Sitting of 24 June 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Deregulation
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he had on deregulation during his recent visit to the far east. [32603]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): During my discussions with senior leaders in the far east, I emphasised the positive contribution of privatisation and deregulation to the competitiveness of the UK economy.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no mere coincidence that job opportunities have grown much more rapidly in the deregulated labour markets of the far east and north America than in continental Europe? Did he give the leaders of the economies of the far east an assurance that the Government would never adopt the job destruction measures that are inherent in the social chapter and the minimum wage?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I was able to go a little further than that because I was able to make it clear that
    2
    job creation is proceeding faster in Britain than in the rest of the European Union. One of the reasons for that is the combination of deregulation and privatisation.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Since returning from the far east, what discussions has the Deputy Prime Minister held about deregulation and food safety? Does he have complete confidence in the Minister of Agriculture? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with a junior Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that: the Minister of Agriculture will be in his job for many months to come, or does he think that the Minister is a clapped-out old milker?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can give the right hon. Gentleman a wholly positive answer to those questions because, unlike the shadow Cabinet, the members of the Government are on extremely good terms.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I enormously appreciate the tremendous efforts that he has made to hack through the jungle of regulation? However, I received a communiqué from my chamber of commerce in Lancaster this morning which says that there is still too much regulation at local level. Regulations are being embroidered that should not be embroidered. Can he do something to prevent that leakage?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises one of the most important aspects of deregulation. A great deal of the concern about regulation relates to its implementation, and the varied practices of implementation, at local level. That is why she will share my pleasure that we have introduced an appeals system to give local businesses the possibility of redress in such cases.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many visits he has made to Wales since becoming Deputy Prime Minister to co-ordinate the work of his Department with the Welsh Office. [32604]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I work closely together to ensure that Wales gains full benefit from the Government's policies.
    Mr. Griffiths: I assume from that answer that the Deputy Prime Minister has not visited the Welsh Office once. Is that reluctance to visit Wales due to the Government's disastrous handling of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and its impact on the rural economy, to their pathetic response to the Sea Empress disaster or to his painful experience in Wales when he baled out of the Army to fight a by-election? Does he think that a visit would improve or worsen the fourth-party, lunatic fringe standing of his party in Wales?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: On balance, I think that a visit by me to Wales would be a wholly desirable event. To show the ignorance upon which the hon. Gentleman's question is based, I might say that I visited Cardiff Arms park on 23 February to announce on behalf of the Millennium Commission the rebuilding of the stadium. On 15 March, I was back again in Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil and Llandrindod Wells to spread the good news of the transformation that the Government have made in the Welsh economy.

    European Union (Policy Co-ordination)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are his responsibilities in respect of coordinating the policy of Her Majesty's Government with other Governments in the European Union. [32607]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): Co-ordination of policy with our European partners is a matter for individual Ministers within their respective areas of responsibility, and overall for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Hughes: Individual Ministers may be on good terms with each other, but they are clearly responsible for causing the problem. In the past months, we have seen the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food getting into a huge hole, which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his colleagues have had to dig him out of. What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give the House that, in future, we shall have a sufficiently good relationship with our European colleagues that we do not become the pariahs of the European Union, to the disadvantage, not of Ministers of the Crown, but of the people of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture is, at this moment, participating fully in the Agriculture Council. He has done a magnificent job in defending the interests of the British farming industry and he will continue to do so. In the past four weeks of our policy of non-co-operation—which has now come to an end—we have successfully focused the minds of Ministers and Governments in the European Union. We have now reached a successful conclusion in the sense that a framework document has been agreed that
    4
    will lead to an early lifting of the ban. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be saying something further about the timetable at 3.30 pm.
    Mr. Sykes: Do not the Germans, Spanish and Italians practise the same techniques all the time? When my right hon. Friend next goes to talk to other Governments in Europe, will he bring to their attention the dangerous provision of the 48-hour week and the fact that it was introduced into this country in a deceitful way? Will he take the same attitude towards that as he has towards beef?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, unlike the Opposition, we shall continue to fight for the national interests of the United Kingdom, which is not inconsistent with belonging to the European Union. Since the inception of the Common Market, which is now the European Union, this country has always fought for British interests, just as other countries have fought for their interests.
    Mr. Mandelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman throw away the cryptic text prepared for him over the weekend that tried to dismiss the story as rubbish and answer a simple question of fact? Is there in existence a letter from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Prime Minister criticising the Government's handling of the beef crisis and making a threat, veiled or otherwise, to resign from the Government?
    Mr. Freeman: If ever there was an author of cryptic messages in party politics or Parliament, the hon. Gentleman must take the prize. The answer to the wholly erroneous newspaper story was, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, rubbish.

    Government Departments (Efficiency)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase competition between Government Departments in respect of increasing efficiency; if he will institute suitable rewards for the most successful; and if he will make a statement. [32608]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): The Government will continue using competition to improve the efficiency of public services. The rewards, which will be for everyone to share, are better-quality and more cost-effective services for users and improved value for money for taxpayers.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which I warmly welcome. Would it not be nice to give Departments an incentive to improve in the way that they need to, can and will? What about a few sides of good British beef for those Departments that do really well?
    Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that ingenious suggestion. Any ideas for improving the quality of public services, especially from Conservative Members, will be carefully considered.
    Mr. Gunnell: If the Government are so committed to the efficiency of their Departments and believe that efficiency exists, why are the targets that have been set

    5
    for many Departments for the current year below the level of efficiency reached last year? Are the Government attempting to cook their own books?
    Mr. Willetts: There is no question of cooking the books. Every year, we set targets that are credible and take account of the Department's performance in the previous year. We are always pressing for improvements on the previous year's performance.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received concerning the over-regulation of small businesses. [32609]
    Mr. Freeman: Earlier this year, I received over 500 letters from small businesses when I invited them to tell me what regulations were hampering their business. At the final "Your Business Matters" conference on 11 March, we announced a package of deregulation measures in response to the concerns raised. We are now continuing our contacts with businesses through a series of special deregulation seminars.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that small businesses are the backbone of this country and that we ought to do as much as we possibly can to lift burdens from them, so that they can grow and employ more people? Is he therefore as concerned as I am at the possibility of the introduction of the regulations incorporating the 48-hour directive, which would undoubtedly affect some small businesses? We did not sign up to that directive; indeed, we explicitly opted out of it. Is the Minister aware that he will have the support of the vast majority of businesses, small, medium and large, in his fight to resist the imposition of the 48-hour directive?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that small businesses would suffer greatly from the erroneous and dangerous election of a Labour Government, who would agree to qualified majority voting on the social chapter provisions of the Maastricht treaty. That would mean a great many expensive burdens on small businesses. The Opposition are by no means the friend of small businesses. It is this Government who have consistently deregulated and who will defend small and large businesses against inflexible and expensive welfare state laws.
    Mr. Olner: Does not the Minister speak with forked tongue? Will he admit that, for every deregulation order that the Government have introduced in recent years, they have brought in three new regulation orders which have crippled small businesses?
    Mr. Freeman: That is a travesty of the truth. Neither Labour Front Benchers nor Back Benchers have any genuine interest in the deregulation initiative, and Labour would sideline it if ever elected to government. In the past 12 months alone, we have lifted burdens from small companies by allowing more than 500,000 of them to pay VAT annually; and we have lifted the auditing burdens from another 500,000.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
    6
    and Development, which found that the reasons why small businesses in this country produce so many new jobs arc the deregulation and privatisation effected by the Government, and the lowering of company taxation for small businesses? Was he as nauseated as I was to see the Leader of the Opposition last week in Germany attempting to glory in the transformation of the economy that those very measures have brought about—given that he voted against every single one of them?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, experience of the social market experiments in Germany and other EU countries shows how dangerous they can be, in the sense that those countries lose competitiveness. Germany's unit costs, compared with ours, have meant that time and again Germany has lost, and we have gained, inward investment. In competition with those other countries, they lose and we gain in terms of export markets.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to visit Plymouth and the southwest of England to discuss the competitiveness of the region. [32610]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I shall be visiting the south-west to discuss competitiveness in a few weeks' time.
    Mr. Jamieson: During that visit, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether he agrees with the Prime Minister that there should be a grammar school in every town? Or does he agree with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who apparently voted to close the grammar schools in Norfolk? How will competitiveness in the south-west be enhanced by reintroducing secondary modern schools—a system that declares that 80 per cent. of children aged 11 have failed?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point: divisions on education are not among Conservative Members; they are among Opposition Members. The Leader of the Opposition does one thing for his children and tries to stop the rest of the country doing the same for theirs.
    Sir Peter Emery: When considering competitiveness in the south-west, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the great need of businesses in the area to have their mail delivered? Although we may not always have seen eye to eye on this, it is obvious that if strikes continue to upset businesses in the south-west or anywhere else, the Post Office's monopoly will have to be broken.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I welcome my right hon. Friend to a cause on which I failed to persuade him a few months ago—it just goes to show that they all come around in the end. I am concerned, as are the Government—
    Mr. Lewis: Another Tory cover-up.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am answering the question, not the hon. Gentleman.

    7
    The House should be preoccupied with the customers—with the people who are waiting for letters, with the people who expect to get a decent service. It should not be preoccupied with the understandable, but regrettable, commitment of the Labour party to defend the unions whenever they take action that threatens the interests of the wider public.
    Mr. Caborn: I convey the thanks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to the Deputy Prime Minister for the witty get well message that he sent to him earlier today. My right hon. Friend wants also to convey the message that it has brought a whole new meaning to hop-along deputy.
    I am surprised at the answer that the Deputy Prime Minister has given about competitiveness in the south-west region. That region is now well below average in gross domestic product per capita terms. When will he set out a positive programme of regeneration for the regions, which clearly was not in his recent White Paper? I am sure that he acknowledges that regeneration will come through the regions. Will he take seriously the recent Confederation of British Industry report on the south-west, which posed a number of questions about competitiveness? Will he also take on board the recommendations of the Bruce Millan commission—which was set up by the Labour party—which has just reported on regeneration of the regions? When will we have a debate on the competitiveness White Paper?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to the message that I sent to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when I received the news that he had fractured his foot and had been taken to a major hospital in the area. I hope that he gets well soon, and I am delighted that he is receiving excellent treatment in that hospital. As I pointed out to him, Tory government works.
    As to the specific issue of the regeneration of the south-west, I believe that the Government are taking that matter seriously. We have asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to take a special co-ordinating role to focus Government support. I had the opportunity to lead in the creation of the urban development corporation in Plymouth which, as hon. Members will know, made available some £41 million for the regeneration of the Royal William dockyard and its environs.
    In addition, £170 million of European rural development funds have gone to Devon, Cornwall and west Somerset; £79 million has been levered in by £13.5 million of regional selective assistance; there have been £72 million-worth of projects in the south-west in the first two rounds of the single regeneration budget; and £23 million of European funds have gone to the regeneration of Plymouth. I am delighted to see the support that has been given to that by the excellent newspaper, the Western Morning News.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to destroy competitiveness in the south-west region—or in any other region—is to introduce the minimum wage, as is suggested by the Labour party? It would result in lost orders, businesses going under and jobs being lost.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am delighted to have another chance to refer to the right hon. Member for
    8
    Kingston upon Hull, East who, on the subject of the minimum wage, referred to the loss of jobs and said. "Any fool knows that." If he knows it, it proves the point.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the efficacy of parliamentary procedures relating to the answering of questions for which he has responsibility. [32611]
    Mr. Willetts: My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment. My colleagues and I always try to bear in mind the injunction in "Erskine May" that answers
    "should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible."
    Although "Erskine May" adds temptingly
    "a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown",
    I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, would rein us in if we strayed too far.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Perhaps the Minister should move off "Erskine May" and on to the conclusions of Sir Richard Scott. Subsequent to his inquiry, he said that Parliament should not be fobbed off by blocking and inadequate answers from Ministers. Does he agree with another suggestion put forward by Sir Richard Scott—that there should be a parliamentary watchdog to ensure that Parliament is told the truth?
    Mr. Willetts: The crucial responsibility is that of a Minister to the House. I believe that here in the Chamber of the House, both Opposition Members and Government Members can hold Ministers to account for the answers that they give.
    Dr. Spink: May I press my hon. Friend to say how long it would take his Department to deal with questions on our economic performance including, for instance, a question about the impact of the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years?
    Mr. Willetts: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity of that supplementary. Of course, if I were invited to regale the House with the story of the British economy since 1979, I would be able to explain that we have the lowest mortgage rates for a generation and that, in the most recent economic cycle, our output per head grew more rapidly than that of any other major economy apart from Japan.

    Scott Inquiry
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the implications for the policy of open government of the evidence on parliamentary answers given by Sir Michael Quinlan to the Scott inquiry. [32612]
    Mr. Freeman: The adversarial nature of Question Time does not detract from the Government's commitment to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why has the Deputy Prime Minister funked answering the question himself?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not content. I am the Minister responsible not only for the

    9
    code of conduct but for the rules that apply to all Ministers when they answer to Parliament. I am the Minister with day-to-day responsibility for the civil service and I have answered the debates on both Nolan and Scott. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted to ask a supplementary, I would have willingly replied inp—I hope—a constructive fashion.
    Mr. Dalyell: So, may I have a supplementary?
    Madam Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman had a supplementary and I thought it was perfectly proper.

    Magistrates (Bolton)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about the recruitment and working conditions of magistrates in Bolton. [32613]
    Mr. Freeman: I approved the appointment of 18 persons to the Bolton bench earlier this year, following recommendations from my advisory committee in Bolton. The working conditions of magistrates in Bolton are a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is the Chancellor aware of how strongly people in Bolton feel about the need for a new magistrates court? Will he press his colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury to give an immediate go-ahead to that important contract, which was so unfairly stopped?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman refers to the buildings in Bolton that house the magistrates courts, which date from the 1930s. As I understand the situation from the Lord Chancellor's Department, a private finance initiative proposal is on the table. I give my assurance to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I will investigate the status of that proposal and convey to the Lord Chancellor and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary not only the hon. Gentleman's concern but my interest.

    Government Policies (Promotion)
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department in promoting Government policies. [32615]
    Mr. Willetts: The results of the fundamental expenditure review of the Office of Public Service have been published. The effectiveness of the Department is kept under review through MINIS—the ministerial information system.
    Mr. Winnick: Can the Minister explain why the Government have the lowest opinion poll ratings of all time, are incapable of winning any by-elections and have done dismally at local elections? Would not it be wise for the Prime Minister to summon up enough courage to call an autumn election? If he is speculating about doing that, as we are told in the press, why does not he pluck up the courage, call it and let the people decide?
    Mr. Willetts: My party won two local authority by-elections last Thursday. We had a successful
    10
    conclusion to the European Commission's proposals on beef at the European summit and we shall publish an exciting White Paper on education tomorrow. In due course, we shall put our policies to the electorate.

    Ministerial Responsibilities
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the principal Government policy with which he was concerned in the week beginning 17 June. [32616]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have continued to work on a full range of those Government policies for which I am responsible.
    Mr. Arnold: In view of the callous bombing in Manchester recently, I welcome the visit that my right hon. Friend intends to make to that city. Will he ensure that every arm of Government rallies around Manchester to help it to recover fully from that outrage?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The Prime Minister has asked me to go to Manchester on Wednesday this week, and I shall do so. I hope to meet with civic and private sector leaders in order to ensure that the Government's resources are used effectively wherever appropriate. If those resources can be co-ordinated better in dealing with the horrendous consequences of that dastardly act, the Government will have done all that is proper in the circumstances.
    Mr. Lewis: When the right hon. Gentleman visits Manchester on Wednesday, will he meet small business people from the Corn Exchange and the Royal Exchange complexes? Small businesses have suffered huge financial losses in the past week and some business people cannot access the buildings to see what stock they have left. I am afraid that insurance companies are already ducking and diving about insurance matters. When the right hon. Gentleman visits Manchester, I ask him to meet those people and to not go empty-handed.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I shall go with the intention of meeting as wide a representation of the community as I can during what, by definition, must be a limited visit. I expect to see representatives of small and medium companies. The first stage is to visit the city, to listen to the people and to take stock of the situation. That is obviously what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants me to do before I report back to him.

    Millennium Exhibition
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what part he has played in the planning of a millennium exhibition. [32617]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As a member of the Millennium Commission, I have taken part in numerous discussions about the exhibition. Over the past month, I have been working with Sir Peter Levene, who was asked by the commission to advise members oil the commercial soundness and practical feasibility of proposals. There is now significant private sector support

    11
    for the plans and, as the chairman of the commission announced last week, the exhibition is going ahead at Greenwich.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, when I asked the Secretary of State for National Heritage on Friday what recent decisions she had made about the exhibition, she replied that she would answer as soon as possible? As the Deputy Prime Minister is a member of the commission, is he aware of my suggestions of some weeks ago that we celebrate the millennium on both a regional and a national basis? Greenwich is the originator of mean time and young people should be encouraged to look towards 2051 to see how we could implement nationally and internationally the purposes and the aims of the United Nations charter. Is it too late for that sort of vision to be incorporated in the mess that now confronts the country?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should describe the millennium festival in that manner. All parties welcome the fact that the country proposes to stage what appears to be the largest event of its sort in the world. Its purpose is to show Britain at its best as it faces the new century, and I hope that that spirit will be adopted by all. It is not a party political event—a Labour party representative is a member of the Millennium Commission and I welcome the statements emanating from the Labour party in support of it. My fellow commissioners and I are working with the private sector to ensure that there is the widest possible manifestation of support from that sector. We are in the business of projecting the excellence of this country into the next century, and we all have an interest in that.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome the efforts that have been made to secure the millennium exhibition for Greenwich, and in particular, the work of my right hon. Friend in helping to bring that about. What steps will be taken to ensure that there are long-term benefits from the regeneration of that important site in Greenwich?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks an important question which is much in the minds of Millennium Commission members. I have visited many regeneration projects in many cities. When projects begin, it is extremely difficult to predict how the regeneration process will develop as confidence builds. It is dangerous to try to forecast some dramatic scheme that is devised by planners and politicians on the basis of wishful thinking rather than on a factual assessment. That could choke the spontaneous working of the market, which can encourage a degree of confidence and produce a range of proposals that were not envisaged by the originators of the scheme. It is difficult to strike a balance, but we shall do what we can to ensure the most imaginative use of the site in the longer term. However, the Millennium Commission is responsible for organising the festival.

    Florence Summit
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what contribution he has made to the promotion of Government policy in respect of the Florence summit; and if he will make a statement. [32619]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on the Florence European Council today.
    Mr. Williams: The Deputy Prime Minister will accept that farmers in my constituency are not exactly dancing with delight at the result of the Florence summit. An extra 100,000 cattle are to be slaughtered, 95 per cent. of which have no traces of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, in exchange for a framework agreement without a timetable. What part did the right hon. Gentleman play in this humiliating climbdown for Britain in Europe?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Prime Minister's achievements at the Florence summit exceeded all expectations. It is not for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but I can say that the thing most likely to prejudice the summit's successful outcome was the Leader of the Opposition telling the Germans what they wanted to hear before the summit, at the expense of British self-interest.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    International Debt
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of international debt as a factor in civil instability or conflict. [32634]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We have no reason to believe that debt burdens have led to civil conflict, but there is a good deal of evidence to link economic problems with the breakdown of civil order. That is why we encourage Governments to implement sound policies that promote stable economic growth.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree—indeed, do the Government agree—that, in certain circumstances, debt can be a most potent, although hidden, form of slavery? Has his attention been drawn to the report of the Debt Crisis Network, appendix 2 and 3 of which point out that the conditions imposed on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia by the International Monetary Fund were factors in exacerbating regional and ethnic differences, which contributed to the atrocities of which we are only too well aware? Will the Minister therefore send those appendices to the IMF, request the responses of our representative at the IMF and of its president and place their report and his own observations on it in the Library?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I am not aware of the appendices to which he refers. If he will send them to me, I will study them and place my reply in the Library. Debt is only one of a number of factors that force Governments to spend less on social services and cause other problems. The primary cause of problems in countries with high debt is poor budget prioritisation and long-term economic mismanagement, leading to weak or negative economic growth. I am sure that the debt problem in the countries

    13
    to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not one of the prime causes for the serious disasters from which they have suffered; in many countries, rapid population growth and weak public sector management are other factors. The important thing is to recover and to use debt sensibly, and I am proud of this nation's record of turning debt into aid and of forgiving debt.
    Sir Jim Lester: Is that not all the more reason why we should continue to support the British Government and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his efforts to relieve multilateral debt in negotiations with the IMF and the World bank? The president of the World bank will attend a meeting in the House next week, at which, I hope, the positive steps for which we have all worked will be taken to anticipate and ease the problems of countries where multilateral debt is a severe restriction on the future.
    Mr. Hanley: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The British Government have written off the aid debts of 31 of the world's poorest countries: a total of £1.2 billion has been written off. All our aid to the poorest countries is now on grant terms so that their debt burden is not increased, and we have taken the lead in pressing for solutions to that burden.
    The official bilateral debt of the poorest countries is now being rescheduled on Naples terms, and 18 countries have benefited so far. Last month, creditors wrote off some $500 million, more than 50 per cent. of Guyana's official bilateral debt. My hon. Friend referred, however, specifically to multilateral debt. The British Government have also taken the lead in pressing for more action on that, and significant progress has been made on agreeing a framework for action. We hope that progress at this week's G7 summit will lead to agreed measures later this year.
    Miss Lestor: Although the recent increase in private sector investment in developing countries is welcome, it is not reaching the poorest African countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) pointed out, those countries need urgent debt relief measures and high-quality assistance if they are to avoid some of the results and repercussions of debt. Bearing it in mind that the World bank itself has said that without debt reduction foreign investment will be discouraged, what plans has the ODA to rescue sub-Saharan Africa from its crippling debt problems? Will it discuss the matter with the IMF and the World bank?
    Whatever the Government's record may be on trying to alleviate debt, some of the poorest countries are still suffering enormously from the burden that they carry. We need action now, not in a few years' time.
    Mr. Hanley: I do not entirely agree. As the hon. Lady knows, Britain's aid programme is substantial, and is increasingly focused on the poorest countries in Africa and south Asia where the needs are greatest. We certainly do not ignore the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. In Africa, support for economic reform and social sectors remains a high priority. Our aid is concentrated on the poorest nations, and Africa benefits from that.

    Angola
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much
    14
    (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral assistance the Government (i) gave in 1995–96 and (ii) plan to give in 1996–97 to Angola. [32635]
    Mr. Hanley: Provisional bilateral outturn for 1995–96 was some £12 million; our share of the multilateral EC figure for 1994 was approximately £5 million. The 1996–97 bilateral commitments for Angola currently total some £9 million. Angola's allocation under the seventh European development fund was 115 million ecu; the United Kingdom's share is £15 million. That for EDF 8, which is to run from 1996 to 2000, is now under discussion, but our share will be 12.7 per cent.
    Mr. Hunter: The successful implementation of the Lusaka protocol depends largely on the success of the United Nations-monitored quartering process. Does my right hon. Friend share the concern that overcrowding in the camps, deteriorating health conditions and sanitation and a decline in the quality of food supplies are undermining that process? If so, will the Government take steps to ensure that the UN and other agencies address the problems?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful for his concern for Angola, and for the steps that are helping to improve confidence there.
    Progress in the peace process is frustratingly slow, but we are encouraged by recent movement. I hope that the quartering of UNITA will be completed without further delay so that work can begin on the formation of a unified army and then a Government of national unity and reconciliation. Fourteen quartering areas have been established to receive troops, but I am disappointed that the rate of quartering has not been faster. I am concerned about the quality of many of those that have been quartered, and about the quantity of weapons being handed in.
    There are concerns about the conditions in some quartering areas. Undoubtedly it is a formidable logistical task for UNAVEM—the United Nations Angola Verification Mission III—but the emphasis must be on the Government of Angola and UNITA co-operating with UNAVEM to make the operation a success, rather than exploiting the difficulties as an excuse not to fulfil their obligations.

    Turkey
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment has been made by the United Kingdom, in conjunction with the EU and the UN Commission on Human Rights, of the human rights record of the Turkish Government in respect of their eligibility for development assistance. [32636]
    Mr. Hanley: The United Kingdom and our European Union partners regularly raise human rights issues with the Turkish Government, in the context of the EU's financial assistance programme for Turkey and in the wider political and trade relationship. In bilateral contacts and at the UN Commission on Human Rights, the EU has made it clear to Turkey that this assistance is conditional on Turkey's continuing commitment to principles of democracy and basic human rights.
    Mrs. Clwyd: If that is so, will the Minister confirm that he has read the latest Amnesty International report on

    15
    human rights in Turkey, which makes absolutely appalling reading? It shows that Kurdish prisoners are ill treated and tortured, and that Kurds are generally treated as third-rate citizens in their own country. How will this affect relations between this country and Turkey, let alone between the European Union and Turkey? I hope that the Minister will answer my question directly.
    Mr. Hanley: It is important to set concerns about human rights in Turkey in a broader context. We want Turkey to be firmly anchored to western institutions, because the closer Turkey is to western institutions the better we are able to express our concerns about human rights and the more influence we can bring to bear. Co-operation is a more effective approach than confrontation. We do not believe that linkage of human rights with, for example, bilateral aid or economic trade is productive. Moreover, the atrocities in Turkey are not on only one side. We deplore any breach of human rights, whether it is committed by the PKK or by the Turkish Government.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Why will not the Government make it clear to Turkey that Greek Cypriot citizens in northern Cyprus will not have any human rights until Turkey withdraws its troops and allows them the democratic right to reclaim and to vote for their Government and to discover whether people who have disappeared are alive or dead? It is a very simple issue: why have the Government been so pathetic about it for 22 years?
    Mr. Hanley: It is a simple issue, and one about which I feel very strongly, but it has nothing to do with this question. The hon. Gentleman's question is a responsibility not of the Overseas Development Administration but of the Foreign Office. I hope that he will table such a question to it.

    Child Labour
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance he is providing in 1996–97 to organisations working to eradicate child labour in developing countries. [32637]
    Mr. Hanley: We give considerable assistance to organisations that adopt an integrated approach to children's issues, but it is not possible to provide the exact amounts spent on the problem of child labour. However, we encourage a range of initiatives and engage in policy exchange.
    Mr. MacShane: I thank the Minister for his answer. I find it quite appalling that the British Government are the only Government who cannot put a figure on the help that they provide to eradicate child labour around the world. Is the Minister aware that child labour is increasing and that it is a major international issue? Other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development want the issue to be raised at the International Labour Organisation and to be banned. Will he ask the Prime Minister—who gave a disgraceful reply to a question on this issue last Thursday—not to turn a
    16
    Nelsonian blind eye to child labour, but to instruct out officials everywhere to join the campaign to eradicate this monstrous practice?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentlemen is being extremely unfair in saying that we are the only nation that cannot identify how much we spend on the problem of child labour. He has made a wicked suggestion. He knows full well that when we give money to non-governmental organisations we do not necessarily know exactly how much they will choose to spend on the problem of child labour. Under our aid programme, we give generously to a number of organisations. What I have said is accurate: we cannot disaggregate the figures, so I cannot give him an accurate answer about the exact amount that is spent on child labour. I can tell him, however, that we deplore child labour. We deplore any form of child labour, whether the type of labour is bonded—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Come on.
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is becoming impatient to reach his question, which appears later on the Order Paper. He has been badgering me throughout this Question Time because he wants to ask his question. I hope that I may be allowed to answer the other questions; we will then reach his question.
    We urge Governments to take all necessary measures to eliminate all extreme forms of child labour, including forced and bonded labour. The UK has urged all countries to ratify the international covenant on civil and political rights, which provides that slavery and the slave trade in all their forms shall be prohibited. I am proud of what the Government are doing about this issue.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Far from turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the problems of child labour and of street children, did not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when in Rio de Janeiro for the earth summit, specifically visit a home that takes street children off the streets and educates and trains them for a constructive future? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not know that, he should have done so.
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's record on trying to eradicate child labour in its extreme forms is well known. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

    Papua New Guinea
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is given in respect of preserving the rain forest in Papua New Guinea. [32638]
    Mr. Hanley: Since 1993, we have provided assistance to 13 projects designed to help to preserve Papua New Guinea's rain forests. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of the projects and place a copy in the Library. I should hate to read out all 13 projects because the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) might not have time to ask his question.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are those projects geared to sustainable development? Do they take account of the appalling river pollution from gold mining?
    Mr. Hanley: We certainly concentrate on sustainable development. Since 1993, we have committed £120,000 to the 13 schemes and £70,000 for NGO projects that are financed partly from the ODA's joint funding scheme. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the outflow from the Lihir gold mine and other industrial projects. We must balance sustainable development and timber production with industrial improvements in Papua New Guinea.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many economists are employed by the National Audit Office. [32643]
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office employs about 520 staff who have accountancy qualifications or are training for them. Of those, 69 staff have degrees in economics, although none is currently a full-time professional economist. When specialised advice is needed, the NAO would normally use external experts with a relevant economics background.
    Mr. Marshall: Would my right hon. Friend be willing to second some National Audit Office staff to the European Commission to tackle the problem of fraud that seems endemic in the operation of the common agricultural policy?
    Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I shall certainly convey it to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who frequently consults his counterparts in other European countries and in the European Court of Auditors. It will not be lost on my hon. Friend that one good reason for taking pleasure from the Florence summit is precisely that the Commission will be given more powers to make spot checks, to establish where fraud has been committed and to act.
    Mr. Rooker: Would not the NAO's expert staff be better deployed on investigating the Millennium Commission's scandalous decision to site the millennium exhibition at Greenwich, despite the fact that all the financial information available shows that the bid will not work and will waste public money and despite the presence of a suitable alternative in the midlands?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I cannot comment on the merits of that matter, but if the hon. Gentleman will write to me or the Comptroller and Auditor General, I am sure that it will be investigated.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week members of the Public Accounts Committee visited the European Court of Auditors? That was the first visit since my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, who were then members of the PAC, visited the court 15 years ago. We had extensive discussions about fraud and were informed of progress in dealing with that difficult problem. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not dilute the
    18
    considerable power and influence of the National Audit Office by seconding more than the eight staff who are currently at the European Court of Auditors but that we should continue our discussions with the court to crack this difficult problem?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend is correct. The House is indebted to the PAC and its Chairman for their excellent work in producing the reports. I wish only that public accounts committees in other European countries were as assiduous in establishing where fraud is and in doing something about it.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Former Soviet Union
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to fund food and distribution projects in the former Soviet Union. [32639]
    Mr. Hanley: The know-how fund will continue to give high priority to projects in support of food sector reform. Last year, some 16.1 per cent., or £4.18 million, of know-how fund assistance was devoted to food sector projects. In addition, we have provided more than £1 million in bilateral food aid to countries in the former Soviet Union.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for being a little impetuous earlier. Will he set up an inquiry into overcharging by Arthur Andersen for fees and accommodation in respect of the food distribution contract that it held under the know-how fund in Moscow about two years ago?
    Mr. Hanley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. Just in case he should ask, I have done some research, which shows that, as far as I am aware, there is no Campbell's Soups factory in the former Soviet Union. He was referring to the Moscow bread project—a large know-how fund operation. Costs were shared with a consortium of private sector companies led by Andersen Consulting. I believe that it was an excellent example of partnership between the Government and the private sector. It trained 634 retail shop managers and provided on-site support. Multiple benefits were derived from the support of the know-how fund. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of overcharging and of costs falling against the British taxpayer, I should be most grateful if he would give it to me chapter and verse. I assure him that the matter will be investigated.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy (Theological Studies)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners

    19
    have to supplement the pay of bishops and clergy to allow them more time for theological studies; and if he will make a statement. [32602]
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Stipends for bishops and the parochial clergy are based on the concept of adequacy in relation to duty. The extent of theological training before ordination and the time that clergy should spend in theological study afterwards are not matters for which the Church Commissioners are responsible.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the frequency with which some bishops make deplorable political speeches, comments and sermons? Would it not be better if they stuck to theology and religion and forgot about politics? In particular, would not more satisfactory theological training and teaching discourage them from devastating the Lord's Prayer, as some have proposed?
    Mr. Alison: It would probably be a retrograde step if we once again sought to interweave theology with politics, as happened at the time of the Reformation, so I take my hon. Friend's advice with a considerable pinch of salt.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Former Soviet Bloc
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being offered to former Soviet bloc countries from the know-how fund in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [32641]
    Mr. Hanley: Planned assistance for central and eastern Europe and central Asia through the know-how fund in the current financial year is £82 million.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Last November, I had the good fortune to visit Belarus
    20
    and the Ukraine. What assistance is being given to the Ukraine, given its worsening economic circumstances?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman asks a rather specific question. The know-how fund has helped to privatise retail food outlets in Kiev. It is now helping the new owners to set up a retailers association to strengthen their bargaining power. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a fuller answer in writing, including some of the figures, and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Burma
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid to Burma. [32642]
    Mr. Hanley: Since 1992–93 we have provided about £630,000 in humanitarian aid for Burmese refugees in neighbouring countries. In December 1995, we contributed £1.1 million to a joint UNHCR/World Food Programme appeal for a voluntary repatriation programme. Like other EU countries, in 1988 we suspended non-humanitarian official aid, and that remains the position.
    Ms Jackson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does it mean that Her Majesty's Government will pay rather closer attention to the calls emanating from Aung San Suu Kyi for no encouragement of any business interest in Burma until a more democratic form of government is returned and the harassment of her and her party is ended?
    Mr. Hanley: I assure the hon. Lady that we have very close contact with Aung San Suu Kyi. We have explained our policy to her on many occasions. It is to press for real reform—economic and political—that will bring the changes that are so desperately needed by all Burma's people. She is a remarkable lady and I assure the hon. Lady that we take careful note of whatever Aung San Suu Kyi says.

European Council, Florence
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement or the meeting of the European Council in Florence or 21 and 22 June, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis). I have placed the conclusions of the Council in the Library. I shall deal first with beef. then with the other issues discussed.
In my statement on 21 May, I shared with the House the Government's frustration that, two months after an unjustified ban on our beef exports had been imposed. some member states were still unwilling to address on a rational, scientific basis a clear path to lift the ban. I accordingly announced a policy of non-co-operation until two specific objectives had been achieved: the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives and agreement on a cleat framework leading to lifting of the wider ban. In accordance with that policy, we subsequently blocked 74 decisions that required the unanimous approval of member states.
The first objective was achieved on 10 June, when the ban on beef derivatives was lifted. That was followed on 19 June by unanimous approval of our bovine spongiform encephalopathy eradication plan by the Standing Veterinary Committee. In Florence on 21 June, the second objective was achieved when the European Council unanimously accepted the framework and procedures put forward by the Commission for lifting of the wider ban, which were based closely on our proposals. Both objectives were secured in precisely one month. I have no doubt that the policy that we reluctantly adopted was the decisive factor in ensuring that result in such a short space of time.
The framework sets out steps for lifting the ban in stages. The Florence conclusions make it clear that decisions on each stage will be taken
"only and exclusively on the basis of public health and objective scientific criteria and of the judgement of the Commission".
That is what we insisted upon above all. I was therefore able to lift our non-co-operation policy once the framework had been agreed. It is now up to us to meet the conditions for lifting the ban set out in the framework. There are five stages for that.
We aim to be in a position to tell the Commission by October that we have met the necessary conditions for decisions to lift the ban on two of the five stages—that is, certified herds and animals born after a specified date and their meat. That is subject in particular to clearance of the backlog of animals awaiting slaughter in the 30-month-plus scheme, and a start to the accelerated slaughter of cattle particularly at risk of developing BSE.
Removal of the ban in those two areas would reopen to our industry an export market worth initially about £100 million a year, increasing rapidly thereafter as the certified herds scheme gains momentum. Also by October, I expect a Commission proposal on a third stage—embryos—subject to the scientists giving them a clean bill of health. I believe that we should have met the conditions necessary for a decision to lift the ban on the fourth stage—meat from all animals under 30 months—by November.
22
Securing agreement on those steps would restore the position on beef exports to what it was before 27 March, except in the areas where we have prohibited sale in the UK. In other words, we would be in a position of being able to sell for export to the EU young animals and all the beef that could then be sold in the UK. That would open the way for exports worth some £530 million per year. The only remaining category is meat from animals over 30 months except, of course—as I indicated to the House a moment ago—for that from certified herds, which should be lifted in October. Meat from animals over 30 months is still banned in the UK because of the greater incidence of BSE in older animals.
The targets that we have set are ambitious. It is now up to us in this country—the farming and ancillary industries and the Government—to ensure that we meet them. 'The point is that this timetable is essentially in our hands. When we have met the conditions, the normal procedures for such decisions, involving the Standing Veterinary Committee in particular, will apply. But we have the firm commitment from all Heads of Government in Florence that those decisions will be taken only on the basis of scientific and objective criteria.
One aspect not adequately covered in the Commission framework is the early export of British beef to third countries. That was complicated in the minds of our partners by their concerns about the possibility of re-export to the EU, and by the European Court of Justice case against the Commission. We believe that our case against the ban on exports to third countries is particularly strong, and our court application for interim relief should be decided in the next few days.
We none the less secured a presidency statement—accepted, it has to be said, reluctantly by the other member states and the Commission—that the Commission will consider individual requests from third countries to buy British beef exclusively for their domestic markets. If such requests come forward soon, I hope that, either through Commission procedures or the European Court case, exports from Britain to third countries will begin to flow.
We have a lot to do in a short time to meet the conditions necessary to enable the EU and world markets to be fully open again. But I believe that we have taken a great step forward in the past few days. We shall go on doing everything possible to protect public health, restore consumer confidence and secure the interests of the British beef industry. Our overriding aim remains, as it has been from the start, the eradication of BSE from Britain.
Let me now refer briefly to the other main issues discussed in Florence—the intergovernmental conference, employment, economic and monetary union and the Europol convention.
The European Council agreed that the intergovernmental conference should now turn from analysis to negotiation. We need to move from exchanging ideas to considering texts. I was therefore happy to lead the call for an outline treaty text to be prepared in time for the Dublin European Council in December. The Government's position on the substance remains as set out in the White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations". In Florence, I set out once again our policies in key areas such as qualified majority voting, and the need for flexibility as the EU further enlarges.

23
We also discussed employment. At the Essen European Council in 1994, we agreed an approach that recognised the primacy of action by member states and recommended a number of lines of action reflecting this Government's approach. In Florence, the European Council confirmed the priority attached to tackling unemployment and agreed to carry forward the Essen approach, taking account of the initiative taken by the President of the Commission on a confidence pact for employment. There are some good things in this document, but others that we cannot accept.
Unemployment in this country is now the lowest of any major European competitor. We have created more jobs over the past three years than Germany, France, Italy and Spain—indeed, we have created more than Germany, France, Italy and Spain added together. That is because we have followed policies that help job creation. That is why we will not sign the Maastricht social chapter or accept European Union measures that would damage competitiveness or inhibit our ability to pursue our own successful policies.
Florence was not a decisive stage in discussions on economic and monetary union. The European Council considered a report from Economic and Finance Ministers on work done since Madrid. That included the relationship between those inside and those outside any potential future single currency. It covered the proposal to create a new exchange rate mechanism. Most of our partners favour creating such arrangements. Let me assure the House that it has been confirmed that any new scheme of that sort will be voluntary, and I reaffirm that this country will not rejoin any new ERM.
The European Council also reached agreement on the role of the European Court of Justice in the Europol convention. I said at the Cannes European Council that the ECJ would not be the arbiter in any case relating to Europol which involved the United Kingdom Government or arose in the courts of the UK. Other member states saw a need for a role for the ECJ on questions of interpretation of the convention arising in their national courts.
The outcome allows other member states the option of providing such a role for the ECJ for themselves. The United Kingdom and our courts will not be bound by that in any way. That is a satisfactory outcome and a further example of the EU developing in flexible ways.
Finally, the European Council confirmed that enlargement negotiations with central European countries should open at the same time as with Cyprus and Malta—that is, six months after the intergovernmental conference ends. It also agreed a number of statements on external issues, the most important of which were on the middle east and Russia.
The Florence European Council marked a decisive turning point in our efforts to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of people working in the British beef industry. The issue will now be dealt with on a proper, rational basis, with the timetable for the lifting of the ban dependent on our own efforts. That has enabled the restoration of normal business in the European Union.
24
This has been a difficult episode in this country's relationship with Europe and not one that I was seeking. We were right to stand up for our interests, but I now look forward to working with our partners on our positive vision of Europe as a strong partnership of nations.
Mr. Tony Blair: I shall confine my remarks mainly to beef. First, on dates, the Prime Minister chose his words with elaborate care. Can we be clear as to what he is saying? Is he saying that he can give dates and that the ban will finally go in total in November?
Some Conservative Members are now shaking their heads, but that was the clear impression—they are now all shaking their heads, but if one was listening to the Prime Minister, that was the impression—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman was not listening."] I was listening.
If the Prime Minister is now saying that those are definite dates, why were they not in the European Union agreement? I suspect—perhaps he will confirm this—that all that he is really saying is that he will table proposals by October and November, but the decision will be taken through the process of the veterinary committee, inspection, verification and so on.
So, can we return to the question that we have consistently asked the right hon. Gentleman? When will the ban finally be lifted, so that people in Europe can eat British beef under the same conditions as people in Britain?
Secondly, will the Prime Minister confirm that—again, contrary to the impression that he sought to give—there is no automatic link under the agreement between the steps that Britain must take and steps towards lifting the ban? We are obliged to do certain things in Britain, but other member states are simply obliged to follow certain procedures. There is no binding agreement on them, merely an agreement to consider. As for stating that he has won an undertaking that they would refuse consent only on scientific grounds, is not the committee that we have to satisfy the very same veterinary committee with which we had the problems in the first place? It has always ostensibly said that it was acting on scientific grounds; it has never said that it was acting on political grounds. The Prime Minister is no further forward on that.
If the basis is supposed now to be science, why have we agreed to a massive additional slaughter policy when we say that it is not scientifically justified? I suspect that the principal changes that the Prime Minister got were made once the British Government had submitted a programme for eradicating BSE and taken it round the European capitals—which, frankly, is something that they should have done a couple of months before.
Thirdly, as for the much vaunted concession on the third country ban, I agree that the ban is completely unjustified, but will the Prime Minister confirm: that it is only an undertaking from the Italian presidency and not an undertaking from the European Union; that it has no legal force; and that within minutes of it being given, a Commission official said:
"it didn't commit the Commission to anything"?
Foreign Ministers have said that the third country ban will remain. Is that right or not?
Fourthly, will the Prime Minister confirm that the extra compensation at Florence was for all European Union farmers and that British farmers will see only a small part

25
of it? Will he confirm also that this country's bill, net of European Union payments, for the BSE crisis will be well in excess of £2 billion in the years to come? Is that not the price that the British people will pay for the utter incompetence with which the matter has been handled from the very beginning: the failure to intervene in the way necessary when BSE began; the failure to compensate and inform farmers when the crisis was under way; the failure to announce the link with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, with proper consultation; and now the failure to secure the lifting of the ban once one was imposed?
The Whitehall farce even continued at Florence, where we had the spectacle of the Government trying to hang on to one Minister who was threatening to resign and hanging the poor Minister of Agriculture out to dry to try to get him to resign. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] There appears to be a notable absentee from our deliberations.
This has been an object lesson in the Government's capacity to turn any crisis into a catastrophe. The truth is that whatever fig leaf the Prime Minister has today, the damage will be with this country for many years to come.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has just illustrated that he is not interested in what is right for this country. In this House, he claimed to support our policy of non-co-operation because he did not have the guts to criticise it. In Germany, he criticised British policy because he did not have the guts to defend it. He has spent half his time claiming that we have been too hard in our relations with Europe, and then jumped to the other side of the fence and claimed that we have been too soft. He has invented objectives that we did not set and then criticised us for not meeting them. It is my job to look after the interests of the British beef industry, and despite his obstruction and his determination to do anything or say anything, irrespective of the damage to the beef industry, in his own interests, that is precisely what I have done.
Let me reiterate the points that were clearly made in my statement, which the right hon. Gentleman then asked about again, having failed to understand them. First, there is no massive additional slaughter policy, as I have explained to him repeatedly on many occasions. I hope that he now fully understands that. On the mechanism for the future, the great new European is effectively saying that he distrusts the word given to Britain by the European Heads of Government and by the European Commission. He distrusts it, despite all that he has said. Let us be clear about what he is about.
Let me deal with some of the other points. As I explained repeatedly in my statement, we have set out what we sought at the outset: objective criteria that we can meet in order that the ban can be lifted. The dates for lifting therefore lie in the hands of the British agriculture industry and the British Government; I have set out the dates by which we think that they will be met on each and every part of the agreement over the past few minutes. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) failed to understand that. [Interruption.] I invite hon. Members to read the statement when it is printed in Hansard tomorrow; if they did not understand it when I made it, perhaps they will understand it when they read it.
26
We sought an agreement that that matter would be dealt with objectively, without politically blocking the correct scientific judgment. That is what has happened in the past; that is the political commitment that we have achieved; that is the commitment that we expect our partners to meet.
Mr. Douglas Hurd: Given that the Government adopted a legitimate, even familiar, tactic for a specific and limited objective that they have now obtained, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take no notice of the Leader of the Opposition's confused mischief making? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best service that the House, particularly we on the Conservative Benches, can do in the difficult times that lie ahead is to take what may be the last chance in this Parliament to give united and effective support for the policy which my right hon. Friend set out last week and which is also set out in the Foreign Secretary's White Paper, published in the spring?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is certainly right about the Leader of the Opposition's capacity for mischief against the national interest. It is equally true that we have set out in our White Paper what we believe is the right way for future developments in the European Union in this country's interests. We have set out a clearer definition of that than any other country that will be negotiating in the intergovernmental conference. It is precisely so that we can get down to the details that I invited the Irish presidency to introduce detailed texts, so that we can begin to look at the details of what people specifically expect to be agreed at the intergovernmental conference rather than deal with the generalities, which have been the subject of the debate so far.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am glad that the puerile policy of posturing masquerading as war on Europe is now over. When the Prime Minister announced it, I told him that it would achieve nothing that could not be achieved by other means. The damage that has been done to Britain's influence and respect will be great. The Prime Minister tells us that he had to take the action as Europe had been obstructive for eight weeks; is not the truth that the Government did nothing for eight weeks, which is why nothing happened? The Prime Minister tells us that we have set hurdles that were not originally set. Does he remember the statement made by his Downing street spokesman on 22 May, the day after he announced the policy in the House of Commons? Presumably speaking on the Prime Minister's behalf, the spokesman from No. 10 Downing street said:
"Nothing short of a full timetable for the phased lifting of the entire beef ban will be sufficient."
Is it not true that no such thing has been achieved?
The Prime Minister said that he was looking for binding commitments from our partners in Europe. Is it not true that every one of the steps must be validated through the Commission, the Scientific Veterinary Committee, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee"—super-SEAC"—and the Standing Veterinary Committee—the very people who, the Prime Minister claims, obstructed the actions in the first place? Far from our achieving success in lifting the third country ban, is it not true that, within minutes of the Foreign Secretary

