified going to school knowing that he may be around any corner.

Local authority homelessness sections should employ more women who are properly trained to pinpoint homelessness resulting from domestic violence. Many women still refuse to admit that they have been beaten up or otherwise abused, because they feel that it is a fault in some way. They feel that they have done something wrong, or that they are inadequate; they will not accept that it is the man concerned who is inadequate, sensing that they are themselves failures. Trained people would be able to spot that, and perhaps act on their perception more quickly than is possible now.

More emergency legal aid provision is also needed. I am very worried about the current proposals, which will prevent many women from acting against violent partners. This is at the heart of the problem. Many women who have left their husbands and want to take them to court accuse their former partners and then decide not to give evidence. The Crown Prosecution Service must prosecute far more often; it should not be up to the women concerned to initiate such action.

I know that the probation service is doing a very good job, but we must ensure that all aspects of domestic violence are taken seriously. Part of the problem is the fact that a range of Departments must deal with domestic violence. Recently, in another place, Earl Ferrers mentioned the forming of an interdepartmental group. Will the Minister tell us whether such a group has met? I hope that all Departments will recognise their responsibility in regard to women who have been subjected to domestic violence.

I welcome the Government's response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but I want them to go further. I hope that the Minister will take on board all that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

5.36 pm

I congratulate the Select Committee on Home Affairs on choosing such an important topic for its first report to the House. It reflects the current concern about domestic violence, particularly that felt by women.

Domestic violence is not an isolated phenomenon, as hon. Members have made clear today. It is widespread, and it is no respecter of social class. Indeed, it has an ancient tradition. All hon. Members will be familiar with the phrase "rule of thumb"; how many know what it means? In the past, a man was permitted to beat his wife as long as he used a stick no thicker than his own thumb. Thus, violence was legitimised for a long time, and passed into folklore. Only 20 years ago, it was still seen as solely a matter of feminist concern: it was then that Erin Pizzey wrote her seminal book "Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear".

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and others have mentioned the effect of domestic violence on children and the cycle that builds up. One of the saddest things that I recall hearing in recent years was a friend's account of enduring 17 years of domestic violence. Finally, she left her husband with her two children. Only after talking to other people did she discover that such violence was not the norm. Her father had beaten her mother, and her husband had beaten her; she considered that to be normal married behaviour. Moreover, her case is not an isolated instance.

Our domestic violence legislation completely fails women who are brave enough to go to court. The law is a mess—I say that as someone who, before becoming a Member of Parliament, was a barrister specialising in domestic violence law. The law is spread among different Acts of Parliament, all attested to in the Select Committee's excellent report. That means that a woman has to deal with a maze of legislation, and it is difficult for any barrister or solicitor trying to advise her to find a remedy that offers protection to her and to her children.

The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978—both introduced by the Labour Government, I am pleased to say—still stand as the basic corpus of domestic violence law. However, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act, which is obviously more widely available because it falls within the jurisdiction of magistrates, applies only to married people, not to people who are cohabiting. We know that in a large proportion of "marriage" relationships people have not gone through the marriage ceremony but are simply cohabiting. The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act is available to co-habitees only in the jurisdiction of the county court, which means that people often have to travel long distances to get to the court and apply for an injunction.

The Select Committee report and the Law Commission have attested to the way in which domestic violence legislation makes if difficult to obtain injunctions. One of the most iniquitous aspects is the fact that it is difficult for a woman to get an injunction if she has not applied to the court quickly. There is supposed to be an obvious element of urgency, yet I have known of many cases in which a woman has been traumatised by the violence, has needed to recover from her injuries, or has needed to escape the relationship and find somewhere else to live.

There has been a delay while she has adjusted to the injuries that she has received, and to having fled from home, and that is seen by the courts as a reason not to grant the injunction. They say that she could not possibly really need an injunction, because she did not go to court as soon as the incident happened. I suspect that most women who are beaten up repeatedly in violent relationships want to get away from the relationship, to seek medical attention and to get better, and to make sure that their children are safe. Going before a county court judge is not necessarily No. 1 on their list of things to do.

The law also fails women because of the way in which it treats as strangers people who have been but are no longer cohabiting. The only remedy available is a tort injunction—one of the old torts of assault, battery or trespass. The difficulty with those is that, if a woman goes to someone else's house to stay, perhaps as a lodger, or returns to her parents' home or that of another relative, she cannot obtain a trespass injunction because she is not the tenant or the owner-occupier; therefore, in law she cannot apply for such an injunction. She cannot apply for an injunction to stop the man coming to the place where she is living and assaulting her. There is no tort of harassment.

Moreover, no tort injunction carries the power of arrest, and that power is so important for women in such circumstances. If there is a power of arrest, at least if the man comes near her the police have an absolute obligation to arrest him and bring him before a court at the earliest opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to domestic violence suffered by women from ethnic minorities involved in what we could describe as immigration cases. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. If a woman leaves a violent husband within 12 months of marriage, she risks deportation. I know that because a constituency case was recently brought to me, involving a woman who had obtained a judicial separation after eight months of marriage. The judge found that her husband's behaviour was such that it was unreasonable to expect her to continue to live with him, yet she has now received a letter from the immigration and nationality department telling her that she is on 28 days' notice to leave the country. That has happened through no fault of her own. That woman is a victim, and she is being treated shamefully by the application of our immigration rules.

We should also deal with the questions raised by the programme "The Bounty Hunter", which was on BBC2 some time ago, and which revealed how men in the Asian community make a nice living out of hunting like animals women who flee from domestic violence and violent relationships. The subterfuges that the bounty hunters use to track down women and drag them back home are alarming, and I hope that the Government will deal with the matter. I hope that the Minister will say something about it when he responds to the debate.

Reference has already been made to the attitude of the police. I welcome the change in their attitude, and have spoken to police officers in Bristol who have told me that they no longer treat such incidents as merely domestic matters, as they so often used to do in the past. In 1977, I took a friend who had been severely beaten up by her partner to the police station, and I remember being appalled by the pressure that was put on her not to bring proceedings. The police kept saying, "You'll have to go to court, and in the meantime you've got to live with him, so wouldn't it be better if you went home and patched things up?"

It is good that there have been some changes in attitudes, but it is important to recognise that both the police and the legal profession tend to give such work to young inexperienced people. In the legal profession it is seen as the "rough trade", and police officers tell me that such work is often given to people with little experience. As a barrister, I grew sick and tired of hearing other lawyers say, "I went to represent this woman and she said she was going to go back home. What a stupid woman!"

That attitude totally fails to recognise the position of most women who suffer domestic violence, which, as other hon. Members have said, often involves homelessness, and the way in which the rules on intentional homelessness operate. If one asks women victims of domestic violence what they want, they usually say, "I want things at home to go on as they are, except that I don't want him to beat me up any more." It would be a good thing if the police and the legal profession would adopt those changes in attitude.