27
announcing that success, a Commission spokesman, in whose hands the matter is supposed to be, said that any beef that we were not able to sell to Germany or France could not be sold to South Africa?
We shall judge the package, which is far heavier and more damaging to British industry than it would have been if the Government had acted earlier and postured later against three factors. The first factor is the Prime Minister's timetable: if he wants to clear the 30-month-plus backlog by October, he will have to put a lot more effort and resources into doing so. The second factor involves the level of compensation. The third factor relates to whether the binding responses, which are necessary as we pass each of the thresholds, have been achieved.
It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister—like a previous Prime Minister—has returned from Europe claiming a victory, the cost of which we shall feel increasingly over the months ahead. This has been a policy of folly abroad and chaos at home, which has left Britain damaged both abroad and at home.
The Prime Minister: I certainly do not intend to take any lectures on posturing from the right hon. Gentleman, who approaches every issue in Europe from a kneeling position—whether this country is right or wrong. He is accurate, in that he has said before all the things that he has repeated today. He was wrong then and he is wrong in most of what he has had to say today. The statement that he has quoted is wholly inaccurate. I have seen the right hon. Gentleman's letter containing the assertion, and I have written back to him this morning telling him that he is wrong, and that no such statement was made. The right hon. Gentleman had better take that up with the Press Association.
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at what I said in the House of Commons, he will see what the policy of the Government was at the outset and what it has remained, right from the beginning of this affair through to the present time.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour leader, who says that the ban was unjustified, have failed to say what they would have done in the circumstances. They would have done absolutely nothing—except carp and criticise, the twin names by which we have come to know them.
Mr. John Redwood: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has had success in getting our EC partners to see the difficulties facing our beef industry. I trust that people in this House will think twice before jeopardising more livelihoods and businesses in the beef industry.
Does my right hon. Friend have equally persuasive ways of raising the issues of the powers of the European Court of Justice and the plight of our fishing industry, which are also on our minds?
The Prime Minister: As I have told the House, both matters will certainly be subject to negotiation during the intergovernmental conference. I mentioned quota hopping, which was certainly not what was envisaged
28
when the common fisheries policy was agreed. As I said in my statement today and in our White Paper, we seek some changes in the European Court of Justice also.
Mr. Peter Shore: This is not exactly an occasion for national rejoicing; but will the Prime Minister now answer the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Do we not, at every stage, have to obtain not just the consent of the European Commission for relieving the ban, but the consent of the Standing Veterinary Committee, a nationally appointed body? Is it not also true that the great cost of the mass slaughter—or 80 per cent. of it—will have to be borne by the British taxpayer and the Treasury? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the actual sums involved?
The Prime Minister: I believe that I have given the estimates over a period of three years before—but the point that the right hon. Gentleman did not address and may care to deal with now is that the principal issue is getting the ban lifted. It has never been a question of extra resources from the EU, for two good reasons.
First, we have sought to keep all spending across the EU within the guidelines approved for expenditure. There are repeated claims from other nations wanting to break those guidelines; breaking them would result in substantial extra costs to this country. So if we sought to break the guidelines by asking for extra resources, the costs for this country would increase, not diminish, over the years ahead. I do not think that a prudent policy to follow, and I have no intention of following it.
Equally, I have no intention of letting anyone take the opportunity of extra help being sought to change the agreements that we would otherwise seek to reach in the intergovernmental conference. For both those reasons, we do not propose to seek extra resources beyond those that normally apply under arrangements agreed in the past for circumstances such as these. There is also the special question of the British rebate and the arrangements that inhibit it when an extra payment needs to be made. They are the credible reasons why it is not in this country's interests to seek compensation over and above what is normally available under the usual arrangements. It is impossible to determine the cost, but we broadly anticipate that it will be approximately £2 billion over the next three years.
Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have lost prestige, that we have lost money and that we have lost umpteen thousand more cows? If we feel big after that, we must have been feeling rather small before. Is he also aware that the Labour party did not condemn his tactic outright because it was frightened by the atmosphere of petty chauvinism in the press, which helped to push him into his mistaken policy in the first place?
The Prime Minister: I cannot answer in relation to the judgments of the Labour party, but I can answer in relation to the Government's position. We were not prepared to be in a position where objective criteria were ignored, where there was no way to seek a removal of the ban and where science was deliberately being subordinated to national prejudice in countries across

29
Europe, rather than there being an objective judgment of what ought to be done to help a member state facing a particular difficulty.
I can recall no occasion in the past when a single nation state faced a difficulty of this sort and political criteria in the other member states prevented a solution that was unanimously proposed by the Commission and supported by scientific evidence. Before my hon. Friend criticises the Government or anyone else, he should bear that in mind.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is it not the Prime Minister's duty to remind the Euro-sceptics on his Back Benches, who have rubbished the European Union throughout the crisis, that it would not have been possible to reach an agreement without the help of the European Commission, the European Council of Ministers, the European Court of Justice and European money?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the many statements that I have made, he will see that I have made it clear that the Commission and the presidency have played a helpful role in seeking to find a way through these difficulties. However, that is not universally the case with the other member states. I have thanked the presidency and the Commission—most recently at my press conference in Florence—for the support that they have given us during this difficult period.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is it not a clear sign of the Prime Minister's success in negotiating that only this morning the senior spokesman for the German Chancellor stated that he would have preferred to deal with the Leader of the Opposition, because he would have been more accommodating to German interests?
The Prime Minister was quite right to tell his colleagues that Britain's unemployment has been much lower than theirs since we left the ERM, but will he also make the point to them that the two European states that voted not to join the EC have even lower unemployment rates? Should they not think through the implications?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that they will make their own decisions on that and on other matters. My hon. Friend is quite right about the relative rates of unemployment. Unemployment has continued to fall in this country for almost three years, but it has remained constant or increased in other countries—all of which live in the same general economic climate. I do not think that the difference in policies is an accident in the sense that unemployment has been falling in this country. The House will have noted my hon. Friend's comments about the Leader of the Opposition with interest.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Prime Minister remember that on 21 May he said to us that he would be seeking a clear framework that would lead to the lifting of the European ban and the worldwide ban on British beef? However, he has returned with an agreement that gives us no timetable, no dates and no guarantees. He could have got that agreement without the policy of non-co-operation. He has soured relations with our European partners and he has left a bitter legacy for a long time to come. Even our closest friends, such as the Irish Taoiseach, said that the policy of non-co-operation was a mistake. Has not the Prime Minister—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a debate. Almost the entire House wishes to ask a question, so questions to
30
the Prime Minister must be brisk and I am sure that he will oblige and give brisk answers. Will the hon. Gentleman now put a question?
Mr. Hoyle: Yes, I shall. The Prime Minister has got nothing for Britain. When will the ban be lifted by Europe and when will the worldwide ban be lifted?
The Prime Minister: On the last point, if the hon. Gentleman reads the statement, he will find out. If he thinks that I could have got that ban lifted without the non-co-operation policy, why was there no progress over an eight-week period and why was there great progress over the next four weeks? The reality is that we accelerated the agreement of a framework and ensured the lifting of the beef derivatives ban precisely because a the action we took.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition is nitpicking over the timetable and has overlooked the fundamental point, which is consumer confidence and its restoration? Having a timetable and an agreed procedure that relies entirely on scientific evidence gives us the means by which worldwide consumer confidence in British beef can be restored.
The Prime Minister: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. The Leader of the Opposition knows that as well as any Member of the House. He just has his fingers crossed behind his back in the hope that he can score a few political points, irrespective of the reality of the situation.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Some of us have listened carefully to the Prime Minister's statement. Does he realise that his use of language in his statement gives no hope at all to the agriculture community in areas such as mine, where thousands of jobs are dependent on that industry? The use of words such as "aim", "expect", "believe" and "hope" shows pious optimism by the Prime Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman specifically referred to certified herds. How will those certified herds be identified, and does he envisage a region-by-region lifting of the ban, which would be of substantial benefit to Northern Ireland and Scotland, because we have had quality assurance schemes?
The Prime Minister: It is not specifically region by region, but herd by herd. In Scotland, it is likely that many herds will be certified because of the way in which cattle are reared. It was precisely to provide such help for Scotland and probably other regions that we decided to seek, and obtained, a framework that will enable us to identify herds in collaboration with the agriculture industry and the European Union, so that the ban may be lifted at an earlier date than would otherwise have been possible. As I told the House earlier, I expect that we shall be able to tell the Commission by October when, on the basis of the agreement that we have reached, the objective criteria would be met and those certified herds would be removed from the ban.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is the Prime Minister aware that the beef settlement is an important and welcome step towards the ultimate solution

31
of the crisis? Is he further aware that he should not take notice of those who speak for the two Opposition parties, who seem to have turned being wise after the event into a minor science? With regard to the accelerated slaughter process and in the event of dairy cows being slaughtered before the end of their natural time, will my right hon. Friend also give an undertaking that if we end up under-producing on the British milk quota, it will not have any long-term adverse effect on our milk quota in years to come?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point about milk quotas, which we are examining at the moment. As to the accelerated slaughter, according to the fourth cohort, it must be voluntary as there is no other way in which it can be done. Farmers will of course receive compensation, the levels of which are being determined.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in industrial terms, he decided to take strike action without a ballot? He wanted to bang together the heads of all those in the Common Market, and it is the British people who have the headache. Will the Prime Minister now answer the questions: when will the ban be lifted and how much will his supreme folly and that of that gang over there cost every man, woman and child in Britain?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman manages to carry his own absurdity to further lengths this afternoon even than in the past. I thought that he would welcome a strike without a ballot, based on his reputation and his past—it is the way in which he seems to have operated for most of his life. As to his other questions, I refer him to the answers that I have already given to several of his hon. Friends, when I set out those points.
Sir Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have not been diverted by the beef crisis from pursuing their general objectives in Europe as outlined in the White Paper: that is, preventing any further moves towards a federal state of Europe and, where possible, returning powers to this country and to Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that our policies remain as set out in the White Paper, and they were reiterated again in Florence at the weekend.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Prime Minister referred to the middle east in his original statement. Did the Greeks, the Italians or the Germans tell him that they would go ahead and trade with Libya and north Africa, despite the sanctions? Is not British industry the loser, as the recent Egyptian delegation to the House made clear, as a result of sanctions against Libya?
The Prime Minister: There was no such comment by the countries concerned during any discussions about the middle east. Those discussions tended to deal primarily with the middle east peace process.
Sir Hector Monro: May I welcome the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
32
in Florence, in securing the lifting of the ban in due course? I agree that it is important to get beef off the front pages of the newspapers and back into the high-quality food chain. To achieve that aim, will he ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes fair payments to farmers involving the least possible bureaucracy?
The Prime Minister: I shall ensure that that is the case.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Commission's position paper requires the introduction of an effective animal identification and movement recording system, with official registration. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and I called for those measures 11 weeks ago. Have those 11 weeks been lost? Is the programme under way? Will the Prime Minister provide some details?
The Prime Minister: On the contrary, the 11 weeks certainly have not been lost. It is a massive undertaking to produce a proper identification programme for all cattle across the country, but that is our intention. A programme of that sort is available in Northern Ireland, but it does not extend across the rest of the United Kingdom. It involves a massive amount of computerisation and co-operation from the agriculture industry. A great deal of progress has been made in the past 11 weeks, and as a result of that progress I was able to set out the indicative dates for the House a few moments ago.
Mr. Nigel Forman: On the basis of what has happened with the beef issue in the past few months, is it not clear that the Government's tactic of non-co-operation has proved both legitimate and effective? In order to put that in context, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the 74 occasions on which we used our national veto during the period of non-co-operation relate to the occasions when was it not necessary to use our national veto, because matters were decided by qualified majority voting? That might show the House whether the European Union is as supra-national as some of my hon. Friends claim.
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly provide my hon. Friend with those figures. I do not carry in my head the number of occasions on which there were qualified majority voting agreements in the past month, during the period of the non-co-operation policy, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is also entirely right to point to the fact that the policy has been effective in securing the objectives that I set out at the Dispatch Box, and in securing them far more speedily than would have occurred in any other way.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the other members of the European Union are our partners and friends, not our enemies? When he was explaining his proposals to them over the weekend, did he explain why, on 20 March, two of his Ministers came to the House to make statements on the same issue—one raising a health scare about the transfer of BSE to human beings, and the other saying that no cattle would have to be slaughtered as a result? Given the massive job losses in this country and in France and Germany, how did he

33
explain to our partners and friends the fiasco that was started by two Ministers not being remotely aware of the consequences beyond the statements that they made?
The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health came to the House, the Opposition congratulated him on bringing the problem to the House as speedily as he had, because it was thought that that was the right way to deal with it. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there had been a leak in the morning papers, I think, that day. In the absence of a statement, undoubtedly there would have been demands from the Opposition for one. Undoubtedly there would have been a private notice question. My right hon. Friend received praise from the Opposition for coming to the House and setting out the position. The way in which the hon. Gentleman refers to it now is a total and utter travesty of what happened.
Mr. David Howell: Can my right hon. Friend detect a strong whiff of sour grapes coming from the Opposition Benches this afternoon? Was it not quite simply a very positive deal, achieved as a result of a tough negotiating approach?
Moving away from beef, did my right hon. Friend notice at the Florence summit that, whereas previously all the pressure was supposed to be on this country to conform to EU social and labour market policies, it is now the other way round and the EU is seeking to follow our policies? Did he hear any comment on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast that, over the next two years, Britain will be the fastest-growing economy in the whole of Europe?
The Prime Minister: There was some comment by me, for I certainly mentioned that, but I did not hear a great deal of comment from our friends and partners in the discussion at Florence over the weekend. My right hon. Friend is entirely right that the new position of the Opposition on these matters seems to be, on every occasion, that everybody is right except the United Kingdom. That seems to be the case, whatever the merits of the argument.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Prime Minister say precisely when and how the scientific basis and information changed to justify the climbdown in the number of cattle to be slaughtered? Will he assure the House that the Minister of Agriculture will not be slaughtered before the last of these cattle are slaughtered?
The Prime Minister: There was no change in the scientific criteria. My right hon. and learned Friend is at the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg at the moment.
Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we all want to consider other members of the European Union as our partners and friends, but after the weekend in Turin, when he was so badly let down by our partners, was it not inevitable that the ban would follow? All of us in the agriculture community very much welcome the support that he has given to the farming community over the past three months. Does he accept that the farming community will take on board the
34
need for the accelerated slaughter, but only if the commonsense approach to it is coupled with fair compensation?
The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that we were promised co-operation in Turin. It is equally true that a few days later, in the Agriculture Council and elsewhere, that co-operation was noticeable only to the extent that it did not materialise. That is the background to the policy that we subsequently adopted.
Mr. Llew Smith: The Prime Minister said that employment matters were also discussed in Florence. As we know, to meet the convergence criteria for a single currency, cuts of £18,000 million in public expenditure and public services such as health and education are required. Would he care to anticipate the likely effects that those cuts will have on employment?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that applies to this country, he should have a look at what will be necessary in each and every country right across the European Union. I see that he does think that. He clearly does not envisage the sort of policy that is set out by his party's Front Bench. There seems to be a certain disagreement between the Labour party's Front and Back Benches. It is quite sad to see the splits in its European policy that open up daily.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I welcome the underpinning given at Florence to the policy of eradication, as well as progress towards the lifting of the ban. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, come the autumn, the British beef industry should be in a stronger position than it has been for some time, and that the grounds for increased consumer confidence—both here and elsewhere—should be stronger as well? Does it not appear that, if Opposition Members were ever to negotiate on our behalf in Europe, they would be dictators at home and appeasers over there?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is right about the impact of our policy over a period. We are seeking a complete eradication policy for BSE. As that is increasingly achieved, it will reopen not only the European markets that have recently fallen foul of the European Union ban, but the markets that were barred to British beef some years ago in the United States and elsewhere. That is why, given the scale of the present problem, it is right for us to seek a full-scale eradication policy. The incidence of BSE is falling dramatically at present, and will continue to do so as a result of the measures that we have adopted.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is it true that the eradication plan that the Prime Minister has now accepted is three times larger than the original proposal? In the light of what he has just said, would it not have been better, cheaper and safer to go down that route earlier?
The Prime Minister: I simply do not recognise the statistic that the hon. Lady has just produced. I have not seen it, and I have no reason to believe that it is remotely accurate. As I just told my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), what we are seeking is a comprehensive plan to eradicate BSE entirely from British

35
herds. I think that that is right in itself. It is certainly right in terms of bringing confidence back to the consumer, and ensuring that British beef—which I consider an excellent product, and which has traditionally been seen as such by the world—can once more enter world markets without let or hindrance.
Mr. William Cash: Did my right hon. Friend note that, in yesterday's The Sunday Times poll, the British people approved his tough stance by a majority of two to one? Cannot a number of useful lessons be learnt, both by the Labour party and by those who drive for a federal political union in Europe? Those who drive for political union should recognise that we will not—and the British people will not—tolerate the abolition of the veto as expressed by Mr. Dehaene, the Belgian Prime Minister, who, after all, is now governing by decree. As for the Labour party, since our adoption of a tough stance, its rating in opinion polls has dropped by nearly 10 per cent.
The Prime Minister: I certainly believe that we have been following the right policy on its own merits. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the veto. Some of our European partners would wish all matters to be dealt with by qualified majority voting—which, of course, is what the Labour party signed up to in its European socialist manifesto. The impact of that would be that there would be no veto for this country. I assure the House that, if there had been no veto at the Edinburgh financing arrangements in 1991, we would have lost the British rebate. No other country in the European Union likes the British rebate; every other country would vote to get rid of that rebate, which saves this country millions of pounds a year. The little piece of paper that the Labour party signed in its European socialist manifesto is a little piece of paper that will cost the country billions of pounds and more every single year.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Prime Minister realise that there is considerable concern among Welsh farmers at the accelerated slaughter programme, because we are taking out of production some of the most productive animals in the dairy herd? Does he realise that farmers' disappointment is coupled with the fact that there is no firm timetable for lifting the ban? Will he make it clear what type of compensation package will be
36
introduced for farmers? Will it cover the replacement costs of productive animals and the consequential loss of income? Does he realise that his policy of non-co-operation did not affect the timing or the outcome of the Florence deal, but that it might have affected relations with our European partners?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that way, because I just think that he is wrong. I have spent six years sitting round the European table with my partners, and he has not. I can assure him that we have made more progress by following this policy than we would have done if we had followed the policy that he seems to advocate. Animals in the accelerated slaughter scheme would in due course have been slaughtered under the 30-month-plus scheme, and the overwhelming majority of them would have been slaughtered only a few months later than under the arrangements that we advocated last week.
Compensation will be offered. As I told the House earlier, we are discussing precisely what the compensation will be. I certainly understand the hon. Gentleman's point on that.
Mr. John Townend: As the Prime Minister has achieved most of the objectives that he set when he started non-co-operation, would he hesitate to use those tactics again in future if British interests were at risk? My farmers are very worried about the influence of the veterinary committee. If the committee is again subject to political influence—as it has been in the past—will it be able to stop the lifting of the ban, or does the Commission have the power to overrule it?
The Prime Minister: The answer to my hon. Friend's last question is, yes, it has the power if it were felt that the committee was not acting on the basis of objective science. That will be extremely helpful. As for his question about policy, very unusual circumstances led us to use that tactic—circumstances that I hope and expect not to see again. I cannot recall another issue on which our European partners voted against the unanimous recommendation of the Commission, when that unanimous recommendation was clearly backed by science. The position taken by our partners was clearly taken for domestic political reasons and was not objective. That caused our response. I very much hope that that type of circumstance will not occur again.

Asylum Seekers (Benefits)
4.26 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House on the Government's intentions following the Court of Appeal decision on the vires of the regulations made in February on asylum seekers.
The Government propose to restore the fundamental policy, which was upheld by healthy majorities in both Houses of Parliament. As my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has said in another place, the Government's intention is to introduce amendments next week to the Asylum and Immigration Bill to restore Parliament's intention.
There are only three categories of people whose benefits were affected by the regulations. The first is illegal immigrants who claim asylum. I cannot believe that it is right to reward illegality. There may be a reason for someone to leave their own country illegally, but there can be no reason illegally to enter this country, which offers sanctuary to genuine refugees. That issue was not addressed in the Court of Appeal judgment.
The second group who no longer qualify for benefit are people who arrived in this country claiming to be something other than asylum seekers. It is not merely that they fail to make a claim for asylum at their port of entry, but they enter the country as business people, students or tourists. They succeed in convincing the immigration authorities that they have the means to support themselves, and they agree not to be a burden on British taxpayers.
One reason why those seeking to abuse the system do not claim asylum at their port of entry is that the process of deporting bogus immigrants is much more protracted after they enter the UK than if they make their claim at the port. I cannot believe that that group should be entitled to benefits if they subsequently change their story—but that issue was not addressed in the judgment by the Court of Appeal.
The third group affected are those whose claim for asylum is turned down after due consideration by the immigration authorities, but who then appeal. British citizens do not generally receive benefit while appealing against its refusal. Successive Governments have upheld that policy, because otherwise, every unsuccessful British benefit claimant would have an incentive to appeal against refusal of benefit. Following the judgment, asylum seekers are now entitled to retain benefit during an appeal. Until the new regulations took effect in February, the vast majority of asylum seekers appealed against rejection, yet 97 per cent. of their appeals turned out to be unfounded.
In the case of British claimants, nearly half eventually win their appeals against benefit refusal, compared to the handful of asylum claimants. It would be extraordinary to treat asylum seekers—only 3 per cent. of whom are found to be genuine refugees—more generously than British citizens, nearly half of whose claims are found to be genuine. That issue was not addressed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
In one respect only, British citizens appealing against refusal are treated more leniently than foreign asylum seekers. If a British claimant's appeal is upheld, benefit is backdated. That has not been the case with asylum seekers
38
whose refugee status is confirmed on appeal. I propose in future that any refugee whose appeal is successful will have his entitlement to benefits backdated. That will mean that, where families, friends or voluntary groups are convinced of the validity of an individual's claim, they will be able to support the claimant in the knowledge that he will be able to reimburse them when his claim for refugee status is accepted.
By removing the incentives for bogus asylum seekers to come to this country or to lodge valueless appeals, fewer bogus claims will be clogging up the system. Genuine refugees will have their applications processed and right to stay established much more quickly. In any case, genuine refugees come here not to claim our benefits but to escape persecution. It is as much in the interests of genuine refugees as of taxpayers that action should be taken to discourage unfounded applications. The interests of genuine refugees are damaged if consideration of their applications for asylum are held up by a huge and growing number of unfounded applications from economic migrants.
The court had no difficulty accepting my objective of discouraging economic migrants. Since the regulations were introduced in February, the message has been getting across. The number of asylum claims was down 7 per cent. in March, one quarter in April and nearly one half in May, and 84 per cent. of that decline was due to a fall of in-country applications. That is good news above all for genuine refugees, as it will be easier to deal speedily with their claims.
We are determined that the judgment will not provide a blank cheque for bogus asylum seekers. We must clearly move as quickly as possible to restore the position and reinstate the message. The February regulations were debated in both Houses, and the policy was endorsed by healthy majorities. Their conformity with primary legislation has been considered by five judges. Three endorsed the Government's position. In the latest judgment, two judges ruled the regulations ultra vires. The latest judgment takes effect immediately, and is being implemented by Benefits Agency offices. It will remain in effect unless and until it is reversed by a higher court or overtaken by primary legislation.
To leave the judgment in effect would mean disbursing nearly £300 million a year—the vast majority of it on bogus claimants. That is not in line with the clearly expressed wish of Parliament, in the interests of taxpayers or in the interests of genuine refugees—who come here not to claim our benefits but to seek our liberties.
The House is determined that Britain should remain a sanctuary for people fleeing persecution. We are acting now to ensure that this country remains a safe haven, not a soft touch.
Mr. Chris Smith: Is it not profoundly telling that the Secretary of State—the latest in a straggling line of Ministers—has had to be taught the rules of natural justice by the Appeal Court? Is it not the case that, during the past two years alone, Ministers have been found to have acted unlawfully on four occasions by the Appeal Court and on seven occasions by the High Court?
Did not the Appeal Court on Friday administer a timely reminder to the Secretary of State that no Government, however long in office and however arrogant they may have grown, are above the laws of common humanity and justice?

39
Does not the Secretary of State feel ashamed that his policy earned the most damning of indictments from Lord Justice Brown, who said that the measures would
"necessarily contemplate for some a life so destitute that to my mind no civilised nation can tolerate it"?
Does he understand that simply using a whipped vote to force through a further change in primary legislation in order to get around an inconvenient decision of the courts is yet another demonstration of the incompetence of the present Administration?
Does the Secretary of State not realise that his measures—even if they are subsequently implemented—will come nowhere near achieving the savings for the public purse that he has claimed? Is he not aware of the enormous extra cost that local authorities already have to incur, especially where the needs of children have to be met? Is he not simply saving money from one part of the public purse and imposing extra cost on another?
Are not the Secretary of State's claims about dramatically lower numbers claiming asylum themselves misleading? The Government's published figures show that there were 9,305 applications in the first quarter of 1996, compared with 9,905 in the first quarter of 1995 and 7,110 in the first quarter of 1994. Is not the fall in numbers that he claims simply the usual effect of the winter and spring quarters?
Is not the real answer to the problem to speed up the processing of asylum applications, rather than to remove all means of support from those seeking asylum? In that respect, are not the Government doing worse rather than better? Last September, there were 64,000 outstanding applications. By November, the figure had risen to 68,000.
The Secretary of State's argument comparing asylum seekers with British citizens applying for benefits is unsound. He is simply not comparing like with like. Can he not see the difference between someone appealing against a decision on the facts of his entitlement based on an objective criterion relating to his circumstances and someone appealing against a decision on the Home Secretary's opinion as to the genuineness of his fear and anxiety? Surely those are two completely different circumstances.
Let me welcome the right hon. Gentleman's decision to backdate eligibility if an appeal is subsequently successful, but point out that it does not address the need to stay alive while an appeal is being considered.
Does the Secretary of State not understand that his policy is forcing many of those who are legitimately seeking refuge from persecution to become completely destitute? Would he like to tell the young man from Eritrea who came to my advice surgery, who fled his country in fear of his life, who put in his asylum application three days after arriving here, and who is existing on one free meal a day from a local church, what precisely he is expected to do in the meantime?
Does the Secretary of State not realise that his measures affect the genuine and the non-genuine alike, and that all the evidence—including the facts produced by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—shows that more genuine applicants apply in-country than at the port of entry?
40
Will the Secretary of State now at last acknowledge that, in a supposedly civilised country, he is leaving people to starve, and has acted with both inhumanity and injustice? Will he now think again and abandon his Foolish intention to legislate his way round the problem? Common humanity demands nothing less.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman said that I needed to be taught justice. I was then being taught in company with judges in the lower court and the most senior judge of all who have heard this case, who agreed with my position.
The hon. Gentleman says that the decision is a damning indictment of our policy. If so, it is a damning indictment of a policy, on the treatment of benefit claimants who are appealing against refusal of benefit, that was supported on both sides of the House. The distinction that he tried to draw between the treatment of appeals against refusal of benefit and appeals against refusal of asylum was a distinction without a difference, and bogus in every way.
The hon. Gentleman says that we will not achieve the savings that we set out to achieve. On the contrary, our estimates of savings were based on the assumption that the measures simply checked the rise in the number of asylum seekers. To the extent that they reduce the numbers as they have so far done, the savings will be greater than we anticipated, not less.
The hon. Gentleman claims that the figures do not show a decline, but used figures for the number of claims Largely before the measures had taken effect. The figures for the months since the measures took effect show a 7 per cent. drop in claims in March, a 27 per cent. drop in April, and nearly a 50 per cent. drop in May. He is simply factually wrong.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a specific case of a claimant. I cannot comment on a specific case, but I can ask questions that he should have asked and answered. Did that claimant tell a different story at the port of entry? Did he come from another safe country and shop around countries before coming here? If not, why did he not make the claim at the port when he was asked his reason for entering this country?
The simple question that the hon. Gentleman did not answer is what Labour would do. Would it allow to stand, or reinstate, the court's decision and the old regulations, so that the House would be obliged to spend £300 million a year on a group of people of whom more than 90 per cent. are subsequently found to have made invalid claims? It is all very well for him to take the sanctimonious high ground but not say whether he would change things. He is like the Levite in the parable of the good Samaritan—only he does not pass by on the other side. He leans over, sees the Samaritan in the gutter, expresses great sympathy, and then says, "I shall subject your matter to a review." The hon. Gentleman is not going to say whether there will be any help from a Labour Government.
The simple fact is that fraud is wrong. The whole House recognises that it is wrong, whether it is perpetrated by a domestic claimant or a foreign claimant. Labour has always been the friend of the fraudster. It has now shown that it is the friend of bogus asylum seekers and the enemy of hard-working people in this country of all races, who simply want to ensure that we remain a safe haven but not a soft touch.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the

41
welcome concession that he has made on backdated benefits will continue to apply if the Home Office decides to challenge the decision to reverse the original decision on appeal?
Mr. Lilley: There is a simple answer to my right hon. Friend's question: yes.
Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Secretary of State accept that the withdrawal of benefit has caused severe and intense hardship to some asylum seekers, and that changes in policies on immigration and benefits have created such fear among some of them that they are avoiding any contact with support agencies? Does he accept that those policies are standing the concept of British justice on its head? Under this regime, asylum seekers are considered guilty until they can prove their innocence.
Mr. Lilley: Before the regulations came in, the Refugee Council said that there would be terrible problems and that the streets would be full of destitute asylum claimers. After some months of operation of the regulations, it has had to admit that
"fewer asylum seekers than were expected have made contact with agencies or been visible on the streets."
To suggest that asylum seekers are so destitute that they are too afraid to go to people who can help them seems absurd. It suggests that, when asylum seekers do not need help, they go to people who can help them, but when they need it, they do not. That is not a credible explanation. The alarmist fears stirred up by groups—sometimes in very good faith, through genuine fear that the regulations would have a damaging effect—have not materialised. The claims about destitution are based largely on theory rather than practice.
Dame Angela Rumbold: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of my constituents—I have a multicultural constituency—are absolutely fed up to the back teeth with fraud and asylum seekers' abuse of the system? They will be very pleased with his statement. All parts of the community have felt very strongly about the matter for a considerable time. Does he agree that it is monstrous hypocrisy of the Labour party to condemn his very sensible statement?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her support for the measures. She is right to say that they are supported in all communities. I believe that they have a great deal of support among genuine asylum seekers—although little, of course, among bogus asylum seekers and those who try to misrepresent them.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Home Secretary, who is sitting next to him on the Front Bench, is partly to blame? If the system is underfunded, so that a claim's genuineness cannot be tested effectively and quickly, there will, of course, be delay.
What worries me is that, unless immigrants at the port of entry are able to see a friendly face rather than an official face, they do not often seek the advice and guidance they need, which leads to delay in registering their claim. Once they have registered their claims, they
42
do not have the support of family and friends—unlike resident applicants. Unless the appeal or their application is processed quickly, they are left in a state of limbo. If, in turn, their appeal is delayed—or, as we know often from experience, wrongly decided—the situation spirals. Are they to starve until they get justice?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's initial question referred to the resources put into the system speedily to assess claims. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has considerably increased the resources. I have transferred to his Department from my budget £37 million to increase the resources further. It is impossible, however, to keep up with an ever-growing flow of bogus asylum seekers if one positively invites them here by promising them benefits when they arrive. As a result, the system is clogged up to the detriment of genuine refugees whose claims cannot be assessed.
I should have thought that the whole House would welcome the fall in the number of claims since the measures were introduced. The fall is predominantly of in-country claims, which suggests that the hon. Gentleman's rationale for such claims is not founded. People have learnt that, if they are going to claim, they should claim at the port of entry or not at all. It would therefore be right to reinstate the policy and reaffirm it, with the improvement that I have mentioned, which so far the Opposition have failed even to welcome.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Am I right? [Interruption.] Did I understand it correctly that a member of the judiciary said that the policy of this House and this Parliament was "uncivilised"? Have I missed something? Do the judiciary now have a democratic mandate to decide which laws are acceptable, or does this House and Parliament, on the balance of views in the country, continue to decide what the laws should be, while the judiciary apply them without being informed by their personal prejudices?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend raises important points about the relationship between the courts and Parliament, but it would not be right for me to pursue those general points in light of a particular judgment that it is my duty to implement, appeal against or alter by primary legislation in Parliament—and I intend to do the last.
My hon. Friend referred to civilisation. Italy provides no benefits for asylum seekers at all, and France provides no benefits for asylum seekers after 12 months. In both respects, our provision is infinitely more civilised and better targeted than anything proposed by the Opposition, or provided in most other countries.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that the regulations introduced this year have caused a great deal of misery and poverty? Asylum seekers have been forced to sleep in churches and to beg on the streets, and they are afraid of going to authorities of any sort. Has he not created an underclass of fear in our society? Is it not time that he met some of the organisations that are doing their best to look after asylum seekers, who are quite justly pursuing appeals, to find out what they have to say, rather than pursuing his own prejudices?
Mr. Lilley: I am rather sad that the hon. Gentleman, to whom I have previously paid tribute for his consistent

43
interest in the matter, did not express gratitude for the change to which he alluded in previous debates in this House—rendering the treatment of asylum seekers more similar to that of British benefit claimants by making their successful claims backdated to the beginning of the claim. I should have thought that he would welcome that, and the change will have the effect that I mentioned in my statement.
I am constantly in touch, as are my fellow Ministers, with groups working with asylum seekers. Almost all of them report that the outcome of the regulations was much less severe than any of them feared and most had led us to believe.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of people in this country find it unbelievable that foreigners can come here claiming to be business men, students or tourists, and, once here, can seek asylum status and qualify for state benefits? Is it not highly revealing, and a timely reminder to the British people, that, when it comes to a choice between supporting the taxpaying British public and bogus asylum seekers, the Labour party once again supports those who would be a burden on the taxpayer?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. The man or woman in the street would see the matter exactly like my hon. Friend, and would be mystified by Labour's position on this issue.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the legal judgment gives him an opportunity to table an amendment that would allow a reasonable period—perhaps a few weeks—in which someone who had fled for their life to this country after having been tortured would have a chance to understand the procedures and would be able to make an application, rather than be left destitute? I am not talking about an indefinite period—just a few weeks. After this debate, will he think again and table a sensible amendment that might unite this House and the country behind a sensible policy?
Mr. Lilley: The simple fact is that those who are genuinely escaping persecution come here because they trust this country and do not trust the country they are leaving. They come here to seek our liberties and protections—not because they are in terror of this Government. If they were, they would go somewhere else.
There is a legal distinction between those who claim at the port and those who claim in-country, in that it is more difficult to exercise deportation rights on the latter if they are found to be bogus. That is why many are advised to wait a while and make their claim in-country. I do not believe that it is right that people who come here telling one story should get benefits when they tell another.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that Britain has a long and honourable history of acting compassionately towards people abroad who have been persecuted—perhaps persecuted to death? But my constituents do not expect the Government to make the taxpayer pay for unlimited numbers of bogus asylum seekers, nor do they expect the
44
Court of Appeal to do other than uphold public policy as expressed through our parliamentary democracy. My constituents do not expect the Court of Appeal to make up the law as it goes along.
Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the attitudes of the British public, who want to give refuge to the fairly small number of genuine refugees who come to this country to escape persecution. But the public recognise that there is also a great wave of economic migration, and—although there is sympathy for economic migrants—we need sensible immigration control, which should not be undermined by abuse of the asylum system. The role of the Court of Appeal is important, although I should not respond to my hon. Friend's question in the context of a specific judgment with which I have the duty of dealing.
Mr. Alan Howarth: May I appeal to the Secretary of State and to his party, on the ground of humanity, to abandon this policy, because it is cruel? If, regrettably, he intends to pursue it, I welcome the fact that he intends to do so by means of primary legislation. Have not the Government driven increasing quantities of substantial and contentious legislation through Parliament using the procedures for secondary legislation, which are perfunctory and subject to entirely inadequate parliamentary scrutiny? Should we not be grateful that the judges at least are willing to stand up for the decencies and liberties upon which previous generations of Conservative Back Benchers would have felt it their duty to insist?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman now finds himself in uncomfortable company, because his new party tabled a clause on pension-splitting measures during debates on the Family Law Bill the other day that gave the most draconian powers to Government, through secondary legislation by a Henry VIII clause, to alter any legislation by regulation. We have no intention of using those powers, and we shall introduce the measure through primary legislation. The Opposition wanted that clause, which gives a clue to the way in which they would govern this country if, heaven forbid, they should ever get a majority in this place.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will welcome his statement, as many people in my part of the world are sick and tired of paying taxes for illegal immigrants and people seeking asylum who are not genuine? Which countries would offer similar benefits to me were Ito seek asylum?
Mr. Lilley: I think my hon. Friend can be confident that she will not have to seek asylum either now or after the general election, and she will continue to exercise a prominent role in this country. But she is right about the views of British citizens, and about the fact that our benefits and arrangements are honourable, well tailored and—in many respects—superior to those provided in many other countries.
Mr. Harry Barnes: At the start of his statement, the Secretary of State said that we

45
should not reward illegality. As he has been turned over by the courts, does that principle apply to him? How will he suffer from that decision?
Mr. Lilley: The Court of Appeal was delivering a verdict on a decision of Parliament—a decision endorsed by a healthy majority in this House and by a substantial majority in the other place. If there is any criticism, it is of the Houses of Parliament, and we must collectively bear the shame that the hon. Gentleman attaches to us.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Anybody who wants to see whether there is a difference between new Labour and the Conservative party ought to look at the report of the exchanges in this House, as my right hon. Friend has announced today something that would strike most people as no more than ordinary common sense. Will my right hon. Friend consider—although perhaps not today—the fact that judges take it upon themselves to strike down laws passed by the Houses of Parliament? If judges now feel entitled to do this, should they not take a 70 per cent. pay cut and get some democratic authority, instead of subverting the constitution that they are in place to uphold?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes some telling points, which I shall not follow, for the reasons that I have already given. He is right to say that I am reasserting the decision of Parliament—seeking the assent of Parliament to do so by primary, rather than secondary, legislation. The role of the courts in this is a broader matter, to which I do not want to allude at the moment.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Rather than complaining that the Court of Appeal did not address the issues, why does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that the court found against him in the most scathing terms? Before he rushes into primary legislation, will he remember that, before he introduced the regulations, he was advised against them by the Social Security Advisory Committee and every organisation and individual that works and deals with refugees? He ought to pause and remember that before rushing into primary legislation.
On the question of applications at the port, why, if applications at the port are the only ones that can be regarded as genuine, which seems to be his view, has the Home Office given refugee status to many people who have applied in-country?
Mr. Lilley: The one thing I do recall about those who advised against introducing the regulations was that, in almost every case, the forecast they made of what would follow once they were introduced has proved erroneous. That gives me some confidence that their judgment was wrong.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My constituents expect political judgments to be made by this, their elected House of Commons, and not by remote judges who have probably never met a bogus asylum applicant in their lives. My constituents—both Sikh and other constituents—live cheek by jowl with hundreds of bogus political asylum applicants. My constituents resent those people, who at their expense laugh all the way to the Benefits Agency.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the place to take political decisions, and therefore this
46
House has a right to know where both parties stand on the issue. We have been discussing it for the best part of an hour, and we still do not know for sure whether the Labour party proposes to go to the people, saying that: it will spend £300 million—90 per cent. of it or more on bogus asylum seekers.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I point out to the Secretary of State that many people in Scotland find it deeply offensive that we are detaining in Her Majesty's prison Greenock those persons awaiting deportation from Scotland? Why are the Government so hostile to the idea of a detention centre being built at Glasgow airport, as I and many others have suggested? The BAA is willing to find space for it.
I see that the Home Secretary is whispering in the right hon. Gentleman's ear. That is an important issue. Those people should not be detained in a small, overcrowded prison alongside remand prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman should practise in Scotland what he has practised in England and Wales.
Mr. Lilley: That is, of course, a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who will have heard and considered what the hon. Gentleman said. The ruling of the court, however, was that the practice of detaining refugees and putting them in hostels and camps was an alternative to providing benefits, should we wish to do so.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome, although I am not terribly surprised at, the effect of the regulations in reducing in-house asylum applications, the vast majority of which are totally bogus, as we all know. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change will have two effects? It will save the taxpayer about £200 million a year, which the Opposition always seem to forget, and it will improve the climate for genuine asylum seekers, who need their cases to be properly considered.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are the two key points. I am only sorry that the Opposition have been unable to see them with the clarity with which my hon. Friend does.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a personal, factual question? I hope that it is not offensive. Has the Secretary of State, or indeed the Home Secretary, been present at a port of entry when wretched asylum seekers are arriving? Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked for P and O, and I did see that. The people were bewildered, and could not answer any rational questions. Have Ministers any idea what it is like to go to completely strange shores, often in desperate circumstances? At that time, the refugees came from Ghana, and doubtless from many other places. Have Ministers any idea of the sheer bewilderment? One cannot ask people to be rational at such a point.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. Those who are most bewildered reveal their circumstances to the immigration authorities when they arrive. My concern is those who have concocted a convincing tale to get through, by pretending to be business men, tourists or students, and who demonstrate that they have the means to look after themselves while they are in this country—

47
they probably have a return ticket, and have gone through the visa system. If they subsequently change their minds, having sussed the place out and learned how the benefit system works, it would be extraordinary for them to be entitled to benefits. Such people will have convinced the authorities that they have the means to support themselves.
Ms Glenda Jackson: From the Secretary of State's reply, it would seem that the definition of a bogus asylum seeker is failure to apply at the port of entry. As other hon. Members have said, many of the most vulnerable people do not know that that system applies and do not have the English language which would enable them to ask the relevant questions and to understand the relevant answers.
If the Secretary of State is really unaware of the hardship that the changes to the rules made by his regulations will cause, may I give him an example from my constituency? A woman from Somalia is claiming asylum status. She is seven months pregnant and has absolutely no money, nowhere to live and no friends or relatives to support her. The Secretary of State might not find that shameful, but I and many of my constituents certainly do.
Mr. Lilley: The simple fact is that people who have genuine claims can make them at the port of entry. It is not merely that they have to make the asylum claim there—they have to refrain from telling some entirely spurious and different story. If they say that they are not sure why they are here, they will probably be questioned further until it is discovered that the real reason is to seek asylum. Then they will be entitled to benefits.
If people got here with the story that they were coming for a different purpose, with evidence to that effect and proof that they had the means to support themselves and accepted that they would not be a burden on the British taxpayer, they should not be entitled to help from the taxpayer when they subsequently change their story. I am astonished that the hon. Lady thinks otherwise.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State realise that, with the small exception of the positive amendment produced today, his continuing policy will be roundly condemned by all those who work with refugees and asylum seekers, not least the Churches? Whatever political niche he may find in the history books, it will certainly not be as the good Samaritan.
If the hon. gentleman is going to insist that applications for asylum must be made at the port of entry by people who are repressed, downtrodden and fearful, and who have fled God knows what, will he ensure that there will be people there who speak every language, to enable them
48
to understand the situation? That includes Eritrean, which might help hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, who referred to that matter earlier.
Mr. Lilley: I can reassure the hon. Lady that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary ensures that there are a wide array of interpreters covering many scores of languages to deal with the problems of people who would not otherwise be able to make themselves understood. That issue is covered, and I should have made it clear in response to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson).
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: We have heard a lot from Conservative Members about what they allege their constituents think. I am sure that my constituents want a system that is just, fair and humane. They do not expect to see it while this Government are in power.
If the Secretary of State really plans to help genuine asylum seekers, will he change his mind about withdrawing the Benefits Agency freephone telephone line for ethnic minorities? If not, how does he think that its withdrawal will help people genuinely seeking asylum?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady says that most of her constituents want a fair system. Of course they do; but I do not think that they will think that it is fair if British citizens who are refused benefit, appeal against the refusal and get no benefit while they are pursuing their appeal for the next six months, are treated much less fairly than those who come from abroad who are refused asylum, appeal against the decision and—under the ruling and the apparent policy of the Opposition—will be paid benefit while they do so, even though nearly half the British appellants are found to be genuine against only 3 per cent. of asylum claimers.
As for the freephone line, the objective is to encourage people to apply direct to their local offices and not via the freephone, which, in a large proportion of cases, we have found, has to refer them to their local offices. It will cut out the middleman and speed up the process.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What plans, if any, has the Secretary of State to give extra money to local authorities such as mine, where many asylum seekers live, that have to pick up the bill for supporting the people who will be deprived of benefits?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who has—naturally—campaigned for proper compensation to be given to local authorities such as his, which have large concentrations of asylum seekers. We responded to that by reaching an agreement with the local authority associations to reimburse a very significant proportion of the costs. That agreement is in place and is unaffected by the judgment.

Points of Order
5.11 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance and, I hope, your assistance, on a matter that I raised with you last week: the tabling of early-day motions.
I understood you to say that, when the judicial inquiry into child abuse in Clwyd was set up by a motion of this House, the matter would become sub judice. I understand that, but, on Thursday evening, I attempted to table a motion on child abuse that related to a period before that which is being investigated by the judicial inquiry, whose terms of reference are from 1974 onwards. The motion I attempted to table related specifically to 1971. You said that you would use your discretion in these matters. I am asking you to use it in this matter.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Lady knows, I have not seen the early-day motion to which she refers. Without giving a commitment, if she would like to resubmit it, I shall certainly take a look at it.
Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to the Defamation Bill with which we shall deal shortly. Would you prefer me to raise it then?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may raise his point of order now.
Mr. Ashby: I am much obliged, Madam Speaker. I raise this point because you are the person who supports Back Benchers and looks after their rights. You will recall that the Defamation Bill had its Second Reading three weeks ago in similar circumstances to those of today. The debate started at about this time, and there was a 7 o'clock vote. I believe that I was one of only two Back Benchers who spoke. I may be forgiven for having felt that I had something to offer the House on that occasion because I felt that, having been a victim, I had a knowledge of the subject. I had much information to give the House about what happens to victims and about how improvements could be made.
I was somewhat surprised—I should not have been, but I was—that I was not selected for the Committee. None the less, I tabled many amendments with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and he was ready to speak to them. I attended the Committee, although not a member, I was unable to participate, and had to sit in the public—
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?
Mr. Ashby: The point of order relates to my rights as a Back Bencher. I was surprised to find that most of the amendments that I had tabled were not called on that occasion. Notwithstanding that, I tabled many amendments—
Madam Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business before us. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me why I have not selected some of the amendments that he has tabled, the answer is that the Speaker never gives reasons for the non-selection of amendments. He asked about the
50
Committee of Selection. That is not the Speaker's business. I hope that I have dealt with his point of order, and that we can speedily move on to the very important Bill before us.
Mr. Ashby: I should like to continue with the point that I was making.
Madam Speaker: I am a most tolerant lady. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put his point so that I can deal with it.
Mr. Ashby: What is a simple Back 13encher to do when he is ridden over roughshod by the Government and by the Speaker and not able to put his points?
Madam Speaker: Order. I very much resent the hon. Gentleman's last comment. For most of this morning, I carefully examined the amendments that he tabled. Like every Speaker before me, I will not give the reasons why I cannot select them. If he were to examine them more carefully, he would know very well why they are unacceptable.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, over the weekend, Albert Tong was arrested for deportation, and subsequently suffered what is thought to have been a mild heart attack. The Minister of State, Home Office said that the Home Office had not been informed that he had health problems. She later accepted that, although the Home Office had been told, Ministers had not.
Today, it has been revealed that an immigration office letter specifically said that the Secretary of State had been informed and had considered that fact. In that light, should not the Minister come to the House to explain what inquiry she has undertaken and how the letters were sent? Can you do anything to help that happen?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman appears to be asking the Government to make a statement. If there was to have been such a statement, we would all have known about it, because it would have been on the annunciator by 1 o'clock today.
Sir Terence Higgins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that you would prefer to take points of order on the Defamation Bill now rather than at the beginning of proceedings on it. You have selected new clause 9, with which are associated several other amendments, including amendment No. 21. On Report, we do not normally debate clause stand part. However, amendment No. 21 only partially amends clause 13, to which it relates.
If new clause 9 were carried, we would take amendment No. 21 as consequential. It would effectively leave a space in which the new clause could be inserted. If I understand the situation correctly, it would not be possible to vote against clause 13, which has deficiencies other than those covered by the amendment. If that is the case, when that rather innovative clause returns to the

51
Lords, where it arose, perhaps they would be able to take into account the fact that we had not been able to vote on it.
Madam Speaker: I hope that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. If new clause 9 is not carried, I can accept a Division on amendment No. 21. That will clear the matter up.
Sir Terence Higgins: I understand that very well, but it may be that we come first to the amendment, which goes only part of the way that one wishes to go. It would be strange to vote against an amendment of which one is in favour when one cannot subsequently go further by voting against the clause itself.
Madam Speaker: New clause 9 comes before amendment No. 21, so the House will be voting on new clause 9 before we reach amendment No. 21.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be for the benefit of the House to clarify the situation. Any vote on amendment No. 21 would come at the end of all the proceedings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) will make clear, the Opposition are not suggesting that new clause 9 is the best possible solution. It will be suggested that new clause 9 is a possible alternative, but not better than complete deletion, which will still be an option open to the House after the debate on amendment No. 40.
Sir Terence Higgins: That may be so, and I shall need to think about it. Would I be right in thinking that, if amendment No. 21 were carried, the new clause would be knocked out?
Madam Speaker: No. What is the right hon. Gentleman asking? If we carry new clause 9, what we do on amendment No. 21 will depend on what the House indicates are its wishes at the time. I am in the hands of the House. We have to deal with new clause 9 first; we shall reach amendment No. 21 much later in the proceedings, by which time the House will have made up its mind how to deal with it.
Sir Terence Higgins: I am so sorry to persist, Madam Speaker, but this is a matter of constitutional importance. If we vote for new clause 9, we then reach amendment No. 21, which knocks out virtually all of clause 13. The amendment proposed goes only part of the way towards removing deficiencies in the original clause.
Madam Speaker: My advice is that the Bill would go to the House of Lords for it to consider the position. That is all we can do—once we have made our decisions, all we can do is refer the matter to the House of Lords for it to make a decision.
Sir Terence Higgins: Madam Speaker, in that case, the position is clear and the House of Lords will need to consider it. We shall not have an opportunity to knock out clause 13 completely.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just had a statement from the
52
Secretary of State for Social Security as a consequence of a decision taken by judges. He has proposed that the House should consider primary legislation to rectify the position. There has been a development on defamation over the past few years: judges have developed the law to allow them to interfere in awards made by juries, contrary to the previous opinion of judges and common law.
We have a difficulty: although seven groups of amendments have been selected for debate this afternoon, there are also two new clauses to debate. One subject was clearly a matter of interest—on Second Reading, in Committee and, in relation to some of the proposals, on Report—but unfortunately it was not possible to table an amendment which would have had the same effect as some of the new clauses and which would have returned to the House the question whether judges should be able to overturn jury awards. That is one area of defamation in which I do not have a personal interest.
The House faces a difficulty in accepting what the judges have determined the law to be, without being able to consider the subject in detail, either in Committee or on Report. It would be helpful to the House to know how it could consider the matter while debating the Bill.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. It is a matter that will become clear in debate across the House, but it is not a point of order for the Chair of the House.
Mr. Bottomley: I am not criticising the Chair—I fully understand the Chair's role in allowing the House to consider points made by right hon. and hon. Members. As one of the new clauses has not been selected, and as it is not possible to table an amendment, it will not be possible for the House to effect the law as developed by judges. As the previous question and answer session with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security demonstrated, when the judges believe that the law is not as Parliament believes it be, the House should have an opportunity, when considering a relevant Bill, to consider the sort of amendment or clause that has been tabled, but not selected.
Madam Speaker: I can select only the new clauses and amendments that are in order and that relate to the Bill. As I said earlier, I cannot give reasons for the non-selection of some new clauses and amendments, but many of them did not relate to the Bill and were out of order. I cannot select amendments that do not directly relate to the Bill. I can take no further points of order on the subject.
Mr. Bottomley: I think I must explain—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has just explained everything.
Mr. Bottomley: I am not challenging the role of the Chair; I spoke specifically in support of the role of the Speaker. How can the House consider judge-made law if it is not possible to move an amendment that is in order and if the new clause that has been tabled is out of order? That is the dilemma for the House.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can vote on new clauses or amendments in any place, either in

53
Committee—I believe that he was a member of the Standing Committee—or on the Floor of the House. It is up to the House to make its decisions. Those are not points of order that can be resolved in this way. We must move on.

Orders of the Day
  Defamation Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Defamation Bill [Lords]
    New clause 9

      EVIDENCE RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
      '.—(1) Where proceedings in Parliament are in issue in defamation proceedings, the House of Parliament in which the proceedings in issue took place may, if such relief is sought in a petition from a plaintiff in those defamation proceedings who is or has been a Member of that House, waive for the purposes of those defamation proceedings the protection afforded to that person by any enactment or rule of law which prevents proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
      (2) Where one House of Parliament waives that protection, any such enactment or rule of law shall not apply to prevent evidence being given, questions being asked or statements, submissions, comments or findings being made in or to the court about the conduct of the person in relation to whom it has been waived and no such proceedings in the court shall be regarded as infringing the privilege of that House, but—

      (a) the waiver of that protection by one House of Parliament does not affect its operation in relation to the other House;

      (b) the waiver of that protection in relation to one person does not affect its operation in relation to another; and

      (c) the waiver of that protection in relation to one cause of action does not affect its operation in relation to another cause of action.

      (3) Nothing done under this section shall affect the protection which is afforded to a person from legal liability for words spoken or things done in the course of or for the purposes of or incidental to any proceedings in Parliament by any enactment or rule of law.'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.25 pm
      Mr. Paul Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, at end add—
      '(4) This section does not apply where the cause of action arose before the section came into force.'
      Amendment No. 21, in clause 13, page 10, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 11.
      Amendment No. 43, in page 11, line 17, at end insert—
      '(4) This section does not apply where the cause of action arose before the section came into force.'.
      Amendment No. 22, in clause 18, page 13, leave out line 2.
      Amendment No. 44, in page 13, leave out line 15.
      Amendment No. 23, in page 13, leave out line 31.
      Amendment No. 24, in clause 19, page 14, leave out line 6.
      Mr. Boateng: New clause 9 and the amendments grouped with it arise as a result of a widespread concern in the House, which was reflected in Committee, at the proposals in clause 13. That clause, as drafted,

      55
      would overturn, and change in relation to article IX of the Bill of Rights, a major plank of our constitution. It is proposed to enable an hon. Member who is suing for libel to waive a privilege that has long been enjoyed by Members of the House in order to enable him to sue more effectively. It is also proposed to enable the court to determine and to rule on matters which would otherwise be considered proceedings of the House and on which it would otherwise be unable to rule.
      In his point of order, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) outlined the dilemma that the House faces as a result of the Government's handling of the matter. We were told, both in the other place by the Lord Chancellor and in this House by the then Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, that the Government's stance on the subject was neutral. We were told that there would be ample opportunity to debate the matter on Report. Were it not for the fact that the Opposition tabled new clause 9 and for the action of other Opposition Members in tabling the amendments, we would not be having this debate.
      The Government have been far from neutral on the matter. What we wanted at this stage of our deliberations was a full debate that enabled the House to determine what course of action it wished to take in relation to this fundamental constitutional issue. There should have been a range of options that we as a House could freely debate—it will be a free vote for the Opposition, and, I understand, for Conservative Members. Those options would have contained each of the elements now included in new clause 9, in amendment (a) to it, and in amendments Nos. 21 and 43.
      New clause 9 enables a Member who is suing for libel to waive privilege, but only in narrowly defined circumstances and with the approval of the House. It is drafted to limit the capacity of the courts to rule on the extent of privileged proceedings of this House, and it reasserts the collective nature of parliamentary privilege as belonging to the House as a whole rather than an individual Member. That is central to our concerns—and, I hope, to those of some Conservative Members—about clause 13. Privilege is a matter for the House, not something that we would enjoy except as Members of the House. We enjoy privilege so that we can better carry out the democratic purposes of the House.
      New clause 9 asserts the collective nature of privilege in a way that recognises also that there are hard cases. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) probably feels that his is just such a case. When hard cases arise, however, it is surely right that the whole House should determine whether someone's privilege should be waived; not the individual Member.
      Amendment No. 21 deletes the whole of clause 13, which was inserted on Third Reading in the other place, leaving the law as it stands. The effect of amendment No. 43 and of amendment (a) to new clause 9 is to ensure that no change will apply retrospectively; in other words, they bring clause 13 or new clause 9—whichever the House determines to proceed with—in line with every other major provision in the Bill.
      The dilemma outlined by the right hon. Member for Worthing in his important point of order is an exact consequence of how the Government have chosen to
      56
      proceed. The proper course would have been to produce a range of options for the House to consider. Then we could have held a free debate on them; the right hon. Member for Worthing could have chosen, for instance, to vote to remove clause 13 altogether. Then, if it fell, we could have debated whether the House, in certain circumstances, should be able to waive privilege to allow a Member to remedy a particular injustice. Thereafter we could have determined whether clause 13 met the requirements of the House in terms of privilege.
      The Government have failed to give the House the right opportunity. Indeed, the whole issue has been mishandled from start to finish. There were absurd scenes in the other place, where Lord Hoffmann was "encouraged" to table an amendment. There had been an attempt, apparently, to table it earlier on, but it failed. So—exceptionally—the amendment was tabled on Third Reading, whereupon Lord Hoffmann proceeded not to vote for his own amendment.
      So, at a late stage in the debate and by a side wind, as it were, this important clause was added. Not only did Lord Hoffmann not vote for it, but he has since made it clear that there are arguments for and against his clause and he does not regard himself as having any brief to support it.
      That is no way to rewrite the constitution. The Government meanwhile claimed that they were neutral, but rejected attempts to refer the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses, where it could have been considered with care, drawing on the expertise of outside disinterested constitutional lawyers. In that way, we could have benefited from their advice to the full. But the Government chose not to take this course; instead they pushed the measure through the House, and that is no way to change the constitution.
      Mr. David Ashby: Proceedings in the two cases concerning Members of the House were stayed on a procedural point. Procedural points are not points of law and they can be retrospective. Why is the hon. Gentleman supporting an amendment that would not allow the changes to be retrospective? Is that not an act of meanness by his party, aimed at our party?
      Mr. Boateng: I am sorry that I gave way. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would understand that both sides of the House want the matter to be regarded as separate from party politics and from the people concerned. We are worried about how it has been handled. A major constitutional change has, in effect, been brought in on the back of a couple of cases.
      When the matter was debated in the other place, several Lords and Ladies took an unprecedented and sudden interest in issues of law reform. There was a massive turnout on the Government Benches, whereas one would not have expected to find such keen interest in their Lordships' House. One suspects that that turnout was not wholly unrelated to the special and personal interests of the hon. Member for Tatton, and with their Lordships' sympathy for it. That sympathy may or may not be misplaced, but it should not in any case determine how we deal with an issue that goes to the very heart of our constitution.
      Article IX of the Bill of Rights has an important antecedent case history. It resulted from Sir John Eliot's case, from Sir William Williams's case, from Strode's

      57
      case and from the arrest of the five Members. It resulted too, from Peter Wentworth's persistent advocacy of the rights of Members of this House to freedom of speech against the great and mighty interests of the day. Is there to be added to those names the name of the hon. Member for Tatton? Is it really right that an article fashioned out of a desire to preserve and protect the privileges of this House, as a means of defending the interests of the people, should be subordinated to the special interests of the hon. Member for Tatton? Is that how we would wish to order our constitutional affairs? Of course not.
      When we consider this matter, we must do so free from the special interests represented by the hon. Member for Tattoo or the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). Of course, understandably, they feel deeply about the injustice that they believe they have experienced. However, the privilege that they have—the privilege that they enjoy to say what they wish to say when they speak during the proceedings of the House—has its downside. The downside is that it is a privilege that may not be waived to enable them to preserve and to protect their special and personal interests.
      Sir Peter Tapsell: The hon. Gentleman has cited famous and historic cases that led to the Bill of Rights—cases in which individual Members of the House were in danger of being persecuted or bullied by the King, the sovereign or the Executive of the day. We are currently discussing an entirely new situation—it did not exist in those days. Individual Members—they could be from any side of the House at any time—can be subjected to persecution, not from the Executive or from the sovereign, but from what many people regard as an over-mighty press that is owned, for the most part, by foreigners. We have to try to bring up to date the ideas that led to the Bill of Rights. We have to protect Members of Parliament, in a modern and new situation, from the sorts of abuses that the Bill of Rights sought to protect them from in the 17th century.
      Mr. Boateng: The abuse of power—whether it be by the Crown, the Executive, an over-mighty subject or group of subjects or an overweening power outside the House—is something that the House ought to take cognisance of. However, the complaint of many Labour Members and, I suspect, of some Government Members is that clause 13, as it now stands, hands over to the judiciary the power that the House should have to preserve and to protect the privileges of the House against such over-mighty and overweening powers. That power does not belong with the judiciary; it belongs in the House. New clause 9 and our series of amendments seek to enable the House to arrive at a decision in that regard.
      When we examine the Prebble v. Television New Zealand case and the jurisprudence that lies behind it, we see that it is part and parcel of a series of cases that have addressed the issue of the extent and nature of parliamentary privilege. In the light of these cases, Hansard was opened up to the courts as an instrument by which it was possible for them to arrive at an interpretation of that which we have placed in statute. When we look at these cases, we see a greater willingness by the courts to define the extent of our privilege.
      It is ironic that we should be holding this debate in the immediate aftermath of a statement that has been brought about as a result of what some Conservative Members
      58
      suggested was an unjustified usurping of our powers by the judiciary. Some of those hon. Members are now about to hand over powers in relation to the House to the judiciary to enable it to determine, through the instrument of interpretation, the extent of our privilege.
      Those of us who are concerned about clause 13 believe that we ought to do that with great caution. If we allowed the courts to interpret privilege—in the way that clause 13 will do—we would be in danger of doing the House, its proceedings and the special role its Members play in a democracy a grave disservice.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made a disparaging reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)—I hold no brief for him or for any other hon. Friend. If, for whatever reason, an individual is unpopular, what the hon. Gentleman proposes is still likely to lead to injustice. If the House decides not to support the individual Member, for whatever reason, an injustice can be perpetrated, can it not? We are seeking to protect any Member—whether we like him or not—from injustice in similar circumstances.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands our purpose in new clause 9 and in the other amendments tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We wish to give the House a series of options. One of my concerns about clause 13 is that, although it maintains the collective nature of the privilege that the House enjoys so that it can better carry out its democratic purpose, it might lead to the House as a whole being required to look into and to determine the rights and wrongs of a particular case. In those circumstances, there is a danger that considerations other than the interests of justice—considerations of a personal nature—will intervene in the process.
      Because of my concern, my preference—there is to be a free vote and my colleagues will arrive at their own decision—is to delete clause 13. In that way, we would avoid the danger to which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) referred. Equally important, we would avoid the danger that exists in relation to clause 13, which is dramatically illustrated not least by the very case in which the hon. Member for Tatton is involved. Under clause 13, as it is written, if one Member of the House is prepared to waive his privilege but another Member who is involved in the proceedings is not prepared to waive his privilege, what will happen?
      Sir Terence Higgins: The hon. Gentleman has moved on from the point that I wished to address. If he wishes to remove clause 13, he has the option to do so—he simply does not move new clause 9—and we would knock out clause 13.
      Mr. Boateng: We have chosen not to proceed in that way, in the hope—[Interruption.] I hear laughter from the Government Benches. This is a serious matter. It would have been preferable if the Leader of the House had delivered on what the Government promised: if all hon. Members were able to make a free choice between three options. The Labour party recognises that there may be hon. Members who accept the argument that in certain

      59
      cases the result of the Prebble v. Television New Zealand case, the result of article IX, is hard and creates a potential injustice for an individual.
      New clause 9 provides a halfway house in which it is possible—in certain circumstances where the House is so moved and accepts the injustice caused to one of its number by a particular action—for privilege to be waived by the whole House in relation to that hon. Member. We have tabled new clause 9 out of a desire to facilitate a debate and a free choice.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: If the motive behind new clause 9 is to pass what I readily accept is an important constitutional issue for the whole House, what is the purpose behind amendment No. 43 and amendment (a) which seek to stop those cases that are already before the courts being affected by the Bill?
      Mr. Boateng: Those amendments have a simple purpose. It must be for the whole House to determine whether anything it does should have a retrospective effect. It must be for the whole House to determine whether the cases of any individual hon. Members should be subject to new clause 9 and the amendments.
      Mr. Allason rose—
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a speech in due course. The proponents of clause 13 must answer, on the issue of injustice, the question of what happens when one Member waives privilege and another does not.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause and the position of the Lords would make huge constitutional changes that would have formidable implications for the House of Commons? Less than 5 per cent. of the membership of the Commons is here tonight. Many of my hon. Friends and many other hon. Members are perhaps unaware of what is happening. Surely the only possible way to proceed would have been for the matter to be dealt with by a Committee of the House of Commons or a Committee of both Houses. It seems utterly ludicrous that we are discussing a matter of huge constitutional importance and that a handful of Members will take a decision that we may regret—or may not regret, I do not know the answer—well into the future.
      Mr. Boateng: The timing of the debate is certainly of interest, because it inevitably will run up against the 7 o'clock deadline for private business. It can run on thereafter if the House wants it to do so, but the timing is singular and calls into question yet again—if I may say so—the Government's neutrality on the matter.
      What will be the position under clause 13 when one hon. Member waives his privilege and another does not? What would be the position in the case of the hon. Member for Tatton? Part and parcel of The Guardian's defence to his action is the position of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). Suppose the hon. Member for Tatton were to waive his privilege but the hon. Member for Beaconsfield did not waive his. The danger
      60
      would be that at least one of the parties to the litigation would still, in effect, be denied justice. The Guardian, as the defendant, would not be able to pray in aid such evidence as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield might be able to give on the matter, in so far as he has admitted that he was paid money by some outside interests for the purpose of asking a question in the House. That is a real problem and it has not been addressed by those who support clause 13.
      Our view can be summarised as follows. Privilege belongs to the House, not to the individual Member. It is for the House to determine how that privilege may or may not be exercised. If privilege is to he waived, that is a matter not for the individual but for the House as a whole. Above all, our view is that when Members individually and freely arrive at their decision on this subject, they should bear in mind that any action by the House that enables the courts, not us, to determine the proceedings of the House—clause 13 may represent just such an action—and any action that puts an individual under pressure to waive privilege, is likely to undermine the privileges of the House. Those privileges were designed to enable us to uphold, maintain and develop a democratic purpose, not to enable us to uphold special rights and interests. We tamper with such a privilege at our peril.
      For many Labour Members, clause 13 represents—in the haste and the manner in which it has been introduced—an unwarranted tampering that ultimately threatens the liberty of us all. As such, we shall resist it. All hon. Members, when they make up their minds to resist clause 13—if they do—should do so on the basis that it is an unwarranted interference. All hon. Members should bear in mind the circumstances in which the matter has been brought before the House. Hon. Members should regret the way in which it has been brought before the House and they should bear in mind also their responsibility to preserve and protect the privileges of the House, not in their interests but in the interests of the people whom they serve.
      The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): New clause 9, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made clear—although his concluding remarks called into question what he said about neutrality—and the amendments grouped with it, have given the House what we see as a valuable opportunity to debate what is undoubtedly an important issue that has arisen about parliamentary privileges and the Bill of Rights. Apart from the contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made and those that will no doubt be made by others during the debate, it is right also to acknowledge the help that has been given to the debates in this place by the earlier proceedings and exploration of the issues during the passage of the Bill in another place.
      As the House is by now well aware, and as the hon. Member for Brent, South has explained, the matter that new clause 9 and clause 13 seek to deal with has arisen because the defamation case that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and Mr. Ian Greer brought against The Guardian in the High Court was stayed by the judge because he decided that the case could not be tried properly without hearing evidence about my hon. Friend's conduct and motives in tabling the parliamentary questions that were the subject of the newspaper's allegations and that that evidence could not

      61
      be heard because of the prohibition—by virtue of article IX of the Bill of Rights—on the questioning or impeaching by the courts of proceedings in Parliament. As the hon. Member for Brent, South has already said, that case followed the earlier case of Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd. before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in which, because of the provisions of article IX, the Committee found that the defendants could not use parliamentary materials to establish the truth of allegedly defamatory allegations made by them.
      Two possible resolutions of the predicament in which my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton found himself—and which, let us be under no illusion, could face other hon. Members from any party in the future—are before the House this evening, and I will deal with each of them in turn. I make it clear—particularly in light of the hon. Gentleman's peroration which seemed at variance with his earlier stated position—that the Government have adopted the attitude of neutrality. We believe that it is a parliamentary matter and that each individual Member of Parliament should exercise his or her judgment. I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Labour party's neutral position—although I think that some of his remarks were not completely consistent with that approach.
      Against that background, clause 13—which amendment No. 21 seeks to leave out—was inserted in the Bill during its passage through another place as a result of an amendment moved by Lord Hoffmann. It would allow a Member of either House or any other person whose conduct in Parliament is an issue in defamation proceedings to waive the protection of article IX so as to enable evidence to be given in court and findings made about his conduct in Parliament. At the same time, the clause seeks to preserve the essential protection that the Bill of Rights affords—we do not dispute that such protection is necessary—to Members of both Houses and to others, such as witnesses before parliamentary Committees, from any legal liability for anything that they may say or do in the course of parliamentary proceedings.
      6 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I seek the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation on that point. Does that mean that a document that came before the Standards and Privileges Committee and that made allegations about a number of hon. Members could be used in evidence in a trial when an hon. Member seeks to waive protection? In other words, could the process of extracting information from the Committee prejudice the rights of other hon. Members or other persons who might be named in that document?
      Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is by my side. He says that he thinks that that would not be the case as the document would not be in the possession of the individual hon. Member. I shall give further attention to that point during the debate.
      Sir Terence Higgins: Would not such a document be part of the proceedings of the House?
      Mr. Newton: I think that the appropriate course is for me to take further advice about the matter and seek to respond to the House and to my right hon. Friend at a later stage.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman—no one knows all the
      62
      answers—but I ask him to seek a more sensible and informed response from his right hon. and learned Friend. I have asked a fairly elementary question that will influence the judgments of many hon. Members. I want to know whether material that is included in a document that may be owned by a Select Committee and which refers to people other than the hon. Member who is applying for that document to be made available to the court would prejudice the rights of hon. Members if it were to be freed.
      The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman as best I can—I have considered the matter.
      In my view, it would not be open to the other party to the action to call for such a document to be admitted. According to the hon. Gentleman's description, such a document would probably emanate from the Standards and Privileges Committee and it would be in the possession of the House. It would not be under the control of the hon. Member concerned and, as such, it would not be available to the other party upon discovery.
      We are discussing whether the motives or the actions in Parliament of the hon. Member who has brought the action and who has—if the clause is attached to the Bill and becomes law—waived his privilege may be impeached or called into question. That cannot occur at present because of article IX of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the court has held in the Hamilton case that the matter must be stayed as the full issues cannot be tried. The court has not held that it must be stayed because every relevant document that is in Parliament's possession cannot be made available—that would be a much wider point.
      Mr. Boateng rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Leader of the House has the Floor.
      Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Brent, South, who clearly wishes to intervene. However, first I must complete my point. My right hon. and learned Friend is present and I am sure that he will seek to assist the House at any appropriate stage in the debate if that should prove helpful.
      Mr. Boateng: The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is not answered completely by the Attorney-General's intervention. What would occur if the hon. Member concerned had made a number of interventions or raised a number of points during Committee proceedings, which are obviously part of the parliamentary record? If that hon. Member subsequently waives his privilege, surely it is open to the defendant to say, "We should have access to that information which reflects his motives and conduct but which appears in a document to which other hon. Members who have not waived their privilege have contributed." As the Attorney-General said, one imagines that such a document would be owned by the Committee and by the House. It would hamper the defendant if he

      63
      were not given access to that document. We are opening that area to the scrutiny of the courts if we allow clause 13 to stand.
      Mr. Newton: I have already said that my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to assist the House later if that should prove helpful. Meanwhile, we must remember that the House allows the courts to refer to Hansard.
      Mr. John Morris: As the Attorney-General intends to assist the House further, I ask him to consider that we are seeking to allow the protection of Parliament to be raised as the clause would apply to parliamentary proceedings that at present cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament. That is the starting point. Clause 13(2) states:
      "Where a person waives that protection—

      (a) any such enactment or rule of law shall not apply to prevent evidence being given, questions being asked or statements, submissions, comments or findings being made about his conduct".

      How will the sorts of documents to which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) refers be ring-fenced in that regard?
      Mr. Newton: I shall not elaborate further upon the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend, beyond saying that, according to the advice given to me, the short answer is that such a document could not be made available without a separate decision of the House. I hope that that provides the reassurance that both the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and the hon. Member for Brent, South are seeking.
      Dr. Tony Wright: I do not wish to explore the content of the answer by the Leader of the House, but I must put several points to him. Does not that important exchange illustrate a fundamental difficulty with the clause? The House—particularly the Standards and Privileges Committee—has laboured mightily over the years to try to define what constitutes proceedings in Parliament. The clause, quite casually and without reference to any Committee or to previous deliberations, announces that there may be a waiver and that proceedings in Parliament shall be thus and thus. The first time that it is tested, we find that we do not know what the Bill says. Does that not illustrate precisely the difficulties of dealing with a major constitutional issue in a wholly casual manner?
      Mr. Newton: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to develop that point, which, in a sense, has already been developed by the hon. Members for Brent, South and for Workington. No one—certainly not me—is seeking to present the argument as though every single case was conclusive and one way. There clearly is a balance of considerations, and every hon. Member will have to make up his or her own mind at the end of the debate about where the balance lies between the risks that have been focused on in the past few minutes and the injustice that many people feel that two hon. Members have experienced as a result of what has occurred in recent times.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and
      64
      Privileges. I have been a member of that Committee sufficiently long to realise that the test that he sets in any debate is that we go to the very nth degree to ensure that what we are doing is absolutely correct, because we do not—especially the right hon. Gentleman as Chairman—want to be party to mistakes. Does he not feel that, on this very important issue, he should be sitting in the Chair of the Committee and that we should be taking evidence to ensure that a mistake is not made? The Committee might well approve it. I simply do not know. We may reject it. But we cannot afford to take that risk without the fullest inquiry.
      Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the complimentary nature of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. There was sufficient concern in another place to consider it right to raise the issue in relation to the Bill, and in the event they decided to insert what is now clause 13. That—inescapably, it seems to me—gives me a duty to set out as fairly as I can the balance of consideration for the House to take into account when deciding whether it wishes to proceed. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman will argue that it would be a mistake for the House to proceed in this way, either because he is against it or because he feels that the implications have not been sufficiently explored. That is a point for him to argue, and if he does so with sufficient persuasion no doubt the House will reach a different decision from that currently in the Bill. That is what we are talking about tonight.
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: The other place agreed clause 13. The great distinction between clause 13 and new clause 9 is that the latter exclusively affects Members of Parliament of either House. Clause 13 gives the power to waive privilege to all witnesses before Select Committees and to any and every Officer of the House who may be called to give evidence. What are the consequences of witnesses who come before a Select Committee in the knowledge that, in future, they may want to waive their privilege if a case comes to court? Surely the place to discuss the consequences and ramifications of the possible distortion of the evidence that such a witness may give is the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which the right hon. Gentleman chairs with such distinction, and not on the Floor of the House, as we have not debated clause stand part and the clause was not in the Bill at the beginning.
      Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The rest are points of argument about what decision the House will have to take at the conclusion of the debate. I hope that it is clear by now that nobody—certainly not me—is dismissing the points that have been made, although on balance I would probably come to a different conclusion as an individual. There clearly are, as I have acknowledged, a number of factors that the House needs to take into account when considering the matter. Indeed, I had hoped to set them out relatively briefly in the course of my remarks.
      Sir Peter Tapsell: It has been more than three centuries since the Bill of Rights 1688 was put on the statute book. Am I right in thinking that the tradition of the House is that if the integrity of an hon. Member in discharging his parliamentary duties is seriously impugned by an outside body, the Privileges Committee investigates the matter,

      65
      that if it is found that the hon. Member has seriously misbehaved, he is punished by the House, and that if the allegations against the hon. Member are unfounded, the person or organisation bringing the allegation is seriously punished by the House? Why could not the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges have dealt with this matter?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Newton: Perhaps others will wish to comment, because it is not for me to say why particular people took particular actions at particular times. I have to cope with the fact that the clause was added to the Bill in another place, as they felt that it was an appropriate way of tackling what everybody acknowledges is a problem. Whatever else may be realistic to suppose about the activities of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, it should also be acknowledged that it would not be in a position to impose an award of damages against a person who was judged to have libelled somebody. There would be widespread objection—certainly in this day and age—to some fine or award of damages being imposed by a Committee of the House in the circumstances that my hon. Friend seems to be postulating.
      Sir Peter Tapsell: With great respect, I do not think that my right hon. Friend has answered the question. I did not raise the question of damages, which arise only if the case goes to court. Why cannot the merits of the case be handled by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and a decision made in the terms that I mentioned in my earlier question? I thought that that was why the Committee existed.
      Mr. Newton: The Committee of Privileges—the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, as it now is—obviously seeks to examine matters that are referred to it. On the cases that led to the debate tonight, I have already made the point that it was felt appropriate in another place to tackle the matter by a change in the law to enable Members of Parliament to pursue their cases through the courts in such circumstances in the same way as anybody else. That does not exclude the Select Committee from investigating the matter, were it to be asked to do so, but many people would feel that that alone would not be adequate where a Member of Parliament was in effect—or felt that he had been—libelled in respect of his actions within the House.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: In making up their mind, did the Government consider the entire corpus of decision making, which goes back to the case of George Strauss v. the London Electricity Board in relation to what is and what is not a proceeding in Parliament? That case has served us quite well over the years.
      Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman echoes one or two points that have been made by his hon. Friends. Again, it is a point of argument. It is one of the factors that the House needs to take into account in reaching a judgment at the end of the debate.
      The case for the clause can be put simply. In essence, it would enable justice to be done in defamation cases such as that brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. As the House well knows, provided that my hon.
      66
      Friend—or anybody else in those circumstances—waived his protection, which the clause would allow him to do, the defendants in the case would be able to call evidence relating to the proceedings of the House to justify the allegations that they published, and the issue between them and the plaintiffs could be tried by the court. If the plaintiffs went on to win their case, they would be able to clear their names of the charges against them, a matter to which those affected would naturally attach great importance. Furthermore, they would be able to recover damages—which they could not do if they were able only to resort to the machinery that exists within Parliament for dealing with such cases by way of a complaint of privilege.
      There is a substantial case to be made for the clause. On the other hand—this echoes a point that I have acknowledged on a number of occasions—it is, of course, also the case that any interference with the Bill of Rights, which has stood the House in good stead for more than three centuries, is a matter of great importance, which both Houses are rightly anxious to assess with the utmost care.
      One line of criticism is that the clause gives unfair advantage to Members of Parliament. I do not think that the hon. Member for Brent, South made that point, but the argument is that a Member would be able to put his conduct in Parliament before the courts when it suited him if he thought that he had been defamed, but would continue to enjoy absolute protection from liability if he said something in the House about another person that would have been defamatory if he had said it outside the House.
      The House will doubtless agree that it is essential to preserve—as the clause does—the core privilege of protection from liability in respect of proceedings in Parliament, without which the exercise of free speech in Parliament cannot be upheld. Lord Hoffmann commented on that in another place, arguing that, while there was an obvious public interest in freedom of speech in Parliament, there was no public interest in allowing anyone free licence to make defamatory statements about what hon. Members do in the course of their parliamentary duties. Personally, I agree with that.
      Another concern that has been expressed—the hon. Member for Brent, South did touch on this—is that, once hon. Members were enabled to waive protection, they could be put under pressure to do so when they did not wish to. That problem does not arise in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, but it could conceivably arise in other cases, including the case on which the hon. Member for Brent, South speculated—a case in which the conduct of one hon. Member was inextricably linked with that of another. That is yet another factor that the House must take into account in making a decision.
      Mr. Boateng: But that is precisely the point that will arise in relation to the The Guardian case, in which the conduct of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has a direct bearing on that of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) as far as the newspaper is concerned. 'That is the reality of the case that led to the tabling of the

      67
      clause. The conflict—or the danger of a conflict—between two hon. Members, one waiving protection and the other not waiving it, lies there.
      Mr. Newton: The question of any link would be a matter for the court. I certainly do not want to be drawn into discussing what is and what is not linked in respect of any particular case. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that that dilemma, or potential problem, would exist just as much—and, I believe, more in some respects—if new clause 9 were adopted. Presumably, the House would then be able to impose on one Member a waiver that was not sought by that Member, but was sought by another. I do not see how the arrangement would work in any other circumstances. Otherwise, no answer is presented to the problem; the problem would, or could, arise in any event, whether on the lines of new clause 9 or on those of clause 13.
      I accept that that line of argument leads the hon. Gentleman to the conclusion that he would prefer amendment No. 21 to new clause 9. That is what he implied towards the end of his speech. I am simply saying that I do not think that the solution that he seemed to prefer at the outset of the debate—new clause 9—is in fact a solution to the problem to which he just referred.
      Mr. Boateng: I made it clear at the outset that hon. Members should not have to face such a choice. We should be in a position to choose freely which of the three options to support: the status quo, the whole House determining whether privilege should be waived or clause 13. If, as Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman had taken the initiative in relation to the ordering of the House's business and given the House that free choice—as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) pointed out—we would not be in the invidious position of having to vote on new clause 9 first. We are having to do that precisely because the Government, in their neutrality, have abdicated their responsibility to the whole House.
      Mr. Newton: Obviously, I do not accept that at all. What we are seeking to do at this very moment is to provide the House with an opportunity to make choices of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has described, and that opportunity arises because of what has been tabled.
      Mr. Devlin: Amendment (a) to new clause 9 was clearly drafted by The Guardian with the aim of preventing the current cases being brought against it. Will the Committee of Privileges be looking into the motives of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), who tabled the amendment?
      Mr. Newton: I am not aware of any proposal for the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to look into that, but I am sure that, if an appropriate complaint were made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, he would examine it in the proper way—as Madam Speaker has indicated on a number of occasions.
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: Many of us who have been following the debate carefully would have expected the Leader of the House to slap down that last intervention, which constituted a vicious attack on my hon.
      68
      Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). I expect better of the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, many of us are unhappy about the proceedings, because they do not seem to issue from a mature period of reflection. These are fundamental issues, but everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said so far persuades me—along with many of my hon. Friends—that we are involved in a short-term quick fix. This is not the way in which to debate an arrangement that has served us well for 300 years.
      Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that what I said about the proper course for referring complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was said in pretty much the same terms as those in which I have said it to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised possible complaints in the period since the new machinery was set up. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham rose—
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody rose—
      Mr. Newton: I will give way to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), but if I continue to give way no one else will have a chance to speak.
      Mr. Bermingham: Having sat here listening to the debate, and having watched it earlier on television, I am struck by the fact that the issue is complicated and confusing, and by the fact that the House has not been properly briefed. [Interruption.] We hear the twittering of ignorant birds again. As I was saying, the issue is complex, and most hon. Members have not been briefed in any great depth. It has slipped through from another place. If we are to change 300 years of history, perhaps we could do it with a little more decorum and be given a little more time. We need a much more wide-ranging discussion.
      Mr. Newton: Again, that is a point of argument. The hon. Gentleman is advancing reasons why he believes that it might be right to go down the path recommended by the hon. Member for Brent, South—or one of those paths. Let me reiterate my position. Clause 13 is in the Bill, and I am doing what I can to sketch some of the factors that the House ought to have in mind in reaching a conclusion, in relation to either new clause 9 or amendment No. 21.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Newton: Yes, but this must be more or less the last time.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: As a non-lawyer, I am now totally confused. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would make the position clear to me, as an hon. Member with a vote. Is he saying that, in future, a Member of Parliament will be able to waive the privileges and protection of the House when it suits him, and will not have to when it does not? Is he also saying that, on that basis, the House will not be able to vote to maintain its existing arrangements this evening? If that is what he is

      69
      saying, I should be grateful if he would make it clear so that we know exactly what we are voting for in relation to the powers of the House.
      Mr. Newton: I do not think that the hon. Lady is entirely right, on the basis of the guidance that Madam Speaker gave the House earlier. I hope that I am correct. If new clause 9 were accepted, it would leave certain provisions in the Bill, albeit different from those that are in it now; but if it were rejected, there would still be amendment No. 21, which in effect removes clause 13. I think that I have that right.
      Mr. Rooker: With respect to the Leader of the House, new clause 9 does not knock out clause 13. The House could send back this Bill to the other place with both clauses in and let it clear up the mess. So voting on this matter will be rather more complicated than he explained.
      Mr. Newton: I would not seek to presume on the Chair's prerogative, but I was seeking to explain that—as I understood what Madam Speaker told the House earlier, when the point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins)—were the House to decline to accept new clause 9 and to agree amendment No. 21, the effect would be that clause 13 had disappeared from the Bill and had not been replaced.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House confirm that what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said is absolutely correct and that the Bill provides exactly for her interpretation?
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Newton: I do not think that it does, and I have just sought to explain why it does not. I understood the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—I do not want to misinterpret her or any other hon. Member—to be that there were no means by which the House could remove clause 13 without having new clause 9, whereas in fact it was made clear earlier today that that result could be achieved by the House voting for amendment No. 21. That is all that I am seeking to make clear, and I hope that it has been helpful to the hon. Lady.
      Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order when you took the Chair only a few moments ago and also for interrupting the speech of the Leader of the House, but it is clear that there is considerable unhappiness in all parts of the House with proceeding with a very important matter and, in particular, confusion over what opportunity hon. Members will have to express their view when the Division is called. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you consider the order of business to enable the House to vote, first, on new clause 9, and then immediately after to vote on amendment No. 21, or conversely? As I understand it—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's question, but I cannot account for hon. Members' unhappiness. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's request is no, it is not possible.
      Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to come into the Chamber and then to stand up and say that they are confused because they have not listened to the debate?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Newton: I was about to come to the third point—it has already surfaced in the debate, and concern has been expressed about it—which is the relationship between Parliament and the courts.
      70
      As we know, in broad terms, article IX keeps the courts out of Parliament's business, and the sub judice rule that operates in the House keeps Parliament out of the courts' business. The proposal would inevitably let the courts into an area from which they are currently excluded, and it would be for the courts to decide how far to go in each case in inquiring into the proceedings of Parliament. If the clause was passed, the courts would have to decide for themselves exactly what it meant in particular circumstances, and the precise scope of the protective provisions that restate the traditional effect of the Bill of Rights.
      Some observers consider that the courts are already tending to take a more restrictive view than the House has traditionally done of the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights—such as the judgment in the case of Pepper v. Hart, for example, in which it was held that the courts could in certain circumstances use Hansard for the purpose of interpreting a statute. Again, that is one of the factors that the House will have to bear in mind in reaching a decision.
      I should like to say a few words about new clause 9, which was moved by the hon. Member for Brent, South, and to note the two differences of substance between new clause 9 and clause 13.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he has made a number of interventions, and I think that it would be more appropriate for him to make a speech later in the debate.
      The first difference of substance is that the clause applies solely to Members or former Members of either House. A witness before a Select Committee who was defamed in respect of his evidence would have no opportunity to seek redress in the courts, whereas a member of the Select Committee who had been libelled in respect of a question he had put to that witness would have such an opportunity. The House will want to consider whether it regards that as an equitable outcome.
      The second difference of substance is more substantial. Clause 13 envisages the waiver of protection by an individual hon. Member, without the House having any say in the matter. Conversely, new clause 9 allows either House to waive protection on a petition from an hon. Member or former hon. Member who is a plaintiff in a defamation case.
      It is of course the case that parliamentary privilege belongs in the first instance to the House, and only then to its hon. Members. "Erskine May" states at page 69:
      "it is only as a means to the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House that the individual privileges are enjoyed by Members."
      In practical terms, it is very difficult to see on what basis the House could reasonably allow a waiver in one case and decline to allow a waiver in another case. In my judgment, it is much less difficult to envisage circumstances in which a decision by the House might be much influenced by factors other than the objective merit of the case—at the worst, of course, the decision might become the focus of a straightforward partisan dispute.

      71
      We should at least face up to that possibility, which would be very damaging to all hon. Members and would certainly be of no help to parliamentary privilege.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to press the Minister, but will he answer another question for me? Could an hon. Member waive privilege and thereby enable a court to draw on an original document prior to a sidelining amendment by a Committee, which means the deletion of matters that the Committee feels should not be made available outside the Committee?
      Mr. Newton: I think that that is a variant of the hon. Gentleman's earlier question, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General replied. I have already said that my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to assist the House further on such points later in the debate if that is thought to be helpful.
      The House should recognise that it is the individual hon. Member who is taking the risk in waiving the protection afforded by article IX of the Bill of Rights so as to allow the court to hear evidence about his conduct, and it should be for him alone to decide whether the protection should be waived.
      A point of detail arises on amendment (a) to new clause 9, which is in the name of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), and on amendment No. 43 to clause 13, which is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. As has become clear, if either of those amendments is agreed to, an hon. Member who is libelled in 1997—next year, for example—in respect of something that he has done in Parliament will be able to get justice in the courts. But my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, who believes—and wishes to prove, as he has repeatedly made clear—that he was libelled in 1994 in respect of something he had done in Parliament, would still be denied an opportunity to clear his name.
      The hon. Member for Brent, South has given his reasons for believing that that would be an appropriate outcome, and, of course, all hon. Members would acknowledge that the House is rightly suspicious of anything that smacks of retrospective legislation. But I find it hard to understand how that can be retrospective legislation in the sense that normally causes concern. We are not making unlawful some action that was lawful at the time it was performed, but we are removing a barrier to the hearing of evidence that the parties to the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton wish to call. I also remind the House that my hon Friend's case has not been struck out. It has only been stayed, and is therefore capable of being revived.
      I underline the fact that the protection of article IX could be removed from an hon. Member only if he wanted it to be removed. All hon. Members can agree that there should be no question of an hon. Member who has not sought a waiver finding what he has said or done in the House exposed to scrutiny in the courts. That applies just as much to words and actions that lie in the past as it does to words and actions in the future, after this clause—were it to be agreed to and remain in the Bill—has come into operation.
      So there need be no anxiety that words that have been spoken in this House by an hon. Member in the belief that those words would not be scrutinised by the courts may
      72
      now be exposed to such scrutiny against the hon. Member's will. In my view, if Parliament believes that it is right to allow hon. Members an opportunity to waive the protection of article IX in the circumstances that we have been discussing, it is right that Members of Parliament currently affected by a case that has been stayed should be allowed to benefit in the same way as hon. Members whose cases may arise in future.
      I hope that I have given fairly good reasons for believing that clause 13 is a more satisfactory solution than new clause 9. I make it clear that that is my view—but a personal view, and not one that I state on behalf of the Government. I personally prefer clause 13 to new clause 9. We return to the central question raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich as to whether it is right to tackle the problem at all by legislating at this time. There are clearly differences of opinion. I have repeatedly emphasised that the issue is for the individual judgment of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I should conclude by remarking that my personal judgment is that it is right to tackle the problem. I expect to cast my own vote—I make this clear as a matter of fact, not a point of argument—to preserve clause 13 as it stands.
      Mr. Peter Shore: I am struck by the lack of enthusiasm for both clause 13 and new clause 9. The Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) have largely succeeded in convincing me that we would do better to leave things as they are, particularly as we have not had the benefit of a study by a Joint Committee of both Houses and as clause 13 was introduced at a late stage in the other place and appears before us tonight for the first time.
      It is obvious that the privileges of the House are enormously important to the House collectively as well as to Members of Parliament individually. The one strength of new clause 9 is precisely that it recognises that the waiving of privilege is the concern not only of an individual hon. Member but of the whole House. New clause 9 requires that, before initiating defamation proceedings, an hon. Member should petition the House or the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges for consent to waive the protection accorded to us all by article IX of the Bill of Rights.
      I have more confidence than some hon. Members in the seriousness of the Standards and Privileges Committee. It can be relied on not to allow personal likes and dislikes to affect its judgment. Moreover, it will thoroughly consider all the possibilities before it consents to infringing the rights of other hon. Members or of the House.
      For three centuries, Parliament and its Members have been protected by the famous words of the Bill of Rights that our proceedings
      "ought not to he impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament."
      We all agree that that protection should not lightly be breached.
      There is a case for allowing an hon. Member to waive his or her historic privilege in pursuit of defamation proceedings and, in making it, it is helpful to have the safeguard to which I have referred—that of obtaining the prior consent of the whole House. Hon. Members inevitably have in mind the case involving the hon.

      73
      Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). He maintains that he was libelled by The Guardian, which alleged that he had received money from Mr. al-Fayed via Ian Greer Associates for tabling questions in the House. The hon. Gentleman and Ian Greer Associates—one of whose senior executives is a constituent of mine—immediately sued for libel, but the case could not proceed after Mr. Justice May ruled in the High Court that as the evidence directly involved proceedings in Parliament it was blocked by article IX of the Bill of Rights.
      The hon. Member for Tatton maintains that that is unjust and that he has been denied a remedy available to other citizens of the United Kingdom by a provision in the Bill of Rights that was enacted not for that purpose but to ensure that we enjoy untrammelled free speech in Parliament.
      6.45 pm
      I am not entirely clear whether a parliamentary remedy remains available to the hon. Member for Tatton. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is considering a document that contains allegations against the hon. Gentleman and others, and I understand that the issue is likely to be reported to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Is it not possible for the hon. Member for Tatton to pursue his case before that Committee? I do not know the answer. Whatever it may be, privilege poses an additional problem to individuals whose names are associated with the alleged wrongdoing of an hon. Member. In this case, The Guardian alleged that payments were made through Ian Greer Associates. The company says that it has lost reputation and business as a consequence but has no remedy unless the Member of Parliament waives his privilege. That aspect should be considered when the House decides whether to support any of the amendments.
      Mr. Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Shore: I am coming to the end of my remarks.
      Although I support new clause 9—just—I am not persuaded that amendment No. 43 should be agreed as it directly excludes any case initiated before the Bill is enacted, which seems unfair to the plaintiffs.
      Sir Terence Higgins: I am struck by the fact that many aspects of the argument do not emerge at first sight. I am clear that the issue should be examined by a Joint Committee of both Houses. We have not previously considered a wide range of aspects. The House is rightly jealous of its privileges. The question is whether, by accepting clause 13 or new clause 9, we shall undermine our privileges. Over the centuries, the Bill of Rights has ensured that there is no conflict between the House and the courts, but we suddenly find that the courts are dealing with matters that affect us. That point was made by Lord Simon of Glaisdale in another place:
      "In the most recent case that reviewed this matter … it was emphasised that it would be quite intolerable if there were two inquiries going ahead simultaneously or overlapping, one by the courts of law and one by the House of Parliament. The amendment—
      74
      now clause 13—
      "would land us in a whole number of respects in precisely that situation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 April 1996; Vol. 571, c. 31.]
      We cannot allow that, especially as the Bill did not contain such a clause when it was first introduced in the House of Lords. The clause was introduced in a strange way—in an amendment for which the proposer did not vote. Clearly, we have to consider the matter extremely carefully.
      As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said in an intervention a few moments ago, our procedure is not satisfactory. As I understand it—and as Madam Speaker has confirmed—initially we can vote on new clause 9. If it is carried, we shall go on to consider amendment No. 21, which effectively would create a hole into which new clause 9 would slot. If new clause 9 is defeated, we shall vote on amendment No. 21, which would delete clause 13. That creates a problem for hon. Members who feel that new clause 9 improves clause 13, but would prefer to knock out clause 13. With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, we do not have that choice, which raises a difficult question about which way to vote. I hope that many hon. Members who are not present in the Chamber are watching the debate on television as they will have to decide how to vote on new clause 9 and on amendment No. 21 should new clause 9 be defeated. It is a complicated and difficult matter.
      I have already pointed out some of the potential dangers of accepting either new clause 9 or clause 13. However, I should mention one point that had not occurred to me previously, and it is a matter of grave concern to me as a member of the Liaison Select Committee. If the House were to give an hon. Member the right to petition the House to waive parliamentary privilege, to what extent would that allow the courts to question proceedings in the House under the Bill of Rights?
      My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was not quite right about that. We have to consider what are proceedings in the House: that is an uncertain matter. It is not simply—as was suggested a moment or two ago—a question of evidence that hitherto had not been sidelined suddenly being revealed to public gaze when the Select Committee concerned thought that it should have been sidelined. Whether or not evidence is sidelined, if it proves to be relevant to a case in which the individual concerned has waived his privilege, the other side can ask to see privileged documents and can question them in court. That is precisely what the Bill of Rights has sought to prevent for hundreds of years, and for very good reason.
      I am particularly concerned about evidence that has been give to Select Committees in confidence. We all know the difficulties involved in Select Committees taking evidence in confidence if the witness feels that it may be revealed subsequently. We have been over those arguments many times before.
      Witnesses will be more hesitant about giving evidence in confidence if they believe that it will be challenged in court and that it will not be treated in confidence by the House, even though the Select Committee and the House had promised that it would be. That had not occurred to me until this afternoon, but it is another reason why the matter should be considered in greater depth and not decided on the basis of an amendment that was carried somewhat haphazardly in another place.

      75
      For the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave, new clause 9 appears to be some improvement on clause 13. It would restrict the waiving of parliamentary privilege to hon. Members, although whether that is fair on witnesses, who would not be able to waive parliamentary privilege, is another matter. Again, there are two arguments to be considered.
      Mr. Newton: I may not have made it sufficiently clear that I prefer clause 13 to new clause 9, partly for the reason that my right hon. Friend has given.
      Sir Terence Higgins: That is the essence of the dilemma. The question is whether to vote against new clause 9 although it may be an improvement on the status quo.
      My right hon. Friend pointed out the other difference between clause 13 and new clause 9. Under clause 13, the matter is left entirely to the discretion of the individual hon. Member—I have already mentioned some of the potential hazards—but under new clause 9 an hon. Member has to petition the House, which may accept his petition. As my right hon. Friend said, that may involve party politics.
      I find myself in the position of night watchman in a cricket match, as it is clear that the debate will continue later and we cannot make an immediate decision.
      It is probably advisable to vote for new clause 9. If it is carried, with all its imperfections, it will go back to the House of Lords for a decision, where, I hope, their Lordships will decide that clause 13 should be deleted and the matter referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. If it is defeated, we shall then have the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 21. That will be difficult as we may or may not win.
      On reflection, I believe profoundly that the matter should be considered further. It is clear from what has been said that we do not have all the facts to hand. Important issues of parliamentary privilege that affect proceedings on the Floor of the House and in Select Committees have been raised and I hope that they will be considered further.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: In accordance with the spirit of the House, I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). His analysis of the consequences of voting is clear beyond question and the House would be well advised to follow his advice. I shall certainly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so.
      Mr. Boateng: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 11

      LIMITATION OF ACTIONS: SCOTLAND
      '(1) The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 is amended as follows.
      (2) In section 18A (limitation of defamation and other actions), for subsection (1) substitute—
      76
      "(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below and section 19A of this Act, no action for defamation shall be brought unless it is commenced within a period of one year after the date when the right of action accrued."
      (3) In section I9A (power of court to override time—limits, etc).
      (a) for subsection (1) substitute—
      "(1) Where a person would be entitled, but for any of the provisions of section 17 or section 18 and 18A of this Act, to bring an action, the court may, if it seems equitable to do so, allow him to bring the action (or to bring any specified cause of action to which the action relates) notwithstanding that provision."
      (b) after subsection (1) insert—
      "(1A) In acting under this section in respect of causes of action falling within section I8A of this Act, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to—

      (a) the degree to which the operation of section 18A of this Act prejudices the pursuer or any person whom he represents;

      (b) the degree to which any decision of the court under this section would prejudice the defender or any person whom he represents;

      (c) the length of, and the reasons for the delay on the part of the pursuer;

      (d) where the reason or one of the reasons for the delay was that all or any of the facts relevant to the cause of action did not become known to the pursuer until after the end of the period mentioned in section 18A—

      (i) the date on which any such facts did become known to him; and

      (ii) the extent to which he acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the facts in question might be capable of giving rise to an action; and

      (e) the extent to which, having regard to the delay, relevant evidence is likely—

      (i) to be unavailable, or

      (ii) to be less cogent than if the action had been brought within the period mentioned in section 18A.