With regard to the criminal law, we need different definitions of provocation and self-defence as defences to charges of murder and manslaughter, and we should also examine the way in which the rules of evidence operate against women. The law on self-defence is based on the notion of a punch-up in a pub, and the definition of provocation is based on the notion of a threat to a man's potency or virility. The way in which those definitions operate means that any victim of domestic violence who has not responded immediately is without the law. A well-founded fear of domestic violence should be a defence against such charges. We should also change rules such as the corroboration warning in the law on rape. That is an outrage to all women, and the House ought not to allow it to continue.

I welcome the Government's response to the part of the Select Committee report that deals with refuges. In 1988, I visited a refuge in a small town in central Sweden. It was beautifully appointed and well furnished, yet the people there apologised to me because they felt that it was not quite as smart as it might have been. Any woman who had seen a refuge in this country would have been astonished at how well appointed the Swedish refuge was. There was also immediate internal alarm contact with the local police.

National funding for a proper network of refuges is vital so that women can seek refuge quickly and safely for themselves and their children, and there must be mechanisms for ensuring that those refuges become staging posts to enable women to escape from violent relationships and to rebuild their lives.

The law of this country cannot possibly be respected or properly applied when such a large section of the population feels that the remedies that ought to be there do not exist. The resources that ought to be in place are not there. It is important for the House to make it clear to men that such behaviour is not acceptable, it is not their right, we condemn it and it ought to stop.

5.49 pm

I had not intended to speak, but I was so interested in the various speeches that have been made that I wanted to refer briefly to one point.

I very much welcome the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), with most of which I agree. I would part company with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Ms Corston), in that it is not my experience that the police are giving enough attention to what we broadly call domestic violence.

My worry as a constituency Member of Parliament, which is probably replicated throughout the House, is that, because of the declining moral fabric of Britain over the past 25 years, many more people live together, often on a short-term basis. There are many cases where a woman, probably unwisely, has taken a man in or formed a liaison with him, and then discovered to her cost that he is a violent type because of drink, or is naturally violent. She then has the utmost difficulty in getting rid of him.

A number of cases have been brought to my attention in which women have been badly beaten up on a regular basis after barring their attacker from the house. The offences are committed with a great deal of guile. Harassment is the order of the day; it is not just banging on the door and coming in: there are all kinds of sneaky ways of getting into the house and attacking the woman on her way home from work or going out. One woman said to me, "It is all very well being battered around occasionally, but do I really have to be killed, seriously injured or hospitalised before something is done about it?"

We all know that the police are under great pressure because of rising crime statistics, and domestic cases have always taken a fairly low priority. When couples are not married and the man is on a determined course repeatedly to attack and batter the woman, action ought to be taken.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that women should not have to take this. Society ought to make an example of men who carry on in that way. The sooner we do it the better it will be, and the sooner the statistics will improve. It is all too easy for the wrong kind of man to be able to get away with it.

5.52 pm

Everyone must agree that we are debating a serious and urgent issue when we consider that one in five murder victims are women killed by their partners or ex-partners, and one in three of all reported crimes against women result from domestic violence. We should also remember the high level of unreported domestic violence which has blighted our society for hundreds of years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) has reminded us.

I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Select Committee's decision to investigate these matters. I also welcome the recommendations in the Select Committee report. However, I have one or two minor reservations. Why is there no recommendation on legal aid, although there are laudable words about its inadequacy? Why is there no recommendation about the training of the judiciary, which is equally important? I was also rather disappointed that there was no mention of the prosecution service having to lay down some guidelines. It is sometimes rather a mystery why the prosecution service proceeds or does not proceed with prosecutions.

The Government's response contains much that is to be welcomed, but I have some serious reservations. First, I join other hon. Members in regretting their decision not to have even consultation on the law of homicide.

We all know of several well publicised instances of women unjustly condemned on a charge of murder. The attention drawn to the subject by the soap opera "Brookside" will bring it into the public eye even more in the months ahead. I do not know how many hon. Members watch the series, but the plot deals with the reasons why women may kill their partners or ex-partners.

I wonder why the Select Committee ruled out a defence of self-preservation, as that would be another way of approaching the problem. Another reservation of mine concerns funding, which I shall refer to later. I am also concerned about the note of delay which creeps into the Government's response to the recommendation of a public education and awareness campaign. Perhaps they are a little reluctant to go down that path.

I want to say something about public education and awareness campaigns. In Edinburgh, part of which I represent, over the past few months there has been a high-profile and highly successful public education and awareness campaign called the zero tolerance campaign. I know that other local authorities are examining this initiative, and I hope that more local authorities and central Government will also look at it.

It is based fundamentally on challenging male behaviour. Those who have visited Edinburgh over the past few months will have seen a large number of posters with messages directed at men. For example, the fundamental message of the campaign is "Zero tolerance of violence against women". Another notable message is "Male abuse of power is a crime". There are many other messages that are challenging certain male assumptions.

Edinburgh district council's women's committee, which initiated the campaign, took the view at the end of the day that the root of the problem was the unequal power relations between men and women in society. There is a continuum from male attitudes of superiority to the slapping of women, which has been supported publicly by Sean Connery and many others. Just a few days ago, I saw a popular comedy programme just casually accepting that view. That level of violence is tolerated by thousands of people when it should not be, and the continuum proceeds to more drastic and serious violence.

The zero tolerance campaign aims to challenge those male attitudes and to link domestic violence with other male abuses of power. It has highlighted the crimes of rape and sexual abuse.

The campaign has also enlisted the support of the local newspaper, The Edinburgh Evening News, which has given it a great deal of coverage. That has helped to give the campaign a high profile, and I pay tribute to the newspaper, and to Jean West, the reporter who covered it so brilliantly.

I also suggest to the Government that, as all that work has been done in Edinburgh, and as they are supposed to be considering a public awareness campaign, perhaps they should consider extending it to the whole of Scotland. I am aware that the report refers only to England and Wales and that some of the detailed recommendations would have to be different for Scotland, but the issues are fundamentally the same. Perhaps the Government would like to consider extending the zero tolerance campaign as a pilot scheme throughout Scotland. Of course, I should like it to be extended throughout the United Kingdom.

There is a campaign by the Scottish Office, which is all right as far as it goes, but it targets women, telling them to behave in this way and take care in that way. It is okay as far as it goes. However, the Scottish Office campaign makes no attempt to target male behaviour, although that is the fundamental requirement of a public education and awareness campaign. I hope that that will be taken on board by the Scottish Office in Scotland and the Home Office in England and Wales.

Leaving aside the fundamental aspect of prevention and turning to the terrible realities that go on around us daily, I endorse what the Committee said about the importance of treating domestic violence as a crime and prosecuting people who perpetrate it. I am sure that we all agree that that has not been done enough in the past and, although it is improving, there is still plenty of room for improvement. I hope that the police and the prosecution service will take that on board.

As well as prosecution, women must be protected. Civil law is important in terms of the protection of women. Many good suggestions in the report will apply to England and Wales and in a slightly different way to Scotland. Many civil law remedies are available to a large number of women only if they have access to legal aid. Therefore, the section of the report that criticised the Government's legal aid cuts is important.

As I said, it is unfortunate that there was not a specific recommendation relating to legal aid. Nevertheless, there is the message that many women are not able to pursue civil remedies because of the cuts in legal aid and the reduction of the income level at which legal aid becomes applicable. Certainly, the Government will have to address that. I hope that they will get the message in the Select Committee report on that subject.

Another important aspect of protection relates to refuges. Clearly, there is a serious problem and, unless the Government are prepared to put money into refuges, it will continue. I am worried because I remember a Select Committee report in 1975 which said that there should be one family refuge place for every 10,000 people in the population, yet less than a third of that number exist at present. With this report, I hope that we will not have a similar gap between what is asked for and what is delivered. Aberdeen is the only city in Scotland with the level of refuges that was recommended by the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities.

The whole thrust of the Government's response is that all of the funding issues are for local authorities. At the end of the day, local authorities are largely funded by the Government, so there must be a role for central Government finance. If the Government are putting all of this emphasis on local authorities, why cannot we have ring-fenced money specifically for refuges? Unless we have refuges, many of the other recommendations in the report will fall down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to the sort of things that are happening because there is not enough money. We heard that help lines are being shut down and there are no child care services. Perhaps some hon. Members saw the programme "First Sex" a couple of weeks ago, which showed that the organisation Refuge was at risk of being shut down because there was not enough money. Clearly, there is a crisis with regard to refuges. As the Select Committee emphasises, that is one of the central recommendations—if not the central one—in the report.

Time is running out, so I shall not talk about the other issues that I wanted to talk about. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) may talk about the Child Support Act, which impacts on this issue. I shall say a word about the social fund, which has not been mentioned. Domestic violence victims were removed from the highest category of that fund and that is another issue. Clearly, there are many issues. The Government said that they will accept some of them. I hope that they will accept more of them, and act with urgency on the ones that they seriously support.

6.3 pm

The Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member, published a strong report containing 42 positive recommendations. The Government's response was acceptable in a number of areas. However, in other areas, it seemed to have something of the cold antiseptic voice of the quiet man in the warm office trying to make the right sympathetic noises without committing the needed resources. The Government's sympathy was there.

Undoubtedly, Ministers are genuinely horrified by domestic violence and wish to reduce it. However, we need more than just sympathy—we need political will and, as the report calls for, political momentum to deal with the problems. Words of sympathy come cheap; action requires resources. The Government must be prepared to commit resources.

During the inquiry, we saw the extent of the problem. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to an important visit that we made to the Islington police station. There we saw a card-index system that showed that one in 30 households in that area reported a domestic violence incident to the police. If we accept what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said—that only a small proportion of domestic violence incidents are reported—the incidence of domestic violence could well be much higher. It may even be as high as one in 10 households. Almost certainly, domestic violence incidents take place in most communities and on most streets in Britain.

The size of the problem does not seem to be recognised by the Government, local authorities and some of the other agencies that deal with the issue. I exempt from that criticism the police who, because of the increasing need to deal with the problem, have demonstrated a willingness to examine it seriously. They are prepared to tackle the problem and amend their ways.

The Government have not been prepared to take the necessary initiatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) referred to one important initiative—the need to ensure that people are aware of the size of the problem. More awareness is needed to encourage preventive work and protective work. We must encourage people to recognise the need to spend money on an issue. We must ensure that attitudes in society are sufficiently censorious of domestic violence so that people report it to the police when they hear about it in other households. If people mention domestic violence in the pub or wherever, others must ensure that they are censorious of such behaviour and create a widespread view that it is unacceptable.

We must reduce the tolerance to domestic violence in some communities and raise awareness of the penalties for those who commit acts of domestic violence and the help that is available to victims of it. That is why, in recommendation 12, the Committee called for a campaign designed to raise the awareness, especially of the perpetrators and potential perpetrators as well as victims, of the criminality of domestic violence, the possibilities of redress and the seriousness with which the authorities view the matter.

The Government's response to the Committee is unclear. They appear to recognise the importance of the issue but are unwilling to fund and back the necessary public campaign. They have referred to the need for sensitivity, and we all accept that. However, the need for sensitivity should not prevent them from taking the action necessary to show the importance of the issue and ensure that people are fully aware of it.

The Metropolitan police gave this evidence to the Committee:
"the examples of good practice in Canada, North America and Australia, where there is far more public awareness of domestic violence and policy due to an overall state-wide publicity programme. The programme includes Central Government and local Government publicised policy. There are television advertisements, roadside advertisements—a heightened public awareness through leaflets and statutory agencies".
The result of such a campaign can be social condemnation of domestic violence and a reduction of it. Therefore, it is important for the Government to commit resources to such a campaign.

It is also essential for the Government to commit resources to refuges. An all-party committee was able to reach a consensus on the importance of and the need for a national policy on refuges. The Government were vague and did not seem to appreciate the need for that sort of national policy. They were prepared to leave it to local authorities. The Government must recognise the importance of the provision of refuges. I hope that the Minister will respond more positively than he did in his written response to the Select Committee.

We need to ensure that there are more resources for legal aid, as the hon. Member for Rochdale rightly said. If victims of domestic violence, primarily women, face the withdrawal of access to legal aid, they face the withdrawal of access to remedies and the protection that they need. It is no good pretending that somehow everyone either has access to legal aid or can fund a court action to seek a remedy. That is simply not the case. A restriction on legal aid, such as we have seen, is a restriction on access to the courts and justice. The Government must respond much more positively to that.

I call on the Government to reconsider their view on provocation. I endorse the views of the hon. Member for Ryedale. He stated eloquently that our Select Committee looked with carer at the issues of law on this, and that, although some of us were not convinced at the start, we were all certainly convinced by the end that the Government needed to look into the defence of provocation. The law is hung up on the issue of the time in which an incident occurs. Time is not the issue. The issue is whether the killing was a direct result of the perpetration of violence and the loss of self-control. The Government failed to address that in their response.

Southall Black Sisters produced poignant, forceful evidence about the problems of immigrants who come to marry, particularly women from the Indian sub-continent. Sometimes they face domestic violence within a year of arriving in Britain. Immigration laws fail to deal with that effectively. Simply to say that we shall treat each case on its merits is not good enough. The extent of the issue must be considered, yet the Government, in their response, do not seem to be prepared to do so.