      (1B) In the case of an action for malicious falsehood brought by a personal representative, the references in subsection (1A) above to the pursuer shall be construed as including the deceased person to whom the cause of action accrued and any previous personal representative of that person."
      (4) The amendments made by this section apply only to rights of action arising after the section comes into force.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in clause 18, page 13, line 13, at end insert—
      'section (Limitation of actions: Scotland) (time limits for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood)'.
      No. 42, in clause 19, page 14, line 3, leave out '5 and 6' and insert
      '5, 6 and (Limitation of actions: Scotland)'.
      Mr. Brooke: It is a remarkable coincidence that I should rise to move new clause 11 when, in rather less than a minute's time, my speech will be interrupted and I shall sit down, only to be called immediately to move the Second Reading of the King's College London Bill [Lords]. I therefore must occupy this brief period with

      77
      niceties and allusions to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), in whose name the new clause also stands, spoke on the matter in Committee and who I know—
      It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

      King's College London Bill [Lords] (By Order)
      Order for Second Reading read.
      7 pm
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I ask hon. Members to withdraw from the Chamber unless they are taking part in the debate. Further to that, I ask hon. Members who are having a dialogue on the previous Bill to do so outside the Chamber.
      Mr. Brooke: The Bill is promoted jointly by King's college London and the united medical and dental schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals. For brevity, I shall refer to the latter as UMDS. Both are part of the university of London. I should declare an interest. I am a fellow of King's college and a member of the council of the university of London. The main campus of King's college lies at the heart of my constituency.
      The Bill is designed to bring about the merger of King's college and UMDS. However, the scene is a little more complex than that. King's college already has a medical and dental school: King's college school of medicine and dentistry. Following the merger, King's college—a multi-faculty institution—will have an integrated medical and dental school made up of the present UMDS and King's college school of medicine and dentistry. I shall return to that, because the coming together of the two medical and dental schools is key to the success of the merger.
      The Bill's provisions are straightforward. In large measure, they follow those of other private Acts, merging medical schools with multi-faculty colleges. The Bill has a lengthy preamble that recites the history of the formation of King's college London and UMDS. King's was founded by charter in 1829. The histories of St. Thomas's and Guy's can be traced as far back as 1550 and 1769 respectively. The Bill is self-explanatory, but, as there is only a small number of key clauses, I shall at this juncture rehearse their rationale and relevance to the purpose of the Bill that I have just described.
      Clause 3 provides that King's college school of medicine and dentistry and UMDS may agree a day to be the effective date for the proposed merger. Clause 4 provides for the dissolution of UMDS, and subsequent clauses provide for the transfer to King's of UMDS's property, obligations and rights. Clauses 6 and 7, together with schedule 2, protect certain properties of UMDS for 10 years. During that period, the use of those properties may not be changed without the approval of a body that the Bill establishes, which is the continuing trustees of UMDS. Clauses 15 and 16 amend the statutes of King's college so that UMDS will be appropriately represented on the principal decision-making bodies of King's.
      I urge that the Bill be accepted for three main reasons. First, it is widely agreed that the integration of medical schools and multi-faculty colleges such as King's leads to improved quality in both medical education and research. Secondly, it is only by unifying two medical and dental schools of international distinction—UMDS and King's

      79
      college school of medicine and dentistry—that further potential for achievement in medical and dental education, the biomedical sciences and research will be released. That is particularly true of research that increasingly relies on critical mass. Current research is about complex problems and requires big research teams and expensive equipment. Thirdly, the Bill has the overwhelming support of the respective councils of governors of the merging institutions, their staff and students. It has long been accepted that there are academic benefits—not least for students—as well as good administrative financial reasons for integrating free-standing medical schools into multi-faculty colleges.
      As long ago as 1968, the royal commission on medical and dental education recommended that pre-clinical students should study in a multi-faculty environment—the London medical schools being unusual in being free-standing, independent schools. Since then, there have been a series of mergers of London medical schools with multi-faculty colleges: University College hospital medical school with University college London in 1979, St. Mary's hospital medical school with Imperial college, which are both in my constituency, in 1988, and the Middlesex hospital medical school with University college London in the same year.
      More recently, the inquiry headed by Sir Bernard Tomlinson recommended that eight of the London undergraduate medical schools be merged into four faculties of medicine in the multi-faculty colleges of the university of London that teach medicine. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has been asked by the Government to take the recommendation forward. Of the mergers recommended, in addition to the proposed merger of UMDS and King's, the merger of Bart's and the Royal London hospital medical schools with Queen Mary and Westfield college has already been authorised by an Act that was passed in November, and the Bill to merge the Royal Free hospital school of medicine with UCL is awaiting Royal Assent.
      As I said, the unification of UMDS and King's has the overwhelming support of the respective councils of governors of the merging institutions, their staff and students.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: As a very proud former student of King's—although not of the departments with which the Bill is concerned—I should like to confirm whether every member of staff and student supports the merger. If so, I shall vote for the Bill.
      Mr. Brooke: I do not know whether I can say that support is unanimous, but there is overwhelming support in the bodies that are coming together for the scheme. I thank the hon. Gentleman for being present as a graduate of the college.
      The proposed merger has been seen as the way forward for a long time. The two institutions began discussions about coming together as early as 1989. Indeed, before the Tomlinson report was published, they had already signed a memorandum of agreement to merge. So the development was pre-Tomlinson. Practical planning for the proposed merger is well advanced, not only administratively but academically.
      80
      For example, from 1998, King's and UMDS will have a common curriculum for third-year study—the first year of the clinical focus of the five-year undergraduate medical programme. By 2000, King's and UMDS will offer a joint curriculum. That advanced stage of academic planning is one of the main reasons why UMDS and King's want the merger to go ahead with all speed within a unified management structure. Delay at this stage would not only frustrate the introduction of the joint curriculum to which I referred, but, more important, reduce the morale of staff who have so enthusiastically been planning a joint future. Uncertainty would also result, with consequent adverse effects on staff, students and research teams.
      UMDS and King's believe that their merger will provide unparalleled opportunities for the further development of their unified medical and dental schools as a centre of national and international distinction in teaching and research. It will improve significantly the opportunities for interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary integration in pursuit of both teaching and research excellence. Resulting economies of scale will ensure that the merged college is a cost-effective institution, both in terms of space utilisation and recurrent and capital expenditure.
      The proposed consolidation of biomedical sciences, currently taught on six sites, on the Guy's medical school and hospital site will be of great advantage not only academically but in terms of cost-effectiveness. The consolidation of biomedical sciences will require new build. That can be done at Guy's without any effect on present or future hospital services. The new build will replace Hunt's house, which the NHS planned to demolish in any case when phase III of the Guy's site development opens next year. The new build project could not be realised without the merger. King's and UMDS staff could not come together in the new building on any other basis. Moreover, the merger will enable the teaching of future doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care professionals to be undertaken together.
      The merger will facilitate the important linkage between the education of medical and dental students and the clinical work of a hospital site, thus ensuring vertical integration of the curriculum. It will have the further advantage of concentrating medically related research groups alongside medical teaching and hospital services for patients, thus increasing opportunities for effective collaboration and cross-fertilisation of ideas. The present first-class academic facilities at Guy's hospital site will secure for the future King's medical student a unique educational environment.
      The juxtaposition of academic and clinical facilities in one place will allow integrated teaching of basic science and clinical practice—the best possible educational experience, everyone agrees, for the teaching of medicine. Taken together with the first-class facilities at King's College hospital, Denmark hill, and St Thomas's hospital, that will guarantee the prospective medical student a rich and varied education.
      Concerns may be raised this evening bearing on issues of health care provision, particularly at Guy's hospital, rather more than on the proposed merger of UMDS and King's. As far as Guy's is concerned, the present proposal from the NHS is that Guy's should continue to provide hospital and health services focusing on the needs of the

      81
      local community. I should make it clear that UMDS is a separate legal, financial and administrative entity from the Guy's and St Thomas's hospital trust.
      UMDS and King's plans for the academic development of the Guy's site have no effect on available hospital space at Guy's and do not constrain either the national health service's present plans for the future of Guy's as a hospital, or, for that matter, any future plan for the development of that hospital. A strong academic base at Guy's will support the health services there, in providing a critical mass of patient work and a range of skills and expertise in clinical terms so as to ensure continuing high-quality treatment for patients at Guy's, as well as at the competing centres of excellence elsewhere in the capital.
      The medical school merger plans will have a beneficial effect on health care provision at all three hospitals—Guy's, King's and St Thomas's. The various projects, including the massive academic development at Guy's in biomedical sciences and the enhanced academic provision at King's College hospital and St Thomas's, will support the health services in providing a level of work, a range of skills and expertise in clinical teams and high-quality treatment to enhance patient care, as well as teaching and research.
      King's and UMDS's vision is that, by merging, they will be able to maximise the potential of two very successful university institutions. Principally, the merger will secure the academic critical mass, both to strengthen a number of areas of academic endeavour already of an international standard of excellence and to develop new initiatives. Thus the two institutions will be able to secure a place at the forefront of health education, clinical care and research, which they do not believe to be as achievable if they were separate institutions.
      Before I finally commend the Bill to the House, I allude to a happy parliamentary coincidence this evening. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is present, will know of a previous reference that I have made in the House to the year 1808, when there were six Members of Parliament for my constituency, three representing Southwark and two for the rest of Middlesex. The debate this evening is surrounded by a major constitutional debate, redolent of the days of Wilkes, who was a Member of Parliament for Middlesex and subsequently lord mayor of London. It is a happy coincidence that this debate should be surrounded by a debate on a great constitutional development while the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and I demonstrate the longevity of both our constituencies.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      7.15 pm
      The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am glad to have been able to catch your eye early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to set out briefly the Government's support for the measure. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)—as is customary when I follow him in a debate—on setting matters in their important historical context. I shall venture no suggestion that the rest of the House is somewhat relieved that the number of hon. Members has changed somewhat in the intervening 188 years. I shall leave that to the judgment of others.
      My right hon. Friend set out the history of this much needed and welcome change which those involved wish to put forward. I welcome the Bill, which will take
      82
      forward the agenda of all those involved. My right hon. Friend was right to point to the consensus among academics, clinicians, students and all those concerned with providing a high quality of medical education and research in this part of London, who have worked so hard to make the change possible.
      As my right hon. Friend said, the plans have been the policy of the university of London for many years. He rightly pointed out that they continue independently of any health care provision changes that may be debated at present. The move towards uniting the medical schools with multi-faculty colleges will provide a broader base for teaching and improved links with basic sciences. But although they are independent of the changes now being implemented in the health service in south-east London, there are close working partnerships between the university and the NHS, and it is important for the provision of health care that those partnerships be reinforced in a number of ways.
      It is sensible for the NHS and the medical colleges to work together constructively on all the changes, which will bring benefits to patients, and also support important teaching and research interests. It is in the interests of Londoners that they should have access to the full range of health services that they need, and it is also important that London's role as a centre of high-quality medical education and research be sustained and fostered. The latter ambition is at the root of the Bill.
      My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the three reasons for or principles behind the change—quality in research and education; the fact that research nowadays needs to be on a supportable scale; and the principle of support from the institutions involved. Those are very important and underpin the Government's welcome and support for the Bill. We are pleased to work with the university of London and the Higher Education Funding Council for England in ensuring that service, teaching and research interests are balanced and that plans proceed in parallel to achieve coherent, consistent and managed change.
      The schools and the college have close links with associated NHS hospitals, and those will be further supported with the collocation of teaching and research facilities with clinical services on the Guy's hospital site, as my right hon. Friend rightly said. Many of the new services being developed at Guy's include state-of-the-art day care and diagnostic services, and it is important that academic and research work is carried out in collocation with those.
      One of the great strengths of our NHS is that we are able to provide research in parallel with service commitments. UMDS, King's college medical school and King's college London are recognised as organisations of high reputation that are successful in their own right. Their wish to come together will reinforce that excellence and produce new opportunities for the future. The proposals are widely supported. I am pleased to add the Government's support to plans that will ensure that a long tradition of outstanding medical education and research in south-east London will continue, which will be strengthened by the Bill.
      7.19 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am privileged to be able to take part in this debate and I do so wearing my hat as the Member of Parliament for

      83
      Guy's hospital, which, as the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) introduced the Bill by saying and the Minister and other colleagues will know, is one of the sites for the united medical and dental schools—one of the partners in the proposed merger.
      I must give one word of historical reply to my neighbour across the river, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South, who like me represents a constituency with one of the oldest pedigrees in the country. There have been Members of Parliament for Southwark since the 13th century. I believe that there have been more than 400, reflecting the fact not that they have each had a short span, but that there were two at a time for each of the constituencies until last century.
      One of the great pleasures of a constituency such as mine—which is more rightly now called Southwark and Bermondsey, reflecting the two old boroughs south of the river—is looking after and advancing the causes of those institutions that are historically part of our community. We do so conscious of our history, but also conscious of our present. It is no mistake or accident that two of the greatest issues facing the Governments of our time are the futures of our education and health systems. The Bill is a microcosm at the higher education end of that debate, as it concerns the best arrangements in one part of the country for the best conjuncture of education and health.
      The question is simple: to merge or not to merge. I will not divide the House on Second Reading. My job is to pose some questions that flow from the proposition of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South that there should be a merger—a proposition supported by the Minister.
      The House will be relieved to know that I will not repeat the speech of the right hon. Member by tracing the history of how we come to be here. Due to a series of developments in London medical education, we have ended up with a merged medical and dental school south of the river, on two sites: the St. Thomas's site in Waterloo, just over the bridge from here in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey); and the Guy's site, at London Bridge in my constituency.
      A merger is proposed between that institution and King's college, which provides academic teaching on the north bank of the river and clinical teaching on the south bank at King's College hospital, Camberwell. Ancillary issues are involved: students live in residential institutions, which are scattered around and are mainly south of the river.
      It may surprise the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South to learn that I do not intend principally to raise issues to do with health care and Guy's, although I am concerned about the linkage. The right hon. Gentleman stated three propositions as unarguable—one touches on the intervention of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). They are perfectly credible propositions, but I want to question them in turn, because there are counter-arguments.
      The first proposition is that it is widely agreed that integration is a good thing. Although that is so, several reputable people dispute it in the case of London teaching hospitals and schools, so it is not an unarguable proposition.
      84
      The second proposition was that there is a critical mass for medical and dental academic institutions. I agree that there is, but I take issue with the claim that the merger is necessary for, and will produce, that critical mass. Indeed, the merger will make for a much larger institution than is normal in this country and countries of a similar size, and much larger than is recommended. It will be a very large institution, and there are arguments against it being so big.
      Thirdly, on the intervention by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I will not assert that the proposal does not have considerable support—I cannot do so. I do not doubt that there is majority support. However, I am aware from approaches made to me that that support is not unanimous, or even overwhelming. The people who are probably the most troubled are the students, but others who are academically involved in UDMS and, I gather, in King's—that is not in my constituency, so I know less about it—have certain concerns.
      Given that I think that there will probably be no recorded vote on Second Reading, the hon. Member may want to make further inquiries, and I can put him in touch with some of the people who are concerned about some of the implications. I am grateful for his interest as a former graduate of King's, which is an eminent university college.
      The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South first tackled the drafting of the Bill, which is straightforward. The proposition is that, if there is to be a merger, one needs such a Bill. I will not discuss the details of the drafting, which will be a relief to some of those involved in it, whom I have known for a long time—I would not want them to be offended, but that is a more personal matter.
      The Bill provides for an appointed day for the merger, and the date pencilled in is August next year. My collaboration will depend on whether I get assurances on and satisfactory answers to my questions—the date may have to be later.
      Two other matters arise from the Bill's drafting. First, it will be a blessed relief to those living south of the river that we will lose a name that no one understands and gain one that, in theory, everyone would understand. The united medical and dental schools could be anywhere from John o'Groats to Land's End, or certainly from Aberdeen to Plymouth. It was not a very clever title—it was a bit clinical. I would not defend such a title, in which the historic names of the two original hospitals were lost.
      However, I am not sure that the new title provided for in clause 12—
      "the Guy's, King's College and St. Thomas' Hospitals' Medical and Dental School"—
      is a wonderful solution. It will not fit with ease on a rugby shirt, a rowing vest or anything else unless one is a very large fellow indeed, or a large woman. [Interruption.] Women's rugby is all the rage nowadays, and it will be an Olympic sport before we know where we are. Some of the people to be seen at St. Thomas' hospital and Guy's would be good candidates—if they do not play rugby already.

      85
      It is a minor issue, but we must get the name right. We want one with which we can all associate. No matter where they were educated, all hon. Members will agree that names matter a great deal.
      Mr. Rowlands: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman objects to. The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 left us with Rhondda Cynon Taff.
      Mr. Hughes: I remember that debate. I was educated in Wales and I still follow Welsh issues. However, even Rhondda Cynon Taff is only a third as long as the name proposed in the Bill. I do not want make a big deal about that, but it is a muddle that tries to get everyone's name into the title.
      Thirdly, I should like the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South to deal with the historical concern about the trust funds that belong to the trustees of the existing institutions. As in all such cases, there is some concern that, if the trust funds are merged, control will be lost and their original historic purposes will not be fulfilled.
      I have seen the memorandum from the Charity Commissioners that says they are happy, and I know how the law on the merger of trusts works. There is, to put it mildly, nervousness that there may be a loss of control of funds that were given for particular purposes as a result of the merger. If there continues to be discontent, could the trust funds held by the trustees of the various institutions remain separate and be excluded from the Bill? That could be done under the law. If it would allay concerns, I might well argue for it.
      The section of the documentation supporting the Bill called "The rationale for the merger" sets out the merged colleges' seven strategic objectives, which the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South summarised.
      First, there is the issue of critical mass. It is argued that the merger of two successful university institutions will result in the critical mass necessary to obtain a secure, linked set of academic centres of excellence that will enable us to keep our international reputation.
      We are talking about institutions that already have a high international reputation. London medical schools dominate the top ten list of institutions that receive Medical Research Council funding. In the international lists of institutions with the highest academic standards and their research grants and successes, UMDS does extraordinarily well.
      For example, in 1989 the French newspaper Libération published a guide to the top 100 universities in Europe. London's medical schools came top of that guide, which stated:
      "The density of its network is such that this premier position is in no way a surprise: the different colleges of the university each on their own cover the full range of specialities."
      There is a strong argument that it is the nature of the current institutions that attracts interest, investment and bright students from elsewhere.
      A London university medicine administrator told my office only last week that Singapore and Malaysia will pay for their students to study in England only at Oxbridge or London university. For medicine and dentistry, they will not pay for them to go anywhere else.
      86
      I am sure that there is no dispute in the House that it is important that any change we make to the structures must safeguard and enhance the academic reputation and international pre-eminence of the institutions.
      If we merge the two institutions, what will the student numbers be? What is the pattern of academic institutions in Britain and elsewhere? A learned article in the British Medical Journal in 1993 entitled "Undergraduate Medical Education" appeared in a selection of articles called "London after Tomlinson". It is both recent and academically attested. I hope that it will make my argument clear. It states:
      "The Tomlinson report recommends the incorporation of all medical colleges into multifaculty institutions without giving any academic evaluation of its desirability … There are, however, few data to support the thesis that undergraduate medical education is more effective when conducted in a multifaculty environment."
      I shall return to that point.
      The article continues:
      "the resulting medical colleges within the capital would be extraordinarily large, with some medical student intakes approaching 350. The General Medical Council's proposals for undergraduate education strongly recommend a reduction in the factual overload often generated within basic science faculties."
      The article then debates integration, to which I shall return, before addressing the numbers question, about which it states:
      "If the Tomlinson proposal was grounded in the belief that such mergers would produce economies of scale there is in fact little evidence to suggest that economies of scale exist in institutions that have merged.
      Our personal prediction would be that in 10–20 years the debate will focus on how to unscramble these large schools, bringing ourselves into line with those in the United States, where intakes of 100 to 150 students are deemed desirable."
      The new college will be considerably larger than other institutions in this country or in the United States. In paragraph 195, Tomlinson predicted that an intake of more than 200 to 250 would be bad, managerially and organisationally. The merger will produce an intake of 300. Chicago and Johns Hopkins, one of the most prominent medical schools in the United States, have a maximum intake of 100; Stanford's maximum is about 65. Are we sure that such large academic intake cohorts will benefit students?
      People are seriously troubled about that. On the mainland of Europe, there are often hundreds of students doing an academic course at any one time. It may be possible to get away with that with academic teaching—a point that replicates our debates about class size. I am doubtful about that argument, and it has never been our tradition in England. In medicine, dentistry and applied sciences generally, the argument is even less strong.
      The merger will also produce a dental school much larger than all other dental schools in Britain. Apart from Glasgow, dental schools have student intakes of less than 60. The optimum size recommended by the royal colleges and others is between 65 and 75. The UMDS figure is at present 88. I am not merely advancing a layperson's argument; the Nuffield inquiry into dental education, for example, made that point.
      It has been put to me by academics and students that a dental school that takes 140 students a year would, under any foreseeable arrangements, be unmanageable. For heaven's sake, let us examine whether the critical mass

      87
      will not be far too big. Where is the evidence that such a big school will work? There are no parallels, and the proposition is not supported by the academic evidence.
      The second strategic objective argues that the merger will
      "improve significantly the opportunities for interdisciplinary and interdisciplinary integration in pursuit of both teaching and research excellence."
      That might be the case in parts of the country where there is not already a federal university. The parts of the university of London about which we are talking are near each other. London students are part of a larger family—if they want to mix, they mix; if they do not want to mix, they do not.
      My university experience suggests that medics, dentists and vets do not naturally spend all their time with students studying other subjects, but traditionally stay together. It may be argued that that is not a good thing socially, but the argument for such mixing seems less well made in London than in any other place in the country as the collegiate structure already provides such opportunities.
      I accept that UMDS is a free-standing university medical and dental school, and that such institutions are now in a minority. But that does not mean that its students are isolated either from those undertaking the other professional training mentioned by the Bill's promoters or from students studying other subjects. It is not as if UMDS students will be miles away from other students, whether undergraduates or postgraduates, studying something else.
      There is also the questionable argument whether it will be better to integrate in this way. I challenge that argument, not because I believe that it is definitely wrong, but because strong and valid academic arguments suggest that it is not necessarily good. The arguments are as follows: if a highly regarded, internationally successful medical and dental school already exists, the benefits of merging may well be outweighed by the disadvantages. To put the question crudely: will the merger result in a sum greater than its constituent parts?
      The recent experience of Bart's, Queen Mary and Westfield, and the London, which have done a double merger, shows that the merger may bring no short-term advantages, although it is accepted that it may have long-term advantages. Can we be sure of the long-term advantages when it looks as though there will be few, if any, short-term advantages?
      Unit costs per student in London are already less than the national average. London medical students do not cost more than other medical students. Students at UMDS cost the taxpayer not more, but less, than average. What is the advantage of merging with another institution when that does not necessarily bring better value for money?
      There are some strong arguments about the nature of the academic teaching. One argument is that there will be generic teaching—that has been going on at UDMS for some time. There is an argument that one can have too much generic teaching. There is an argument that, if someone is studying medicine or dentistry, he wants specific teaching and does not necessarily want to be entirely integrated into a course of life sciences.
      At Bristol university, the joint lectures that were set up between the dentists, medics and other life science students have been abandoned because they became too
      88
      general. It does not automatically follow that it is a good thing for non-clinical teaching to be carried out with other people if it is inappropriate. It would be the same as insisting on all-class teaching, when it would be more appropriate to set or stream. We must be satisfied about what we are doing; we must not blindly undertake such a policy when there is evidence that it has not worked elsewhere.
      There are already links with other institutions—UMDS has strong modular links with University college London, for example. Why should it not be better to continue with that mix-and-match form of curriculum development rather than put everyone together on one integrated course as the proposal suggests? If the proposal were adopted and life sciences, medicine and dentistry were integrated, would that work in practice?
      We must consider the fact that people studying for an ordinary life science degree such as biochemistry have a traditional academic year cycle, while people studying for a medical or dental degree have different cycles—they go on location to other hospitals, they go on electives elsewhere, they undertake six-month stints in different places, and they have shorter holidays. There are practical questions about whether the system will work. Those questions are raised both by the students and by those who teach them. They say that they are achieving perfectly good results, so why should anyone seek to integrate them when that may be contrived and unnatural?
      The third strategic objective argues that the merger will
      "provide a cost-effective institution, both in terms of space utilisation and recurrent and capital funding."
      There are some serious questions to answer. I gather that the proposal will cost about £140 million—I should be grateful for confirmation. I also gather that, of that figure, about £70 million will be for the new biomedical block that is to come to the Guy's hospital site. I should say in passing that I hope that everybody will talk about it as the Guy's hospital site, not the London Bridge site—a title that has started to creep in as a way of writing Guy's hospital out of titles. Not surprisingly, the people at Guy's do not take too kindly to that.
      Another question which arises links this debate to the one about Guy's hospital. The current proposal that the Minister of State and his colleagues are advancing about Guy's hospital will leave vacant considerable amounts of space in at least one of the tower blocks that currently form part of the Guy's hospital site.
      It is no good looking at the cost of the academic development separately from the costs of the health service development. The cost of the health service development is the cost of Philip Harris house, which has escalated from about £50 million to well over £100 million. There is the cost of new build for mothers and children at Riddell house and other sites at St. Thomas's hospital and other further capital developments—all of which are eventually meant to be recouped in lower revenue costs.
      There are serious concerns that, under the Bill, we are committing ourselves to large amounts of taxpayers' money which happens to be in the pocket marked "education" rather than "health". Under the heading of health we have committed ourselves to further money to build unnecessary buildings. They are unnecessary, because space will be available in buildings that already exist.

      89
      The Minister said that next year—I will believe it when I see it—the building at Guy's hospital that was to have been called Philip Harris house—history is being rewritten, and it is now to be known only as phase III—will eventually be open. It was due to be opened about two years ago, but there have been all sorts of problems and some less well explained delays. The National Audit Office is currently investigating the matter.
      That building is meant to accommodate many of the health service facilities on the Guy's hospital site, but there will still be the two other relatively recently built buildings that are intended for health use. It will be helpful to know whether they will be used for health, or whether, as people at Guy's hospital and in the neighbouring community fear, they will be left virtually empty. In that case, they could be put to academic use. If so, why spend £140 million to put up buildings, some of which will not be needed because the necessary space will be available on part of the same hospital site at Guy's?
      That is why I say that the cost-effective use of space and recurrent and capital funding must be examined in the context not just of the Higher Education Funding Council for England budget, but of the funding budget of the Department of Health. It is no good disregarding the fact that there will be a cumulative cost to the taxpayer, so the two must be looked at together.
      The fourth rationale for the change is that it will consolidate the biomedical sciences currently taught on six sites on the Guy's medical school and hospital site at London Bridge. I understand the frustrations that have led to King's seeking to rationalise the use of its properties; working on one site instead of six would, of course, be an improvement. I will therefore not argue against the fourth rationale, but I want an assurance in writing that all the biomedical sciences will indeed be on one site. It is no good arguing for consolidation if students are moved either to the Denmark hill site in Camberwell or to the St. Thomas's site at Waterloo. We need to be sure that everything will be consolidated on the one Guy's hospital site.
      The fifth argument is that the teaching of future doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care professionals should be combined. The idea is to integrate teaching in the health service, and I agree with it. It seems a worthwhile objective, with which I would not quibble.
      The sixth proposal, however, cannot be borne out by the facts. It is that we should link the education of medical and dental students to the clinical work of a hospital site,
      "thus ensuring vertical integration of the curriculum, the key requirement of both the General Medical Council and Dental Councils in relation to future medical and dental education".
      That would be fine if, after accommodating all the medical and dental students in the new buildings at Guy's hospital, the teaching were done on the same site. But the Minister for Health and his colleagues have been busy shipping most of the in-patient beds away from Guy's hospital and off to St. Thomas's. That will defeat the object of the Bill. Academic work will be done on the Guy's hospital site, with out-patients, mental health patients and patients using the 112 elective beds, but most of the beds containing the patients on whom the students will need to learn will be at St. Thomas's, a mile or so down the road.
      That is nonsense and unnecessary. If academic work is to be consolidated on the west side of the Maze pond—the western half of the Guy's hospital site—then the
      90
      eastern half on the other side of the road should be used for medical health care. There is room to do that, because there is certainly room for a hospital with the number of beds needed to make the project viable on the other side of the site.
      It appears that, wittingly or unwittingly, the Government are trying to implement two contradictory policies. Consolidating teaching with clinical practice is more important than ever nowadays, because students do not do a straightforward two-year pre-clinical and then go on to clinical: they start clinical work earlier. On the other hand, the Government are so arranging things that students can do this less frequently. The students in the combined institution will spend all their lives doing their lectures on one site, occasionally talking to out-patients and those who occupy the remaining beds there, but for all other work with patients, they will have to go to another site. That is exactly what we want to avoid.
      The vertical integration of the curriculum with the clinical work of the hospital site will thus not be achieved by the Bill. The solution is to vary the proposals of the Minister for Health and his colleagues, who, over time, want to move most of the beds down the road to the St. Thomas's site. There is a good academically backed case for keeping a reasonable number of medical and surgical beds at the Guy's hospital site, where it can act as a secondary and tertiary hospital.
      That is not inconsistent with the Government's strategy—I agree with it—of rationalising specialties; but that does not necessarily mean rationalising all specialties on one site—certainly not if the money does not add up. The longer the process continues, the more Philip Harris house and the building programme will cost. It will then become less necessary to start building on other sites, such as the mother and baby site at St. Thomas's.
      When this Bill, as opposed to the merger, was first thought of, there was a proposal to have hospital services on both sites. Guy's and St. Thomas's would merge into one trust, so the reorganisation of services had not yet been fully worked out. Since then, however, cardiac, renal and neurological services have been rationalised, as had to happen because there was a need to consolidate. But there was then a failure to take into account precisely what the optimal mix of specialties and beds would be.
      There are strong academic arguments to the effect that hospitals with up to 1,400 beds—that is what the merger implies—are far too big in terms of organisation, morale and business management. The Americans, the Scandinavians and academics in the UK are, according to all I read and hear, reaching the view that great big hospital sites bringing all beds under one roof no longer offer the best hospital organisation models.
      That being so, the best logical solution is to use the space of the Guy's site and the space that King's decided it did not need in New Guy's house and Guy's tower for the original health service purposes. That will also be cheaper, because it will integrate academic and clinical work, and it will allow out-patients at the Guy's hospital site as well as other sorts of treatments there. This idea is also consistent with the fact that the most modern building in the entire health service, Philip Harris house, will just have been built.
      Finally, the last rationale is that the merged college will be able to concentrate medically related research groups alongside medical teaching and hospital services for

      91
      patients, thus increasing the opportunities for effective collaboration and cross-fertilisation of ideas. Hooray and amen to that. In that case, let us have the teaching and the clinical activity on the same site, so that the research, teaching and clinical activity can be together. If it is the plan for Guy's to be the academic site, let it be the academic site, but do not, at the same time, pull the rug from under us and take the medical activity away. It is not so easy to take the dental activity away.
      The logic behind this argument is fatally flawed. People are arguing for the integration of a medical and dental school with a university college, which is fine; and they are arguing to put it on one site, which is also fine. However, they have realised that the site will lose most of the clinical activity that is needed.
      I shall ask the Minister a specific question, and I am keen to get a specific answer. Will he give an undertaking that, after the proposed merger, the students will not be going to the King's college site or to the St. Thomas's site for their academic teaching? If they continue to go to the King's college site or to the St. Thomas's site, the purpose of consolidating will not be met.
      It will be nonsense if, in theory, we consolidate and bring the three sites together, but, in practice, a significant number of the students still have to be bussed to three different sites south of the river. We need to be clear about this: either we go down a put-it-all-on-one-site road or we do not. If we do not, the merger is not nearly as justified; if we do, for heaven's sake let us put the clinical activity in the same place.
      How much of the cost of the whole merger project and the creation of the whole new academic site is dependent on the private finance initiative? It is a coincidence that the debate is taking place on the day that the annual conference of the British Medical Association started. One of the BMA's great concerns—apart from the fact that it thinks that the health service is greatly underfunded, with which everyone in the health service could not but concur—is that the PFI has been dreamed up by the Government as a way of saving money, but that it has never been proven to be a good idea. There is no evidence that the PFI is delivering the goods.
      For example, it was reported in the national press at the weekend that in Scotland the flagship of the PFI still has not had its contract signed—in fact, I understand that none of the PFI contracts has been signed. Last year, the Treasury was unpersuaded that the PFI was a good thing, and the Treasury Select Committee has expressed many doubts.
      The people running the hospitals and the people in the health service are concerned that the PFI means that we will be signing up to deals that commit the provision of a set of services and facilities for 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years to someone else, and that the health service will not have the power to manage it. Some crucial questions in relation to this issue are: how much is dependent on PFI?; how secure is the PFI money?; will it be there?; will it be guaranteed?
      One of my concerns—it is shared more widely; in fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education and employment matters, has voiced this concern in the past, and may elaborate on it if he catches your eye, Mr.
      92
      Deputy Speaker—is that there have been many examples in the past where the promise of capital finance has never been delivered. What guarantee is there that the money is secure? What guarantee is there that it will not be cut in the years ahead? I refer to south London and to the Institute of Psychiatry, which is on the Maudsley site on Denmark Hill. It has had to face significant cuts, which has made it extremely difficult for it to carry on its work.
      If we are going to have the proposal, does the money come with it? Will the Minister or the sponsor say that it will be guaranteed, and that there will be no going back? In addition, is that logical and consistent with all the development and all the money that is being spent at the St. Thomas's site and at the King's college site? Will that expenditure militate against future expenditure to provide some similar services at Guy's, if that is the implication of the Bill?
      I have expressed the concerns of the students and the academics. I now refer to what seems to many local people to be a better solution. We may be rushing to go down a complete merger road when there may be a solution that goes in the same direction but does not have the same disadvantages. Is a gun being placed at the heads of the UMDS and King's college? How much is this an entirely cost-driven question? The Higher Education Funding Council is literally saying—because these are its instructions—"We are going to go for the cheapest option, as opposed to the one that produces the best answer for medical education in London."
      Tomlinson said in his report that changes in University Funding Council funding have led to pressures for more efficiency in teaching. These changes have increased the need to rationalise resources and to remove the duplication of posts. I subscribe to that view. However, one increasingly gets the impression that things are being so cost driven in higher education and in the health service that we will do so at the risk of academic excellence or the best arrangement of academic or medical resources.
      Would it not be possible to have a federal structure, instead of a merger, for King's college medical and dental school and UMDS? Why could there not be a closer collaboration that allows them to develop how they want to work together rather than have them forced to come together? Why can that not be pursued, particularly if it would be no more expensive than the current proposals—and, indeed, might save some of the costs? Some eminent people concerned with this debate would have no problem with such a structure.
      I understand that it is simply the funding authorities that are saying, "Even if it is cheaper or the same cost, we will not pay up unless you go down the road that we insist on." That seems to be going beyond the remit of the funding council. Its job is to provide funds for the best service; it is not its job to take away decisions from autonomous institutions. If they decide that something is better or more efficient, they should be allowed to pursue it.
      That has happened over the river. As hon. Members will remember from debates in this place over the past few years, Bart's was forced to merge in two stages—there was a federation of east London colleges in the 1980s, and it has been forced into a merger in the last few years.
      That was not a happy experience for everyone—there were certainly some very unhappy academics and students. It was argued that the merger put at risk some

      93
      of the things that the individual institutions had developed, such as their academic expertise and their reputation. Those of us south of the river still need to be persuaded. Are we going to have a forced marriage? It has to be done with the voluntary consent of everyone, not because they have a gun to their heads.
      Is there a danger under clause 5 that some of the money currently held by the trust funds of the two institutions will be lost to other activities at King's? I do not mean that other areas of King's should not be properly funded, but is there any risk? There must be a factual answer to the question. Can any of the money currently held by the trustees of UMDS or by the trustees of King's college medical and dental school be directed away from medicine and dentistry to elsewhere?
      If we are going to go down the merger road, what evidence is there—not from this debate, not from people in the university of London and not from people in the colleges in question, but from friends elsewhere—that a much bigger institution would do any better academically? London university has some continuing small academically excellent institutions. The London school of hygiene and tropical medicine, for example, has managed to retain its academic excellence in spite of its small size. The school of oriental and African studies proves that institutions do not have to be big to be better in academia or to punch their weight in the world's research journals. The more the Internet and university computer networks are used, the less we need to force people to be together on the same site.
      In any event, collaboration is only so good, in that many of the links are with the private sector, especially for the health service—for example, with the pharmaceutical companies and international conglomerates. Why cannot they continue to fund the organisations as they do at present?
      What about the students? My understanding is that a report in 1990—the second report of the Departments of Health and of Education's steering group on medical and dental education—proposed a set of undergraduate policies and plans for medical and dental students so that development of sites and their studies should always be enhanced by better teaching practice and circumstances. That has not been done, and the formal consultation process with the interested parties has not taken place. Why not? The interested parties should have a say through the procedures that were recommended.
      I wish to make a specific point about dentistry, and the dental hospital and dental school that is currently at Guy's. The proposal would mean that there would be about 2,200 biomedical students on the Guy's site. I am worried that, if we have 450 medical and dental students—that could be the maximum—together, the logic of merger will not be carried out. That group will be too big to be taught together, so it will be split up anyway. I understand that the physical geography of the proposed buildings means that the group will divide into two. If that is the case, the solution is not a solution. It would create a big organisation, but the students would have to be divided up after all.
      The dental school is the highest rated dental school for academic results in the country. The school, the students and many of the people associated with them have expressed reservations, for the reasons I gave earlier. We have seen the closure of three dental schools in the past
      94
      15 years. Given those facts, there is a real risk that, if we consolidated the dental teaching on one site, the institution would paradoxically become much more vulnerable, not much stronger.
      There are other dental schools around the country, and people who are cynical and sceptical feel that it would be easy, once the dental school was based at one institution, to say at some stage in the future—if other services were moved away—"There is no medical clinical work on the Guy's site, apart from out-patients, and there is only dental clinical work being conducted on the Guy's site, and it would be sensible to put the clinical work together with academic work, so let's consolidate the dentistry elsewhere. We don't need it here."
      Clearly that would be nonsense, and a betrayal of the tradition. I do not suggest that that is in people's minds at the moment, but it is a possible outcome if we consolidate in a way that people are unhappy about and that the students, lecturers and teachers have not been persuaded is the right way.
      Where are we? The proposal on the table appears to be led by the Higher Education Funding Council. It appears to be based on the fact that it will be cheaper, yet strong arguments suggest that it will not. It appears to be based on the fact that it is universally agreed, but significant groups of people are unhappy. The proposal appears to be based on the fact that it will consolidate teaching between life sciences and medical and dental science, but some people who have experience of doing that have thought better of it and unstitched such arrangements elsewhere.
      The proposal appears to be based on the premise that we need a big institution, but all the best practice elsewhere suggests that such a large number of dental and medical students would be too big and other institutions are smaller. It appears to be based on the premise that we will put everybody together on one site, but, as I have clearly argued, the understanding is that we would not get everybody on the same site; nor would we get medical activity in teaching terms and medical activity in clinical terms on the same site.
      There are some serious flaws in the argument. It is not surprising, therefore, that the proposal has taken so long to get so far. It is not surprising that, in recent months, in the words of somebody who spoke to me about it, there has been a lot of shadow boxing, but not everybody has been willing to sign on the bottom line. Yes, the councils have approved the proposal and, yes, eminent voices are in favour, but they are all in favour only on balance, with reservations or with concerns.
      Before the House completes its consideration of the Bill, I give notice that, if my questions are not answered—not only for my purposes, but for those who have come to see me about the issue—a whole raft of amendments will be tabled on Report. We probably should not as yet accept the proposals, no matter how tight the time deadline.
      I want some assurances. I hope that this debate will have flagged up my questions. I hope that the summer recess will allow us to get those assurances and some satisfactory answers. I hope, above all, that the conjunction of the plans of the Department of Health for health provision on the Guy's hospital site and the plans of King's and UMDS and the Department for Education and Employment for academic provision on the Guy's hospital site will result in a logical conclusion.

      95
      If the institutions are to merge, the site must have beds and in-patients and a secondary and tertiary hospital, and if they are not to merge, the proposal should not go through backed by arguments that are, to say the least, contradicted by some people with an academic interest. I hope that we will get some answers tonight, and all the remaining answers and some policy changes on some of the key issues in the months ahead.
      8.17 pm
      Sir Roger Sims: I cannot possibly claim to have the detailed understanding of the implications of the Bill that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has just so effectively demonstrated, but the House will be aware of my especial interest in Guy's hospital. I have worked with the hon. Gentleman for the past two or three years in an endeavour to retain Guy's hospital in its present form and largely on its present site.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), in explaining the proposals in the Bill, sought to emphasise that the proposals for the combined medical schools are separate from the hospital, which is administered by the local NHS hospital trust. That may be so technically, but I put it to him that they are closely linked in practical terms. The public perception is that hospitals and teaching schools are one and the same.
      I believe that the proposals to transfer a substantial number of medical services from the Guy's site to the St. Thomas's site are flawed. I said in a debate that I initiated in the House about 18 months ago that I thought that the Secretary of State's decision was based on inadequate and inaccurate information. No evidence has emerged since then to cause me to change that view. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to reconcile his opposing positions: on the one hand, he advocates the Bill and all that it implies and, on the other, he is involved in implementing the proposals to merge Guy's and St. Thomas's and to transfer services.
      In my brief contribution, I emphasise the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. If much of the teaching is to occur on the Guy's site, it is difficult to justify moving so many of the medical facilities and the patients to the St. Thomas's site. That is not logical. If we are to develop a fine medical school on the Guy's site, patients are an essential part of the learning process. It seems extraordinary to try to develop teaching facilities on the Guy's site while transferring medical facilities and the patients to another site.
      My hon. Friend the Minister must also justify the cost of the exercise. It seems extraordinary to spend so much money on new buildings for the St. Thomas's site when the present proposals will mean empty accommodation on the Guy's site, both in Philip Harris house and in the tower blocks. I urge my hon. Friend—who wears two hats as Minister responsible for implementing this legislation and also those proposals endorsed by the House regarding Guy's and St. Thomas's—to consider whether he can justify both policies. I have made clear the sorts of changes that I think he should make. As he considers implementing the Bill before us, I hope that he will realise that my case for substantially modifying the plans for Guy's vis-à-vis St. Thomas's is now even stronger.
      8.22 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: I come to the debate with a completely open mind on the rights and wrongs of the proposed move. Having listened to the contributions by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the brief but plangent contribution by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims), I remain fairly open-minded about our approach to the issue.
      My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Chislehurst asked important questions which must be answered before a final decision is taken. For example, my hon. Friend referred in passing to the important issue of the private finance initiative and the role that it must play in funding some of the proposed work if the merger goes ahead. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that there is considerable confusion about the role of the PFI in the education sector.
      There has been interesting correspondence between the Department for Education and Employment and the Treasury on that matter. The Department believes that the PFI should be in addition to the normal capital allocation procedures, whereas the Treasury views it as a substitute for those procedures. There is clearly a difference of opinion that will have implications for whether funds will be available to ensure that the required capital work takes place.
      I was interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South, who referred to the longevity of his constituency and to some of his predecessors. He is in the Chamber and may be interested to learn that my constituency dates back at least as long as his. I also have some interesting forebears. In the 1800s, the local Member of Parliament, Mr. A. J. Roebuck, was the first hon. Member to propose the state funding of education in this country.
      If Mr. Roebuck were here today, he would be interested to listen to our debate on the funding of medical and dental education. He would have noticed the interesting timing of today's debate. Many people who are concerned about higher education in general, and about dental and medical education in particular, will arrive at the Palace of Westminster tomorrow to express their real concerns about existing funding difficulties in those areas. We are discussing the merger of two institutions that may require additional funding of £140 million or possibly more in the context of significant cuts in higher education funding. Therefore, we must ask: will that money be available?
      This debate takes place within the context of real concern about the present funding of clinical and academic education. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you are aware that universities' capital incomes were slashed by about 31 per cent. in last November's Budget. There was an overall funding cut of 5 per cent. and at least a suggestion that further cuts would follow. Those capital cuts came on top of a 28 per cent. real terms reduction in funding per student in the past six years.
      Those figures are clearly important to the debate, as we are told that the proposals will save money. We are told that they are driven largely by the savings that may accrue from economies of scale. However, we know that the proposals will cost a great deal of money initially and no evidence has yet been produced of any savings in the long term. Before the House passes the Bill, hon. Members

      97
      must receive a clear answer on whether money will be made available to fund the up-front costs of the merger. Clear evidence must be produced that economies of scale will produce savings that will not prove detrimental to the quality of future medical and dental education.
      People with those concerns may well look back to other mergers that have taken place, for example in the 1970s, when Bart's was told to merge with Queen Mary's. It was told that funds would be withheld from it if the merger did not go ahead. It went ahead, but none of the money that was promised to fund the merger was made available until about 12 or 13 years later, in 1985. We must be absolutely sure that the funding will be made available in this case. I hope that the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South will say what assurances the Government have given him that funds will be made available.
      I have also said that it is important that we are given a clear sign that there will be economies of scale to save money, but in a way that will not be harmful to dental and medical education in this country. One concern which has not so far been expressed is with the way in which cuts may be made that will have a direct effect not only on medical and dental education but on the medical and dental care of people in London.
      There was some interesting correspondence recently between the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment—the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)—senior people within the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and medical schools around the country. For example, in the middle of May this year, the chairman of the CVCP's medical committee wrote to the Minister expressing considerable concern that the Department for Education and Employment had been quoted as saying that there was
      "no direct link between the level of university grants and the delivery of NHS patient services".
      The chairman went on to describe what he saw as an "inextricable triad" of teaching, research and patient care. Yet, in subsequent correspondence, the Minister seemed not to accept the intricate link between the two.
      That is why it was so pleasing that the Minister for Health talked about his acknowledgment of the links between teaching, research and patient care. If the merger is to go ahead, we need an assurance that it not only will bring about improvements in the teaching and medical side of dentistry but will not in any way harm patient care for people in the capital.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend will be aware, as I am, that one of the great concerns outside is that there will not be sufficient medical or dental students, as in many other professions. One important factor in establishing confidence is that students should have confidence in their choice of institution, feel keen to go there and believe that it is a place where they want to study, and that they do not go off and do something else.
      Does my hon. Friend agree—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention.
      Mr. Hughes: I shall shorten the last sentence, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      98
      Does my hon. Friend agree that the views of students, those who represent them, as well as the views of patients, are vital when we consider specific proposals, as well as general policy on health and education?
      Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There appears to be a fair body of evidence that suggests that there is much support for the proposal of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South. It is nevertheless important for, and incumbent on, all hon. Members to take careful account of those who are critical of these proposals and to ensure that, before the final version of the Bill is passed by the House—if that is to be so—we answer their questions clearly.
      My hon. Friend made another important and relevant point: whether the Government will make sufficient funds available to ensure that we meet the targets for dental and medical training that they established. I do not know whether he is aware of this, but there was an interesting exchange recently in another place, when Baroness Fisher asked Her Majesty's Government:
      "How they intend to guarantee the necessary finance to train an additional 500 doctors by the year 2000 in view of the impact upon university medical schools brought about by the 28 per cent. cut in their funding over the past six years and the further 5 per cent. cut for teacher training imposed in the last budget."
      In response, Lord Henley drew attention to the fact that the Government would take into account concerns about funding for medical and dental education. He said:
      "However, the Government have to take into account the wider considerations, such as the burden on the taxpayer and the need to control public expenditure."
      He went on to make a similar point, saying that very difficult decisions have to be made about how they allocate the sums of money that are available for higher education. He said:
      "We believe that the medical side of higher education receives its fair share."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 1996; Vol. 573, c. 316–18.]
      "Fair share" in that context has led to significant cuts. That is why we need clear assurances that additional money will be made available in the short term to fund the merger.
      We are asked to accept that the merger will lead to economies of scale. My hon. Friend has already expressed the views of a number of people who believe that there is no clear evidence that that will be the case. The medical and dentistry secretary at Queen Mary and Westfield, for example, recently said that, from its recent experience of merger, there have been no short-term advantages, but acknowledged that there might be some long-term advantages. There is little evidence to show that any economies of scale will accrue from this merger, certainly not the evidence expressed in the debate. I hope that some evidence will be provided before the end of the debate.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, it is worth taking it into account that economies of scale are usually assumed to come from an expansion of an institution; yet, as we heard earlier, because teaching may take place on a number of different sites, there may not be evidence of the economies of scale in this case.
      There is also the point expressed in paragraph 195 of the Tomlinson report, which suggests that an intake into a medical school of more than 200 or 250 would not