The aim of the report is to give political momentum to tackling domestic violence. We need to increase awareness of the issue. Resources need to be committed. The Government, local authorities and agencies must give the issue appropriate priority. I hope that the Minister will do more today than simply make the right sympathetic noises. We want an expression of political will, an expression of willingness to find political momentum and an expression of willingness to provide the necessary resources. Will he give it?

6.12 pm

I, too, welcome the Select Committee report. The Government should give priority to implementing its recommendations and finding the necessary resources. Mary Tuck, the former head of a working party set up by the Home Office, said:

"Dealing with domestic violence is the single most preventive strategy we could put into practice against violent crime. Domestic violence is a central problem for society."
Therefore, the Home Office has concluded that in its own report.

Many statistics have been cited today and I shall refer to some of them. Islington council police unit commissioned a survey of domestic violence in north London, which reported at the end of March. Of those surveyed, 37 per cent. suffered from mental cruelty, for example being ridiculed, being deprived of money, clothes and sleep or being prevented from going out; 27 per cent. suffered from threats of violence or force; 32 per cent. suffered from actual violence, such, as being grabbed, punched or shaken; 26 per cent. suffered from a black eye; and 23 per cent. had been raped—made to have sex without consent. One of the most worrying aspects of the report is that only 37 per cent. of the men interviewed said that they would never respond violently to a partner. That is an appalling statistic. That attitude needs to be remedied until the figure is 100 per cent.

This Session I have introduced two Bills. One was on the defence of provocation and the other sought to change the law on rape. The Government deferred the matter of rape in marriage to the Law Commission, which recommended that statute law should be changed—yet the Government have not acted on that. It is a scandal to leave it to common law, because what can be changed by judges can be changed back by judges. It should be on the statute that rape in marriage is a criminal office. I intended to read a letter I received about those Bills, but I have no time. In fact, I had lots of mail. Women describe horrific experiences, such as being used as a punchbag. Day after day, women and their children are at risk and could face terrible consequences.

Society's attitude to domestic violence is split. We think that all decent people, or at least the overwhelming majority, oppose domestic violence. The truth is that many think it permissible and part of machoism. Some men joke about it, while others deny its existence. That trend is getting worse as economic and other circumstances worsen. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) rightly pointed out how people with low self-esteem sometimes take out their feelings of frustration on their partners. The situation is worsening. The Government must initiate a public awareness campaign and take a stand in favour of zero tolerance of such behaviour.

I support what has been said about Southall Black Sisters. I know of many cases where women in a violent marriage depend on their husband for their status here and without him could be thrown out of the country. The Minister should regard domestic violence as an exceptional circumstance and allow such women to remain here as of right.

Hon. Members have referred to refuges. We should have a proper refuge network throughout the country, centrally co-ordinated and funded by the Government. The London Housing Unit in its research on England and Wales showed a considerable shortfall. The Government should deal urgently with that matter, especially with refuges that face considerable financial difficulties.

The Government's response to my Bill on the defence of provocation has been extremely disappointing. The current definition of provocation is inadequate and far too narrow. The Government do not recognise domestic violence as a mitigating circumstance. As a result, 30 or 40 women are probably in prison unjustly. I am campaigning on behalf of Sara Thornton. Those cases should be reviewed, and in my view the women should be released. Many such women do not get a fair trial. Often, at the time of the death they are suffering from dreadful trauma and guilt, so they cannot put up a proper defence. The law is inadequate in many respects. Our mandatory life sentence for murder is wholly inappropriate in such cases.

Concern has been expressed about revenge killings. We are talking about desperate women. It can be proved that they are desperate and have suffered cumulative violence. My Bill intended to make such a plea available to them. Most people, in the House and the country, argue that it should be on the statutue book. Ultimately it is for the authorities—the Crown Prosecution Service—and juries to decide whether a case is a revenge killing or whether there are mitigating circumstances, but the law should allow people to make that plea.

This is one of the most vital issues that the House should be tackling. I strongly support what has already been said—that the Government should act to find the necessary resources, should have a public awareness campaign, and should also adopt a policy of zero tolerance of domestic violence.

6.19 pm

First, I congratulate the Select Committee on producing such a comprehensive report on this important issue. It is unusual to hear the concerns of women raised in the House, and I only regret that this time the subject is so painful. It is customary for those on the Opposition Front Bench to congratulate all hon. Friends, but I should like to congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, which has been thoughtful and useful.

In the current climate of public concern about the level of crime and the increase in violent crime, the debate is opportune. Domestic violence is a crime—a violent crime and primarily a crime against women. I remind the House that almost half of all homicides of women are killings by a partner or ex-partner. A third of all reported crimes against women are domestic. Domestic violence is more common than street violence. It is a crime of epidemic proportions. In Greater London alone, reported attacks have almost doubled in the past two years; 9,200 attacks were reported last year and 30,000 women and children sought help and refuge during the same period. A further 100,000 contacted Women's Aid for support.

Domestic violence is not a new crime. The difference now is that women are increasingly less prepared to tolerate violence and more prepared to report it to the police and other agencies. One of the principal reasons why women finally come forward is for the sake of their children. Two out of every three women who go to refuges have young children, and evidence submitted by the Children's Legal Centre to the Select Committee showed that many children will have been assaulted and are already mentally and emotionally scarred from what they have witnessed, with untold results. Concern for their future is another reason for welcoming the seriousness with which domestic violence is beginning to be viewed.

In the past 18 months alone, a series of excellent reports have been published by Victim Support, the Law Commission and now the report that is the subject of this debate. What is remarkable about the reports is the consensus evident in the analysis and in the recommendations for action. Attention, however, is a long way from remedy and action. I welcome the fact that the Government have responded so quickly to the Home Affairs Select Committee report and I shall comment on it in detail later, but the Government's response is less than the wholehearted commitment to action that we and the Select Committee seek. I only hope that the interdepartmental working party on domestic violence, which I welcome, will take the Select Committee's recommendations further.

Domestic violence impacts on many areas of public policy and the law, and the Home Affairs Select Committee report was wide-ranging in its remit. I have time to comment on only a few of those areas, the first of which is public awareness.

Domestic violence cannot be viewed simply as another crime or a legal problem which can be eradicated by appropriate legal remedies. The reports that I have already mentioned all share the understanding that domestic violence is part of a wider social problem of women's unequal position in society. Too often still, women are dependent on men socially and economically. Attempts by women to assert their independence and leave the marital home when necessary are constrained by that basic inequality.

At least 6 million women in Britain today earn poverty wages. The gap between men and women's earnings has barely narrowed in the past 15 years. Full-time working women still earn only about 70 per cent. of male earnings. Women also head up two thirds of the homeless families in Britain and, as the report published by the Commission on Social Justice this week showed, the number of homeless families rose by 46 per cent. during the 1980s, with 20 per cent. of people on incomes of less than £3,500 a year.

Equality for women in the workplace is essential if they are to control other aspects of their lives. I fear that, until we have a Labour Government and a Ministry for Women, British women will continue to be seriously disadvantaged in this society.

Social attitudes still reflect deep-seated views about the role of women and men in the family. Women are still accused in some circumstances of wanting to be abused or of deserving it. Conversely, they are blamed for not leaving after they have been beaten up. Their ambivalent feelings about leaving a man with whom they may have had a long relationship and may still be in love are viewed as a weakness. Domestic violence is thus often portrayed as a woman's rather than a man's problem, which is why it is crucial to raise public awareness.

I welcome the Select Committee's recommendation and hope that the Government will really—truly—adopt it. I strongly endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) about the zero tolerance campaign run in Edinburgh, which is a good example of an effective and sensitive campaign dealing with the issue of men's attitudes.

One of the basic tools for raising awareness must be adequate information, yet we still do not know the real extent of domestic violence. The Select Committee's first recommendation is that there must be nationally collected statistics on the issue, from which a proper strategy can be developed. I welcome the Government's acceptance that the present statistics are incomplete. I also welcome the additional studies being conducted by the Home Office.

Other hon. Members have mentioned women from minority ethnic communities. When violence towards a woman occurs in an ethnic minority community, the problems she faces are compounded. It may appear to her to be too daunting or even a betrayal to seek help outside her community. It may even be harder for her to become economically independent. Women from ethnic minority communities may also face, as we have heard today, racism and interrogation about their immigration status. We support the Select Committee's recommendation for further research into that problem.

As we have heard, under current immigration rules a spouse will normally be given permission to remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period of 12 months in which, in a sense, the marriage is tested by the Home Office. But women experiencing violence during that period and who leave home are faced with a possibility of deportation to their country of origin, where they may risk isolation, stigmatisation and have no economic independence. The case of Mamta Chopra, who was forced to flee and now faces deportation, shows that that 12-month rule is deeply discriminatory against women from ethnic minority communities in abusive relationships. I endorse the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that the immigration service be represented on the working group.

When a woman finally decides that she must leave and that she has no option, she is likely to be afraid, demoralised, undermined and desperate. Making that decision to leave leads her into a difficult legal and bureaucratic maze which she must negotiate and in which she needs support. One of the most powerful reasons for women having to stay is that they have nowhere to go, which is why the network of refuges in Britain is so tremendously important. As we have repeatedly heard, the provision is totally inadequate, and there is no excuse whatever for that. Eighteen years ago, the last Select Committee on the subject called for one refuge place per 10,000 population, but we still have less than one third of that number. The Minister must deal with that point today.

Many refuges are at crisis point because hard-pressed local authorities are cutting their grants. Local authorities cannot be expected to bear all the financial burden. It is clearly the responsibility of central Government to put resources into a network of women's refuges. I remind the Minister again of the Committee's strongly worded recommendation
"that the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country."
Interdepartmental discussions on refuge provision are not enough. Pushing the problem back to local authorities is totally unacceptable. The Government must take the lead in establishing a nationally funded network of refuges. The Government should recognise the extent of support for the proposals from all the relevant agencies, which recognise that, if women have no immediate place of shelter, all the agencies' good work will be wasted.

I also want to add my support to the recommendation that local authorities and housing associations give priority to victims of domestic violence for rehousing. In many areas, including mine, the new guidance is working, but there is a desperate shortage of affordable housing—a shortage which occurs directly because of Government policies. Once again, the Government are asking local authorities to do the impossible: to give priority to the most needy and at the same time to be fair to those thousands on the waiting lists. That cannot be done unless local authorities are allowed to produce the council housing that they know is needed in their areas to meet both ordinary need and the priority need of people fleeing domestic violence.

We know that there are many excellent initiatives involving inter-agency co-operation at local level. Such initiatives need to be encouraged. Local authorities and the police are now working in co-operation to co-ordinate the services and help available to women fleeing domestic violence. The Select Committee has made a number of recommendations relating to police practice, all of which are sensible and ought to be supported. The thrust of the recommendations is to ensure that police work on domestic violence is not marginalised in the police service or squeezed out by competing demands for funds. The Committee also recommends changes that will more clearly demonstrate to the public, particularly women, that the police are taking the issue seriously.

I am aware of many good practices which are being developed, although the police in their evidence agreed that progress was patchy nationwide. The domestic violence units established by the Metropolitan police in 62 of its 69 divisions have been successful, as they have been elsewhere, but it was clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee that a major reason for such units not being established in some areas was lack of resources.

There is now a widespread feeling that existing specialist and time-consuming work, such as that involved in domestic violence units, is threatened by the market philosophy of the Sheehy report. Perhaps the Minister—if he is listening—will tell the House how the work that is done in domestic violence units would be assessed by performance-related pay. While improvements in police practice still remain to be made, the most effective response comes from joint action. I commend, as others have, the practical example of joint action in Islington where the police, the probation service, the local authority and the safer cities programme have established a sound counselling and advice service.

I invite hon. Members to welcome a new initiative in my constituency, where the police have set up a specialist vulnerable persons unit incorporating the victims of domestic violence and racial attacks, and abused elderly victims all within one unit. The unit has, I believe, eight staff, and it will be an important experimental project which we should monitor carefully. Many of the initiatives have worked closely with the safer cities programme, but many of them are now jeopardised because the Government are cutting grants and closing some of the existing safer city projects. If the initiatives are worth while, surely they are worth supporting.

As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) clearly outlined in his report, the Committee considered changes in both the criminal and civil law. I shall mention the issue of provocation, referred to by other hon. Members. It has been rightly argued that the present law is confused and disadvantageous to women. An integral part of the law of provocation is that there must be sudden and temporary loss of self-control. However, a sudden loss of self-control and an immediate response to violence by a woman is likely to bring greater violence upon herself.

The case for provocation to take account of the slow burn—the reaction of a woman over many months, even years—is a strong one. While we believe that justice has now been achieved in the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia, I must put on record our continuing concern for the fate of Sara Thornton, Sally Hyams and Emma Humphrys. All those cases have been taken up by the Rights of Women, and the women involved still seek justice in this country.

A change in the law on the issue would be a complex task and likely to attract strong opinions from practitioners and the public. For that reason, I endorse the Committee's recommendation to make a request to the Law Commission to produce a consultative document on the law of homicide and to the Government to bring forward proposals. Once again, the Government have given a disappointing reply which has completely failed to respond to the arguments made by so many influential and distinguished people. I hope that the unanimity in the House today will make an impression on the Minister.

Tackling domestic violence needs not only fine words, but concrete actions; it also needs money. The Government must not think that they can place all the responsibility on the shoulders of the police, local authorities or voluntary organisations. I look forward very much to a positive programme of action from the interdepartmental working group, which I hope will soon be announced to the House.