      99
      necessarily be a very efficient way of doing things in managerial or organisational terms. It is interesting to note that the merged college will have an intake of about 300. Even within the Tomlinson report, which advocated such a merger, there is evidence to suggest that in this case it may not have managerial or organisational advantages.
      I repeat that I have an open mind on this issue, but I hope that, before the end of the debate, we will be given clear answers to the questions that other hon. Members and I have raised. I am sure that we all look forward to the winding-up speech of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South.
      8.39 pm
      Mr. Henry McLeish: I shall try to be brief, and confine my remarks to what the Minister said earlier.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a number of detailed points, and the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) will doubtless wish to deal with some of the issues that he raised with the benefit of local knowledge and an interest in the subject.
      I welcome the Bill, which, I hope, will enable the aspirations of the promoters to be realised. There is no doubt that medical education and research in London is important not only to the capital but to the nation and, indeed, the world. The House would, I think, expect any Bill such as this to enhance rather than detract from what is already happening.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey raised the question of property, which is linked to the issue of the private finance initiative. In its response to the Tomlinson report, the British Medical Association mentioned concerns about the merger—concerns, rather than objections to what was being discussed. In paragraphs 13.4 and 13.5 of that response, entitled "London's health services education and research: response to the Tomlinson report", the BMA states:
      "There is concern, however, that the use of split sites for amalgamated schools will lead to a lack of space and facilities which will make it difficult to deliver the curriculum being proposed by the GMC … It is a matter of some concern that the Report considers that the costs of rationalisation can be self-financing through the sale of medical school assets."
      At that point, post-Tomlinson, it was feared that the merger might have an impact on not only the use of sites but the quality of education.
      An article featured in The Times Higher Education Supplement on 26 January this year raised the whole question of the private finance initiative. I do not want to inject too harsh a political note into the debate, but it is clear that the PFI has not been the remarkable success for which the Government hoped. The article suggested that
      "King's College London and the United Medical and Dental Schools"—
      which are being merged—
      "are looking to clinch the biggest deal so far"
      under an initiative worth £125 million. No one would deny that such an initiative requires investment, but it is important to set that against the performance of the Government's other PFI projects. The point is worthy of
      100
      concern, and I hope that the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South will address himself to it. If a significant investment is required, can we be guaranteed that it will be delivered through the PFI? It has not been delivered to provide hospital improvements, refurbishments and new building, and there have been major problems in other regards. There have been delays, and many people find the PFI a cumbersome way in which to attract capital. When a consortium is involved, it may be interested in more than just the bricks and mortar that the merger would no doubt require.
      The article in The Times Higher Education Supplement points out that a final decision would have to be made by July this year. As he is not here, the Minister cannot respond, but I hope that the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South will tell us whether the PFI is on track, and also whether a decision must indeed be made by July. I suppose that the obvious further question is, "If not, why not?" The project will clearly require investment; the Government have gone down the PFI road, and it is clearly in the promoters' interests to know the current implications.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: There is another question which neither the hon. Gentleman nor I asked, but which people outside may ask. Who are the prospective partners? When funds are required for a project involving health education and medical research, some people might not be regarded as necessarily very desirable partners in a consortium because of vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry or other industries. That is another question to which the right hon. Gentleman might usefully give us an answer.
      Mr. McLeish: I was going to touch on that. The illuminating article in The Times Higher Education Supplement tells us that
      "Six consortia have been invited to make detailed bids, out of the 30 that made initial inquiries."
      Linked to that statement, and perhaps extending the concerns expressed by hon. Members, is the statement that
      "The successful private finance consortium will have to provide additional services over and above the basic construction and financing of the new building. Lynn Carlisle, co-ordinator of the PFI project, said the colleges would be looking for proposals for campus management."
      That raises some of the issues that have surrounded other PFI projects. Is it a question of buildings? Is it a question of refurbishment? Is it a question of site acquisition and development? Or does the issue indeed extend to the provision of services? That has a material bearing on the merger, and, unfortunately, on whether the consortia can secure the adequate return that they seek.
      The article poses another question by suggesting that
      'the project was proving popular with developers partly because some valuable West London buildings belonging to King's College will be refurbished for non-educational uses."
      That is in the context of a very significant merger involving many changes in land use and building construction. Perhaps it should happen, in terms of the viability of the project, but surely these issues will interest the community in London. They are certainly important in regard to the medical and educational aspects. Given all the problems surrounding the PFI, we must be given some indication this evening that the project is

      101
      proceeding, that there is interest and that the nature of the deal that is ultimately struck will favour the college and schools that are being merged and not—as PFI projects suggest—the developers.
      We support the initiative, but some solid points have been made which require a response. I hope that the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South will deal with funding and, in particular, the PFI.
      8.46 pm
      Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to both the debate and the questions that have been asked. All who had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will probably agree that the debate has consisted of variations on a theme, and that the hon. Gentleman provided the theme while other hon. Members provided the variations. The hon. Gentleman's speech, which lasted just under an hour, was interesting throughout, and I personally enjoyed it.
      At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman referred to the name. As I know from experience elsewhere, the name is a matter of potential difficulty. I continue to derive pleasure from the existence of a finger post in Lincolnshire that directs people to the villages of Mavis Enderby and Old Bolingbroke: under those names has been added the graffito "the gift of a son".
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned trust funds. I can assure him that there is no risk of any trust funds being inappropriately diverted. If the money cannot be spent on the purposes for which it is intended, it cannot be spent, and remains in the trust fund. The hon. Gentleman also spoke at length about critical mass. The issue here is not the critical mass for good and strong groups; it is research. Such a critical mass is necessary for research, enabling a full range of specialities alongside each other to allow synergy and cross-fertilisation. Perhaps I was at fault in not using the phrase "critical mass" in my introductory speech.
      The numbers to be taught—
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not wish to pre-empt the right hon. Gentleman, but—if he is not already planning to address it—can he address the point about the size of entry cohorts, which was one of the critical mass sub-definitions that I was very keen to explore?
      Mr. Brooke: That was the very next point that I was going to address. If we examine Hansard in retrospect, we will find that I had just embarked on that point.
      The numbers to be taught are of the order of 300 to 330 medical students per year, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) quoted. That allows the development of effective cohorts of students with different backgrounds and for the possibility of having a mature graduate entry cohort who would be capable of staying together as a cohort and of being taught as a single body.
      There are three teaching hospitals involved, so that it is possible in planning terms to assign particular teaching hospitals to particular cohorts. But that is still a matter for
      102
      the future, and it is a matter on which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey may wish to remain in correspondence with interested parties.
      Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brooke: I will give way, but the hon. Gentleman must not assume that I have inexhaustible knowledge.
      Mr. Hughes: I am grateful, and I shall not intervene too often. The right hon. Gentleman's answer troubles me because he suggested as a reason why 300 or more students would not be too many the fact that they may be spread among the three hospitals. The logic of the proposal is that they will all come on to one site to work on one hospital. I therefore wonder whether he has a briefing or the knowledge to be able to explain what appears to be a discrepancy between the two arguments.
      Mr. Brooke: I cannot do that. The hon. Gentleman's preoccupation was that the numbers would be overwhelming. I am saying that, because we have the potential of teaching in different cohorts, we can make use in some respects of the multi-site background.
      As for the dental schools, there are mechanisms in hand for the clinical experience element to be taken in two large successful dental hospitals, which is perhaps an example of the point that I made a moment ago. It has not yet been decided how that should be done. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was of course right about the numbers that he quoted. It may be that there will be two separate cohorts, which in that respect will be divided between the two dental hospitals. It is also possible—although this is still at the unresolved and planning stage—that that may be done on a year-by-year basis, so that one year a student will be in one hospital and in the next year in the other hospital.
      There is a potential for having separate specialisations in the two hospitals so that one hospital will concentrate on some specialisations and the other hospital on other specialisations. There is currently some degree of complementarity and overlap. One can therefore see why the matter is still in the planning stage and not yet resolved. The fact that we have that combined strength in the two hospitals provides potential protection for the future on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey at the end of his speech.
      The argument for co-ordinated teaching is not about joint biomedical teaching, but to ensure that the clinical professions are able to undertake appropriate clinical classes together. I doubt that there will be integrated science teaching. That is probably a false assumption. Some joint classes may be given, but the buildings are riot being designed on a scale to take life science and medics together. The planning of the new building on the Guy's site is not envisaged so that both could be done in one place.
      The matter of costs was raised by the hon. Member for Bath and by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). The private finance initiative process means that currently the actual costs are necessarily unknown in detail. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Fife, Central, however, I can say that the PFI process is currently on track. That is not to say that it will continue to he on track, but it is currently on track.

      103
      I can confirm the figure of £140 million, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked me about, of which £70 million—or approximately half—will go into the biomedical building on the Guy's site. A figure of between £40 million and £50 million will go into the refurbishment of the Cornwall house site.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred in his speech to this being all taxpayers' money. It is taxpayers' money if one regards the sites that King's will be selling in west London as taxpayers' money, but those sites already exist. The hon. Member for Fife, Central also referred to an article in one of the educational papers, and the potential for developing sites in those areas. Part of the equation is the money that will be realised from those sites. Moreover, the biomedical activity will be brought from six different sites, including those in west London, on to a single site.
      Mr. Simon Hugh rose—
      Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman cannot restrain himself further.
      Mr. Hughes: I stand corrected on the matter of where the money will come from, and I understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Can he help us with the tally at the end of that set of sums? I am grateful for confirmation of sum of £140 million in total. Does he have—if not, I shall be happy to receive it from him later—the breakdown as to how much will be PFI money from the private sector, how much will be money from the sale of current assets and how much will be properly defined taxpayers' money from the Higher Education Funding Council?
      Mr. Brooke: I cannot answer that question. I have been given a breakdown which shows that £54 million will come from the health service, £20 million from the Higher Education Funding Council, £7 million from the united medical and dental schools—of which £2 million will be from the special trustees and £5 million from UMDS itself—and then the money from property sales at King's. It is too early to give the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey the detailed answers that he sought on the PFI process earlier.
      I realise that the tower at Guy's affords an opportunity. It gives the hospital an opportunity for additional health uses—within the health service, about which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey expressed some skepticism—as well as what I would describe as trust-focused academic-clinical research. In other words, employees of the trust as against employees of the medical school will be engaged in the research, which is of course one of the bonuses and the glories of the two systems being side by side.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wanted an assurance on the consolidation of the biomedical activity. All candidates and all students will have a base there. If there is any academically desirable science teaching that needs to be done at a clinical site, that can and will be done. There is a degree of flexibility in the planning, but I do not think that we are yet at the
      104
      point of absolute definition—perhaps understandably. because until the Bill is passed we do not know that we have the commitment to progress.
      I know that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey did not mean to be disparaging in any way when he referred to talking to out-patients, but that is one of the major advantages of the strong Guy's site, which will enable a student to follow a case. The student may now see individuals in out-patient's, but he will be able to follow the case on a local basis thereafter. That is particularly so because given more rapid discharge from a bed, the less easy vertical integration will become. That is critically true in the early years of the curriculum. If the health service decides to put the clinical service on to Guy's and St. Thomas's, there is no potential planning problem.
      I have responded to the question whether students will be bussed. The answer is not for the first years, but some science-related clinical services will be taught while students are on their clinical placements. I said that we are in the process of testing the PFI, so I could not give a more definitive answer. In reply to the hon. Member for Fife, Central, I can say that not only is that testing currently on track, but, overall, the Hunt's house site was due to be handed over to the combined medical schools, in planning terms, in December 1996. The site is now due to be available in July 1997. That is not certain, but a reasonable assumption.
      Mr. Don Foster: We understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in giving categorical PFI assurances, and we accept those that he has given. However, what assurances are the Government giving as to the £54 million expected from the health service and the £20 million from the HEFC?
      Mr. Brooke: 'They are part of the existing plan. I cannot be more definitive. If the hon. Gentleman wants to enter into correspondence with the Bill's promoters, he is free to do so. I have sought, from somewhat sparse knowledge, to reply as fully as I can to the debate. The HEFC for England has approved the business case, subject to the testing of the PFI process—so we cannot answer the question, "Will it be PFI?"
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked whether the enterprise is cost driven. Both UMDS and KCL started their dialogue by academic argument—they wanted merged departments. They needed to persuade the funding council that that was the way forward, rather than the council putting a gun to their head. The proposed physical location is the best option to achieve that end. The HEFC is not dictating the solution, but it requires proper academic and financial valuations before it gives its seal of approval.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Although it is clearly good for students learning medicine and dentistry to see out-patients, it is as important for them to see in-patients. What is the logic of having academic teaching and students on the Guy's site and most of the in-patients on an entirely different site?
      Mr. Brooke: One disadvantage for my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims) and myself is that my hon. Friend the Minister spoke early in the debate, so

      105
      there was not the opportunity to intervene with certain questions. The questions of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey and for Bath are more for my hon. Friend the Minister than myself.
      The Bill's purpose is to secure a merger that would not be achieved by a federation, as was half hinted. If one expects an organisation such as King's to commit £70 million raised through the sale of its property to a new location on the Guy's site, that must be done with proper control and capacity for planning. I again commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

      Defamation Bill [Lords]
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
    New clause 11

      LIMITATION OF ACTIONS: SCOTLAND
      '(1) The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 is amended as follows.
      (2) In section 18A (limitation of defamation and other actions), for subsection (1) substitute—
      "(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below and section 19A of this Act, no action for defamation shall be brought unless it is commenced within a period of one year after the date when the right of action accrued."
      (3) In section 19A (power of court to override time-limits, etc).
      (a) for subsection (1) substitute—
      "(1) Where a person would be entitled, but for any of the provisions of section 17 or section 18 and 18A of this Act, to bring an action, the court may, if it seems equitable to do so, allow him to bring the action (or to bring any specified cause of action to which the action relates) notwithstanding that provision."
      after subsection (1) insert—
      "(1A) In acting under this section in respect of causes of action falling within section 18A of this Act, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to—

      (a) the degree to which the operation of section 18A of this Act prejudices the pursuer or any person whom he represents;

      (b) the degree to which any decision of the court under this section would prejudice the defender or any person whom he represents;

      (c) the length of, and the reasons for the delay on the part of the pursuer;

      (d) where the reason or one of the reasons for the delay was that all or any of the facts relevant to the cause of action did not become known to the pursuer until after the end of the period mentioned in section 18A—

      (i) the date on which any such facts did become known to him; and

      (ii) the extent to which he acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the facts in question might be capable of giving rise to an action; and

      (e) the extent to which, having regard to the delay, relevant evidence is likely—

      (i) to be unavailable, or

      (ii) to be less cogent than if the action had been brought within the period mentioned in section 18A.

      (1B) In the case of an action for malicious falsehood brought by a personal representative, the references in subsection (1A) above to the pursuer shall be construed as including the deceased person to whom the cause of action accrued and any previous personal representative of that person."
      (4) The amendments made by this section apply only to rights of fiction arising after the section comes into force.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker:I remind the House that with this we are considering amendment Nos. 41 and 42.
      9.5 pm
      Mr. Brooke: I shall resume where I was interrupted by a most worthwhile Bill, which I am happy to say has now been carried.
      At the moment of interruption, I was saying that I am conjoined in the new clause and the consequential amendments with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). He raised the same matters in Committee, where he was unable to move what is now new clause 11 but stated his intention to pursue the matter further on Report.
      My hon. Friend warned me that the intercalated nature of the debate could prevent his being present in the Chamber, but he is with me in spirit. As the heart of the new clause lies in harmonising the law in Scotland with that provided for elsewhere in the Bill—notably in reducing the three years in Scotland to the single year provided in the Bill—I should make it clear that I do not have a single drop of Scottish blood and that, if I trample in any way on Scottish sensibilities, I hope that it will be attributed to the insensitivities of a Sassenach, albeit laced with Welsh and Ulster blood.
      I tabled the new clause because media constituents asked me to do so at the last possible moment in the passage of the Bill. I acted immediately, without undertaking any research, to enable a debate to take place. As the matter was debated in Committee, I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments deployed there, but I want to give the Minister—who is a graduate of King's college and was most welcome in the previous debate—the chance to expand his arguments against the propositions of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, which were deployed in a necessarily helter-skelter manner in Committee.
      On 6 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham asked whether the Scottish Law Commission, which my hon. Friend the Minister prayed in aid in his remarks, could show why six years was needed in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Scottish Law Commission did not see the merit of reducing the period to one year, but he did not explain why. As the debate was to be revisited in a week's time, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham asked the Minister to invite the Scottish Law Commission to send him the justification for leaving the period as it was. The Minister did not make such a commitment; instead he explained the problem of changing the law applying to Scotland without a Scottish Minister present in Committee and promised to consult Scottish Ministers the following week before the Committee returned to the subject, which satisfied my hon. Friend.
      The following week, the Minister stated that the new clause would change Scottish law on the discretionary power of the courts to override the time limit. He said that the Government saw no reason to change that provision. He said that he had consulted Scottish Ministers, as he had promised, and had been assured that it had been fully considered and added that, in the light of comments received during consultation on the Bill in Scotland, there was no evidence that change was required in Scotland. He alluded to the Scottish Law Commission as part of the consultative process, but yet again he did not rehearse its views, as my hon. Friend had requested a week earlier.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham concluded the debate by reminding the Committee that it had not heard why three years were better for Scotland and it is my purpose—as it was my hon. Friend's intent—to return to
      108
      the issue in order to get a clear answer from the Government. As I implied at the beginning of my speech, the issue has exercised a number of media organisations in my constituency.
      Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) does the House a service by enabling us to return to this topic. Circumstances required us not to spend as much time on it as perhaps some of our number would have liked in Committee.
      There are no doubt good reasons why many people in Scotland are more than content that there should be a distinction between the law in Scotland and that in England and Wales on the limitation period, not least because many in England and Wales—we shall no doubt hear them when we debate another amendment—are concerned about the reduction of the limitation period from three years to one, do not believe that the case has been made out and see no reason why Scotland should be obliged to share in England and Wales's new misfortune. On Second Reading and in the other place, scant attention was paid to the distinction between Scotland and England and to the lack of any apparent justification for it.
      Since the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South has introduced the issue of blood lines into the debate, I should say that I have some Scottish blood. I have a grandfather who delighted in the name of Robert Wallace Burns McCombie. Anyone who has a grandfather with that name is entitled to lay some claim to Scottish blood, and I do so with pride. I have no particular interest to declare concerning the media north of the border, but I am aware of a conflicting picture emerging there on the issue.
      Mr. Bill Walker: As one whose blood is all Scottish, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman recognises the convention on handling Scottish business in the House? The matter is very sensitive. Scottish law is different and we do not as a matter of practice change the laws affecting Scotland without Scottish Members—either in the Scottish Grand Committee or in Committee—having the opportunity to debate and discuss the merits of doing so.
      Mr. Boateng: Quite so. The absence of Scottish Members was a very good reason why members of the Committee did not dwell too long on the subject. We are blessed tonight with the presence of a number of Scottish Members and are therefore able to range more widely over Scottish matters than we otherwise would.
      We are also fortunate to have received representations from a number of Scottish organisations that have asked specifically for the matter to be raised. I know, for instance, that the Scottish Media Lawyers Society has contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who was present earlier. He has asked me to raise that contact on his behalf and to express his view that the case does not seem to be made out for a distinction between England and Wales and Scotland on the limitation period. I am bound to say that the Scottish media lawyers share the view expressed in "Bringing Harmony into the Law of Defamation", an article by Alistair Bonnington, who may be known to a number of hon. Members. The society took the view—a view with

      109
      which I disagree—that it should be one year, and it was anxious to harmonise the position in Scotland with that in England and Wales.
      Another, perhaps more authoritative, body—in the sense that it has a wider overview and a specific general interest in the matter—is the Law Society of Scotland. It was very much of the view that it would be quite wrong to change the Scottish position and to bring it into line with English law, as the Bill proposes. The society took the view—which accords with my own as regards the law in England and Wales—that three years is the right time, not least because of the problems outlined by Mr. Clancy of the society. He said that
      "legal aid is not available for defamation actions and it would unduly favour potential defenders (who may be substantial organisations) if the potential pursuer's rights are limited to their exercise within one year of the delict (or civil wrong) having been committed."
      There is a great deal of sense in that.
      9.15 pm
      It seems clear that the notion that there should be a change from three years to one year—or from six years to one year—has not found favour with the Scottish Law Commission. But has the commission been consulted? It certainly should have been. If so, what is its view? Is it—as one suspects—that there are no valid arguments that would justify reducing the period in Scotland during which an action for defamation can be brought to 12 months? We want to be sure that the commission has been consulted and we would like to know its view.
      What about the Scottish Courts Administration? Is it correct that it too opposes a reduction? We would like the Minister to answer those questions within the general context of hon. Members' concerns, not least about the series of amendments that we discussed earlier to clause 13. Have those promulgating the Bill adequately considered the position in Scotland? I have heard nothing during the debates on Second Reading or in the other place about the impact of clause 13 on the Claim of Right Act 1689 as opposed to the Bill of Rights 1688.
      Mr. Dalyell: If, as I suspect, the answer is no and those bodies have not been consulted, is there not a case for a statement to be made by the Lord Advocate at the Scottish Grand Committee during its peripatetic round? Scottish Ministers should be questioned on this complex but important subject.
      Mr. Boateng: Ministers may feel that the matter should be brought to the attention of Scottish Law Officers. It is not for me to trespass on this matter now, but those interested in Scottish constitutional matters sometimes believe that these matters are not always treated with the seriousness that they deserve. I hope that the Minister will take time to consider the matters that I have raised in this short speech and satisfy the House that my concerns have indeed been met.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that it will not be seen as a reflection on the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who introduced the new clause, if I say that, in this matter, I thought that his competence exceeded his enthusiasm for the measure by some considerable distance.
      110
      The House would do well to reject the amendment. Not only was no Scottish Minister on the Standing Committee, but there was no Scottish Member either and, this evening, we do not have a Scottish Minister with us. If the House passed such a measure without proper consideration of the sensitivities, and perhaps the realities, of Scottish law, it might act as an effective recruiting sergeant for those of us who believe that domestic Scottish law should be dealt with in a domestic Scottish Parliament, based in Edinburgh. Perhaps to that extent I should encourage the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South, but for the purpose of this evening it is right to oppose the new clause that he moved.
      The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) said in an intervention that it was a convention in such circumstances that the law of Scotland was not changed. Would that he was always correct about that. I can think of a number of recent criminal justice measures that, towards the end of their passage, dealt with Scotland, but never had a proper airing in Committee or on the Floor of the House from a Scottish point of view.
      The position is this: in Scotland, the law of prescription and limitation, which is essentially what the new clause is about, is one corpus of law. It is to be found in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. It is wholly inappropriate to change that corpus of law on a case-by-case basis in a series of statutes.
      One of the advantages of having the provisions in a single Act of Parliament is that it makes for ease of reference for practitioners and public alike and that any proposed change to the principal Act can be assessed against the effectiveness of other statutory provisions relating to prescription and limitation. It is wholly inappropriate to change the law in that regard in a piecemeal fashion.
      I 'too' had the brief from the Scottish media lawyers. I have spoken to Mr. Bonnington and explained that I do not share his point of view on the matter. I understand the arguments that lie behind his views, but it would be inappropriate to interfere—I appreciate that that is a pejorative word, but I use it advisedly—in that way with the law of prescription and limitation in Scotland.
      The Law Society of Scotland has evidenced its opposition. I should be interested to know what Scottish Ministers have to say, particularly the Lord Advocate. As I am engaged in an exercise that is as much one of education as of advocacy, I can tell the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who spoke for the Labour party, that the Scottish Courts Administration concerns itself with the numbers of courts, sheriffs, witness rooms and things of that kind. Policy has not yet fallen within its responsibility.
      Policy is a matter for Government, and policy in these matters is the responsibility of Scottish Law Officers and Scottish Ministers. Policy is a matter on which those who practise the law in Scotland are entitled to have their voice heard. The clear view of the Law Society of Scotland and of the Law Commission, I understand, is that no change should be made. On that basis, I suggest that the amendment should not detain the House too long. I hope that the new clause is not pushed to a vote. If it is, I certainly urge anyone who has an interest in the integrity of Scottish law to vote against it.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I am worried about the precedent that would be created if new clause 11 were accepted.

      111
      Despite what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said about possible changes, those of us who care deeply—and I know that he includes himself in that—about the integrity of Scottish law and the legal system try always to ensure adequate debate on Scottish matters. We monitor the situation carefully. I came to the Chamber because I noticed that the new clause had been tabled by two English Members. In the circumstances, I would find it difficult to argue, as I always do, that our unitary Parliament looks after Scottish matters extremely well.
      I am delighted that this is not a Government proposal. The Government would not allow such a proposal without Scottish Ministers being present or without the Scots being given the opportunity fully and adequately to debate the matter. Whatever its merits, in the interests of maintaining the integrity of our unitary Parliament and that of the Union, we should have no truck with new clause 11, as proposed by two English Members.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Braveheart, South for sharing his Celtic antecedents with the House and to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) for tabling the new clause, which allows us to have this important debate. It would mean that the limitation period of one year that we propose for defamation proceedings in England and Wales would also be introduced for Scotland. I hope that in a brief but forceful argument I shall persuade him that it is misguided.
      My right hon. Friend knows that the Neill committee did not consider the law in Scotland. Scottish Ministers consulted last year on whether the limitation period in Scots law should be reduced to one year, in line with that proposed for the rest of the United Kingdom. Ministers attached particular weight—and this answers one of questions of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—to the views of the Scottish Law Commission, which strongly opposed any change, as did the Law Society of Scotland. Accordingly, it is not the Government's intention to make that reduction at this time.
      I can reassure the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke so eloquently, that my speech has been approved personally by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The jokes are mine, but he has approved the speech. I am glad of the support of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), who made a valuable and important point.
      It is worth briefly setting out the background. There are several important respects in which Scots law is very different from English law. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South knows that Scots law is based on Roman law, whereas the law in England and Wales has a common law base, with each tradition having evolved separately over many centuries. The two legal systems have many striking differences. A prime example is that, under the law of England and Wales, consideration is required to establish a contract, whereas, bizarrely, in Scotland a unilateral promise with no consideration moving to the promisor—I speak as a law student of many years ago—can constitute an enforceable obligation.
      112
      The law on the purchase and sale of land is different, as is the system of land tenure generally. There are significant differences in family law and in the law of succession. Even in the law and procedure for plaintiffs and defendants in defamation proceedings, there are several differences apart from the limitation period. For example, the assessment of damages is different in Scotland and is more likely to influence the potential plaintiff's choice of forum than is the limitation period. Punitive and exemplary damages are permitted in England but not in Scotland. Newspapers, broadcasters and their advisers already have to deal with those differences and do so with little difficulty.
      Section 19(a) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 already gives a Scottish court an unfettered discretion to override time limits where it considers it equitable to do so. That power of discretion applies to all time limits in personal injury actions and wrongful death actions as well as to defamation actions. It is not considered necessary or desirable to restrict the wide discretionary powers that Scottish courts already have to override time limits.
      If it is therefore my right hon. Friend's intention to harmonise the law between Scotland and England—a brave thing for any Englishman to undertake—a far more extensive review of the differences between English and Scots law, even in relation to defamation proceedings, would be necessary rather than the simple introduction of an identical limitation period.
      In Committee, we heard the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) about forum shopping. As I have explained, there are reasons other than the limitation period itself why people might seek to sue in England rather than Scotland, or vice versa.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the seminar that the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Scotland, was his attention drawn to the fact that in a defamation action in Scotland the assessment of damages is almost invariably carried out by a judge, not a jury? That inevitably means that the awards in Scotland are substantially lower than those in the Strand. That, in itself, could easily be a disincentive to anyone who felt that he should go north of the Tweed to try to effect a remedy.
      Mr. Streeter: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who speaks with authority on the matter, makes a valuable point about the Government's position on the new clause.
      I have explained that the operation of rules of private international law should also prevent differences from being unfairly exploited. The plea of forum non-conveniens, with which we are all familiar, is available to ensure that cases that should be more suitably heard in England and Wales are not heard in Scotland.
      Even if a pursuer—the Scottish term for plaintiff—could establish jurisdiction in Scotland over a defamation that occurred in England and Wales, the Scottish court would still have to consider whether that defamation was actionable under the law of the place where it had occurred, and the English laws of limitation would be a relevant consideration. Section 23(a) of the 1973 Act specifically provides that if a foreign law applies to a dispute, that law's limitation rules must also be applied.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise for not being present during the earlier part of the debate on the

      113
      new clause. Will my hon. Friend advise the House about what would happen in the case of the BBC? It has transmitters in Scotland, so it would be clear that the alleged libel was propagated in Scotland. Would the BBC be exposed to a three-year limitation in Scotland, but to only a one-year limitation in England and Wales?
      Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend raises a theoretical case. He will know that almost every defamation action is started well within the 12-month period. As I have explained, the answer to his question would lie outwith the working of private international rules in a court of law. It would be for the court in which an action was brought to decide whether it had jurisdiction.
      For all those reasons, we do not see that having a separate limitation period of one year in England and Wales, while retaining the limitation period of three years in Scotland, could or would cause confusion or difficulty. We have already made it clear that, following significant consultation in Scotland, there is no widespread desire for a change in the prescription period in Scotland. If my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South wished to be consistent with his amendments, he would also have to seek to harmonise the assessment of damages north and south of the border. He would also have to harmonise the procedures in bringing any such action. That would be a mammoth and unenviable task. For all those reasons, it is not the Government's intention to harmonise the limitation period in England and Scotland and I ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.
      This debate is perhaps a modest foretaste of the folly of Labour's plans to introduce a system under which a Scottish Member could come to Westminster to make English law, but English Members could not go to Edinburgh to decide Scots law. Frankly, it does not and cannot work: the West Lothian question remains alive and kicking.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I repeat my apology to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House for not being here for the resumption of the debate on the new clause.
      I shall delay this Report stage for a moment by returning to the beginning. It is wrong to believe that an extension of time in Scotland balances the generally lower damages—the two issues are separate. There is not an argument for saying that, because people in Scotland have not asked for a reduction from three years to one year, we should continue with the unusual system of leaving more time for a potential pursuer or plaintiff in Scotland than for those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
      I do not believe that we should harmonise everything, but as we have national publishers—broadcasters fall into that category to an even greater extent than newspapers, which may have separate titles north of the border—we should pay attention to them. When they suggest that it would be helpful to them to have more certainty, we should have a reason to say no to them. If the reason is that, when consulted, the people of Scotland did not ask for the period to be lowered from three years to one, and if most of the people who were consulted were lawyers, that is not of much help to those whose duty is to give the public information day after day.
      Mr. Bill Walker: If my hon. Friend had been here when I spoke he might have been a little more careful.
      114
      He would have realised that some of us are deeply concerned that two English Members should table a new clause on a matter affecting Scots law; whereas we believe that if this unitary Parliament is to operate effectively it must ensure that Scottish Members serve on Committees examining Bills of this magnitude.
      Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend's point might have gone down better if my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) had been selected to serve on the Committee. There are others besides my hon. Friend who feel that they have just as important a reason to be sorry that they were riot chosen to serve on it. I believe in a United Kingdom. If my hon. Friend is saying that I cannot raise the anomaly of the three years in Scotland as opposed to one in England, he and I have a dispute that I hope will turn out to be an argument, not a quarrel.
      Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend accept that the solution is to harmonise on three years across the United Kingdom? Quite often the Press Complaints Commission can take up to two years to investigate a complaint, whereupon the complainant can go to law—but only in Scotland now, not in England. He will have to go to Scotland to bring an action against a national newspaper published in England, but which is also distributed in Scotland—hence my solution of getting rid of the anomaly by imposing a universal three-year limit.
      Mr. Bottomley: That crossed my mind last week, which is why I tabled alternative amendments proposing three years. My personal preference is for three years in each jurisdiction. If a defamation is sufficiently serious to be the cause of an action—subject to the leave of the court where a person may not have been aware of what is published—it is far better if people issue writs very early on. The point about a libel is the damage it has done; the point of a writ is to put others on notice that what has been said is untrue, damaging, unprivileged and actionable. So the sooner the writ is issued, asking for retraction and reward, the better.
      The point at issue here is why Scotland should be left with three years. The fact that no Scottish Minister is present suggests that last week's early-day motion has been ignored. It is said that the people of Scotland have not asked for a reduction. We should be able to do better than that in this House. We have a responsibility to the United Kingdom to try to make it possible for people to bring us news, views and comment—as long as it is riot untrue or, in a legal sense, unfair comment.
      When people say things that are seriously damaging and actionable we should expect them to be open to action for a reasonable period. I believe that more than a year is unreasonable nowadays; the Minister has backed that up by telling us how few cases begin after a year.
      Madam Speaker: Mr. Brooke.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I support amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which are grouped with the new clause—
      Madam Speaker: Order. We are not there yet. We are on new clause 11, which is why I have called Mr. Brooke.
      Mr. Brooke: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to respond. The hon. and learned

      115
      Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) referred to a seminar held between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Minister. I felt that I had been privileged to attend a similar seminar this evening. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) will agree that the fact that I have attended such a seminar is one of the bonuses of these proceedings.
      The Minister gave me a very full reply. He did not tell us precisely what advice he has received from the Scottish Law Commission. Had he told us that in Committee, we would not have returned to it tonight.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLICATION
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'nature or'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 2, line 28, at end insert—
      '(5A) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a person took reasonable care, or had reason to believe that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement, where a statement published in an edition of a serial publication is in issue in defamation proceedings, the court shall not have regard to—

      (a) court finding of libel against a previous edition in the same serial publication which was published more than two years before the edition in question; or

      (b) proceedings for defamation against a previous edition in the same serial publication which have not resulted in a court finding of libel.'.

      No. 17, in clause 8, page 8, line 6, at end insert—
      '(2A) The court may dismiss the plaintiff's claim where the defendant relies on the defence available under section 1(1) of this Act, unless the plaintiff can show that the facts of the case are such as to be unlikely to allow such a defence to be established, and the court is so satisfied.
      (2B) The court may dismiss the plaintiffs claim where the defendant is a retailer, distributor or library and relies on the defence that he did not stock or hold the publication in which the alleged defamatory statement was published, unless the plaintiff can show that the facts of the case are such as to be unlikely to allow that defence to be established, and the court is so satisfied.
      (2C) Where the defendant informs the court of his intention to rely on a defence provided for under subsection (2A) or (2B) above, the court shall be required to consider whether it should dismiss the plaintiff's claim; and in any such proceedings a body corporate shall not be bound to employ a solicitor to be on record with the court as acting for it, and in any such proceedings a limited company may be represented by one of its directors.'.
      Mr. Bottomley: I preface my remarks by saying that I have been involved in a number of libel actions, none of which is relevant to the new clauses or amendments. I believe that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) plans to speak to this group of amendments on behalf of the sellers. I was alerted to the issue by the periodical publishers, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if refer extensively to their briefing.
      116
      One of the intentions of the Bill is to create a new statutory defence that will be available to distributors, printers and others who do not have primary responsibility for a defamatory publication, provided that they neither knew nor had reason to believe that their acts contributed to the publication of defamatory material. That defence is set out in clause I, and it was debated in Committee. The terms of the clause are such that some practitioners in law believe that the defence will seldom be available for use.
      Clause 1(3) states that those who rely on the defence should not be considered the author, editor or publisher. I am advised that further conditions have to be satisfied and, in considering them, it should be borne in mind that the person for whose benefit the defence has been devised will have had no practical opportunity to see the material before it is published.
      Clause 1(1)(b) states that reasonable care must have been taken, as defined in clause 1(5), and clause 1(1)(c) states that the persons concerned must show that they did not know and had no reason to believe that what they did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement. Again, that is defined in clause 1(5). Clause 1(5) lays down three criteria that determine whether a person took reasonable care:

      "(a) the extent of his responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it,

      (b) the nature or circumstances of the publication, and

      (c) the previous conduct or character of the author, editor or publisher."

      As I said in Committee, this is not the Scallywag defence. If a distributor continues to publish a magazine that is defamatory and actionable every time it is released, the fact that the publishers are people of straw should not provide protection for the people who are retailing it.
      Given the fact that there is hardly a publication in the United Kingdom that has not published a defamatory statement at some time, it is difficult to see how any of the persons intended to benefit can do so. In addition, every defamatory statement is not actionable—it may be protected by privilege, or the person who has been defamed may not have a reputation that is worth bothering about.
      The problem starts because the defendant must show that he did not contribute to the publication of a defamatory statement. When we talk about "a" defamatory statement, it means "any" defamatory statement. Therefore, an amendment to change "a" to "the alleged" would make the defence more available—it would then become the alleged defamatory statement. I suspect that the draftsmen will be prepared to accept that alteration. If they are not, perhaps the Minister can share with the House precisely why that which the practitioners think would be useful and make the defence effective cannot be brought into the Bill.
      This point has come up rather late in a Bill that has had a reasonable amount of bipartisan agreement on the main clauses. When there is partisan dispute about a Bill, the process takes longer and it is possible for those with practitioners' experience to share their views with the Government, the civil service, the Opposition and the media. Therefore, more attention is given to the issues that could be incorporated in the Bill in a non-partisan way. The approach to the Bill has been reasonably non-partisan in most of its passage through Parliament, which is one of the reasons why some of the practitioners are, rather late in the day, trying to amend it.

      117
      Under subsection (5), difficulties would also abound because the intended beneficiaries for libel purposes are publishers and do not do their job if they do not publish. The decision to publish is automatic. Paragraph (b) would appear to be a great help if we could be certain that it refers to the mode of publication rather than, for example, the type of publication. An amendment that limited paragraph (b) to "the circumstances of publication" would be helpful, because the court could then take into account the lack of opportunity for the publisher, distributor or others to avoid or to delete the offending material.
      9.45 pm
      Paragraph (c) would create a difficulty. The Periodical Publishers Association recognises that distributors and others should not have carte blanche to carry publications of any nature without any risk to themselves. The trouble is that because the paragraph refers to the conduct of the publishers, the distributors of a children's comic would not be able to use the new defence. I tabled an amendment that substituted the word "publication" for "publisher". Unfortunately it was not selected, but it is relevant because it would avoid the difficulty and relieve the plaintiff and the defendant of the need to compile a dossier of claims to try to determine "previous conduct".
      I tabled all my suggestions as amendments, and two have been selected for debate. They would not harm the Bill and they would be useful. If, by any chance, not all of them can be accepted by the Government tonight, I hope that they will have discussions with the Periodical Publishers Association and others so that the amendments might be incorporated in another place. The amendments are not a criticism of the drafting of the Bill: they are an attempt to improve it.
      Mr. Corbyn: I was slightly ahead of myself in my previous attempt to intervene. I tabled amendments Nos. 16 and 17 on Report to try to deal with the dangers of libel proceedings for booksellers. It is a serious matter, because the selective libel actions that are being taken against a number of small and independent booksellers threaten their existence. Libel actions can be used selectively to practise censorship on other people's opinions. I look forward to what the Government have to say on the matter and, even if they are not prepared to accept the amendments, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept that there is a serious problem with the way in which libel actions have been taken against individual booksellers.
      Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 would make it difficult for any potentially litigious person who takes a libel action against an individual who has written a defamatory article about him to extend that action beyond the writer of the article and the publisher. Under the present law, if someone writes a libellous article that is published in a newspaper, he clearly exposes himself to a libel action from the person he has libelled, as does the publisher. The printer is held to be liable to a lesser extent. These days, there is so much direct inputting to printing works that it is almost impossible to expect a printer to be able to read everything that he is printing. Likewise, it is not credible to expect someone running a bookshop, a newsagent or a vendor to have read every single magazine or book on the shelves. If they did, they would never be open, because the staff would be detained the whole day reading newspapers and magazines to ensure that they contained nothing that could be damaging to the bookshop.
      118
      The purpose of the amendments is not to stop people taking libel actions to protect their interests if anything outrageous was published about them. They are designed to protect innocent booksellers, lenders of books, newsagents and magazine vendors against litigation.
      Some hon. Members may have seen the interesting article in last Saturday's edition of The Independent, entitled "Anti-fascist articles prove rich pickings". It described how two ultra right-wing activists in this country have taken a series of actions against Searchlight newspaper. They have enjoined in that action a small number of people whom they deem to be stockists of that magazine and have threatened them with libel action. As there is no access to legal aid in libel actions, a number of bookshops have been forced to settle out of court at considerable cost to them.
      The two individuals concerned threaten that the bookshops either stop stocking an anti-fascist magazine such as Searchlight or face the prospect of libel action. They produced a magazine that was deeply critical of the bookshop Centreprise in Hackney and wrote on the front page of the publication, "Produced by courtesy of Housemans bookshop". That bookshop had been forced to settle out of court on a libel action and those people used the proceeds from that action to publish a pamphlet attacking another radical bookshop.
      I have tabled the two amendments because I believe that the time has come to deal with the issue. Bookmarks bookshop in my constituency and the nearby Housemans bookshop in King's Cross have been subject to terrorism by far-right groups that seek to prevent them from stocking certain types of journals. I hope that the House will recognise the importance of my comments. When the individuals concerned were challenged about their activities, they said that they intended to continue, as the liability rests only with the recipients of that litigation. It seems grossly unfair that those people should be allowed to target a number of radical bookshops around the country and ignore larger bookshops that would be in a better position to defend themselves.
      My amendments go a long way towards defending the diversity of bookshops and booksellers. I think that all hon. Members will agree that that is important. They also defend innocent booksellers, newsagents and purveyors of news from libel action involving material of which they could have no knowledge. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and myself would go some way towards protecting their position. I look forward to the Minister's accepting the burden of our argument about the defence of individuals in that situation.
      Mr. Streeter: I am glad that the amendments have been tabled. We have had a useful debate about the important new defence that has been introduced in clause 1.
      However, I believe that amendment No. 26, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), is misguided as it seeks to remove the words "nature or" from the description of a relevant publication in clause 1(5). The nature of the publication is a relevant issue that must be considered when ascertaining the responsibilities of printers, distributors or wholesalers and whether they can offer that defence to a defamation action. My hon. Friend mentioned the magazine Scallywag—which I think is now defunct—and

      119
      it was in the nature of that publication to libel people. We must put distributors, printers, wholesalers and retailers on notice that they should have regard to the nature of a publication if they seek to rely on that defence. Therefore, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment No. 26. Of course, I am prevented from considering amendments that have not been selected.
      I understand the thrust of the remarks by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), about amendments Nos. 41 and 42. However, they would introduce unnecessary fetters on courts when considering precisely what they can take into account in determining whether the defence that is set out in clause 1 applies. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to rely on the new defence that is set out in clause 1, which—having listened carefully to his remarks—I think offers a strong and complete defence to the people with whom he is concerned. However, I cannot accept the amendments. I am sorry, but when I referred to amendments Nos. 41 and 42, I meant amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
      Madam Speaker: Is the Minister back on his correct brief?
      Mr. Streeter: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much for keeping me in order.
      The hon. Gentleman is wrong, as a court must take into account whether a retailer, bookseller or library has stocked a particular publication. Of course, if no such publication has been stocked, that is a complete defence in any action for defamation.
      Mr. Corbyn: A number of bookshops throughout the country stock Searchlight, a respected anti-fascist magazine.
      Mr. David Winnick: An excellent magazine.
      Mr. Corbyn: I agree.
      People who do not like the message contained in Searchlight have selected a number of bookshops, the burden of their threat to any other bookshop being, "If you stock this magazine, you will get the same treatment." It is selective terrorism against radical bookshops, in the knowledge that they have little resources with which to fight a libel case, so many of them have been forced to settle out of court, paying money that they can ill afford to keep these people happy.
      Mr. Streeter: I am concerned to learn that, and I shall be happy to see the hon. Gentleman to discuss that case. I have no time whatever for the bullying tactics that he described. I shall be delighted to receive a delegation from him and to explore more fully what the law can do to protect his constituents.
      This has been a useful, albeit brief, debate. I understand the reasons why the amendments have been tabled, but I cannot recommend that the House accept them.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: On the understanding that my hon. Friend will meet the delegation led by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn); if my hon.
      120
      Friend and his officials will meet the fear of the publishers, who can explain to him at more length than time allows this evening the problems of a publisher who owns a major newspaper which may, rightly or wrongly, at times be involved in libel actions as part of its general search for news; and given that the word "publisher" is in the Bill, rather than "publication", and any children's magazine can be subject to an attack because a retailer is also selling, say, The Sun or any of the mainstream periodicals; it would be inappropriate to press the amendment to a vote.
      I believe that the Bill is defective, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his acknowledgment of at least one of the points that was raised, and I hope of mine as well. If my hon. Friend is open to meet people, I shall not press the amendment to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      OFFER TO MAKE AMENDS
      Mr. Ashby: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 1, leave out from 'in' to second 'and' in line 2 and insert
      'an article of the same size and type and of the same prominence as the defamatory article'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 18, after first 'offer', insert
      'save and except in the case of a qualified offer'.
      No. 2, in page 3, line 19, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where there is a qualified offer in respect of one part of a defamation, a plaintiff accepting a qualified offer to make amends shall be free to pursue an action for defamation in respect of other parts of the defamation for which no offer of amends has been made.'.
      No. 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.
      No. 5, in page 4, leave out lines 33 and 34.
      No. 6, in page 4, line 40, after 'defence', insert
      'only in so far as it applies to the meaning to which the offer related.'.
      Mr. Ashby: I find it difficult to get up at the moment, as I was gardening on Sunday and now have a bad back.
      As the law stands, a publisher who has published a defamation and admits that he has done so can publish a correction and apology in mitigation of damages and pay money into court. That seems to me to be quite sufficient. If that is not accepted by the victim—I stress again that I always use the word "victim" rather than "plaintiff"—they can go before a jury and the jury can assess the damages.
      The clause seems to be a means by which a publisher, without a leg to stand on, can avoid damages being assessed by a jury. I find it odd and quite wrong that if a victim is unhappy about an apology that has been offered and therefore proceeds with his case, he can lose all rights to recover damages, even when it is admitted that a serious libel has been published. That is the effect of the clause, and we should understand what we are doing.

      121
      Libel actions rarely involve one specific allegation, and more often consist of a number of defamatory statements, all of which can have various defamatory meanings. As the law stands, a publisher can make a qualified offer of amends in respect of one defamatory meaning. Under the clause, a publisher can offer to apologise, make a correction and pay damages over one allegation, but seek to justify the rest of the article, and the victim, who may reject the offer, may end up losing even the damages to which he was entitled.
      I have said throughout that this is a publishers' Bill. Not surprisingly, in previous arguments we have heard all about the leader lawyers' point of view. It came out of Lord Justice Neill's inquiry. As I have said in the Chamber before, he sought only the advice and evidence of the leader lawyers. The victims' lawyers did not hear about the matter until a couple of days before the inquiry ended, when they hurriedly summoned and managed to submit some evidence.
      The Government swallowed that hook, line and sinker. There was an offer to make amends, which was a disgrace. I have tried to improve the position in the amendments, suggesting that, rather than a correction and apology being published
      "in a manner that is reasonable and practicable",
      an article of the same size as the defamatory article should be published.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Defamation Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wells.]
      Question agreed to.
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Ashby: That seems to accord with much that has been said in the House. We have always said that we should have some sort of right of reply. Disgraceful defamations are made, and then we see a tiny apology on the back page, an inch high, covering nothing like the spread that was on the first or second page. At the very least, we should be demanding such coverage for the correction.
      My amendments also deal with cases involving a qualified offer. As I have said, the current position is one-sided, leaving the poor defendant absolutely open to what may happen to him. He may reject the offer and end up losing even the damages to which he is entitled. Amendment No. 1 deals with that, but makes the proviso:
      "save and except in the case of a qualified offer".
      Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 deal with clause 3. The other amendments deal with clause 4, which is entitled
      "Failure to accept offer to make amends".
      If the poor chap has not accepted such an offer, he is done for: he is hammered into the ground, and does not have a leg to stand on. That, of course, is exactly what the newspapers want. The Bill is a charter for newspapers. It has been proposed by publishers who themselves have not
      122
      a leg to stand on, so that they can avoid having damages assessed by a jury. That is what clause 4 is about, and that is why I have tabled my amendments.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) knows, I support all but his first amendment. I do not think that, under that amendment or under clause 9, the courts should be able to force a publisher or a broadcaster to produce an apology in a particular position, especially one taking up the same space as the original comment. I understand, nearly as much as my hon. Friend, the pain and anguish that are caused when something highly damaging is published, but I believe that the House has the role of protecting the freedom of those who bring us the news. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) would stop laughing. This is a serious point for a number of people, both members of the press and victims.
      Even given that, however, what most victims—to use my hon. Friend's language—want is first a cessation of publication of what has been said, so that it is not picked up and repeated by the same publication or others; secondly, a retraction and apology; and thirdly—especially if there is not an almost immediate apology for anything factually incorrect—a sum in damages that shows the world that what was said was seriously wrong.
      I feel that clause 9, and my hon. Friend's amendment in particular, are the wrong way of approaching the problem. I do not think that the House spends nearly enough time trying to understand the difficulties of the busy media who feature news and current affairs, whether in print or in broadcast programmes. Newspapers and broadcasters can maintain high standards; they ought to be more self-critical. In general, however, one of the penalties of a free press is the existence of victims. To require the same space and the same prominence after a court has reached a conclusion or the parties have reached an agreement is probably a step towards Parliament and politicians determining what is broadcast and what is printed.
      I support the rest of my hon. Friend's amendments. I am sorry that under the rules of the House it is not possible to debate my amendment to clause 9, which faces this issue more directly than does my hon. Friend's amendment No. 15.
      Mr. Streeter: It is in the wise tradition of the House to listen carefully to those who draw on personal experience. Amendment No. 15 seeks to force a newspaper to print an apology in an article of the same size, type and prominence as the defamatory article. The truth is that editors would simply not use that new fast-track procedure of making amends if they had to suffer a total surrender of editorial independence in such a manner. The Bill already provides that an apology or correction should be published in a manner that is reasonable and practicable in all the circumstances.
      The amendments also suggest that when a plaintiff accepts an offer to make amends, he may none the less sue on some part of the alleged defamatory statement. Such a provision would undermine the entire purpose of making a qualified offer. Again, no defendant would make such an offer, leaving the plaintiff free to take the offer and still go to court. It would be to have one's cake and to eat it.

      123
      The amendments would also allow all parties to elect to have a jury involved—virtually a jury trial—contrary to other provisions in the clause. That is not appropriate in this new fast-track procedure, as part of its attractiveness is that the hearing is before a judge and not a jury. If the plaintiff wants a full-blown jury trial, obviously he will not accept an offer to make amends and will press on with his litigation under the normal rules of procedure, with all the attendant risk.
      I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), but the amendments would undermine the whole purpose of a streamlined fast-track procedure. I cannot advise the House to accept them.
      Mr. Ashby: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Amendment No. 40 relates to convictions, but I sense that the House does not want a serious lecture. If this does me any good later with those individuals who might be the party managers, I shall not move amendment No. 40.

    Clause 13

      EVIDENCE CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
      Amendment proposed: No 21, in page 10, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 11.—[Mr. Boateng.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 264.

      Division No. 154]

      [10.07 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cann, Jamie

      Ainger, Nick

      Chidgey, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Allen, Graham

      Church, Judith

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ann

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Connarty, Michael

      Bell, Stuart

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Corbett, Robin

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corston, Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Blunkett, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Boateng, Paul

      Darling, Alistair

      Bradley, Keith

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth,

      Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Denham, John

      Burden, Richard

      Dewar, Donald

      Byers, Stephen

      Dixon, Don

      Callaghan, Jim

      Dobson, Frank

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      124

      Eastham, Ken

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Etherington, Bill

      Martlew, Eric

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Maxton, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Flynn, Paul

      Michael, Alun

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Milburn, Alan

      Foulkes, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Fraser, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morley, Elliot

      Galbraith, Sam

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Gapes, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Garrett, John

      Mullin, Chris

      George, Bruce

      Murphy, Paul

      Gerrard, Neil

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Godsiff, Roger

      O'Hara, Edward

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Olner, Bill

      Gordon, Mildred

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Pearson, Ian

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pike, Peter L

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pope, Greg

      Gunnell, John

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hain, Peter

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hall, Mike

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Purchase, Ken

      Harvey, Nick

      Randall, Stuart

      Henderson, Doug

      Raynsford, Nick

      Heppell, John

      Reid, Dr John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hinchliffe, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Rowlands, Ted

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hoyle, Doug

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Short, Clare

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Simpson, Alan

      Hutton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Ingram, Adam

      Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Jamieson, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Janner, Greville

      Spellar, John

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Stevenson, George

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Straw, Jack

      Jowell, Tessa

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Keen, Alan

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br"dg'n)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Timms, Stephen.

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Tipping, Paddy

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Trickett, Jon

      Lewis, Terry

      Turner, Dennis

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Vaz, Keith

      Livingstone, Ken

      Walley, Joan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wareing, Robert N

      McCartney, Ian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Macdonald, Calum

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      McFall, John

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      McLeish, Henry

      Winnick, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wise, Audrey

      Madden, Max

      Worthington, Tony

      Maddock, Diana

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Mahon, Alice

      Mandelson, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marek, Dr John

      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Clive Soley.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      125

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Dunn, Bob

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Elletson, Harold

      Amess, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Ashby, David

      Faber, David

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Baldry, Tony

      Forth, Eric

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bates, Michael

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bellingham, Henry

      French, Douglas

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gallie, Phil

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Booth, Hartley

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowis, John

      Gorst, Sir John

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Burns, Simon

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Burt, Alistair

      Hannam, Sir John

      Butcher, John

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Butler, Peter

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Butterfill, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heald, Oliver

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Cash, William

      Hendry, Charles

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Churchill, Mr

      Horam, John

      Clappison, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Congdon, David

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Conway, Derek

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cran, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Devlin, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knapman, Roger

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Duncan, Alan

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      126

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Sackville, Tom

      Knox, Sir David

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Legg, Barry

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lidington, David

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Luff, Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Spring, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Madel, Sir David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maginnis, Ken

      Steen, Anthony

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stephen, Michael

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stern, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Streeter, Gary

      Mans, Keith

      Sumberg, David

      Marland, Paul

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marlow, Tony

      Sykes, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thomason, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tredinnick, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nichdls, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Walden, George

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Page, Richard

      Ward, John

      Paice, James

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Pawsey, James

      Watts, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wells, Bowen

      Pickles, Eric

      Whitney, Ray

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Whittingdale, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Willetts, David

      Richards, Rod

      Wilshire, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wood, Timothy

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Yeo, Tim

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Mr. Edward Leigh and Mr. Michael Brown.

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed with amendments.

      Children's Hospices
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
      10.21 pm
      Dr. Robert Spink: Britain is truly great. We lead the world in many areas, but in hospice care, we are—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
      Dr. Spink: In hospice care, Britain is entirely unchallenged. Our hospice movement is held in unequivocally high esteem abroad as well as in the House. There is no—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman. Will hon. Members please have their conversations outside the Chamber?
      Dr. Spink: There is no political edge to this debate. All parties value and cherish the superb hospice movement. I welcome to this debate colleagues and friends from the three main parties and thank them for their thoughtful and kind support. The only Labour Member who represents an Essex constituency, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), has sent his apologies for his absence. He is genuinely supportive and genuinely otherwise engaged.
      Our children are everything. Early on a cold December morning, a small child was born and was obviously very unwell. The doctors and nurses did all they could, but the negative prognosis seemed inescapable. I looked into the eyes of the father and began to understand the depth of human despair. I was looking in a mirror, and by the grace of God, my son survived. In part, that is why I am opposed to euthanasia and why I sincerely believe that it would be very dangerous were it ever legalised. However, I do not want to get into that debate—important though it is.
      I am wearing the badge of the hospice movement's national sunflower campaign. On Saturday, I attended many local events, including the splendid Methodist Church garden party at the home of Richard and Jill Reeves in Benfleet. At those events, many sunflowers were worn. The sunflower campaign, like the Little Haven project in Essex, has caught the public's imagination and enthusiasm. The public know the strength and importance of our hospice movement and cherish it deeply. I have enormous admiration for those who contribute to the movement by volunteering, fund raising or working within the movement, and I especially thank all those involved in palliative care in the community, particularly the Macmillan nurses—they are wonderful people.
      Last Sunday, I attended my constituency's annual show, which was generously sponsored by Mobil. I was deeply moved to see Robin Reed, on behalf of all the staff of Mobil, present a cheque for more than £30,000 to the Eastern area hospice. The Mobil staff raised that massive amount by exercising their skill and professionalism in further driving up safety standards for major plant
      128
      overhauls—a worthy achievement for Mobil and a wonderful boost for the hospice movement. I congratulate Mobil and I sincerely thank its staff.
      The focus of the debate is the special nature and character of our wonderful children's hospices. They are uniquely different from adult hospices and I hope to show how they augment what is a very important part of our health and social care services. I must first acknowledge the detailed briefings that I have been given by Robin Fanshawe of Little Haven and Graham Collins of the Quidenham children's hospice in Norfolk. I draw heavily on those briefings tonight.
      Perhaps it will help if I start with a local anecdote. Fair Havens hospice in Southend has done marvellous work as an adult hospice, but came under great pressure from time to time to take a child with terminal illness. On one occasion, this was agreed. There was certainly some benefit for the family and perhaps also for the child, but she was too ill for the carers to be sure. However, her crying caused distress to adult patients in the hospice. It was therefore decided that future child referrals would have to be refused as, apart from that aspect, there are many other differences between adult and children's hospice care.
      Let me start at the beginning of children's hospices, which was an initiative of Sister Frances Dominique in 1982 in Oxford to set up the first children's hospice in the world. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are genuinely leading the world in this area. The hospice was named Helen house after a little girl who had a brain tumour. This beautiful and once lively little child was left totally helpless, unable to communicate and requiring constant care. Sister Frances was moved by the plight of Helen and her family. Being a trained nurse, she gave Helen's parents much needed respite.
      It was clear to Sister Frances that many families would be in the same position, and that was the start of the children's hospice movement. From that genesis evolved the original model that the world was to accept and follow. Fourteen years on, there are 11 children's hospices fully operational in the UK and several more at various stages of development. These help families in the UK who have a child suffering from a life-threatening or life-limiting condition.
      A life-threatening condition is defined as one in which medical intervention may prove succesful but which carries a substantial possibility of premature death, or one which makes a child especially vulnerable to opportunistic infections which may prove fatal; heart disease or cancer are examples. A life-limiting condition is defined as a progressive degenerative condition that is likely to lead to premature death; for instance, cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy. It is important to note that children's hospices differ from adult hospices in that fewer than 15 per cent. of our children suffer from cancer in any form. Most children in hospices are suffering from long-term progressive disorders.
      The aim of the children's hospice movement is to enable families to care for their children at home most of the time. In that way, the children can continue to attend school, see their friends and generally continue a normal routine as far as possible. Clearly, that is very important to the child.
      Hospices offer practical, emotional and spiritual support and friendship to the children and their families and recognise the child's home as the centre of the care

      129
      and the family as the experts in that care. The hospice team likes to be involved with the family before the child's illness reaches a terminal stage, if that is what is to be. Early relationships will be invaluable at the time of death. The needs of each member of the family are equally important and the hospice movement is committed to all family members.
      Stays booked for respite typically last from one day to two weeks, but at times of emergency—social or medical—or for terminal care, they can be extended over a longer period. That is why it is so important that the ethos, mood and even the architecture and furnishings of the hospices all create a cheerful and homely, happy atmosphere. Hospices offer accompanied or unaccompanied respite care, as well as terminal care and long-term bereavement care.
      Hospices try to be flexible in response to the individual needs of the children and families, working in full co-operation with all the other services, and, of course, all hon. Members will realise that no charge is made to the families for the care offered. Parents receive immense relief from an uninterrupted night's sleep, or just having time to talk together or walk together without the children. Hospices have kept families together and saved marriages.
      A hospice is not a facility, or a collection of equipment, buildings and people with skills and knowledge—it is much more than that. It is a philosophy—a Christian philosophy. If hon. Members visit a children's hospice, as many do, they will be amazed at what they find. A hospice is not a sad place, even though many children have a poor prognosis. Whole families are usually staying at hospices—well children and pets are often running around and the sick children all enjoy being a part of that loving, happy, joyful and sometimes even noisy environment. In addition, members of the care team maintain contact and support for the families at home and, where necessary, provide practical help there.
      In 1992, the Government provided £1 million per year for five years to pilot new services in England for children with life-threatening conditions and their families. The Department of Health called for applications and received hundreds from throughout the country. That clearly demonstrated the need. Thirty-two projects were selected, covering hospital-based services, community home nursing services, voluntary respite and sitting services, counselling and psychological support. None of the money went towards the running costs of existing children's hospices.
      Also in 1992, Professor Alison While of King's college commenced research designed to examine the needs and provision of hospice care for children. Professor While's study might well be able to substantiate the figure of 20,000 children with life-threatening illnesses in this country.
      It is estimated that there is a need for about 20 to 25 children's hospices in the foreseeable future and that that need will remain static. The hospices are mostly planned and should be—as they are—spread across the country, to fulfil the special hospice philosophy.
      The Little Haven children's hospice is being built in my constituency on a 120-acre site at Daws Heath. It is a delightful, wooded site in the green belt and I congratulate the local council and particularly Mr. Ian Burchill, the director of planning. on their foresight in assisting that unique development.
      130
      Twenty acres of the site will be used for hospice grounds and the remaining 100 acres will become a nature reserve under the care of the excellent Essex wildlife trust. Little Haven is easily accessible from the Al27 from all over Essex and beyond, including outer London and north Kent. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is sitting on the Treasury Bench and listening to the debate, as it will benefit many of his constituents. I know that it has his full support.
      Lord Braybrooke, the Lord Lieutenant of Essex, has generously agreed to cut the ceremonial first turf in early September. I also understand that Sister Frances Dominique will join us for the ceremony, which will be a great honour for my constituency. Building and commissioning will take about a year. It is hoped that the first families will be in residence in the hospice in autumn 1997.
      Little Haven is uniquely well situated for access as well as for its serenity and the peaceful nature of its setting in the green belt of my constituency. The groundswell of support from the people of Essex and beyond has been nothing short of phenomenal. So far, £1.35 million has been raised towards the £3 million needed for building and the first year's running costs. It will be the first hospice, and possibly the only one in the south-east, to care for terminally ill children below the age of 18.
      I am tempted to mention the wonderful efforts of specific companies, schools, individuals and even local Conservative clubs who are fund raising for Little Haven, but it would be invidious to mention any one since so many have made magnificent efforts and are still doing so. With Lord and Lady Braybrooke and others, I am a patron of the Little Haven children's hospice appeal. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is also a patron, is here. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he will be able to speak briefly.
      My small efforts for the hospice pale into insignificance compared with the wonderful support that the project is receiving from many of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who is also here, is one of the best friends of the hospice movement in the House. He and I will be promoting a fund-raising dinner for the hospice movement in the Palace of Westminster this autumn. We hope that it will be supported by the spouses of many Essex Members. We are doing that because it is important that the momentum of fund raising is maintained to secure the hospice's long-term future.
      God forbid that any of our families will ever need to call upon the hospices, but God knows, if we do, they will be there. Little Haven brings great credit to my constituency. I am honoured to host it. I had thought that I might mention one or two members of staff at Little Haven and at Fair Havens hospice, Westcliff, who are so closely involved. Many of them have a dual role in both hospices. However, that would be wrong, because the essence of the project is team work. All the staff have an essential part to play. They all work together for the ultimate benefit of the children and families whom they support.
      I shall briefly deal with funding for hospices generally. Everyone in the movement understands the importance of the voluntary charitable basis of the initial establishment of hospices and of their long-term running costs. That predominantly voluntary source of funding is one of the

      131
      great and uniquely British strengths of our hospice movement and should not in any way be underestimated or undermined. That is not to say that there should be no input from public funds. Some hospices receive a significant proportion of their funding from various public sources; others receive little or nothing.
      The Government must develop a policy for the funding of hospices, including children's hospices. I suspect that a balance of between a quarter and a half drawn from public funding would be appropriate in the medium term as an average across the hospice movement. That money would be well spent, because it would reduce the burden on the national health service in the long run. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that the funding debate is open and that the question should be addressed.
      Sadly, Hope house, a new children's hospice in Oswestry, is struggling to utilise all its beds, because of a funding shortfall. I congratulate the Daily Post in Liverpool on its campaign to raise funds for Hope house. If all the county council social services departments that are served by Hope house gave £25,000 from their multi-million pound community care budgets, it would be able to give the care that is so much needed, which would relieve the burden on the state in the longer run.
      Finally, the national lottery has been a tremendous success and has raised about £2 billion of additional funds for good causes in this country, which I welcome. There could be few more deserving or more popular good causes than the wonderful hospice movement, particularly children's hospices. I do not want to end on a controversial note, but some lottery giving to the arts, sports and some politically correct charities does not sit comfortably with the views of those who buy the lottery tickets. But that is another debate.
      Sir Teddy Taylor rose
      Mr. David Amess rose
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is it the wish of the Minister that the two hon. Gentlemen participate in the 11 minutes left to him to answer?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam)indicated assent.
      10.40 pm
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) has said about the children's hospice in his constituency. He will know that the action was initiated in the Fair Havens hospice, with which I have had the pleasure of being associated as its president for many years.
      The crucial factor that I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind is that the hospice movement is a costly organisation to run. I was sometimes appalled at management meetings at the way in which others looked forward to the expansion of the hospice movement because the resources are based simply on faith and optimism. However, the other committee members have always been right and I have been wrong—the money has always been made available.
      132
      As my hon. Friend has rightly said, the hospice movement in Southend has been safeguarded and developed because of astonishing generosity on the part of the community. Only last week I had the pleasure of being on the Southend seafront when a gentleman whose relative had been in the hospice said that he wanted to show his gratitude by cycling all the way from Glasgow to Southend-on-Sea. I know that it will be quite a journey as it is one that I have undertaken in other ways on many occasions.
      The only thing that worries me is that, while I have the optimism and faith because of my contact with Fair Havens hospice in Southend, it has been developing and expanding at a furious pace. We provide a wonderful home-care service and aftercare; we have developed the service in many ways and we find that the costs are substantially increasing. The hospice has been kept going owing to the generosity of the people of Southend.
      There are many problems in any such movement. There is a huge strain on the staff who have a very special job to do. While I am not asking the Minister to do anything specific, I hope that he will ensure that the Government will keep in touch with the hospice movement and that Ministers will pay regular visits to the hospices to give them the encouragement that they richly deserve. Like my hon. Friend, I should like to congratulate the hospice movement on a fantastic job that has been done thoroughly, with great integrity and devotion. I hope that it will go from strength to strength, and I hope that the children's hospice in my hon. Friend's constituency will provide the same level of service, care and Christian service that Fair Havens has for so many people over the years.
      10.43 pm
      Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on securing this debate tonight. It is particularly appropriate because I am advised that my hon. Friend's son George was today awarded a distinction in surgery and MBBS honours at King's, London—and that in addition to a host of other educational qualifications that he has. I only hope that some of my children do as well as my hon. Friend's son.
      In Basildon we have St Luke's; Fair Havens is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). We all pray that eventually cancer is eradicated. For a long time there has been a gap in our area in terms of the care for children. All of us with children can well appreciate the terrible consequences when a child becomes ill. In Basildon, a member of the general public has founded a support group known as Cushions, which tries to give some support to the parents of children with cancer. The Little Haven project is also doing magnificent work.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point touched on the fact that the partners of Essex Members will endeavour to raise funds over the course of the coming year.
      I conclude with a quotation from the team at the Little Haven hospice:
      "As a team we are very conscious of our own inadequacies. We feel that we are one group of people offering simply to be alongside another group of people sharing something of their immense pain and brokenness and knowing that we receive as much, probably more, than we can give. We do not have clever answers. but we are willing to share ourselves and our vulnerability."
      It is very difficult to add to that.
      10.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on raising this very important matter. I congratulate him on a fluent and warm-hearted speech. Children's hospices have come a long way since the first purpose-built hospice in Britain—or anywhere in the world—was opened in Oxford in 1982.
      Increasingly, we are recognising the important role that children's hospices play in the care of children suffering from life-threatening or life-limiting illnesses, for whom there is no hope of cure. Children have needs that are very different from adults', and different skills are required to care for them. Perhaps more meaningful for many is the important part that hospices can play in bringing support to the families of those children. More and more it is being seen that the hospices go beyond the care of a terminally ill child and provide support for the whole family.
      Many, if not all, hospices now include family rooms and accommodation for brothers and sisters. That gives all the family, especially the parents, the chance of respite and a break from constant attendance to their child. They get a chance to relax in a homely, non-hospital environment with others of similar experiences. My hon. Friend talked of the joy and happiness that can be found in these circumstances, and I am sure that he was right.
      In the case of some of the rarer conditions, many parents build up a unique knowledge of their child and of the management of that child's condition. The sharing of these experiences with other parents can be a source of great strength and comfort; especially when, as often happens with the rarer genetic disorders, parents have responsibility for more than one sick child.
      This leads to the recommendation that if a child is to attend a hospice, it should be one that is child-oriented and properly dedicated to the care of children and their special requirements, not part of an adult facility. Adult hospices that want to include children should develop separate facilities especially equipped to cater for their special needs.
      It is now generally accepted that most families want to care for their sick child at home for as long as they can, and that many parents want their child to die at home. Their wishes need to be respected, and children with life-threatening illnesses should receive care based on their home. However, in meeting these wishes parents will need help and support. There are many ways to support those families, depending on their precise needs and on what contribution children's hospices can make to meeting the needs of the child and family. As new services are introduced, their effectiveness must be looked at.
      134
      So in 1992 we launched a programme to run for five years, with the overall aim of forming a better appreciation of the services that are most beneficial to seriously ill children and their families. One million pounds a year has been provided to fund this programme. By the time it ends, in March 1997, support will have been given to about 40 projects, ranging in size from under £1,000 to some over £200,000. They are spread evenly across England, and include initiatives in both statutory and voluntary sectors. All break new ground, and range from pioneering community home nursing services to support for voluntary respite care within a hospice dedicated to children.
      Various projects aim to explore the contribution that community paediatric teams, especially paediatric nurses, can make to help those families. Other developments have been supported by the programme, including the concept of the hospice at home—this can be either an outreach facility from an existing hospice or a domiciliary nursing service provided by a voluntary or statutory organisation that seeks to help with the management of the sick child's symptoms in the home.
      Little Haven hospice at Southend-on-Sea, of which my hon. Friend is the patron, has been awarded a modest grant from programme funds in support of a local survey that it is mounting to validate the information that is available on the children in its immediate area who may require its services.
      The importance of children's hospices is being increasingly recognised by the health service. Children's hospices now have access to health service funding on the same basis as adult hospices. Since 1994, funds have been included in health authority allocations for the purchase of palliative care services. Health authorities can now commission palliative care services for all their populations, including children. They are no longer restricted, as they were at one time, to supporting adult hospices—they can include children with life-threatening illnesses. They have been given the power to decide for themselves the appropriate amount of funding to meet the needs of their local populations in this regard.
      While domiciliary services may be the first line of support for families, when the services of a children's hospice are seen to have an important role to play, contracts can be arranged and funds can be provided. I understand that some hospices now receive a significant part of their funds through service contracts.
      I value highly the dedication and commitment of all those involved in the children's hospice movement. Many people put in many thousands of hours of their own time to raise money and to run events in support of the hospices, including my hon. Friend and his friends. Without their effort, the lives of many children and their families would be definitely a good deal poorer.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

TREASURY

  Marriage Certificates
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the procedure and whose is the responsibility for deciding the terms and the content of the marriage certificate. [33916]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  A marriage certificate is a copy of an entry in a marriage register. The form and content of a marriage entry is prescribed by the Registration of Marriages Regulations 1986. These were made by the Registrar General with the approval of the responsible Minister. With the creation on 1 April of the Office for National Statistics, Treasury Ministers approve all regulations made under the Marriage Acts.

  Dewsbury Tax Office
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual cost of keeping the Dewsbury tax office open. [33628]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 20 June 1996]: The current annual running costs of Dewsbury tax office are £1,412,092.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts, Kidsgrove
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the need to retain magistrates courts in Kidsgrove; what implications there are for north Staffordshire residents

  Accident statistics

  Severity of injury

  Year

  DfEE HO and ES including outstations

  Minor

  Major

  Fatal

  Total

  IT related

  1991–92

  DfEE HO

  1126

  4

  Nil

  130

  1

  1991

  ES

  Not available

  n/a

  1992–93

  DfEE HO

  1184

  1

  Nil

  185

  7

  1992

  ES

  2,102

  23

  Nil

  2,125

  n/a

  1993–94

  DfEE HO

  1232

  2

  Nil

  234

  8

  1993

  ES

  2,021

  13

  Nil

  2,034

  n/a

  1994–95

  DfEE HO

  1223

  0

  Nil

  223

  6

  1994

  ES

  1,486

  5

  Nil

  1,491

  n/a

  1995–96

  DfEE HO

  1179

  0

  Nil

  179

  6

  1995

  ES

  1,624

  8

  Nil

  1,632

  n/a

  Total

  18,177

  64

  Nil

  8,241

  28

  1Includes IT related accidents.

  2
  arising from reorganisation of Kidsgrove and other magistrates courts; what arrangements have been made for consultation; and if he will make a statement. [33251]

  Mr. Streeter
  Magistrates courts are provided by the local paying authority for the use of the magistrates courts committee. It is for the MCC to determine the need to retain a courthouse. If an MCC to decides to close a courthouse the paying authority may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against the proposed closure. That is the only time my Department is informed of, or involved in, a magistrates courts closure.

  No decision has been made by the Staffordshire MCC to close or merge any magistrates courts at this time.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of her Department and its agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33463]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Remedial work is carried out continually as part of an on-going maintenance programme. It is not possible to extract the cost of health and safety-related work from general maintenance and refurbishment costs.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in her Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities. [33461]

  Mr. Squire
  The following table details DfEE headquarters, outstations and the Employment Service accident report statistics for the last five years. Separate information technology-related accident statistics are not available for the Employment Service.
  3
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of her Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33462]

  Mr. Squire
  Information is not available in the form requested. Compensation payments to former Employment Department staff, including Employment Service staff and to members of the public by the former Employment Department were as follows:

  1991–92: £15,815

  1992–93: £11,464

  1993–94: £51,385

  1994–95: £2,824

  1995–96: 14,053

  None of the payments stemmed from incidents involving information technology. Five of the cases involved compensation payments of over £5,000. Information relating to the former Department for Education was not recorded in a form which would enable compensation payments for personal injury to be identified.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on who many occasions in each of the past five years health and safety problems in her Department and its agencies have been reported via internal monitoring; and on how many occasions the Health and Safety Commission has become involved. [33460]

  Mr. Squire
  Health and safety problems are addressed through our internal monitoring procedures as they arise, but no central records of improvements or upgrades are maintained. The procedures involve health and safety inspections, audits and risk assessments.

  There was one incident during the past five years; a health and safety inspector visited the site to investigate and concluded that no blame should be attributed to the Department.

  School Funding
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is provided by her Department to assist(a) local education authority-maintained and (b) grant-maintained schools which have been recently inspected by the Office for Standards in Education; and, in each case, what requirements govern how this may be spent. [33743]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer to the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 10 June 1996,Official Report, column 51.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy to increase the grants available to students undertaking medical and dental degrees at universities in the United Kingdom to take account of the greater length of their degree courses. [34001]
  4
  Mr. Forth
  Students whose academic year is longer than usual are already eligible for an extra week's attendance allowance as part of their means-tested mandatory award.

  The awards regulations for 1996–97 academic year are made and there are no plans to change the grant rates.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost of the administration of each student grant. [34254]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people are at present pursuing traditional apprenticeships. [33912]

  Mr. Paice
  In winter 1995–96 150,000 young people aged 16 to 24 in Great Britain were doing a recognised trade apprenticeship.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the annual cost of the new apprenticeship programme since its inception. [33865]

  Mr. Paice
  Modern apprenticeships were launched on a pilot basis in England in 1994–95. The Department's spend for that year was £0.897 million. Provisional outturn for 1995–96, the first year of the national initiative, is £14.777 million.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people are currently pursuing the new apprenticeships. [33911]

  Mr. Paice
  As at March 1996, there were 26,100 people on modern apprenticeships in Great Britain.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many traditional apprenticeships were completed in each year since 1985. [33913]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is not available. Data on the number of people doing a recognised trade apprenticeship each year are published in table F4 of "Training Statistics 1995".

  Forum on Values
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the names and organisations of the members of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority's national forum on values. [33262]

  Mr. Paice
  The members of the forum are listed as follows, together with the organisation or interest that they represent:

  Organisation/interest

  Joyce Mackley

  Christian Education Movement

  Rosemary Peacocke

  Culham Institute

  Jonathan Gorsky

  Council of Christians and Jews

  Anne Holt

  Christian Action Research and Education

  Janet Ward

  National Family Mediation

  Gregory Cameron

  The Bloxham Project

  Jan Laithwaite

  RELATE

  Andrew Simpson

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  5

  Organisation/interest

  Dilip Kadodwala

  National Association of SACREs

  Anthony Thomas

  Council for Environmental Education

  David Bothwell

  British Humanist Association

  Gill Lenderyou

  Sex Education Forum

  Liz Cowley

  National Children's Bureau

  Snehlata Shah

  Council for Education in World Citizenship

  Vivienne Cato

  REEP

  Gwen Palmer

  Religious Education Council

  Bob Tutton

  British Humanist Association

  David Hay

  Nottingham University

  John Hull

  Birmingham University

  Lynne Scholefield

  St. Mary's Strawberry Hill

  Mark Halstead

  Plymouth University

  Madeleine Arnot

  Cambridge University

  Jack Hogbin

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Mark Chater

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  Brenda Harding

  Lancaster University

  Mike Bottery

  Hull University

  James Arthur

  Canterbury Christ Church College

  Marion Carter

  SS Mark and John College Plymouth

  Jack Priestly

  Westhill College

  Robert Fisher

  Brunei University

  Rosemary Laidlaw

  Scarborough University

  Marianne Talbot

  Oxford University

  Clive Ericker

  Chichester Institute of Higher Education

  Paul Wotton

  Metropolitan Police

  Norman Lloyd

  Crime Concern

  Anne Fuller

  Magistrates Association

  Kamaljit Rana

  Magistrates Association

  Don Rowe

  Citizenship Foundation

  Alan Dyer

  Former Chief Constable

  Rachel Hodgkin

  Gulbenkian Commission on Children and Violence

  Gerison Landsdowne

  Childrens' Rights Office

  Ralph Jackman

  Lawyer

  Jessica Newton

  Lawyer

  Steve Ball

  BBC Education

  Margaret Holness

  Church Times

  Geoff Marshall Taylor

  BBC Schools

  Annabel Miller

  The Tablet

  Robin Moss

  ITV Education

  John O'Leary

  The Times

  Nicholas Pyke

  Times Educational Supplement

  Ahmed Versi

  Muslim News

  Hadrian Southorn

  National Association of Governors and Managers

  John Lewis

  National Association of Governors and Managers

  Karin Pappenheim

  National Council for One Parent Families

  Belinda Yaxley

  National Confederation of Parent/Teacher Associations

  Francis Gee

  Campaign for State Education

  Mary Blake

  Campaign for State Education

  Parvez Butt

  National Governors Council

  Jack Morrish

  National Governors Council

  Valerie Bennet

  Parent

  Kathryn Kukiewiez

  Parent

  Mike Tyler

  Parent

  Carol Dadswell

  Parent

  Gwen Sheppard

  Parent

  Giuliana Orme

  London Marriage Guidance Council

  Geoffrey Duncan

  Church of England

  Musharaf Hussain

  Islam

  Emmanuel Levy

  Judaism

  Vincent Nichols

  Catholic

  Abdul Aziz

  Islam

  Alan Brown

  Church of England

  Joy Leitch

  Free Church Federal Council

  John Shortt

  Association of Christian Teachers

  Gillian Crowe

  Russian Orthodox

  Deepak Naik

  Hindu

  Margaret Smart

  Catholic

  Monica Taylor

  National Foundation for Educational Research

  Leslie Francis

  Trinity College Carmarthen

  Peter Lang

  Warwick University

  Andrew Marfleet

  Cambridge Institute of Education

  6

  Organisation/interest

  Graham Haydon

  London Institute of Education

  David Rowse

  University of Central England

  Jo Cairns

  London Institute of Education

  Brian Crissel

  Researcher

  Glenys Woods

  Open University

  Rosalie Osmond

  Researcher

  Jasper Ungoed-Thomas

  Researcher

  David Wood

  Independent Schools Association Incorporated

  Ros Bailey

  Association of Teachers and Lecturers

  Eber Kington

  Association of Teachers and Lecturers

  Harry Matthews

  Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools

  Peter Jackson

  Headmasters Conference

  Pat Brown

  National Union of Teachers

  Avril Buckley

  National Union of Teachers

  Carole Whitty

  National Association of Head Teachers

  Maggie Angele

  National Association of Head Teachers

  Janet Martin

  Professional Association of Teachers

  Amanda Haenber

  National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers

  Clare Taylor

  National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers

  Kate Manning

  Girls' School Association

  Jeremy Taylor

  Professional Council for Religious Education

  Barbara Turner

  Teacher

  Michael Marland

  Head Teacher

  Ian Pearce

  Business in the Community

  Keith Ajegbo

  Business in the Community

  Ann Bailey

  Engineering Employers Federation

  Sarah Permann

  Trades Union Congress

  Lorraine Spector

  Jewish Association for Business Ethics

  Paul Rosenstein

  Jewish Association for Business Ethics

  Kenneth Adams

  Camino Foundation

  Stanley Kiaer

  Institute of Business Ethics

  Hilary Metcalf

  Policy Studies Institute

  Desmond Boyle

  Institute of Directors

  Adrain Platt

  The Sedgwick Group

  Max Taylor

  Consultant

  David Matthews

  Consultant

  Ron Davies

  National Youth Agency

  Eli Anderson

  National Youth Agency

  Clare Sanders

  National Youth Agency

  Jane Boyce

  National Youth Agency

  Sarah Venables

  Top Yard Afro Caribbean Youth Association

  Fiona Marsden

  The Kite Club

  Jane Lewis

  Guides Association

  Chris Curtis

  Luton Churches Education Trust

  Nick Pollard

  Solent Christian Trust

  John Buckeridge

  Youth Work Magazine

  Phil Wall

  Salvation Army

  Bob Mayo

  Lambeth Palace Youth Work

  Graham Mungeam

  Oasis Trust

  There are also observers from the Department for Education and Employment, the Office for Standards in Education and the Teacher Training Agency.

  Employment Service
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if it is her policy that the Employment Service should not become a member of the Opportunity 2000 initiative. [34013]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  7
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 24 June 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the Employment Service's membership of Opportunity 2000 initiative. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The Department for Education and Employment's membership of Opportunity 2000 includes the Employment Service.

  Lifetime Learning
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for encouraging lifetime learning; and if she will make a statement. [34567]

  Mr. Paice
  All the respondents to the consultation confirmed the importance of lifetime learning to the economic success and competitiveness of business and individuals. They recognised that a great deal of progress has been made, but that there is still more to be done by all those involved. My right hon. Friend is publishing today a policy framework for the development of lifetime learning and placing a copy in the Library. The key elements of the framework are:

  employers investing in the training and development of employees;

  gaining the commitment of individuals to learning;

  improving access to learning;

  giving people of all ages the opportunity to acquire the basic skills on which to build further learning;

  developing effective partnerships nationally and locally to give practical effect to shared responsibility and to make the best use of resources.

  I believe that the document sets out a framework of policy within which action by Government, in conjunction with other parties, will help towards achieving the long-term goal of a culture of lifetime learning for all.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many decisions by her Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if she will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33567]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: The following cases are those in which the decisions by the Department for Education and Employment, and former Departments in the exercise of the functions of the current Deaprtment for Education and Employment, were challenged by way of judicial review since April 1992.
  8

  (a) The decision of the relevant Department was upheld by the Court in the following 11 cases:

  1. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte London Borough of Lewisham

  4 December 1992

  2. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte London Borough of Southwark

  24 January 1993

  3. R v. Secretary of State for Education and the Governing Body of the Queen Elizabeth Grammar School Ex parte Cumbria County Council

  2 July 1993

  4. R v. Northampton Education Department and Secretary of State for Education Ex parte Kingsbury

  1st instance (decision upheld) 14 July 1993

  Court of Appeal (appeal dismissed) 23 July 1993

  5. R v. Secretary of State for Eduation Ex parte G—6 July 1994.

  6. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte C—8 February 1995

  7. R v. Secretary of State for Employment and another Ex parte Wong

  29 June 1995

  8. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte Morris and others—21 December 1995.

  9. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte Norfolk—1996

  10. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte N—1996

  11. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte Connon and Davis

  26 April 1996

  (b) The court found for the applicant in the following 9 cases, two of which were reversed on appeal:

  1. Secretary of State for Education and Science Ex parte Yusuf Islam

  15 May 1992

  2. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte Prior 21 December 1993

  3. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte S—21 December 1993 but overturned in Court of Appeal 15 July 1994

  4. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte C—quashed by consent 1994

  5. R v. Secretary of State for Employment Ex parte EOC House of Lords 3 March 1994

  6. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte W—27 May 1994

  7. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte Skitt— 12 April 1995

  8. R v. Secretary of State for Employment Ex parte Seymour-Smith and another

  Decision upheld at 1st instance but overturned in Court of Appeal 20 May 1994

  9. R v. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte E—21 June 1995

  (c) The Deaprtment is aware of one case, R v Secretary of State for Education Ex parte C, in which it submitted to judgment.

  (d) The Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision in two of the cases listed:

  1. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte Seymour-Smith and Another

  2. Secretary of State for Education Ex parte S.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are her plans for the development of policy on the distribution of lottery proceeds. [34571]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am writing today to the chairmen of the United Kingdom and English lottery distributing bodies to consult them on a change to the policy directions issued to the Arts Council of England under section 26(1) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. The proposed stabilisation programme would allow an amount of revenue funding to help arts organisations gain long-term financial viability in a way which would not substitute for existing grant in aid.

  The stabilisation programme will aim to help arts organisations consider and in some cases change their objectives and the markets within which they operate; inject new creative, technical and managerial skills into the organisation to help them achieve their objectives; provide balance sheet stability; and deliver better value for money.

  This is likely to be a technically complex programme. The Arts Council of England therefore proposes first to run a pilot to determine the best way in which a full stabilisation programme should work. The pilot will involve a sufficient number and range of arts organisations to enable the principle of the programme to be tested. The pilot will seek to identify whether the stabilisation programme could apply to the whole of arts provision across a single local authority area, and whether it could apply to a whole sector within the arts in addition to individual organisations. The pilot will also seek to identify the most appropriate administrative structure for managing the full stabilisation programme.

  Financial instability is not unique to arts organisations. Heritage and sports organisations might also benefit from some form of mechanism to address financial and managerial problems. The Government will consider whether to introduce changes for the English Sports Council, once established, and the National Heritage Memorial Fund if such changes would meet the particular needs of those sectors. My colleagues will be consulting the chairmen of the Arts and Sports Councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the proposed direction and will consider in due course whether changes to the policy directions for those bodies should also be made.

  The consultation which I have launched will last until 25 July. I will then consider the responses to the consultation process, with a view to announcing any change to the directions during August.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many grants and how much money have been awarded by the National Lottery Charities Board to organisations(a) the title of which and (b) one of the main objectives of which makes reference to sexual orientation; and if she will list those organisations and the amount of grant awarded to each. [33047]

  Mr. Sproat
  The National Lottery Charities Board is responsible for decisions on grants awarded and information about them. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the board to write to my hon. Friend, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Authority (Assets)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which assets remain in public ownership at the Coal Authority; and what is their value. [33713]

  Mr. Page
  The assets of the Coal Authority are described in its annual report and accounts 1994–95, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Notes 11 and 12 to the accounts give a breakdown of the value of the authority's investment properties and other tangible fixed assets. The authority's annual report and accounts 1995–96 will be published in July.

  Uranium
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have been held, or are planned to be held, with German officials, regarding the supply of highly enriched uranium from Britain to Germany. [33778]

  Mr. Page
  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority staff and DTI officials have participated in a number of discussions with German officials about the possible supply of HEU from existing UKAEA resources under EURATOM auspices. These discussions are continuing.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requirements are placed on members of industrial tribunal panels to declare(a) religious and political affiliations, (b) membership of masonic or similar orders and (c) membership of other organisations which could appear to influence their decisions. [33850]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. However, under the terms of their instrument of appointment lay members must not sit to hear a case if there is any reasons known to them that might give rise to doubt as to their impartiality, or to the appearance of their impartiality, and must resign if they are adopted as prospective candidates for election to the United Kingdom or European Parliaments.

  Offshore Oil Installations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what continuing responsibility owners of offshore oil installations have for their maintenance and safety after closure; and over what period of time. [33914]

  Mr. Eggar
  If an abandonment programme under the Petroleum Act 1987 proposes that an offshore oil installation be left in position or not wholly removed, it must include provision as to any continuing maintenance that may be necessary.

  Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 there may also be a continuing responsibility in relation to the health and safety of personnel who may have occasion to carry out work at the site.

  Film Distribution
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects to reach a decision on the Office of Fair Trading recommendations on the distribution of films within the United Kingdom; [34109]
  11
  (2) what representations he has received (a)from the Cinema Exhibitors Association, (b)from hon. Members and (c)from the public, regarding minimum booking time as a condition of supply by distributors to cinema exhibition, with particular reference to smaller-scale cinema operations; and if he will make a statement. [34110]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has received several representations from the Cinema Exhibitors Association regarding minimum exhibition periods. My Department is. currently considering the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading on the distribution of films within the United Kingdom. A decision will be announced in due course.

  Science and Research Expenditure
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his estimate is of the total amounts spent on science and research(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the Yorkshire region; and if he will make a statement. [32605]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The total gross expenditure on research and development in the UK in 1994—the latest year available—was £14,613 million, of which £552 million was spent in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. The comparable figures for 1993 were £13,829 million and £418 million respectively.

  Head Office Transfers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the impact on British competitiveness of British companies transferring their head offices overseas. [32623]

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Civil Space Programme
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about progress in the review of Government policy on civil space. [34426]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I will be hosting the second space policy forum on 25 June at Queen Mary and Westfield College London. At the forum, the UK space community will consider a draft forward plan on space, which I have prepared, and copies of which I have today placed in the Library of the House.

  I am also pleased to announce that additional UK Government funding is being provided for three European Space Agency programmes, namely £3.6 million for satellite navigation and £1.5 million for applications, both of these within the advanced research in telecommunications systems programme, and £2 million for the general support technology programme.

  Traders (Serbia)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates(a) Ministers and (b) representatives of his Department met representatives of Metta Trading Ltd. to discuss matters relating to imports and exports. [32317]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: There has not been any such meeting between Ministers of my Department and representatives of Metalchem
  12
  International Ltd. On 12 and 19 March 1993 and on 10 August 1993, as part of a programme of routine company visits, officials of my Department discussed the consequences of UK sanctions legislation with personnel of the company and its subsidiaries.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates prior to July 1993(a) Ministers and (b) departmental officials (i) corresponded with and (ii) discussed with Mr. Jovan Zebic or his representatives' compliance with United Kingdom legislation in respect of membership of the boards of Serbian-related companies or companies trading with Serbia. [32314]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: There has not been any such correspondence between Ministers or officials of my Department and Mr. Jovan Zebic or his representatives, nor have any such discussions taken place. Between 29 April and 29 July 1993, officials of my Department corresponded with representatives of Tsvetmetexport, a Russian company, which at that time owned 49 per cent. of the shares of Metta Trading Ltd., of which Mr. Zebic was a director until his resignation on 29 July 1993.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date Ministers were first informed that Messrs Metalchem International and Metta Trading Ltd. were(a) owned by, (b) controlled by and (c) acting on behalf of Serbian interests. [32315]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: A list of companies operating in the UK that constituted "persons connected with Serbia or Montenegro", as defined in the Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1992, formed the annexe to a submission to Ministers, dated 8 January 1993. Metalchem International Ltd. and Metta Trading Ltd. were among the 36 companies listed.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date his Department was first notified that(a) Metta Trading Ltd. and (b) companies acting as its agents or representatives had breached trade sanctions legislation. [32318]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: My Department has not been notified of any alleged breach of sanctions by Metta Trading Ltd. or companies acting as their agents or representatives.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the compliance of Messrs P. J. Forbes with regulations governing restrictions on trade with Serbian-related interests. [32313]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: None. The investigation and prosecution of alleged breaches of the sanctions on trade with Serbia and Montenegro is a matter for HM Customs and Excise, to whom any relevant information should be provided.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates(a) Ministers and (b) representatives of his Department met representatives of Metalchem International Ltd. to discuss matters relating to imports and exports. [32316]
  13
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: There has not been any such meeting between Ministers of my Department and representatives of Metalchem International Ltd. On 12 and 19 March 1993 and on 10 August 1993, as part of a programme of routine company visits, officials of my Department discussed the consequences of UK sanctions legislation with personnel of the company and its subsidiaries.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33594]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: No legislation has been introduced by the Department since 1991–92 with the purpose of removing the effects of judicial review decisions. The Employment Rights (Part-time Employees) Regulations 1995, SI 1995/31, is the only legislation which the Department introduced in order to implement a judicial review decision.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33577]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: Comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested. However, the Department has identified from readily available sources 27 decisions which were challenged by way of judicial review, as follows

  1991–92: 3

  1992–93: 5

  1993–94; 3

  1994–95: 5

  1995–96: 11

  The Department's decisions were upheld in 12 of the cases.

  In the four cases in which the court found for the applicant, the Department submitted to the judgment in two of them, and successfully appealed against two.

  Eleven cases either have been withdrawn or are not yet completed.

PRIME MINISTER

  Berlin Bombing 1986
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 381, if he will ask the west German authorities what progress they have made in their investigations of the Berlin bombing on 6 April 1986, and in particular, on what grounds they have now extradited a citizen of Lebanon to face charges relating to the bombing. [34014]
  14
  The Prime Minister
  Investigation of the "La Belle" discotheque bombing is a matter for the German authorities. However, I understand that the Lebanese authorities extradited a Palestinian, Yassar Al-Shuraidi—alias Yousef Salam—to Germany on 23 May 1996 in connection with the bombing. He was working for the Libyan Peoples' Bureau in East Berlin at the time of the bombing.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 381, if he will ask the US authorities for what reasons they refused to provide the west German authorities with the alleged evidence of Libyan responsibility for the Berlin bombing. [34015]

  The Prime Minister
  The United States authorities do not normally comment on evidence in a current investigation, especially if doing so might reveal sources and methods of collection, and risk compromising that investigation.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 381, if it remains the position of Her Majesty's Government that the responsibility for the Berlin bombing rests with Libya. [34016]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department and which Minister has been assigned overall responsibility for matters concerning the reform of the law as it affects transsexuals; and if he will make a statement. [34082]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have not made any decisions to reform the law as it affects transsexuals, and no such responsibility has been assigned.

ENVIRONMENT

  Lighting (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the environmental impact of lighting associated with a proposed development is a material planning consideration; and what guidance the forthcoming revisions of planning policy guidance note 7 will give on this matter. [33996]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The environmental impact of lighting associated with a proposed development can be a material planning consideration. The advice, in paragraph 31 of planning policy guidance note 17, "Sport and Recreation", on the use of conditions governing the operation of floodlights for sporting purposes, applies also to lighting for development for other purposes. We do not propose to give further guidance in PPG7.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major

  15
  and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33478]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The total cost of compensation paid by the Department of Environment, excluding its agencies, to employees, their families, or members of the public, as a result of injury was:

  £

  1991–92

  19,800

  1992–93

  11,412

  1993–94

  5,342

  1994–95

  21,940

  1995–96

  8,695

  Total

  67,189

  The average annual cost was less than £13,500.

  During this period there were no fatal injuries and none of the compensation payments related to incidents involving information technology. Two individual claims were settled at over £5,000: one in 1992, for £8,400, involving someone who had tripped over a loose piece of paving outside a Government building; the other, in 1993, for £5,360, to someone who had sustained injuries in an accident involving a lift in a Government building.

  The amount of sick pay for injuries in the same period is not available.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those companies which have civil servants from his Department as directors and all the occasions on which those companies have been found guilty of a civil or criminal offence in the last eight years. [33915]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Four serving civil servants in my Department currently hold non-executive company directorships:

  Dr. Alan Apling: H. R. Wallingford Group (ex officio)

  Mr. Roger Courtney: Woods of Colchester

  Mr. William Rickett: Redland Roof Tiles

  Mr. John Stoker: Mersey Partnership (ex officio) Hanson Brick

  The Department has no record of whether or not any of these companies have been found guilty of either civil or criminal offences in the last eight years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on postage in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; and how many items were posted during these periods. [32853]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested for my Department, including its agencies, is as follows:

  1994–95: £4,747,723

  1995–96: £4,879,819

  16
  Information on the numbers of items posted is not recorded.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which statistics his Department has discontinued(a) collection and (b) publication of since 1989. [32855]

  Mr. Howard
  Changes are made in the collection and publication of statistical series from time to time in response to the Government's requirements for statistical information, and to changes in legislation and administrative systems on which the statistics are based. The main series which have been discontinued since 1989 by the Department are:

  1990:

  discontinued publishing Home Office statistical bulletin "Local Government Elections, England and Wales" to eliminate duplication of published data by the local government chronicle elections centre at the University of Plymouth.