Whatever the financial cost to the Government of implementing all the recommendations of the Select Committee, the cost of not implementing them would be very much greater in terms of individual misery, and suffering among women, families and society. There would be a tremendous cost to the nation in terms of our police and social services, and our children's future.

6.37 pm

I am grateful to the House for this opportunity —my first—to discuss the serious problem of domestic violence.

We have all benefited today from the depth of knowledge evident on both sides of the House, and particularly from the recent work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Committee's Chairman. The members of the Committee are to be congratulated on their thoughtful investigation into the problems associated with domestic violence and the measures needed to tackle it.

The Government's response to the Committee was published on 29 June by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. That response reaffirmed our commitment to ensuring that domestic violence is tackled vigorously, and is treated as the crime it is. We also agreed with the Committee on the need for action against domestic violence to go beyond the criminal justice system, to meet the special needs of women and children affected by violence in the home, and to work towards prevention in the long term.

I am also grateful to the House for the warm welcome that the Government's response has received. I know that some Opposition Members would like the response to have gone further than it did, but there has been a general welcome to it tonight. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton described our response as measured, detailed and positive. The Select Committee's response may be a unique one from such a Committee to a Government.

Significant efforts have been made in recent years to improve the response to domestic violence, putting the needs of the victim at the centre of that response. The police and the courts are treating incidents of domestic violence with increasing seriousness. As a consequence, the signs are that more such crimes are coming out into the open.

Last week, it was brought home to me how dramatic the change can be. I paid a visit to Scotland Yard and spoke to the inspector in charge of co-ordinating the Metropolitan police's response to domestic violence, in which it is doing an excellent job. She told me that, in 1985, 770 cases of domestic violence assaults were recorded by the police. Last year, there were over 9,800 recorded cases, and a quarter of all recorded assaults in London last year were domestic.

We still do not have a complete picture of the true extent of domestic violence. New surveys are planned to help us to find out more, but figures like those held by Scotland Yard will leave no one in any doubt of the challenges that are facing the police, local agencies and others in dealing with domestic violence.

Our response to the Select Committee report set out the plans we have to take work forward across Government and consider what new initiatives may be needed. In many areas, such as the criminal justice response, civil provisions, the welfare of victims, encouraging local action and long-term prevention, we are actively pursuing improvements.

Recent initiatives have been directed chiefly towards ensuring that the police and courts treat violence within relationships as seriously as assaults by total strangers. Three years ago this month, the Government issued guidance to police throughout United Kingdom on the need for a quick and effective response, taking account of the overriding need to protect victims. Within a year of the guidance, all police forces in England and Wales had developed clear policies on domestic violence, and most had introduced specific improvements to their response.

The Government agree with the Select Committee on the need to ensure that new policies lead to real changes. That is why a study is assessing the impact of the guidance on police forces in England and Wales in handling cases of domestic violence. An initial survey provided an overall picture in all forces. Interviews are now being conducted in five selected force areas with victims, police officers and other agencies in contact with the police.

In response to the Committee's recommendation, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has decided that domestic violence is to be a core subject for next year's inspection programme. The inspectorate will also formulate advice for police forces to ensure that domestic violence units are not marginalised.

In addition, researchers who are monitoring the arrest of suspects and decisions that are taken by the police in relation to proceedings have been asked to classify incidents involving domestic violence separately from other types of violence. The findings from all these exercises will inform future action, and will help to develop further the police response to violence within the home.

One of the key elements of strategy for tackling domestic violence is that perpetrators are brought to justice. As with the police response, there needs to be a consistent approach, and to that end the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance to all chief prosecutors about how they and their staff should deal with such cases. The CPS has also published a statement of its prosecution policy, which explains the factors relevant to the review and prosecution of domestic violence cases.

We will continue to stress the importance of treating domestic violence as seriously as we would treat violence outside the home. We also need to bear in mind the special needs of the victims of the crimes. Those needs were brought home to me when I visited the domestic violence unit run by Wandsworth police, and heard from two victims who had suffered over a number of years.

The Government recognise how important it is to provide immediate support and places of safety for those who are escaping from domestic violence. The guidance issued to the police stressed that victims of assault should be put in touch with support services. Such services can play a vital role in providing women not only with practical help and advice but with the emotional support they need—assuring them that they are not alone and that the violence is not their fault. That point was made by some hon. Members. Some 375 local victim support services are benefiting this year from Government funding of £8·4 million. In addition, the four women's aid federations also receive grant aid from the Government.

As we made clear in the response to the Select Committee's report, we also recognise the valuable role that is played by refuges in providing emergency accommodation and more long-term support for victims of domestic violence. We paid close attention to the points made by the Committee about the level of refuge provision in this country and the effect that that could have on overall response to domestic violence.

However, in principle we maintain the view that effective local support services, including refuges, are best provided at local level. Such provision can be based on an assessment of local needs and take into account the wider local response. Moreover, in the long term we must continue to pursue policies in other areas that will help more women to stay in their homes and reduce the need for such an enormous and desperate upheaval.

Refuge provision is to be one of a number of matters that will be discussed by the interdepartmental group on domestic violence. I have listened carefully to the views expressed here this afternoon, and tomorrow I am to meet the Women's Aid Federation of England. I want to hear its ideas, and I will think carefully about what it has to say as we take this work forward.

The Government welcome the Committee's endorsement of a number of permanent and experimental schemes that are being funded to provide support for victims during the legal process. To assist those who are attending court, the Crown court witness scheme started on a pilot basis in 1990 has now been permanently established. There are now schemes in 36 Crown court centres, with more planned to provide practical advice and emotional support to witnesses in criminal cases.

The Home Office programme development unit was set up last year to fund innovative local projects in the field of crime and criminal justice. Two such programmes are concerned with increasing and improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence, backed up with an increased range of services to support women and meet their welfare needs.

I saw that the Committee visited one of the projects in Islington, where, since February, a skilled civilian team has been attached to the police to work with women victims. The team can undertake immediate crisis counselling, to provide information and to refer women to other agencies in the area with whom the team has established close links. The project aims to encourage the use of legal sanctions, a prompt response to referrals and greater awareness of domestic violence within the community.

In Leeds, a package of projects has been set up to help identify the problems that are experienced by victims of domestic violence in gaining access to support services and to experiment with different responses. A civil court and criminal justice forum has been established to encourage understanding of the victim's needs and to provide an advocacy service to support women who are going to court. Specialised counsellors have also been attached to two local GP surgeries to provide specialised help and information.

Those two different experimental approaches are being evaluated closely. The findings will be disseminated widely to share the lessons that have been learned, and will inform future practical policy development.

My hon. Friend has no responsibility for the judiciary, but will he tell me whether magistrates are being encompassed in the extra information which will be disseminated to give an end result of a better approach to the problem?

I assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure that all involved in criminal law, including magistrates, are fully informed of the resources and information available, particularly when it comes to sentencing offenders. The Government will make sure that magistrates are aware of the range of possibilities open to them.

The Select Commitee rightly identified the need for action against domestic violence which went beyond the criminal justice system. A wider response, involving not only Government but communities and local agencies, is essential. The Government have a role in encouraging local action and in disseminating good practice. More than 100 local schemes to help victims of domestic violence have been funded through the Home Office safer cities projects. In Derby, Hull, Islington and Tower Hamlets, safer cities money is funding domestic violence workers.

In Leicester, a major initiative has been set up to fit emergency alarms in the homes of women at risk from their partners. Similar schemes operate in Bradford and Islington. Multi-agency groups designed to improve local co-ordination have started in Coventry, Hull and Wandsworth. We what to build on the many excellent local initiatives which are being developed throughout the country.

If that is the case, will the Minister explain why the Government have found it appropriate to cut safer cities funding?

The hon. Lady will probably be slightly embarrassed when she discovers that we have expanded the safer cities programme. We expect to increase the number of cities covered from 20 to 40.

One of the tasks of the interdepartmental working group will be to consider how good practice can best be promoted. In particular, we shall consider ways of strengthening co-ordination at local level. Statutory and non-statutory organisations involved in tackling domestic violence have much to gain from exchanging ideas and practices and developing a shared understanding of how they can best respond collectively to domestic violence. Above all, the victims of domestic violence will benefit most from improved local co-ordination.

The way forward must also include steps to prevent domestic violence. One form of prevention which the Select Committee considered involved work with offenders to prevent future reoffending. The Home Office and the Scottish Office are jointly funding a research study to evaluate two innovative projects—the CHANGE project in Central region and the probation project in Lothian. Those projects aim to change the behaviour of men who abuse their partner.

We recognise the importance of raising awareness throughout society of domestic violence in schools, among professionals in services which may come into contact with domestic violence and among the public at large. The National Curriculum Council's guidance to schools on health education suggests that both sex education and family life education should be key components of the curriculum.

We agree with the Select Committee that there is a clear need for more public information on domestic violence. Such information should emphasise that domestic violence is against the law. It should encourage victims to seek help and advice, and it should explain where such assistance is to be found. The interdepartmental group will give thought to what more can be done and how it might be achieved.

Many hon. Members referred to the law on provocation in homicide. If the House will permit me, I should like to remind it of what we said in our response:
"As the Committee noted, the law has responded with flexibility to the particular circumstances of domestic violence victims, whilst maintaining the distinction between a less culpable (though still unlawful) reaction to provocation and murder. The Government does not. consider that the Law Commission's proposal on provocation would improve the courts' ability to draw that distinction in individual cases and has no current plans to amend the law in this area. The Government takes the view that the law on provocation, particularly in the light of the Lord Chief Justice's remarks in Ahluwalia, maintains a proper balance between a reluctance on the one hand to exonerate pre-meditated revenge killing and a desire to leave a judgment on the facts of the individual case to the jury. The law does not, in the Government's view, require the reaction to provocation to be instantaneous. However, it is quite right that evidence of pre-meditation should undermine a defence of provocation. A delay between the provoking circumstance and the act of killing may also provide evidence to undermine such a defence, but that is for the jury to decide on the facts before them. The Government does not share the Committee's view that the law is uncertain or unclear."

The Minister rightly quoted the Lord Chief Justice. Does he agree that the Lord Chief Justice's remarks on provocation are obiter dicta? Does he feel that a new definition of the law is therefore necessary?

No, I do not agree. The Select Committee's point was that the law was inflexible and could not respond to modern circumstances. It is clear that the law can be flexible and can change, as we have seen in the development of cases which resulted in Ahluwalia.

No. I must allow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton a few minutes to respond.

In the short time available to me today, I hope that I have provided an idea of the range of work currently in hand, and of our plans for the future. I have shown that progress has been made in recent years. But the Government accept that more can and should be done.

Since the Select Committee finished its investigation, we have begun the process of developing our proposals for future action in a committed and co-ordinated way. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), asked me whether the group had met. The official working group on domestic violence has met twice. It has discussed areas in which work can be taken forward at national and local level.

I can inform the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that, thanks to the Scottish Office representatives in Edinburgh, the Edinburgh zero tolerance campaign was brought before the interdepartmental working group. The group has discussed and examined the campaign.

We believe that the interdepartmental group will make a significant contribution to co-ordinating our policies to tackle all facets of domestic violence. It is certainly not the end of the matter simply because the Select Committee has produced a report, the Government have responded to it, and we have had this debate. I assure the House that we shall continue to give this serious and widespread problem the priority that it deserves.

6.56 pm

We have had an excellent debate, and I shall highlight some of the features that have made it so. First, there was cross-party agreement. There was a lot of light and little heat, which will have made it appallingly bad television. Secondly, there was agreement about the size of the problem and the matters which needed to be dealt with. Thirdly, the need for more refuges was highlighted. Such refuges need central funding, whether it is dispensed by local authorities or not.

Fourthly, there was a common welcome for the change in police culture. Domestic violence is now treated as a crime. The fact of arrest may provide a deterrent. Fifthly, there was agreement on the confusion of the law, which needs to be simplified. Out of that should also come better access to legal aid for afflicted women, and more victim-friendly court procedures.

Sixthly, the value of publicity was emphasised. We should bring it home to people that they are not alone if they go to complain about the treatment that they have received in their home. Seventhly, the problems of ethnic minority women were well covered in the debate.

Eighthly, disappointment was expressed that the changes which the Committee recommended on provocation were not welcomed by the Government. I hope that they will reconsider, because the feeling in the Committee was strongly that there should be some clarification. If the Law Commission has decided that the changes would be a good thing, a good thing they are likely to be. I do not suppose for a moment that the Lord Chief Justice would oppose the wishes of the Law Commission on that matter.

Ninthly, there was a broad welcome for the report. It is unusual for Select Committee reports to receive that response. It is also unusual to receive a reasonably enthusiastic response from the Government. The Government response was not unreasonable in all the circumstances. There may even have been some indication that there is a need for positive action and that the cost of meeting some of our requirements and our recommendations would be more than covered by the savings in the rest of system if there is inaction.

For all those reasons, it has been an excellent debate. It provides justification for the Select Committee system, it provides justification for having half a day to debate its provisions, and, hopefully, the beneficiaries of it all will be the victims of domestic violence.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Croydon Tramlink Bill Lords

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This private Bill is jointly promoted by London Regional Transport and the London borough of Croydon, and I am pleased to introduce it. The purpose of the Bill is to seek powers to enable the construction and operation of a tram system to be known as tramlink, connecting the centre of Croydon to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.