  1992:

  ceased publishing figures on the number of residence permits issued to European Community nationals in Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom".

  reduced the collection and publication of statistics on breath tests given to motorists.

  1993:

  statistics on offences of drunkenness published in reduced detail in Command Paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", rather than in a Home Office bulletin, with detailed tables being made available on request.

  returns on drug seizures and offenders from police in England and Wales replaced by returns on seizures alone, due to more reliable information on court appearances and cautions available from the court appearances returns.

  1994:

  responsibility for the collection and publication of statistics on time intervals for criminal proceedings in magistrates courts and on domestic proceedings in magistrates courts passed to the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33494]

  Mr. Howard
  The available information for the past financial years is as follows:

  Compensation

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Prison Service1

  £717,000

  £675,000

  £628,000

  £1,448,000

  £810,000

  Home Office (including its other agencies)2

  n/a

  n/a

  3£12,323

  £9,695

  £7,217

  1 Payments relate to staff only and do not distinguish awards of more than £5,000.

  2 Information for 1991–92 and 1992–93 was not collected.

  3 Includes one payment of more than £5,000.

  None of these payments was for incidents resulting in fatalities or involving information technology.
  17
  Information on sick pay and on the further breakdown of compensation payments could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the past five years health and safety problems in his Department and its agencies have been reported via internal monitoring; and on how many occasions the Health and Safety Commission has become involved. [33492]

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of his Department and its agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33495]

  Mr. Howard
  Expenditure to meet health and safety standards is not recorded separately.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities [33493]

  Mr. Howard
  The available information requested is as follows:

  Minor injuries

  1Major injuries

  Fatal

  1991

  4,303

  279

  nil

  1992

  4,809

  378

  nil

  1993

  25,150

  434

  nil

  1994

  35,077

  498

  41

  1995

  4,741

  270

  nil

  1 Major injuries are those defined as reportable under the Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985, which includes injuries resulting in more than three days absence from work.

  2 Includes two injuries reported to have involved information technology.

  3 Includes three injuries reported to have involved information technology.

  4 The fatal injury was sustained by a member of the works staff at HM prison Haverigg on 24 August 1994.

  Parole Board
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Parole Board, indicating the salary paid to each. [33708]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Parole Board's annual report published in June 1995 contained a list of its members. The chairman receives a salary in the band £50,000 to £55,000 and the four full-time members receive a salary in the band £30,000 to £35,000. Other members, except serving judges, are paid a daily fee in respect of work undertaken. New appointments are currently being considered. I will write to you with an up-to-date list in due course.

  Vehicle Insurance (Prosecutions)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions for the evasion of vehicle insurance have been made in each of the last five years. [33555]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of prosecutions which led to a conviction for the offence of "using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks" is given in the following table. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Convictions at all courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, England and Wales

  Year

  Number of convictions

  1990

  209,463

  1991

  225,910

  1992

  246,054

  1993

  281,136

  1994

  286,252

  Metropolitan Police (Vans)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Volkswagen vans the Metropolitan police have purchased in the current financial year and in each of the last two years. [33646]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is as follows:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Number

  Nil

  90 station vans

  Not yet decided

  20 red route traffic warden minibuses

  3 dog vans

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 153, on Buckley Hall prison, how many of the 15 recapture/surrenders were carried out by (a)the police and (b)prison officers from Buckley Hall prison. [33771]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question, on how many of the 15 recapture and surrenders at Buckley Hall prison were carried out by (a) the police and by (b) prison officers.

  Of the 15 recapture and surrenders at Buckley Hall, all were carried out by the police.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 153, on incidents reported to the Prison Service from Buckley Hall prison, if he will define recapture/surrender in respect of (a) Buckley Hall prison and (b) prisons run by the Prison Service. [33773]
  19
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question, about the definition of incidents of recapture and surrender reported to the Prison Service from (a) Buckley Hall prison and (b) prisons run by the Prison Service All prisons in England and Wales record recapture/surrender as the return to lawful custody either voluntarily or on recapture of any prisoner who has previously escaped from a prison establishment or escort, absconded, or failed to return to prison after a period of release on temporary licence.

  Women Police Officers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the numbers of women police officers in each of the senior ranks; and what were the corresponding numbers in 1992 and 1986. [34078]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Female senior police officers in England and Wales

  1986

  1992

  1996

  Chief Constable

  0

  0

  1

  Deputy Chief Constable1

  0

  0

  —

  Assistant Chief Constable

  2

  4

  5

  1 The rank of deputy chief constable was abolished on 1 April 1995

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women police officers have referred employment grievances to industrial tribunals in each of the past five years; and how many of these cases have been dismissed. [34081]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33588]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: We do not hold central records of the occasions on which legislation has been introduced to remove the effect of a judicial review decision. The only legislation which appears to have been enacted for that purpose is section 158(3) and (4) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which removed the effect of R v. stipendiary magistrates ex parte Vesna Doklega (1994), unreported, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, which removed the effect of the decision in the House of Lords in R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union and other [1995], 2WLR464. There have been no occasions on which legislation has implemented a judicial review decision because the decision itself is implemented by order of the court.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32725]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 June 1996]: The Directors General of Her Majesty's Prison Service and of the Forensic Science Service and the chief executives of the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Fire Service College have advised me that the information requested is as follows:

  HM Prison Service

  Grade

  Number of staff

  Number of female staff

  Director general

  1

  —

  Director (formerly grade 3)1

  7

  —

  (formerly) grade 4

  1

  —

  Principal medical officer2

  10

  2

  (formerly) grade 5

  7

  1

  Senior medical officer3

  44

  6

  Assistant director

  21

  —

  Grade 6

  25

  6

  Grade 7

  166

  21

  Governor 1

  29

  3

  Governor 2

  73

  6

  Governor 3

  134

  16

  Governor 44

  339

  44

  Governor 54

  496

  48

  Principal Officer4

  1,317

  49

  Senior Officer4

  3,570

  186

  Officer4

  19,760

  2,190

  Temporary Officer

  3

  3

  Auxiliary Officer

  2,011

  441

  Night Patrol

  987

  92

  Chaplains

  267

  39

  Nursing grades

  670

  508

  Psychological grades

  212

  144

  Farm management grades

  90

  1

  Full time medical officer grades

  107

  11

  Part time medical officer grades

  95

  4

  Senior professional and technical officer

  89

  3

  Higher professional and technical officer

  120

  4

  Professional and technical officer

  66

  7

  Senior instructional officer

  2

  —

  Higher instructional officer

  25

  2

  Instructional officer

  1,138

  177

  Senior executive officer

  110

  27

  Higher executive officer

  303

  123

  Executive officer

  657

  410

  Administrative officer

  2,146

  1,640

  Administrative assistant

  800

  610

  Storeperson

  610

  34

  Typing grades (inc personal secretaries)

  635

  632

  Pharmacy grades

  70

  49

  Support bands 1 and 2

  272

  238

  Librarian

  1

  1

  Regional catering management

  9

  2

  Industrials

  2,977

  216

  Information officers

  9

  3

  Total

  40,481

  7,963

  1 With effect from 1 April 1996, former civil service grades 1 to 5 were subsumed into the senior civil service.

  2 Formerly grade 4 equivalent.

  3 Formerly grade 5 equivalent.

  4 Includes specialist grades: works, hospital, physical education, etcetera.

  21

  Forensic science service

  Grades

  Number of staff

  Number of female staff

  Senior civil service

  13

  1

  Grade 6

  9

  —

  Grade 7

  25

  3

  A3 senior forensic scientist

  15

  2

  A2 senior forensic scientist

  50

  3

  A1 senior forensic scientist

  121

  31

  H2 forensic scientist

  100

  50

  B1 forensic scientist

  55

  26

  C2 assistant forensic scientist

  142

  103

  C1 assistant forensic scientist

  136

  93

  Senior scientific officer

  79

  13

  Higher scientific officer

  99

  53

  Scientific officer

  36

  26

  Assistant scientific officer

  20

  12

  Senior executive officer

  3

  —-

  Higher executive officer

  5

  3

  Executive officer

  18

  10

  Administrative officer

  55

  44

  Administrative assistant

  64

  51

  Personal secretary

  13

  13

  Typist

  37

  37

  Support grade band 2

  48

  33

  Support grade band 1

  6

  2

  Senior photographic officer

  1

  —

  Higher photographic officer

  3

  1

  Photographic officer

  5

  3

  Laboratory attendant

  12

  6

  Graphics officer

  1

  —

  Stores officer

  1

  —

  Total

  1,162

  619

  1Formerly one grade 3 post (female) and two grade 5 posts.

  United Kingdom passport agency

  Grades

  Number of staff

  Number of female staff

  Senior civil service

  11

  —

  Grade 6

  2

  —

  Grade 7

  10

  —

  Senior executive officer

  13

  4

  Higher executive officer

  56

  26

  Executive officer

  176

  119

  Administrative officer

  646

  437

  Administrative assistant

  444

  292

  Senior personal secretary

  1

  1

  Personal secretary

  7

  7

  Typing manager

  2

  2

  Typist

  22

  22

  Support grade band 1

  13

  4

  Support grade band 2

  64

  25

  Total

  1,457

  939

  1Formerly a grade 5 post.

  Fire service college

  Grades

  Number of staff

  Number of female staff

  Senior civil service

  11.0

  —

  Grade 6

  1.0

  —

  Grade 7

  2.0

  —

  Senor executive officer

  4.0

  1.0

  Higher executive officer

  5.0

  3.0

  Executive officer

  16.0

  13.0

  Administrative officer

  24.5

  19.5

  Administrative assistant

  11.0

  9.0

  Commandant

  1.0

  —

  Assistant chief officer

  1.0

  —

  22

  Fire service college

  Grades

  Number of staff

  Number of female staff

  Divisional officer I

  3.0

  —

  Divisional officer II

  4.0

  —

  Assistant divisional officer

  2.0

  —

  Station officer

  3.0

  —

  Lecturer

  18.0

  4.0

  Senior lecturer

  1.0

  —

  Principal lecturer

  3.0

  —

  Librarian

  1.0

  —

  Assistant librarian

  4.0

  —

  Senior personal secretary

  1.0

  1.0

  Personal secretary

  3.0

  3.0

  Higher professional and technical officer

  1.0

  —

  Professional and technical officer

  2.0

  —

  Technical grade I

  1.0

  —

  Technical grade II

  5.0

  2.0

  Graphics officer

  2.0

  1.0

  Support grade II

  3.0

  2.0

  Typist

  4.0

  4.0

  Senior information officer

  1.0

  1.0

  Higher information officer

  1.0

  —

  Information officer

  2.0

  —

  Nurse grade G

  1.0

  1.0

  Nursery manager

  1.0

  1.0

  Deputy nursery manager

  1.0

  1.0

  Nursery assistant

  1.0

  1.0

  Head of department 6

  1.0

  —

  Head of department 5

  1.0

  —

  Head of department 3.0

  1.0

  —

  Industrial staff

  39.5

  —

  Fireground supervisor

  1.0

  —

  Stores officer grade D

  1.0

  —

  Total

  180.0

  67.5

HEALTH

  Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 529, if he will update the information on health service contracts agreed by health authorities for 1996. [33810]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on health service contracts agreed by health authorities will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Executive (Cars)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what make and model of car is currently made available by the NHS to each of the chairmen of the NHS Executive's regional offices; and what is the cost to the NHS of providing each of the vehicles. [33834]

  Mr. Malone
  Regional chairmen may be provided with a car if it is cost-effective to do so when compared with other means of funding business travel. Only the regional chairman for the Northern and Yorkshire region is provided with a lease car, a Land Rover Discovery. From 1 April 1996, following the abolition of the regional health authorities, the cost of the lease has been met by the Department of Health. Other regional chairmen use their cars for business travel and are paid a mileage allowance.

  Solvent Misuse
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when solvent misuse mortality figures for 1994 will be available. [34079]

  Mr. Bowis
  "Trends in Deaths Associated with Abuse of Volatile Substances—Report No. 9" has been published today by St. George's medical school. Copies will be placed in the Library. This gives solvent misuse mortality figures for 1994 and shows an encouraging further fall of 20 per cent., from 71 deaths in 1993 to 57 deaths in 1994. It is a further sign that the Government's initiative in this area is bearing fruit.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in response to the Government's consultation document, "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age", with particular reference to the cost of the scheme to his Department. [34114]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health has received over 500 responses to the proposals in the consultation paper "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age". These are currently being studied.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Buses (Seat Belts)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to amend the law on the rules for the wearing of seat belts by children in buses and minibuses with particular reference to church buses. [33309]

  Mr. Moss
  It is my intention to introduce new regulations at the earliest opportunity to require the fitment of seat belts on all minibuses and coaches where the purpose of the journey is central to the transport of children, including journeys to and from school. These regulations will replicate proposals announced in February 1996 in Great Britain and will also apply only to minibuses and coaches. There are no plans to extend the requirements to buses.

  Health Trusts and Boards
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many health trusts and health boards he estimates will be in place by the end of 1996; and if he will list them. [33541]

  Mr. Moss
  I do not anticipate any change in the existing 20 health and social service trusts and four health and social services boards in Northern Ireland by the end of 1996. They are listed as follows:

  Health and Social Services Trusts

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital Health and Social Services Trusts

  Belfast City Hospital Health and Social Services Trust

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group Health and Social Services Trust

  Green Park Health and Social Services Trust

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust

  Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust

  24

  North Down and Ards Community Health and Social Services Trust

  North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust

  South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community Health and Social Services Trust

  Newry and Mourne Health and Social Services Trust

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital Health and Social Services Trust

  Causeway Health and Social Services Trust

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Services Trust

  Armagh and Dungannon Health and Social Services Trust

  United Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust

  Altnagelvin Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust

  Foyle Health and Social Services Trust

  Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust

  Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust

  Health and Social Services Boards

  The Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  The Northern Health and Social Services Board

  The Southern Health and Social Services Board

  The Western Health and Social Services Board

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants and public sector employees are currently working(a) health trusts, (b) health boards, (c)Government agencies,(d) non-departmental public bodies, (e) local government and (f) other public bodies; and how many civil servants in total are employed in Northern Ireland. [33543]

  Sir John Wheeler
  For the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office, the information requested is as follows:

  Body

  Civil servants and public sector employees

  (a) Health Trusts

  66,545

  (b) Health Boards

  1,298

  (c) Government Agencies

  16,734

  (d) Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  37,647

  (e) Local Government

  7,025

  (f) Other Public Bodies

  1,193

  A total of 28,137 civil servants are employed in Northern Ireland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts in respect of formulating a joint policy on banning the sale of land mines; and if he will make a statement. [333906]
  25
  Mr. David Davis
  The EU has had a common moratorium on the export of certain kinds of anti-personnel mines and to certain destinations since May 1995, when it adopted a joint action on anti-personnel mines. That joint action is currently under review.

  Since 22 April 1996, the UK's national export moratorium prohibits the export of all anti-personnel mines to all countries. We hope that all EU member states will adopt an equally wide-ranging moratorium.

  United Arab Emirates
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects payment to be made to Mr. Brearley from Wallasey of the full amount in respect of money owed to him by the United Arab Emirates armed forces for employment between January 1993 and June 1994; and what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to facilitate payment of this debt and the debts to those foreign workers who undertook similar employment. [32743]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British embassy in Abu Dhabi has been in constant touch with Mr. Brearley and the British teachers concerned and with their lawyers throughout this protracted dispute. The British ambassador has recently written to the chief of staff, UAE armed forces, expressing his concern and the embassy has also written to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs urging them to do whatever they can to expedite payment of the moneys due. The embassy will continue to do its utmost to bring an end to this unfortunate matter and enable Mr. Brearley and his fellow teachers to be recompensed in full.

  Kashmir
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of India over threats to the lives of Kashmiri leaders with particular reference to(a)Syed Ali Gilani and (b)Abdul Gani Lone, and if he will make a statement. [33717]

  Mr. Hanley
  Although we often discuss the security situation in Kashmir with the Indian authorities, and raise our concerns about human rights there, we have made no representations on the specific cases of Syed Ali Gilani and Abdul Gani Lone. We look forward to discussion on Kashmir, and other issues, with the new Indian Government.

  Israel
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Israeli Government(a) to discuss with the Palestinians the final status of Jerusalem and (b)to effect an early withdrawal of Israeli troops from Hebron. [34253]

  Mr. Hanley
  Both of these are among Israel's commitments under the Oslo accords. We have made clear and will continue to make clear that all such commitments must be fulfilled.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the United Kingdom to re-enter UNESCO. [32640]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have not set a date for the UK's return to UNESCO. The question of membership is being kept under review in the light of progress with reform in the organisation and other financial priorities.

  Overseas Visits (Royal Family)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 59, if he will itemise the costs to public funds in respect of the visit by the Duke of Kent to Singapore between 10 and 12 September 1995. [32213]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer of 12 June 1996]: Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of the official visit by the Duke of Kent to Singapore between 10 and 12 September 1995 was:

  £

  (a) travel

  10,700

  (b) hotel expenses

  nil

  (c) official presents and donations

  300

  (d) salaries-additional staff

  15

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  60

  (f) miscellaneous

  400

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 59, if he will itemise the costs to public funds in respect of the visit by ihe Duke and Duchess of Kent to Hong Kong on 25 November 1994. [32214]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]:Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of the official visit by the Duke and Duchess of Kent to Hong Kong from 25 November to 2 December 1994 was:

  £

  (a) travel

  12,000

  (b) hotel expenses

  4,300

  (c) official presents and donations

  3,000

  (d) salaries—additional staff

  2,200

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  100

  (f) miscellaneous

  7,500

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 59, if he will itemise (a) the purpose, (b) the method of travel and (c) the costs to public funds in respect of the visits by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to the Caribbean in March 1993 and March 1994. [32215]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]:The Duke of Edinburgh's visit to the Caribbean in March 1993 was official and was designed to include those realms and dependent territories not likely to be visited by the Queen

  27
  the following year. His Royal Highness travelled by the royal flight and the royal yacht. Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of this visit was:

  £

  (a) travel

  5,300

  (b) hotel expenses

  12,400

  (c) official presents and donations

  600

  (d) salaries—additional staff

  1,700

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  30

  (f) miscellaneous

  7,400

  The Duke of Edinburgh accompanied the Queen on a state visit to the Caribbean in March 1994. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh travelled by the royal flight and the royal yacht. Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of the Duke of Edinburgh on this visit was:

  £

  (a) travel

  Nil

  (b) hotel expenses

  Nil

  (c) official presents and donations

  Nil

  (d) salaries—additional staff

  500

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  Nil

  (f) miscellaneous

  800

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 59, if he will itemise the costs to public funds in respect of the visit by the Princess of Wales to Nepal on 2 to 6 March 1993. [32216]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]:Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of the official visit by the Princess of Wales to Nepal on 2 to 6 March 1993 was:

  £

  (a) travel

  Nil

  (b) hotel expenses

  Nil

  (c) official presents and donations

  2,900

  (d) salaries—additional staff

  100

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  Nil

  (f) miscellaneous

  13,400

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 59, if he will itemise the costs to public funds in respect of the visit by Prince Edward to Swaziland between 4 and 7 September 1993. [32217]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of the official visit by the by Prince of Edward to Swaziland between 4 and 7 September 1993 was:

  £

  (a) travel

  11,600

  (b) hotel expenses

  Nil

  (c) official presents and donations

  1,000

  28

  £

  (d) salaries—additional staff

  100

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  Nil

  (f) miscellaneous

  4,900

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 59, if he will itemise the costs to public funds in respect of the visit by the Duchess of Kent to Seychelles on 3 to 6 December 1993. [32218]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of the official visit by the Duchess of Kent to the Seychelles on 3 to 6 December 1993 was:

  £

  (a) travel

  15,500

  (b) hotel expenses

  4,400

  (c) official presents and donations

  1,000

  (d) salaries—additional staff

  500

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  100

  (f) miscellaneous

  4,600

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 59, if he will itemise the costs to public funds of the visit by Princess Alexandra to Hong Kong and India on 14 to 27 October 1994. [32219]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of the official visit by Princess Alexandra to Hong Kong and India 14 to 27 October:

  £

  (a) travel

  8,100

  (b) hotel expenses

  5,800

  (c) official presents and donations

  1,300

  (d) salaries-additional staff

  4,000

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  Nil

  (f) miscellaneous

  8,100

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 59, if he will itemise the costs to public funds in respect of the visits made by Princess Margaret to San Francisco and Los Angeles in 1995. [32220]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of the official visit by the Princess Margaret to San Francisco in 1995-the Los Angeles leg fell away—was:

  £

  (a) travel

  10,800

  (b) hotel expenses

  Nil

  (c) official presents and donations

  900

  (d) salaries—additional staff

  Nil

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  300

  (f) miscellaneous

  10,300

  29
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 59, if he will itemise the costs to public funds in respect of the visit by the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to Maxico on 20 to 23 November 1995. [32221]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]:Expenditure authorised by my Department in support of the official visit by the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to Mexico on 20 to 23 November 1995 was:

  £

  (a) travel

  16,800

  (b) hotel expenses

  500

  (c) official presents and donations

  1,500

  (d) salaries—additional staff

  Nil

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  Nil

  (f) miscellaneous

  6,300

TRANSPORT

  Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of risk associated with the remedial measures proposed by the contractors on the new en-route centre; what contingency plans his Department has made in the event of the project failing; and what compensation will be payable to the Civil Aviation Authority by the NERC contractors as a result of the delays to the project. [32782]

  Mr. Norris
  Lockheed Martin has implemented a revised project plan that has reduced substantially the level of financial risk associated with the proposed remedial measures. National Air Traffic Services is monitoring the situation closely and is examining a range of options, in the event of further delay, to ensure services to customers are unaffected. In the remote eventuality that the project company fails to deliver the system, 125 per cent. of the total contract value could be claimed from the supplier.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the costs of upgrading and keeping in service the London air traffic control centre, including its military cell, until the new en-route centre becomes operational; and to what extent these costs will be borne by the NERC contractors. [32783]

  Mr. Norris
  The additional cost to NATS of operating upgraded facilities at West Drayton during the run up to the introduction of the new en-route centre into operational service will be in the order of £15 million. The additional costs required to complete the new en-route centre will be borne entirely by the project contractor.

  Foreign-registered Aircraft
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the measures employed by his Department and the Civil Aviation Authority for approving the operation of foreign-registered aircraft by United Kingdom airlines. [33019]
  30
  Mr. Norris
  In my answer of 26 April I said that I had placed in the Library a copy of the procedures covering the dry leasing and wet-leasing of aircraft. In addition, I have now placed in the Library a copy of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995 covering procedures for aircraft leasing across national boundaries.

  Trunk Roads (Noise Barriers)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of the provision of noise barriers or other mitigation measures for the trunk road network. [33266]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 24 June 1996:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State about his policy in respect of the provision of noise barriers or other mitigation measures for the trunk road network.
  The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 prescribe that residential properties which will be exposed to a level of traffic noise in excess of 68 dB(A) as the result of the construction of a new road or carriageway, and of which an increase of at least 1 dB(A) is attributable to the traffic on the new road, should be provided with noise insulation. Discretionary powers to provide insulation are given by the Noise Insulation Regulations in the case of the improvement of an existing road which significantly changes its line or level. The Highways Act 1980 gives powers for highway authorities to provide various features within a highway, ancillary to its main purpose, to mitigate impacts on the environment.
  In accordance with EC Directive 337/85, the environmental effects of public works such as new roads, which include increased noise, are assessed and published as an environmental statement together with the legal orders for the scheme, in order to allow public comment.
  Noise barriers or other measures to mitigate the impact of traffic noise are included in the design of trunk road improvement proposals where it is demonstrated that without them a significant number of properties would need to be insulated. The extent of any barriers may be increased in consideration of other environmental benefits such as visual screening which they may confer. In considering the merits of barriers, their cost effectiveness in comparison with other forms of mitigation, including the insulation of property, is taken into account.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities. [33521]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures are as follows:

  Injuries

  Fatal

  1991–92

  1,035

  1

  1992–93

  959

  0

  1993–94

  1,068

  2

  1994–95

  1,579

  0

  1995–96

  1589

  10

  1 Not yet fully available.

  31
  The fatality in 1991–92 was due to natural causes. The fatalities in 1993–94 were two Vehicle Inspectorate enforcement officers who were murdered while on duty.

  The data held by the Department do not separately record accidents involving IT.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33522]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures for compensation paid to employees of the Department of Transport and its agencies, or their families, as a result of work-related injuries, are as follows:

  Injuries£

  Fatal£

  1991–92

  17,490

  0

  1992–93

  22,996

  26,298

  1993–94

  23,766

  0

  1994–95

  19,500

  0

  1995–96

  173,194

  0

  There were 14 compensation cases of over £5,000.

  The figures available do not distinguish between minor and major injuries, or those involving IT. Information relating to sick pay as a result of work-related injuries and compensation paid to members of the public is not readily available.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional payments have been made to passenger transport executives under(a) the metropolitan railway grant and (b) the section 20 payments in respect of rail privatisation including the latest estimates for the current financial year. [33799]

  Mr. Watts
  Government support to PTEs through metropolitan railway grant and its Scottish equivalent has been as follows:

  1994–95: £225.4 million

  1995–96: £132.1 million

  1996–97: —

  Sums allocated under the section 20 "bolt-on" element of revenue support grant—and its Scottish equivalent—for rail support in metropolitan areas for the corresponding period are:

  1994–95: £148.1 million

  1995–96: £147.2 million

  1996–97: £281.2 million

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to date of all bought-in services in connection with railway privatisation, with particular reference to costs and commissions in connection with the flotation of Railtrack. [33794]
  32
  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 4 June,Official Report, column 429, in respect of costs of the Railtrack share offer.

  Costs to my Department of other bought-in services in connection with rail privatisation from 1991–92 to date are some £44 million.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to date in departmental staff time of work on railway privatisation. [33793]

  Mr. Watts
  The Department does not have detailed information in the form requested. However, from 1991–92 to date, the costs of staff working on rail privatisation are approximately £10 million.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to date to Railtrack of privatisation, with particular reference to associated redundancy and compensation payments made before flotation; and what is the estimated annual future cost to public funds. [33796]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's accounts show that it accrued £46 million for the whole of its privatisation costs. All redundancy or compensation payments made by the company while it was being privatised were made to increase the company's efficiency. Any future costs arising from such payments will fall to Railtrack.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the total costs incurred so far by the British Railways Board in the privatisation process broken down by(a) external advice, (b) consultancies, (c) commission payments, (d) redundancy pension and (e) other expenses including the estimated costs for the current year. [33798]

  Mr. Watts
  Details of the costs incurred by the British Railways Board in the privatisation process are a matter for the board itself. However, the board's annual reports and accounts for 1993–94 and 1994–95 show that its total privatisation costs to the end of 1994–95 were £177 million. I understand from the board that it estimates that it incurred further costs of £101 million in 1995–96; it also estimates that it will incur further costs of £53 million in 1996–97. Any breakdown of those figures would be for the board to provide.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what repair work has had to be undertaken on the Severn bridge as a result of defective steel; what is the estimated cost of repair; and what has been the effect on traffic flows over the bridge. [33647]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Spellar, dated 24 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Second Severn Crossing.
  The Second Severn Crossing is a private finance project operated by the Concessionaires, Severn River Crossing plc. The bridge was opened on 5th June 1996. We are not aware of any defective steel on the Second Servem Crossing.

  Green Lane Industrial Estate, Featherstone
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sums from public funds have been spent on the access road into the Green Lane industrial estate in Featherstone. [33630]

  Mr. Norris
  The Green Lane industrial estate access road is a scheme promoted by Wakefield metropolitan district council. The Department of Transport has approved a grant of £113,765 under the Industrial Development Act 1982, and has authorised supplementary credit approvals in the sum of £590,931, in respect of the scheme.

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total value of (i) payments made so far by the franchising director and (ii) all commitments so far made to(a) British Rail or (b) franchise companies and the latest estimate for the current financial year, including all consultancy payments and commissions payable by the franchising director. [33795]

  Mr. Watts
  Payments made by the franchising director are as follows:

  £million cash

  1993–94 Outturn

  1994–95 Outturn

  1995–96 Outturn

  1996–97 Outturn Estimate

  Consultancy costs1

  1.5

  13.1

  27.0

  16.8

  Support to BR2

  —

  1,783.0

  1,650.1

  1,626.0

  Support to franchisees3

  —

  —

  18.8

  4—

  1All amounts are net of recovered VAT.

  2Opraf took over responsibility for making support payments to BR from DOT on 1 April 1994.

  3Payments have only been made to franchisees since 4 February 1996.

  4The split of support for passenger rail services between BR and franchisees in 1996–97 will depend on the progress of franchising. The total is that included in the Supply estimates for class V, vote 7, passenger rail services.

  Charter Aircraft
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what debts were owed to the Civil Aviation Authority by Sultan Air at the time of its receivership; and if these debts have now been recovered; [33534]

  (2) what action was taken by the Civil Aviation Authority as a result of the ruling by the High Court on 10 October 1994 in relation to flights operated by Air Operations of Europe; [33530]

  (3) if he will list the occasions when aircraft operated by (a) Omega Air, (b) Sultan Air and (c) Air Operations of Europe have been detained by the Civil Aviation Authority at the request of Eurocontrol for non-payment of fees. [33532]

  Mr. Norris
  Sultan Air left no outstanding debts to the authority at the time of its receivership.

  On 10 October 1994, the High Court ruled that Air Operations of Europe had been the operator of aircraft HR-AMC at the time of its detention. The CAA obtained an order of sale against the aircraft, and at a further hearing on 14 November 1994, the High Court ruled that unless payment of outstanding route charges and the
  34
  CAA's costs was made by 21 November 1994, the CAA would be at liberty to proceed with the sale of the aircraft. The route charges were paid and the aircraft was released from detention on 16 November, but remains grounded for safety reasons.

  The CAA has no record of detention action against Omega Air at the request of Eurocontrol.

  An aircraft operated by Sultan Air was detained for unpaid route charges on 16 October 1991, and released on 21 February 1992.

  As I have explained, the aircraft detained on 22 October 1993 and released on 16 November 1994 was operated by Air Operations of Europe.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32831]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department's Benefits, Contributions, Child Support and War Pensions Agencies have published customer charters, all of which are currently in use.

DEFENCE

  Vehicle Depots
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what grades of civilian staff are employed at the vehicle depots at Ashchurch and Ludgershall. [333115]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to ray hon. Friend.

  Letter from Kevin Goad to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 24 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding how many and what grades of civilian staff are employed at the vehicle depots at Ashchurch and Ludgershall as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency. The figures, as at 17 June 1996, are as follows:

  Ashchurch

  Ludgershall

  58 non-industrial staff

  24 non-industrial staff

  147 industrial staff

  56 industrial stiff

  The annex to this letter details the grades of the staff concerned.

  I hope this fully answers your questions.

  Continued strength BVDL/GL VDW as at 17 June 1996 Industrial

  Grade

  Total

  Craft aux

  3

  Driver

  5

  Fitters

  2

  General hand (kennels)

  1

  35

  Continued strength BVDL/GL VDW as at 17 June 1996 Industrial

  Grade

  Total

  FLTO

  1

  Spray painter

  1

  S/Storekeeper

  6

  Storekeeper

  6

  Labourer C/H

  1

  Labourers

  7

  SA1

  2

  L/H loco driver

  1

  Loco driver

  1

  Brakeman

  2

  LCH Sen Gen

  3

  Sen Gen

  8

  Gen

  3

  Gen hand

  3

  Total

  56

  Continued strength BVDL/GL VDW as at 17 June 1996 non industrial

  Grade

  Total

  HPTO

  1

  PTO

  1

  EO

  1

  AO

  6

  AA

  3

  TYPIST

  2

  AO (ADP)

  1

  P and GS 'C'

  1

  P and GS 'D'

  2

  P and GS 'E'

  2

  SOG 'C'

  3

  SOG 'D'

  1

  EGN 'F'

  1

  Total

  25

  MMGS

  2 X CSO IV

  20 X CSO V

  BVDA civilian manpower—non industrial

  MPC

  Strength

  Grade

  1995–96

  Male

  Female

  Total

  HEO

  —

  —

  0

  0

  EO

  3

  2

  0

  2

  RO2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  SOG C

  1

  0

  0

  0

  SOG D

  4

  3

  0

  3

  P and GS C

  0

  1

  0

  1

  P and GS D

  3

  2

  0

  2

  P and GS E

  1

  0

  0

  0

  SPTO

  1

  1

  0

  1

  HPTO

  2

  2

  0

  2

  PTO

  6

  8

  0

  8

  Typist

  3

  0

  3

  3

  AO (IT)

  2

  1

  1

  2

  AO)

  25

  5

  17

  22

  AA

  1

  0

  —

  0

  AA (IT)

  9

  3

  6

  9

  RGN(F)

  1

  0

  5

  5

  Nurse D

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Totals

  64.00

  29.00

  28.50

  57.50

  36

  BVDA Civilian Manpower—Industrial

  MPC

  Strength

  Grade

  1995–96

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Head cook

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Cook

  3

  1

  2

  3

  CH STW I

  1

  0

  1

  1

  CH STW II

  1

  0

  1

  1

  STW I

  1

  0

  1

  1

  STW II

  2.5

  0

  2.5

  2.5

  Mess hand

  4.5

  0

  4.5

  4.5

  Fitter MT

  1

  0

  0

  0

  CH driver

  1

  1

  0

  1

  LH driver

  3

  3

  0

  3

  Driver

  18

  16

  0

  16

  FLTO

  2

  2

  0

  2

  Crane OP

  1

  1

  0

  1

  LM Pt

  sprayer

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Paint sprayer

  2

  2

  0

  2

  Snr Stkpr

  7

  6

  0

  6

  STKPR

  16.5

  15.5

  2

  17.5

  Craft Aux

  5

  10

  0

  10

  SA I

  9

  9

  0

  9

  Messenger

  1

  0

  0

  0

  LH Gen Hand

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Gen Hand

  8

  4

  0

  4

  LCH Sen

  Craftsman

  3

  3

  0

  3

  CH Sen

  Craftsman

  2

  3

  0

  3

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  93.5

  BVDA civilian manpower—industrial

  MPC

  Strength

  Grade

  1995–96

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Progressor

  2

  2

  0

  2

  LH Sen craftsman

  2

  1

  0

  1

  Sen craftsman

  15

  15

  0

  15

  CH craftsman

  1

  —

  0

  0

  LH craftsman

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Craftsman basic

  26

  24

  0

  24

  Apprentices

  12

  10

  0

  10

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  53

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the terms of reference and time scale of the review of the investment appraisals for the Army's base vehicle depots at Ludgershall and Ashchurch.[33328]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Kevin Goad to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 24 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the terms of reference and timescale of the review of the investment appraisals for the Army's base vehicle depots at Ludgershall and Ashchurch as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency.
  The exercise being undertaken is a revalidation of the original Investment Appraisal which decided to concentrate all vehicles at Ashchurch and is re-examining all the aspects of this case to make sure it represents the best value for money to the taxpayer. The outcome of this work should be known by the end of July.
  I hope this fully answers your question.
  37
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the investment over the last five years in the vehicle depots at Ashchurch and Ludgershall. [33314]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Kevin Goad to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 24 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the investment over the last five years in the vehicle depots at Ashchurch and Ludgershall as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency. The figures are as follows:-

  Ashchurch

  1991–92 Financial Year: £826,754

  1992–93 Financial Year: £1,950,542

  1993–94 Financial Year: £351,608

  1994–95 Financial Year: £3,252,578

  1995–96 Financial Year: £1,770,214

  Ludgershall

  1991–92 Financial Year: £1,080,520

  1992–93 Financial Year: –2,383,098

  1993–94 Financial Year: £1,061,232

  1994–95 Financial Year: £3,588,618

  1995–96 Financial Year: £2,160,047

  I hope this fully answers your question.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33474]

  Mr. Soames
  Information on sick pay is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Compensation payments are not categorised as minor, major or fatal. However, the table shows the total value of payments in respect of injury-related compensation in each of the financial years shown, and the number of payments made where compensation was more than £5,000, including interim payments. The table also shows total payments made for repetitive strain injury compensation due to the use of information technology equipment, together with the number of cases where such payments exceeded £5,000.

  Year

  Total payments in respect of injury compensation £5,000

  Number of such payments of more than £5,000

  Compensation paid— information technology £5,000

  Number of such payments of more than £5,000

  1995–96

  21,279,000

  446

  11,037

  —

  1994–95

  24,288,000

  522

  44,250

  2

  1993–94

  16,225,000

  329

  25,109

  2

  1992–93

  15,618,000

  354

  6,614

  —

  1991–92

  9,058,000

  259

  2,812

  —

  Deployment (Germany)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are stationed in Germany and what was the cost of this deployment in 1995. [33704]

  Mr. Soames
  At 31 March 1996 the personnel establishment for Army and Royal Air Force posts in Germany stood at some 29,500. At any time a number of these may be deployed on operations outside Germany, for example in former Yugoslavia. The running costs for these forces in financial year 1995–96 was some £1,340 million.

  Military Aid (Colombia)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much military aid and assistance has been granted to Colombia in the last year. [33815]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of military assistance are confidential between Governments.

  First World War (Pardons)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give further consideration to requests for pardons for soldiers convicted during the first world war for the offences of(a) cowardice, (b) desertion, (c) disobedience and (d) hitting a superior officer; if he will reassess the case for a pardon for Private Bert McCubbin of the Enniskillen Fusiliers; and if he will make a statement. [33740]

  Mr. Soames
  Nothing has emerged since my comments during the Committee Stage of the Armed Forces Bill to suggest that the Government's decision not to recommend pardons for those soldiers executed during the first world war was inappropriate. Consequently, there are no plans to consider the issue of pardons further.

  Armed Forces (Dismissals)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were discharged from the British military forces for the use of illegal drugs during each of the last five years. [33710]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 13 June,Official Report, columns 252–53.

  Deployment (Cyprus)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are based in Cyprus; and how many have their families with them. [33711]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently 3,854 service personnel serving in British Forces Cyprus, of whom 2,192 are accompanied. These figures exclude British service personnel serving with the UN force in Cyprus.

  Military Bases (Land Contamination)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the results of the surveys undertaken by the Army and Royal Air Force into the contamination of land surrounding military bases. [33879]
  39
  Mr. Soames
  My Department does not normally undertake surveys of land beyond the perimeter of sites which it occupies. If, exceptionally, such work proves to be necessary, the question of publication of the resulting documentation would be a matter for the owner of the land and, where necessary, the appropriate regulatory body.

  Abbey Wood
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his written answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 451, what has been the outcome of the dialogue between his Department and the shell and core contractors for the new MOD building at Abbey Wood, Bristol, following their claim for additional payments. [34111]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Discussions between the Department and the Abbey Wood shell and core contractor are continuing. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the discussions, I am currently not in a position to elaborate further on this issue.

  Public Rights of Way
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many public rights of way cross MOD property. [34433]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Sudan
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about bilateral aid to the Sudan. [32633]

  Mr. Hanley
  More than £90 million has been provided in bilateral assistance to Sudan since April 1990, including £3.4 million since January 1996. Incidentally, our share of multilateral aid has been over £62 million since January 1990.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure(a) that the people of Montserrat are provided with assisted passage to, and refuge in the United Kingdom, and (b) that those who remain on the island have adequate access to shelter and emergency supplies; and if he will make a statement. [33617]

  Mr. Hanley
  Her Majesty's Government are already providing refuge to those Montserratians resident on the island as at 1 April 1996 who travel to the United Kingdom at their own expense. They can enter the UK for up to two years under relaxed immigration conditions, which allow them to take employment, enrol in schools, claim financial support for their living and housing costs, and become eligible for health care. The question of providing assisted passage to the United Kingdom for those who remain is under consideration. Since last 40
  August we have provided a wide range of supplies, services and shelter on the island. We are actively continuing a programme of provision and improvement.

  HIV
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent funding for HIV programmes will be affected by the ODA expenditure review. [33264]

  Mr. Hanley
  ODA's fundamental expenditure review will not affect ODA's spend on HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. ODA expenditure on these has increased from £7.316 million in 1990–91 to £9.43 million in 1994–95. In 1996–97, ODA expects to spend around £10 million on preventing HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current estimate of the number of orphaned children in countries affected by the HIV epidemic. [33263]

  Mr. Hanley
  Reliable figures on the present number of children orphaned worldwide as a result of HIV/AIDS are not available, but estimates from the joint United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS—UNAIDS—suggest that there have been 8.5 million maternal orphans under the age of 15 due to HIV/AIDS since the start of the pandemic, more than 8 million of these in sub-Saharan Africa. Other sources estimate that 15 million children in sub-Saharan Africa have lost both parents to the HIV/AIDS disease.

SCOTLAND

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29451]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office spent £152 million in 1995–96 on goods and services from external suppliers, including a number of public sector bodies such as HMSO.

  Health Boards
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the spending on pay and administrative costs for each health board in Scotland in each year since 1991–92. [33246]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table. The figures have been calculated using audited annual accounts of health boards. The figures for 1995–96 are currently not available.

  Pay and administrative costs

  £000

  Health boards

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Argyll and Clyde

  130,319

  141,432

  114,907

  53,434

  Ayrshire and Arran

  102,042

  84,441

  6,413

  5,815

  Borders

  30,901

  34,130

  37,348

  40,194

  Dumfries and Galloway

  49,564

  54,847

  52,491

  33,851

  Fife

  94,579

  101,986

  110,575

  9,068

  Forth Valley

  90,280

  98,962

  64,110

  25,908

  Grampian

  167,220

  117,390

  14,587

  12,482

  41

  Pay and administrative costs

  £000

  Health boards

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Greater Glasgow

  424,383

  456,135

  330,505

  53,625

  Highland

  74,503

  80,911

  40,108

  6,939

  Lanarkshire

  146,091

  155,864

  154,993

  68,820

  Lothian

  273,619

  300,841

  244,028

  34,722

  Orkney

  5,870

  6,610

  7,436

  8,420

  Shetland

  7,271

  6,877

  7,533

  8,224

  Tayside

  169,442

  178,331

  118,151

  12,952

  Western Isles

  10,271

  11,848

  13,109

  13,413

  Scottish Totals

  1,776,356

  1,830,603

  1,316,294

  387,866

  Cullen Inquiry
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place copies of all documents submitted to the Cullen inquiry in the Library; [33371]

  (2) if he will place in the Library all productions lodged with the Cullen inquiry relating to the grant, variation, renewal, revocation of the firearms certificates issues to Thomas Hamilton, and all memoranda, guidance, circulars from whatever source and all associated papers. [33370]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As indicated in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on Wednesday 19 June, column 503, transcripts of the evidence prepared for the tribunal are being placed in the Library. It would be inappropriate to release the further papers requested.

  Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of Scottish Office financial support to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. in 1996–97; and what estimate he has made of the level in 1997–98. [33776]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Financial support of up to £8.2 million is available to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. for the financial year 1996–97. Planned provision for 1997–98 is set out in "Serving Scotland's Needs", the Government's expenditure plans for 1996–97 to 1998–99 for the Departments of my right hon. Friend and for the Forestry Commission. It is £8 million, rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Sand-eels (Wee Bankie)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the advantages of restricting the fishing of sand-eels in the Wee Bankie areas of International Council for the Exploration of the Seas IVb. [34280]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  At the April Fisheries Council we requested that the Commission propose precautionary total allowable catches for sand-eels in the North sea, including ICES area IVb. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has been asked to offer advice on these TACs, and whether there would be any advantages in introducing local restrictions for individual sand-eel fisheries such as the Wee Bankie.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department spent assessing the costs incurred by his Department in answering parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South before the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on 20 May. [31468]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]The figures quoted were an estimate and the costs were de minimis.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the names of those organisations or individuals who have made representations to his Department about small businesses. [32614]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department receives many representations from small businesses. To list all the representations received in this and other contexts would involve disproportionate cost.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to monitor deregulation of small businesses. [32620]

  Mr. Freeman
  I keep in regular touch with small businesses and their representative bodies about deregulation. In addition, all Government Departments now carry out a small business litmus test on every new regulatory proposal. This involves consulting small business in advance and publishing any costs which the proposal will impose on such businesses.

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent initiatives he has taken in respect of presentation of Government policy on economic matters. [32622]

  Mr. Willetts
  The third Competitiveness White Paper, was published on 13 June. It makes clear that the Government have created the best set of economic conditions for a generation and sets out a comprehensive agenda for taking this country into the next millennium as the enterprise centre of Europe.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what meetings he has recently held with businessmen in China and Hong Kong to discuss inward investment into the United Kingdom. [32625]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  While in China and Hong Kong last month, I held discussions on a wide range of commercial matters, including inward investment.

  Charters
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many charters there are currently; and what proposals there are to increase that number. [32627]
  43
  Mr. Willetts
  There are currently 42 national charters, which now cover all the key national public services. Our focus now is to revise and improve the national charters and to encourage local service providers to produce their own. There are now more than 8,000 local charters, and the number is growing.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to improve Britain's competitiveness relative to other major economies. [32628]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The steps the Government are taking are set out in the 1996 Competitiveness White Paper—"Creating the enterprise centre of Europe", published on 13 June. One of its key themes is the continuous improvement of the UK's performance against its main competitors in world markets.

  Europe (Government Policy)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what role he plays in presenting Government policy towards Europe. [32629]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I chair the ministerial committee on the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy, including presentation of the Government's policy towards Europe.

  Maryport Council
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he next intends to meet representatives of Maryport town council to discuss his proposals for further deregulation of industry. [32630]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to meet representatives of Maryport town council at present.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many deregulation measures are at present undergoing consultation by Government Departments. [32631]

  Mr. Freeman
  Departments are currently consulting on four proposals for deregulation orders amending the Trustee Investment Act, the Licensing Act, the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act and the Civil Aviation Act. No central record is kept of consultations on deregulatory proposals that fall outside the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, but a number of these are currently in progress.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the head of the home civil service to discuss the implementation of the code of practice for appointments to public bodies. [32632]

  Mr. Freeman
  The code of practice for public appointments procedures has been drawn up by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. Its implementation is a matter for discussion between the Commissioner himself and those Government Departments sponsoring public bodies within his remit.

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what aspects of the Government's economic policy he will make it his priority to present in(a) the autumn and (b) spring 1997. [32626]

  Mr. Willetts
  We shall continue to draw attention to the economic benefits flowing from the full range of the Government's policies.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions; [33582]

  (2) how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases (a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33569]

  Mr. Willetts
  Since the Department was formed in May 1992, there has been no legislation introduced into Parliament by the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service which either reverses the outcome of a judicial review or seeks to give effect by legislation to the outcome of a judicial review.

  Also, since May 1992, no decisions made by the Department have been challenged by way of judicial review.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will meet representatives of(a) church, (b) charity and (c) other non-commercial organisations to discuss their contributions to the millennium exhibition. [32777]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The millennium exhibition is a matter for the Millennium Commission, of which I am a member. I understand that meetings between members and staff of the commission with representatives from the church and groups representing other faiths have been taking place and the chairman has met the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss the Christian element of the millennium celebrations. Representatives of charities and other non-commercial organisations should contact the Millennium Commission direct, should they wish to discuss the potential for involvement in the millennium exhibition.

  Public Sector Research Establishments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the contribution of the public sector research establishments to the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. [32624]

  Mr. Freeman
  Public sector research establishments represent an important part of the United Kingdom's science and engineering base. The contribution of the
  45
  science and engineering base to competitiveness has been set out in the third Competitiveness White Paper, published on 13 June 1996.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Quotas
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to discuss with his European counterparts the future of milk quotas; and what is his policy with regard to the principle of milk quotas after the year 2000. [33250]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Commission has indicated in this year's CAP price-fixing proposals that discussions will need to begin next year on longer-term price and quota policy in the dairy sector. It remains the Government's objective to phase out quotas and price support in the dairy sector. As a first step, we have been pressing in this year's price fixing for a 5 per cent. cut in support prices combined with a 1 per cent. increase in milk quotas.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total acreage of land in England and Wales now in set-aside; and what was the total cost of payments made to farmers owning such land during 1995. [33104]

  Mr. Baldry
  The total acreage of land in England and Wales is set aside under the arable area payments scheme in 1994–95 was 1,294,834 acres and payments to claimants, who may or may not be the owners of the land, for that year totaled £176,818,295 up to the end of May 1996. The total acreage of land currently in set-aside will not be known until the arable area applications for the 1995–96 scheme year have been checked and collated.