London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services in Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London, and to the efficiency, economy and safety of operation. Croydon council has numerous statutory duties, especially as a highway planning authority, and is also empowered to produce an economic strategy. The new unitary development plan for Croydon has identified the need to develop efficient and reliable public transport as an attractive alternative to the car, while, at the same time, promoting environmental policies as an important consideration in any new developments. The council considers tramlink—

To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about environmental policies, why have the promoters not been able to respond to the petition from the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association? They suggest that, since much of the scheme will take up public open space, it would be logical for the promoters to find compensatory open space for the land.

The scheme has been designed to minimise the impact on open space. I shall say a few more words about that later. However, there is already a large amount of valuable open space in Croydon and the promoters believe that the impact on open space would be limited; therefore, they were not able to meet the demands that have been outlined by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is significant that the Association of Croydon Conservation Societies supports the Bill.

I am sure that hon. Members are aware that London is suffering from severe congestion in its public transportation system, both on roads and on the public transport network. The CBI has estimated that the cost of the congestion of London's transport system amounts to a staggering £10 billion per annum. Hon. Members will also be aware of the pollution effects of cars on the environment. Studies have been undertaken to propose long-term solutions to those problems in central and Greater London.

Following the successful promotion of the scheme to authorise the construction of the Docklands light railway, London Regional Transport and British Rail carried out a joint study into the contribution that light railways could make to the improvement of transport in London. A report published in 1986 identified a number of areas where light railways could be of value. Chief among those was a system based on Croydon, using a mixture of BR lines and new construction to link Croydon with its adjoining boroughs. Further work was carried out with the active co-operation of the local council, and in 1987 a system of three routes was identified as economically viable, physically possible and of great benefit to the economic life of the area.

In 1989, further reports were prepared for the Department of Transport on the transport problems of various parts of London. One of those, the south London assessment study, related to Croydon and its adjoining boroughs. The report identified existing traffic problems and traffic congestion as the most important issue. Those reports generated a lot of concern in south London, because their key proposal to alleviate the transport problem in London was major, massive road building. Politicians of all parties and local interest groups objected strongly to those proposals, and they were rightly dropped.

The reports also examined other proposals such as traffic management measures, junction improvements, road widening and new routes. Bus priority measures and the restructuring of bus and British Rail routes were also included. Croydon council has implemented many of those road and junction improvements to make better use of the existing road network, but it also concluded that a more ambitious approach to the problems of congestion was required, which, at the same time, would offer substantial environmental and economic benefits.

I follow my hon. Friend's logic about the need to ease congestion, and I share his feelings about problems with building more roads, but does he agree that it would be far better to use existing British Rail infrastructure to improve links in that part of London rather than put in new infrastructure? Does he accept that running trams down the centre of roads in Croydon will hardly ease traffic congestion?

The Bill proposes using a lot of existing British Rail track. However, there are problems because British Rail track is quite inflexible and difficult to extend to other areas. One of the advantages of introducing a light rail system is the greater flexibility to extend it to other areas.

My hon. Friend is right to mention impact on roads where light rail has to run, but it is possible, with good design and traffic management measures, to minimise any impact to enable the light rail to run on existing roads.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the first constituency in the country to use electric trams was my own of Blackpool. We were the one town, not only in this country but in western Europe, never to abandon trams. We are delighted that my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Croydon are proposing to bring back trams, because they are very successful. I know that his scheme is based on the one that is already operating in Manchester. I strongly support his comments about the ability of tram schemes to lessen congestion and to run along roads.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Like many hon. Members, I have experienced the joys of a Blackpool tram on a wet and windy night at certain party conferences in that illustrious resort. I have also visited Manchester. The small impact of Manchester's light rail system in terms of noise and visual intrusion is striking. At one stage during the drawing up of the proposals for the light rail system, I had the pleasure of visiting Wimbledon. The contrast between the noise of British Rail trains on the track and light rail has to be heard to be believed.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has trodden the path between Croydon and Wimbledon, a path that we hope will become a light rail in due course. I look forward to much interchange between our constituencies.

To take up the logic of my hon. Friend's point about using existing rail, as would be the case in my constituency, that is nonsense if one does not continue the logic so that the rail ends where the existing rail at present terminates at Wimbledon station. I understand that the proposals are for a terminus elsewhere, which would be nonsense for my constituency.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the promoters would have preferred an interchange into platform 10 at Wimbledon station. When the Bill was deposited, it was quite clear that no agreement could be reached with British Rail, which understandably took the view that it might want to extend other services for which it would use platform 10. That has caused my hon. Friend some concern, as it has some people in Merton. Now that the issue has been reviewed, although it was thought at one stage that the proposal would run into the buffers, British Rail considers that there is merit in looking at it again. A feasibility study by BR has stated that in principle it is prepared to allow tramlink to use platform 10.

I know that the promoters hope that discussions with BR will continue, to arrive at the solution that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes)—and they—would like, as the scheme would greatly benefit from a full interchange at Wimbledon station. There is no doubt that the proposal in the Bill has always been viewed as a second best alternative. We would like the full interchange at Wimbledon along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.

Earlier, I was discussing the studies carried out in Croydon. The council concluded that the tramlink scheme offered the prospect of a revitalised public transport system and a credible alternative to transport by car. It also concluded that the system could be reliable, quiet, efficient and accessible to all. It would improve the environment and the amenities of the locality. As a result of this conclusion, Croydon council resolved to develop tramlink in conjunction with LRT.

Before becoming a Member of this House I had the pleasure of serving as a councillor in Croydon for 16 years, the last six of them as deputy leader to Sir Peter Bowness. In that capacity, I was a member of the tramlink working party, set up to enable senior members from both sides of the council—including the leader, deputy leader, Councillor Mary Walker, who was leader of the Labour group, and others—to make progress with the proposal and to offer guidance to officers working on the complex issues involved.

I pay tribute to the genuinely bipartisan approach adopted by all in that exercise. I also pay tribute to the commitment of members and officers of the council. From this cross-party coalition there emerged a recognition of the significant benefits that the scheme would bring to the area. I hope that the same bipartisan approach will be shown in the House tonight.

The project is, and has been, an example of how good cross-party support for a scheme can bring great benefits to an area. It is also an excellent example of local government working well to the benefit of its people.

The scheme would connect central Croydon with Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington. The Wimbledon branch would extend frorn the terminus near or—I hope—at the BR station to central Croydon. The line will use the existing BR branch line and will replace the rail service between Wimbledon and West Croydon. It will provide for an interchange with other BR services at Wimbledon, Mitcham junction and West Croydon. The line will provide a more frequent and attractive service, with additional stops connecting residential areas with rail services into London.

The branch connecting central Croydon to Beckenham will share an existing alignment with British Rail services. A disused British Rail alignment will also be used, and new track will be constructed where necessary. This line will connect the highly developed commuter areas of Beckenham, Elmers End and Woodside with Croydon, as well as providing an interchange with British Rail services at Beckenham.