  CAP Fraud
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated total financial loss caused by fraud within the member states of the European Union in respect of the working of the common agricultural policy. [33975]

  Mr. Baldry
  Neither the Commission nor the European Court of Auditors has ever placed a figure on the level of fraud within the common agricultural policy since, by definition, undetected fraud cannot be measured. Member states are, however, required to report detected CAP irregularities to the Commission. In 1995, member states reported 1,754 cases of irregularity valued at £173 million—0.6 per cent. of the CAP budget of £27.9 billion. In this context, the definition of irregularity includes all over-claims, whether simple error on the part of the claimant, negligence or fraud.

  Sand-eel Fishing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what consultation he has had with other European states about the suspension of industrial fishing for sand-eels under the precautionary principle under EU regulation 309/86, article 13; [34282]
  46
  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that sand-eel fishing in International Council for the Exploration of the Seas area IVb is sustainable. [34281]

  Mr. Baldry
  Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) 3094/86 applies only to exceptional cases where immediate action is necessary.

  At the Fisheries Council in April I called for the introduction of total allowable catches for sand-eels in the North sea, including ICES area IVb, and elsewhere. Following this up, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has been asked by the UK to provide advice on appropriate levels for the TACs as well as considering seasonal and localised catch regulations taking account of the need to protect local aggregations of sand-eels in sensitive areas.

  Dairy Herds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the age profile of British dairy herds. [34115]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Age (years)

  Estimated number of adult animals in the Great Britain dairy herd1 in 1994

  2

  271,908

  3

  505,257

  4

  448,658

  5

  379,883

  6

  300,005

  7

  221,176

  8

  152,473

  9

  98,073

  10

  57,472

  11

  30,943

  12

  25,317

  Total

  2,491,165

  1 Animals which have calved.

  Source:

  Central Veterinary Laboratory Database.

WALES

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the working of the new unitary authorities in Wales to date. [32894]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The 22 new unitary authorities were successfully established on 1 April 1996.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed in the private security industry. [32896]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is estimated from the 1993 census of employment that there were around 2,500 employees employed in investigation and security activities, excluding public security, law and order activities, in Wales in September 1993.

  Diesel Engines (Health Risks)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has commissioned into the impact of diesel motor engines upon public health, with particular reference to the health of children. [32885]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In November 1995 the Department of Health published the report of the expert advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution, "Non Biological Particles and Health". In addition, the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment and the Medical Research Council are currently undertaking a programme of research into air pollution and respiratory disease, include the effects of vehicle emissions.

  Horticulture (Accidents)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been disabled as a result of accidents in horticulture over the last five years. [32897]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to monitor the take-up of grants under the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will make a statement. [33161]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Grants are monitored on a UK basis by the Department of the Environment through a managing agent.

  Community Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring he has undertaken of the provision of care to elderly people living in the community. [33165]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Welsh Office monitors provision of care to older people living in the community on a regular basis. This includes work by the social services inspectorate Wales, the regular collection and publication of statistics and longer-term research to evaluate progress.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to prepare and publish a document evaluating the performance and results of the assisted places scheme in Wales. [33528]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The assisted places scheme is kept under continuous review. Since 1981, some 1,850 pupils in Wales have benefited from an education at an independent school which their parents would not otherwise have been able to afford. Almost half of parents pay no fees, suggesting that the scheme is helping those who most need it, and the examination results of APS pupils are consistently high. From September, many more children will benefit from the doubling of available places and the inclusion of more participating schools.

  Dentists (Overpayments)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount of payments overpaid to dentists on which he has resolved to make a waiver; and if he will make a statement. [33326]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  General dental practitioners' net income for the years 1988–89 to 1993–94 exceeded target income for those years. On average, the amount outstanding totalled some £16,500 for each principal in general practice, of whom there are approximately1798 in Wales. The Government have now waived these overpayment in the light of agreement with the profession on reform of the dental remuneration system

  1December 1995.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cattle were slaughtered in Wales under the 30-months scheme in the weeks beginning 6 May and 13 May. [33321]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The figures are given in the following table:

  Week beginning

  Slaughtered in Welsh abattoirs

  Welsh cattle slaughtered in English abattoirs

  6 May

  0

  0

  13 May

  413

  1,586

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policies for primary school age children who require speech therapy. [33323]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The general provision of speech therapy services is the responsibility of health authorities under the National Health Service Act 1977. The level of provision is a matter for health authorities to determine in the light of local need, competing demands and resources available.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of his Departments is responsible for animal welfare; and if he will make a statement. [33324]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Farm animal welfare is dealt with by the Welsh Office Agriculture Department, while welfare issues relating to wild and domesticated animals falls to the Welsh Office local government group.

  Dementia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people suffering from dementia; and if he will make a statement. [33325]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Demographic trends suggest that on average one in 20 people over 65 years have dementia. This proportion increases to one in 10 for those over 75 years. When applied to the Registrar General's latest
  49
  mid-year estimates of population for June 1994, it is estimated that in Wales just over 25,000 people aged 65 and over may be suffering from dementia.

  Dual Carriageway Contracts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the last contract completed for the construction of a major dual carriageway in the open countryside; and what was the total cost of the contract, and the cost per mile, giving the figures at the time of completion and in current values. [33385]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The A55 Rhuallt Hill scheme, completed in May 1992, cost some £11,400,000, which equates to some £4,100,000 per mile. Current price costs would be broadly similar.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the last contract completed for the on-line upgrading of a single carriageway to a dual carriageway; and what was the total cost of the contract, and the cost per mile, giving the figures at the time of completion and in current values. [33387]

  Mr. Jones
  The A55 Aber improvement, completed in September 1994, cost some £6,800,000, which equates to some £4,500,000 per mile. Current price costs would be broadly similar.

  Road Works (M4)
  Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the original estimate, (b) the cost in the tender accepted and (c) the total and final outturn costs of the main works M4 contract 3, Earlswood to Lonlas. [33386]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The pre-tender estimate of the M4 Earlswood to Lonlas scheme was £32,500,000; the tender sum accepted, £30,971,000; and the final contract cost, £39,564,000.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what study he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated concerning (i) the estimated loss of investment in the Swansea area because of traffic delays and congestion during the construction of the M4 from Earlswood to Lonlas and (ii) investment which could come to the Swansea area on the completion of this link in the M4. [33389]

  Mr. Jones
  No studies into the effects of investment in the Swansea area relating to the effects of the M4 have been commissioned or evaluated.
  50
  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the information he holds concerning traffic time delays during peak periods throughout the construction of the Earlswood to Lonlas section of the M4, with particular reference to information on the average of maximum time delays. [33390]

  Mr. Jones
  Times of traffic movement through the M4 Earlswood to Lonlas works during peak periods were not recorded. Delays were minimised by keeping two lanes in each direction open during construction—the same number as the existing A48 that was being upgraded.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of traffic management and associated engineering works necessary to maintain traffic flows throughout the contract period for the M4 contract 3, Earlswood to Lonlas new motorway section. [33391]

  Mr. Jones
  Total traffic management costs for the M4 Earlswood to Lonlas contract were £2,199,000.

  Highway Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the cost evaluation techniques for major highway on-line improvement schemes, the extent to which costs relating to traffic management flow are included and his estimate of the accuracy of cost evaluation techniques. [33388]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The costs and benefits of major highway on-line improvement schemes are evaluated over a period of 30 years from the opening of the scheme using the cost benefit analysis programme, COBA. The traffic delays which can occur during construction are evaluated using the queuing and delays at roadworks analysis programme, QUADRO, and these results are input to COBA as a cost. Both these techniques have been used over many years and the parameters and techniques are continuously updated. The analyses are subject to scrutiny at public inquiries and the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment regularly examines and reports on the techniques used.

  Ambulance Services Reorganisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to assess sponsorship of trust applications for reorganising the ambulance services in Wales, other than those proposals emanating from the Welsh ambulance policy and advisory group. [34326]

  Mr. Hague
  All applications to reorganise NHS trusts are subject to statutory public consultation and appraisal by the Department.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake a longstanding engagement formally to open the new regional offices of Industrial Tribunals in Newcastle Upon Tyne on Friday, 28th June 1996.
Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence on Friday, 28th June 1996.

Burma: Support for Aung San Suu Kyi
2.37 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking all the action they can to assist Aung San Suu Kyi and a democratically elected government in Burma, and whether they will take no action to support the present military dictatorship in power.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we remain deeply concerned about the situation in Burma. We issued a statement on 22nd May and our ambassador in Rangoon followed it up with a démarche to the State Law and Order Restoration Council on 7th June. We have consistently pressed the State Law and Order Restoration Council to work with Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma's other democratic groups to achieve national reconciliation and democratic reform. We make it clear to the SLORC that resumption of normal relations is conditional on progress on this issue and other key issues.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, in connection with relations with Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi has requested that tourism is not facilitated now? Is he further aware that while some travel agents have responded and deleted Burma from their advertising, others have not? Does the Minister think it proper to advise the Government to make it clear that they would like to discourage travel to Burma, in agreement with Aung San Suu Kyi's view, until such time as the country ceases to be under a military dictatorship?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I have already said that, while we deplore the situation in Burma, we have no policy to introduce a ban on UK tourists visiting Burma.
588
That would be almost impossible to bring about, but we are making everyone aware of the situation and our dislike of it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Government consider discouraging commercial links with Burma, which sustains one of the vilest regimes in the world? A clear statement that the Government believe that British firms should not do business with Burma would surely be helpful. Will the Government consider it?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, while not encouraging firms to do business with Burma, we believe that if they wish to do so we cannot absolutely forbid them. We believe that, with the pressures being brought to bear, improvements will definitely be made if the economic situation improves in Burma. That cannot be achieved by banning all business and trade with it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, at least for the time being, there will be no government-sponsored trade missions to Burma?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, there is no intention to have one. There was to be a BEAMA mission in July, which the Government are not financing in any way. We know of no further missions this year, but if there were to be further missions they would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We have no intention of funding further trade missions to Burma in the foreseeable future.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government could not ban firms from doing business with Burma. However, he was asked whether the Government would discourage such business. Surely discouragement to show the widespread opposition and loathing of the present regime is the least that we can ask.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right and that is what we have been saying. It was in our statement on 22nd May.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, should we not encourage the ASEAN countries in general and Singapore and Japan in particular to place much greater conditionality on the large amounts of inward investment that they put into Burma? Are the Government considering that and, if so, what is being achieved?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is difficult for us to tell Singapore or any of the ASEAN countries how they should behave and what their investments should be. We have made clear our loathing of the situation and hope that everyone takes the same attitude.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, presumably Hong Kong is a member of the ASEAN group of nations. I believe that the Governor of Hong Kong is answerable to the British Government in that regard and therefore he could have some input.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am not certain about the situation with regard to Hong Kong. A large amount of the investment going into Burma goes through British dependent territories, but it is investment from non-UK companies.

Educational Trusts: Tax Relief
2.41 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have given further consideration to the effect of the provision in the Finance Act 1996 for withdrawal of the tax concession in respect of future tax on money set aside to finance the education of children.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Finance Act 1996 does not withdraw tax relief here. The Charity Commission has concluded that a small number of educational trusts operating school fee plans are not truly charitable. If a trust loses charitable status it is no longer entitled to charitable tax reliefs. However, relief will not be withdrawn until 1st April 1997. In the meantime the Government are reviewing the implications for the trusts and their planholders.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that moderately reassuring reply. When a tax concession is withdrawn in a case where money is being held in reserve to finance the education of children, will it be only in a case where there is a clear lack of any charitable intention?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I confirm exactly that. I ought to make clear to my noble friend that under the 1993 Act the charity commissioners have a duty to remove charities that are no longer charitable. They have been conducting a review into that kind of trust for a number of years. They first gave notice to trusts as long ago as 1994 that things would not be all right. This year they made it clear that such trusts were to be withdrawn from the register. Discussions are now taking place with the Inland Revenue, the charity commissioners and the trusts in question with a view to restructuring them. That is why we have also made it clear that we shall not be withdrawing tax relief until April next year; nor will that withdrawal be retrospective. That gives time to those trusts to restructure.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree with him that the cost to the Treasury in this case is relatively small? However, does he agree that in respect of another aspect of the funding of private education the cost to the Treasury is very high? For example, as regards the assisted places scheme, in a situation where parents are separated or divorced, will the Minister confirm that the income of the father is not taken into account in determining the scale of an award
590
and that therefore the Treasury gives large grants to children of wealthy parents? What is the basis for that profligacy with taxpayers' money?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe there is any profligacy with taxpayers' money. We are committed to the assisted places scheme. The noble Lord's reference goes somewhat beyond the Question on the Order Paper, but I know that the party opposite dislikes it. We are committed to both the maintained sector and the private sector. Our commitment to the assisted places scheme is a sign of that commitment. We shall continue with that commitment. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made quite clear, we look to seeing that provision double in the years to come.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, as the noble Lord has indicated his willingness to discuss the assisted places scheme, will he refer to the question that I asked? Why in a case where parents are separated and divorced is the father's income, even when the father supports the child, not taken into account in determining the scale of an award?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord dislikes the private sector. I suspect he also dislikes the charitable status given to private education. I remind him of exactly what happened to one of his friends on the Opposition Front Bench the last time his party questioned the charitable status of the private sector. He withdrew that remark pretty quickly when comments were made by others in his party.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Eatwell in terms of the effect on grants or loans paid to young people—whom I still consider children—at university? Surely the same kind of problem arises in that sphere.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware that the position regarding grants to young people at university has anything whatever to do with the Question on the Order Paper. That goes even wider than the original question put by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.

Oftel Competition Proposals
2.45 p.m.
Lord Marsh Lord Marsh asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current status of Oftel's plans for competition policy in the telecommunications industry.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, Oftel's proposed package covers new price cap arrangements and a significant deregulation of BT's licence. It includes a proposal for a new licence condition to prohibit the company from preventing, distorting or restricting competition including by abuse of a dominant position or the conclusion of

591
anti-competitive agreements. Oftel also proposes to insert this condition in due course into the licences of other operators.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, as the Minister must be aware, the dispute between Oftel and British Telecom has been going on for over a year, with very dangerous implications both for BT's plans for investment and for technological innovation. Is the Minister further aware—he must be—that the DTI has advanced proposals that have the unique distinction of being acceptable to all three parties—BT, the regulator and the consumer organisations? Does the Minister recognise that he now has an opportunity of solving the problem to everybody's satisfaction? Should Ministers not therefore seek to avoid their normal objection to popularity?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we have no objection at all to that; indeed, we very much welcome it. As I indicated, the situation at the moment is that Oftel has put forward a package and it is now for BT to accept or reject it. If it rejects the package, there is scope for reference to the MMC should agreement not be reached. My understanding is that in a number of material particulars there is consensus. But there remains the issue as to whether or not there should be a statutory restriction on the misuse or abuse of a dominant position in the market. It is on that matter that BT has still to reach a view. I understand that that is likely next month.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that within the Oftel package is a proposal by the director-general that he should assume a quasi-judicial function in respect of certain matters? If that is so, does he agree that, as the rights and properties of licensees are likely to be involved, there should at the very least be a proper right of appeal?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am aware that that is the suggestion that BT has made; namely, that if such a position is to be taken up, there should be an accompanying right of appeal. I further understand BT's argument to be that that should not simply be a condition of its licence but that it should enjoy a specific statutory context within telecoms legislation. We are not convinced that a compelling case has been made for prohibition on abuse of market power generally. The telecommunications sector has its own distinct regulatory regime. As matters stand at present, as I indicated, it is for BT to accept or reject the condition suggested by Oftel. If it rejects it, there is the opportunity to go to the MMC.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, may I remind both the House and my noble and learned friend of my interest in this matter as a director of British Telecom plc? Is the Minister aware that it is highly likely that only a modest legislative step by Her Majesty's Government would be needed to avoid a clash possibly requiring a reference to the MMC? In my view—the House may or may not agree—such a reference would be damaging to BT plc and almost certainly damaging to the industry as a whole. It would delay the tighter and tougher
592
regulatory regime upon which both the regulator and the "regulee are" agreed. Will the Government not reconsider the matter?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I sought to indicate, we are considering that matter, but it is for BT to give an indication of whether it accepts or rejects the proposal by the regulator. My noble friend says that a small statutory amendment would be required. I am not absolutely sure just how small it would be. Certainly I accept that that is one way in which the matter could be resolved. Another is to see whether there is the opportunity to include some appeal provision out of existing law. That too is an avenue that is being explored. However, I cannot indicate that any definite conclusion has been arrived at on that issue.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too declare an interest in that I am a customer of BT who, I might add—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is listening—is not 100 per cent. satisfied with one minor aspect of the service he is receiving. I use this opportunity to put that observation into the public domain. Is the noble and learned Lord aware of the puzzling status of Oftel, which is acting essentially in the Government's role in dealing with a competition policy matter? Clearly, we all favour competition and are against the use of a dominant position in the market. This is not a matter for Oftel per se and the last thing we want is for the issue to go to the MMC. Following the questioning of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is there no way that the Government can use their good offices to bring a modicum of good sense into the matter without going to an extreme position? Particularly puzzling is the notion of Oftel proposing that it is a take it or leave it matter within the next month. That seems to me rather extreme. However, as an outsider, perhaps I have misunderstood the situation. We want BT to be subject to fair competition. We do not want a great bureaucratic framework to ensure that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that BT's position—doubtless I shall be corrected if I am wrong—is not that it does not accept that such a provision should be included; it is just a matter of how it should be achieved. Should it be a condition of the licence or a free-standing statutory provision? Whichever route is pursued, one thing is clear. There should be a right of appeal against any decision taken by the regulator. It is that matter which is being considered at the moment. It would not be desirable at this time to discover from BT exactly its position over the new terms set by the regulator. My understanding is that it intends to come to a conclusion on that in the course of the next month.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to a remarkable proposition from the DTI which apparently commanded universal support and would avoid a costly and lengthy reference to the MMC if there were disagreement between the two parties. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House about that proposition and why it is not being proceeded with?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to the proposal coming from the director-general of Oftel rather than any specific proposal from the DTI. In these matters the regulator stands independent of the DTI. There is a suggestion and attaching to it is the concern that there should be a right of appeal. We have not yet taken up a position on that matter.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many people will be surprised at his reply? It is precisely because there has been a dispute between the OFT and British Telecom for over a year that the regulator has demanded a reply by the end of July, under threat of intervening in other areas. Whether or not the noble and learned Lord is aware of the situation, my understanding is that both sides are perfectly clear that there is a DTI proposition. One understands the problems but there are many different mechanisms by which they might be approached. Are the Government prepared at least to allow the DTI, either at ministerial or official level, to seek to broker a settlement to this long-standing, potentially damaging and expensive dispute, in order to find a solution?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I thought I had made clear where we stood. The problem is whether or not there should be a right of appeal attached. The question is whether that should be within a statutory framework or whether there is an opportunity to arrive at a satisfactory appeal procedure within the framework of existing legislation. That is being looked at at the present time.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister. I must not have made my question clear. I asked a simple question. Will he not allow the two parties—if I am right in believing that they would so wish it—to have a meeting, under the auspices of himself and the DTI, to reach a solution?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that both BT and Mr. Cruickshank are regularly in contact with the DTI over this and other matters. If they wish to have a further meeting, of course that is an opportunity available to them.

Prison Reform Trust: Draft Legislation
2.56 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have studied the draft Bill on penal matters produced by the Prison Reform Trust; and if so, what is their opinion of its proposals.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government welcome the document as a useful contribution to the debate on penal policy.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I notice the giggling opposite. So I understand that there is a new
594
regulation from the Benches opposite: to make an Answer as short and as inconclusive as possible. However, perhaps I may ask a question which will receive a more satisfactory answer. Is the noble Baroness aware that the Bill is an attempt to give effect to the findings of the Woolf Committee? Is she further aware that the Woolf Report was recommended to this House in July 1991? Do the Government still stand by the findings of the Woolf Committee?
Will the noble Baroness accept a supplementary question? Does she agree that we should congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on becoming Master of the Rolls? I certainly hear no dissent from that. Does she further agree that we should congratulate Judge Tumim, who is associated with that report, on having been knighted? There seems to be even less dissent from that. In my eyes he is a hero of our times. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the new chief inspector will not be deprived of his knighthood because of being reprimanded by the Home Secretary?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a happy occasion. First, let me defend my colleagues who were amused at my reply. In my reply I welcomed the report and they were rather amused at what they saw to be some hesitancy on the part of the noble Earl, who was rather surprised that I had welcomed the report. I wholeheartedly and very warmly congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on his new appointment. Equally, I warmly congratulate Judge Tumim on his knighthood.
I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for not speculating on any award that the present chief inspector may or may not receive. He is very new in that particular role and that matter is for others to discuss.
As for the Question on the Order Paper, the Woolf Report made 12 key recommendations. All but one of those recommendations were accepted and formed the basis of the programme for the White Paper, Custody, Care and Justice. The Prison Service has already implemented most of the commitments made. There is no question of either Ministers or the Prison Service back-tracking on progress already made. Both the Woolf Report and the 1991 White Paper identified the need for a proper balance between essential security measures and effective and constructive regimes. That remains the Prison Service policy today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without seeking to pass judgment on a complex Bill produced by the Prison Reform Trust, does not the Minister agree that the section on the prison ombudsman, if enacted, would have been helpful in avoiding the intensive and lengthy debate which has had to take place about the terms of reference of the prison ombudsman in recent months? It might even have avoided the reported dressing down of the prison ombudsman by the Home Secretary only last week.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it has always been our intention to review the situation once the post has been in place for a sufficient period. We still intend to consider putting it on a statutory basis. Perhaps I may also say that the proposals seek to make the

595
ombudsman's recommendations binding on the Prison Service in respect of disciplinary adjudications, and that would be unacceptable. Ombudsmen operate on the basis of recommendations and any attempt to make their findings binding runs counter to that principle.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness accept that the present trend of government penal policy is all too likely to be a disaster for those in prison and lead to frustration for prison staff? Will the Government consider, instead of building many new prisons, providing special care for those at risk of offending, especially when they are still children, and also treatment for first offenders?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord's first statement. I believe that protection of the public and suitable punishment to fit the crime is at the centre of our policy and we have no intention of changing that. There is a consultative paper out in regard to sentencing and the noble Lord will have a full opportunity both to respond to that and to consider any legislation which may flow from it.
The other point made by the noble Lord is important in relation to how much we can do and whether we can do more to address those who are at risk of offending. A great deal of my time is spent, through the Probation Service and the voluntary sector, doing what we can to make sure that young people do not get into trouble in the first place. I wholeheartedly agree that it is an important part of the policy.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, how does the noble Baroness square what she has told us today with the fact that in a recent debate initiated by the Lord Chief Justice, five former Conservative Home Office Ministers denounced Howardism?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we live in a democracy and people are entitled to their views. However, I believe the Home Secretary has been extremely courageous in that respect. He believes that the protection of the public is essential and that the punishment should fit the crime. This is an important White Paper which is out for consultation and no doubt the noble Earl will respond to it in his customary way.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council in Florence.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript
596
amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blatch, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
It may assist the House if I make a brief announcement regarding the Government's intentions following the Court of Appeal decision on the vires of the regulations made in February on asylum seekers. Those regulations restricted the circumstances when income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit could be paid to asylum seekers. The Court of Appeal found the regulations to be outside the Secretary of State's powers and quashed them. The Government propose to restore their policy—the policy agreed in both Houses.
It is the Government's intention to introduce amendments aimed at restoring Parliament's intention at the Third Reading of the Bill next week. The amendments will provide the powers that the court said were lacking and restore the regulations to exclude from benefit people who have entered the United Kingdom illegally or as visitors and only later claimed asylum and those who have been found by the immigration authorities not to satisfy the UN convention criteria for refugees.
It is our intention that entitlements gained by those groups purely as a result of that judgment will cease as soon as the amendments become law and no new entitlement will arise. In the meantime we will of course implement the law as expressed by the court and pay the entitlements arising under the current legal position. Our amendments will seek to put a stop to those unintended entitlements at the earliest opportunity. It is our intention that entitlements gained purely as a result of that judgment will cease as soon as the amendments become law.
We have examined the judgment with great care and noted that the prime focus of its concern is the impact of the regulations on the genuine refugee rather than on the large number of economic migrants. We intend to introduce arrangements which will enable us to make provision for those who are at the end of the day found to be genuine refugees. We will shortly bring forward measures to enable genuine refugees to claim income support and housing benefit in respect of housing costs in respect of the periods during which they had been excluded from benefits while their asylum applications were under consideration. Once those arrangements are in place, voluntary bodies and charities which support those that they consider to be genuine refugees will do so in the knowledge that the refugee will be in a position to repay them for their support.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for being candid with the House and Parliament at the outset of the Motion further to consider the Bill on Report regarding the Government's intentions following the dramatic judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown last Friday. In case it seems too simple from the Minister's explanation, perhaps I may quote some of the more startling conclusions to which Lord Justice Simon Brown, supported by Lord Justice Waite, came. He said:
"the 1993 Act confers on asylum seekers fuller rights than they have ever previously enjoyed".
It must be noted that he referred to "asylum seekers" without reference to whether or not they are genuine. He continued:
"the right of appeal in particular. And yet these Regulations for some genuine asylum seekers at least must now be regarded as rendering these rights nugatory. Either that, or the Regulations necessarily contemplate for some a life so destitute that to my mind no civilised nation can tolerate it".
Lord Justice Simon Brown went on to say that he would hold it:
"unlawful to alter the benefit regime so drastically as must inevitably not merely prejudice, but on occasion defeat, the statutory right of asylum seekers to claim refugee status … some basic provision should be made, sufficient for genuine claimants to survive and pursue their claims … For the purposes of this appeal, however, it suffices to say that I for my part regard the Regulations now in force as so uncompromisingly draconian in effect that they must indeed be held ultra vires".
He founds his decision on the:
"wider ground that rights necessarily implicit in the 1993 Act are now inevitably being overborne. Parliament cannot have intended a significant number of genuine asylum seekers to be impaled on the horns of so intolerable a dilemma: the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status or alternatively to maintain them as best they can but in a state of utter destitution. Primary legislation alone could in my judgment achieve that sorry state of affairs".
It is now apparent that the Government intend to introduce primary legislation in order to achieve what Lord Justice Simon Brown calls a "sorry state of affairs". It appears that the Government, affected only by the wording of the judgment in the Court of Appeal and not in any way by the humanitarian implications of that judgment, intend to create a situation where asylum seekers—whether genuine or not remains to be determined until the case has been heard—will be forced either to abandon their claims or to live in a state of "utter destitution". That cannot be right as a principle of policy. It cannot be right for the Government to seek to do that and we will oppose such an effort with every power that we have.
In relation to this issue the question goes much further. The Minister has just told us that the Government will bring forward next week at the Third Reading amendments to give statutory effect to the "sorry state of affairs" to which Lord Justice Simon Brown referred. That would be a gross abuse of parliamentary procedure. The time available between now and 1st July, which is the date set down for Third Reading, is quite inadequate for the preparation of complex amendments which the Government would have to carry out and, much more important, the time available would be quite inadequate for proper parliamentary consideration of those amendments by this House. I remind the House that this
598
is the last stage of a Bill which has gone through all its stages in the House of Commons and will have gone through all its stages by 1st July next and which would have completed all but one of its stages by tonight.
The ruling also makes a nonsense of the debates to take place this afternoon on Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill because they will put into effect the provisions which complement the regulations now declared unlawful. The House will note that in his statement the Minister did not say that the Government are proposing to appeal against last Friday's judgment to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. Therefore, what is proposed this afternoon is the Report stage on clauses which will compound the lack of legality. Under those circumstances it would be totally improper for us to consider this afternoon Clauses 8 and 9 or indeed any part of the Report stage of the Bill.
The least that the Government can do, having decided to abandon all humanitarian principles and seek to overturn the judgment of the Appeal Court (which refers specifically to such humanitarian principles), is to postpone consideration on Report of this Bill and to propose to the House a timetable which will give a proper opportunity for parliamentary consideration of the primary legislation which they propose. I invite the Minister to respond to that. I give him notice that unless there is an entirely satisfactory response, I intend to ask my noble friends to vote against the Motion that the Bill be further considered on Report.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on these Benches we, too, are not content with further consideration on Report. While I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the Government's intention, he has not begun to realise the legal difficulty of what he is attempting to do.
Throughout it has been the Government's intention that their regulations were put forward to deal with bogus asylum seekers. It has been the finding of the Court of Appeal that these regulations render nugatory a legitimate right to seek asylum in a genuine asylum seeker. The Court of Appeal has therefore found a conflict between the regulations and the 1993 Act of Parliament: in fact, they are contrary to primary legislation that the regulations have no vires to alter. But more than that, I do not believe that the Minister understands that the regulations have also been found by the Court of Appeal to be contrary to common law and the basic principle of humanity set out in the judgment of Lord Ellenborough in 1803, from which Lord Justice Simon Brown quoted.
For an entirely different purpose I happened to be reading the Renton report yesterday. It states as a basic principle of parliamentary drafting that it is impossible to alter a well-recognised principle of the common law unless by a statute which says so. But that is not all. The basic right to seek asylum, which the Court of Appeal has found to be taken away by these regulations, does not just rest on an Act of Parliament but on an international treaty. Is the Minister suggesting that it is within the power of an Act of Parliament to change an international treaty? If so, this is legal doctrine which

599
will call for a great deal of thought and discussion of a kind we are certainly not going to get between now and next Monday.
The Minister will say that Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill are not on all fours with the regulation struck down by the Court of Appeal because the point of vires in relation to the 1993 Act is not the same. But he may save his breath because that will not get round the fact that the conflict with our international obligations, as set out in the UN Convention on Refugees (1951), is identical in Clauses 9 and 10 to what is in the regulations which have been struck down. The Minister says that that is not his intention. Many people have stood in the dock and said that. As a point of fact, the Court of Appeal did not find that to be correct.
Should the International Court of Justice find on the facts what the Court of Appeal has already found, on the same ground it will strike down Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill. By inflicting destitution on innocent claimants for asylum it would be depriving them of an attempt to exercise legitimate rights. To whisk through a measure which risks a judgment of that sort at Third Reading in the Second House at the 59th minute of the 11th hour is not the kind of proceedings which brings Parliament into good repute. We on these Benches will not support it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. Surely the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is making a political meal out of a situation which is legalistic. There can be no doubt that Parliament and not the judiciary is supreme. I have not read the transcript, but I gather that there was a minority opinion. I have no doubt that the majority of the court held that if this were to be done, it could be done by primary legislation. That is precisely what the Government are proposing to do.
I want to make one further point. The Court of Appeal, even on a unanimous verdict, in my puny experience has been reversed five-love in the House of Lords on more than one occasion. Because it is the Court of Appeal it is idle to say, "It is the law". I assume that the only reason why the Government—and I am not privy to their thinking on these Benches—are not seeking the opinion of your Lordships' Appellate Committee is that they want to get on with the job of stopping the abuse of which they and most of your Lordships disapprove and to go to the Appellate Committee will only waste time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it will not do to pretend that this is a narrow technical matter, as we have heard regularly over the weekend from junior Ministers, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, merely legalistic; that the problem is that the Government were seeking to do by regulation what they should have done by primary legislation; and that it is only a matter of paths, not purposes. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh made clear when he quoted from the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown, the judges made it absolutely explicit that not only do the regulations subvert the principles of the primary legislation but they also subvert the UK's convention
600
obligations, reaffirmed in the 1993 Act. The regulations subvert the basic principles of our welfare state and of our international obligations.
What is the principle of that welfare state? For over 200 years anyone who cannot work—the Government forbid asylum seekers to work—and anyone who cannot support themselves—the means test is evidence of that—is entitled to, and should be supported from, public funds. That applies to Britons and foreigners alike. No one should be left deliberately destitute when they cannot remedy that wrong by any act of their own.
Ministers have previously talked about JSA and job seekers' sanctions. In any other part of the social security system where there is a refusal, a denial or a cut in benefit, that can be overturned if the claimant changes his or her behaviour, whereupon the benefit is reinstated. Therefore, the claimant can make good the loss of income and avoid destitution. Uniquely, asylum seekers cannot do that. Once they cross our border and apply (perhaps only four hours after arriving in this country), they have removed themselves irrevocably from a right to income support and they cannot regain it by any action of their own. The Minister has said—this is a welcome move—that if they go to appeal and win their appeal, their benefits will be reinstated but, as the judges said, they will have nothing to live on in the meanwhile and they will be starved out of their right to appeal.
In no way can asylum seekers regain their right to benefit. Uniquely in the history of social security over the past 200 years, there is nothing that asylum seekers can do to make good that initial loss of benefit which means that they face destitution. Uniquely, Parliament is constructing destitution deliberately by Act of Parliament.
The sense of moral outrage at this attack on the principles of our welfare system and the attack on our obligations under international law has been confirmed by the remarks made by my noble friend who quoted Lord Justice Simon Brown saying that the regulations,
"contemplate for some a life so destitute that to my mind no civilised nation can tolerate it".
Is there anybody in this House who believes that they can be civilised and tolerate the denial of any means of subsistence to asylum seekers, as expressed by Lord Justice Simon Brown?
With such issues at stake, how can this House proceed to debate Clauses 9 and 10 later this afternoon? How can this House expect to consider properly in the space of three or four working days the primary legislation that is required? I put it to your Lordships that we should not be manipulated because it is expedient for the Government to seek to overturn a ringing condemnation of government policy by the Court of Appeal. I support my noble friend.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his statement, but must express concern at the path that he has outlined will be followed. Does the Minister accept that the basis of the judgment given was not on legal grounds alone but was also on broad moral grounds? Indeed, it seems to me that the moral

601
language used is as strong as the legal language. It is not merely a question of the regulations needing to be corrected by primary legislation; the way in which the regulations have been framed is bringing about a situation which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, is producing a sense of moral outrage in many parts of our society.
Perhaps I may quote the sentence in the judgment which follows that which has already been quoted by noble Lords opposite. Lord Justice Simon Brown goes on to say:
"So basic are the human rights here at issue that it cannot be necessary to resort to the European Convention of Human Rights to take note of their violation".
That is strong moral language indeed. In fact, I find it stronger than the language which some right reverend Prelates have used from these Benches in relation to this Bill.
Of course, we all accept that those who abuse the asylum system should not benefit from it. I take it that that was the broad agreement to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred a moment ago, but if in trying to bring about a situation in which those abuses are prevented another wrong is perpetrated, surely we are right to express a sense of moral outrage at what is being achieved. And what is being achieved here is that genuine asylum seekers either have to abandon their claims for refugee status or they have to persist in those claims while reduced to a state of utter destitution. I quote again from the words of the judgment in which Lord Justice Waite argued that that rendered the rights of a very large number of asylum seekers, rights recognised by Britain under international law, as being "valueless in practice".
I believe that there will be a very widespread sense of moral concern and, indeed, moral outrage beyond your Lordships' House if the Government go ahead with their proposals as outlined by the Minister—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, perhaps I may shortly say, with respect to the right reverend Prelate, that it is essentially a legal problem because the problem is that the judges strayed into morality on judicial review.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, in response to that perhaps I may simply say that if the law does not have some element of morality within it, I fail to see why we are so concerned about it in any case.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for fully explaining the Government's intentions to the House. I should like to make one or two brief points, in addition to those which have already been made so eloquently, about why there would be grave problems in continuing at this stage with the Report stage of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, argued that this is not a matter for the judiciary; that it is one where the judiciary has strayed into the area of the sovereignty of Parliament. It is perhaps worth quoting just once more something said by Lord Justice Simon Brown:
602
"Parliament cannot have intended a significant number of genuine asylum seekers to be impaled on the horns of so intolerable a dilemma: the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status or alternatively to maintain them as best they can but in a state of utter destitution".
The point which is made again and again in that judgment is that Parliament has expressed its intentions already on a number of occasions: in the 1993 Act and in its decisions to accept the United Nations Conventions on the Status of Refugees and on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, what is at stake here is not some trespass by the judiciary but the judiciary's attempt to explore in detail what were the intentions of Parliament. It is impossible to see how we can explore those intentions in adequate depth with only six days before the Bill's Third Reading. We will not even know in sufficient time the Government's detailed intentions in terms of amendments.
The reference made by Lord Justice Simon Brown to the failure of Parliament's intentions, which cannot have been that asylum seekers should be left in a state of utter destitution, is borne out by a report made available today by the Refugee Council which states clearly that a number of asylum seekers are already in a state of destitution. I understand that very recently the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford visited a church—no doubt he will speak to this—which had been, and is being used, to house refugees living on food parcels and sleeping on pews who were desperately wondering whether they could maintain themselves until such time as their cases are fully heard.
My noble friend Lord Russell referred to the common law. He quoted a case in 1803. I quote one sentence from the judgment of Chief Justice Ellenborough dealing with the responsibilities of a civilised state:
"As to there being no obligation for maintaining poor foreigners before the statutes ascertaining the different methods of acquiring settlements, the law of humanity, which is anterior to all positive laws, obliges us to afford them relief to save them from starving".
What was true in 1803 is true in 1996. Before anyone has had an opportunity to set out his or her case, or for that case to be considered, a civilised state cannot allow such a person to starve. I support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that further consideration of this Bill be deferred until we know a great deal more about the Government's intentions in the light of the decision of the court.
Lastly, I refer to a newspaper which is not normally considered to be a strong supporter of the Opposition Benches in this House. I refer to The Times.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, if anybody considers The Times to be a strong supporter of the Opposition Benches I do not know in what world he lives. I did not say that The Times was a supporter of the Government. I chose my words very carefully. I said that that newspaper was not known to be a supporter of the Opposition Benches. Surely, any fair-minded person regards that statement as true. The Times concluded its remarks by saying that if the

603
Government sought to persist in this mistaken policy it would compound the injustice identified by your Lordships in the Appeal Court.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the one sure thing about this issue is that it has been debated on a great number of occasions in your Lordships' House and in the other place. Nobody can claim that the proposals which I announced would be brought forward at Third Reading of this Bill come as anything of a surprise. They will underline and bring into primary legislation that which I have defended at this Dispatch Box on secondary legislation, at Question Time and on other occasions during the course of this Bill and the Housing Bill. I do not believe there is any force in the argument that somehow a great deal of time will be needed either to look at the details of the Government's policy intentions or to debate them, because they have been made very clear. Over the past decade in this country there has been a huge rise in the number of people claiming asylum. Most of them are found not to be genuine asylum seekers at the end of the procedures. Last year, out of every 100 people who applied, seven were found to be genuine asylum seekers and were granted asylum.
Of course, the cost to the taxpayer is never mentioned by those who oppose the Government's policy. I stand here unashamedly on behalf of the British taxpayer. I quote just one passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown. There are a few others, but this is to be a quarry of selective quotes and I will select mine. The learned judge said:
"I for my part have no difficulty in accepting the Secretary of State's right to discourage economic migrants by restricting their benefits".
If I had heard a single word from the Benches opposite in any of the debates about how they would address this problem I would have had a good deal more sympathy with their argument.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that asylum seekers who get benefit already have restricted benefit; that is, it is only 90 per cent. of the standard rate, and that "restriction" is not the same as "abolition"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, a restriction can be anything from 90 per cent. to zero. The fact is that 90 per cent. has not made any difference to the flow of asylum seekers and the increased flow to this country, as opposed to almost all, if not all, of our European neighbours. Every time the noble Baroness and I cross swords on this issue the noble Baroness singularly fails to address that point. She is perfectly happy to see it increasing at a faster and faster rate in this country, against the background of decreases in other countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister boasted of his selective quotation. Does he recognise that Lord Justice Simon Brown also said:
604
"Not for one moment would I suggest that prior to that time their rights are remotely the same, only that some basic provision should be made sufficient for genuine claimants to survive and pursue their claims"?
Is it not that which the Government propose to overturn?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if they apply at the port of entry, which I believe is the logical step, they receive benefit at the 90 per cent. level while their claims are considered by the Home Office. It is worth remembering that the whole issue has been thrashed out before five judges, three of whom have come down on the side of the Government and two against. It just so happens that it was, so to speak, in the wrong order. Three out of five is not bad. Three judges say that we are perfectly entitled to proceed and two say that we are not.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has the advantage of almost every other noble Lord who has contributed to this short debate, including myself, in that he is a senior lawyer. He pointed out quite rightly that the Court of Appeal held that this could not be done by secondary legislation but by primary powers. That is exactly what we are doing. The Government will take powers in primary legislation. I suggest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon that that is the correct way. Parliament is supreme. Inevitably, that means that it is up to this House, if it so decides, to legislate in such a way as to put right something which, in Parliament's view, the Court of Appeal has found the wrong way. That is perfectly constitutional and legitimate.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that when it appears to some of us in conscience that legislation is against what we profoundly believe to be right, we ought to express that view in your Lordships' House?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is absolutely correct. I never try to stifle debate on these matters. I have taken part in a great many debates. I do not deny the right of Lords Justice Brown and Waite to give their views on this piece of government legislation. They have done so in a fairly robust way. I almost believe that they have read some of the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but that is perhaps another matter.
That bring me to the business this afternoon. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill seek primary powers. Surely, that is what your Lordships want the Government to do. That is what the Court of Appeal has said we should do. We should deal with these matters through primary powers and not by secondary legislation. There is no argument for stopping this afternoon's consideration of Clauses 9 and 10 on those grounds.
I was interested in the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She appeared to base her whole argument on the fact that only some of those who were found to be genuine asylum seekers would have their benefit backdated at the end of the process. If she reads my speech closely she will discover that she has created a question all of her own making. I did not refer only to those who had to appeal after they had been refused

605
and then were granted it; I referred to those who were eventually granted it. That would include any person who made an in-country application which was eventually successful. I believe that the noble Baroness has stepped back and hit her own wicket as far as concerns that argument. What I said this afternoon answered the point that she made, if only she had listened carefully and properly to what I said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, I should be most grateful if he would address the question I raised as to how Parliament can alter our international treaty obligations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position on international treaty obligations is that none of the changes we make has or will have any effect on them. There is no conflict between what we are doing in the benefit system and our international treaty obligations. That is a point I have made before, and I underline it again. It is a question of the UK's benefits system, and how many people receive benefits over many, many months, in fact into years, who are found not to have a legitimate call on those benefits.
We intend to take the actions that I have outlined to do what the Court of Appeal said. It said, "You can't do this by secondary legislation. If you are going to do it, you must do it by primary legislation". That is what I have announced we shall do. I trust that we will get on with Clauses 9 and 10 this afternoon, which relate to primary legislation. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, divides your Lordships' House on whether or not we should carry on considering the Bill on Report, I hope that my noble friends will support me in the Division Lobby.
3.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill be now further considered on Report?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ailsa, M.

Carnock, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Astor, V.

Cockfield, L.

Balfour, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Courtown, E.

Beloff, L.

Craigavon, V.

Berners, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Blaker, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V.

Bowness, L.

De Freyne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Denham, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Demton of Wakefield, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Downshire, M.

Butterworth, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Elles, B.

606

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Flather, B.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nelson, E.

Gainford, L.

Newall, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Norfolk, D.

Goold, L.

Northesk, E.

Goschen, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Granard, E.

Onslow, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Palmer, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harlech, L.

Pender, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rawlings, B.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Renwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Richardson, L.

Howe, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

St Davids, V.

Ilchester, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Inglewood, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ironside, L.

Shannon, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sharples, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kenyon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Leigh, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lucas, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lyell, L.

Tenby, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Terrington, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Vivian, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Waverley, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Merrivale, L.

Westbury, L.

Mersey, V.

Wharton, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Milverton, L.

Wise, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wolfson, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Eatwell, L.

Annan, L.

Ezra, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Avebury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Bancroft, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gregson, L.

Berkeley, L.

Grey, E.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Blease, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Haskel, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hayman, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hayter, L.

Clancarty, E.

Healey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Hooson, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Desai, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Diamond, L.

Hylton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dubs, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

607

Judd, L.

Rochester, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Russell, E.

Lockwood, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Longford, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Scanlon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Serota, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McNair, L.

Shepherd, L.

McNally, L.

Simon, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Stallard, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strafford, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Molloy, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Monkswell, L.

Tope, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ogmore, L.

White, B.

Peston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.[Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Richard, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

European Council, Florence
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the meeting of the European Council in Florence on 21st and 22nd June. The Statement is as follows:
"I shall deal first with beef, then with the other issues discussed. In my Statement on 21st May I shared with the House the Government's frustration that, two months after the unjustified ban on our beef exports had been imposed, some member states were still unwilling to address on a rational, scientific basis a clear path to lift the ban. I accordingly announced a policy of non-co-operation by the British Government until two specific objectives had been achieved: the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, and agreement on a clear framework leading to lifting of the wider ban. In accordance with this policy we subsequently blocked 74 decisions which required the unanimous approval of member states.
"The first objective was achieved on 10th June when the ban on beef derivatives was lifted. This was followed on 19th June by unanimous approval of our BSE eradication plan by the Standing Veterinary Committee. In Florence on 21st June, the second objective was achieved when the European Council accepted unanimously the framework and procedures put forward by the Commission for lifting of the wider ban. These were based closely on our proposals.
"Both objectives were secured in exactly one month. I have no doubt that the policy we reluctantly adopted was the decisive factor in ensuring this result
608
in such a short space of time. The framework sets out steps for lifting the ban in stages. The Florence conclusions make clear that decisions on each stage will be taken 'only and exclusively on the basis of public health and objective scientific criteria and of the judgment of the Commission.' That is what we insisted upon above all. I was therefore able to lift our non-co-operation policy once the framework had been agreed.
"It is now up to us to meet the conditions for lifting the ban set out in the framework. There are five stages for this.
"We aim to be in a position to tell the Commission by October that we have met the necessary conditions for decisions to lift the ban on two of the five stages; namely, certified herds and animals born after a specified date and their meat. This is subject in particular to clearance of the backlog of animals awaiting slaughter in the 30 month plus scheme, and a start to the accelerated slaughter of cattle particularly at risk of developing BSE.
"Removal of the ban in these two areas would re-open to our industry an export market worth initially around £100 million per year increasing rapidly thereafter, as the certified herds' scheme gains momentum. Also by October, I expect a Commission proposal on a third stage, embryos, subject to the scientists giving them a clean bill of health. And I believe we should have met the conditions necessary for a decision to lift the ban on the fourth stage, meat from all animals under 30 months, by November.
"Securing agreement on these steps would restore the position on beef exports to what it was before 27th March except in those areas where sale has been prohibited in the UK itself. In other words, we would be in a position of being able to sell for export to the EU young animals and all the beef which could by then be sold in the UK. This would open the way for exports worth some £530 million per year.
"The only remaining category is meat from animals over 30 months except, of course, for that from certified herds which should be lifted in October. As the House knows, this category is still banned in the UK because of the greater incidence of BSE in older animals.
"The targets we have set are ambitious. It is now up to us, and to the farming and ancillary industries, to ensure we meet them. The point is that this timetable is essentially in our hands. When we have met the conditions, the normal procedures for decisions of this kind, involving the Standing Veterinary Committee in particular, will apply. But we have the firm commitment from all heads of government in Florence that these decisions will only be taken on the basis of scientific and objective criteria.
"One aspect not adequately covered in the framework is the early export of British beef to third countries. This was complicated in the minds of our partners by their concerns about the possibility of re-export to the EU, and by our European Court of

609
Justice case against the Commission. We believe our case against the ban on exports to third countries is particularly strong, and our Court application for interim relief should be decided in the next few days.
"We nevertheless secured a presidency statement, accepted it must be said reluctantly by the other member states and the Commission, that the Commission will consider individual requests from third countries to buy British beef exclusively for their domestic markets. If such requests come forward soon, I hope that, either through Commission procedures or the European Court of Justice case, exports from Britain to third countries will begin to flow.
"We have a lot to do in a short time to meet the conditions necessary to enable the EU and world markets to be fully open again. But I believe we have taken a great step forward in the past few days. We will go on doing everything possible to protect public health, restore consumer confidence and secure the interests of the beef industry. Our overriding aim remains, as it has been from the start, the eradication of BSE from Britain.
"Let me now turn briefly to the other main issues discussed in Florence: the Inter-governmental Conference, employment, economic and monetary union and the Europol Convention.
"The European Council agreed that the Inter-governmental Conference should now turn from analysis to negotiation. We need to move from exchanging ideas to considering texts. I was therefore happy to lead the call for an outline treaty text to be prepared in time for the Dublin European Council in December.
"The Government's position on the substance remains as set out in the White Paper, A Partnership of Nations. In Florence I set out again our policies in key areas such as qualified majority voting and the need for flexibility as the EU enlarges further.
"We also discussed employment. At the Essen European Council in 1994 we agreed an approach which recognised the primacy of action by member states and recommended a number of lines of action reflecting this Government's approach. In Florence, the European Council confirmed the priority attached to tackling unemployment and agreed to carry forward the Essen approach, taking account of the initiative taken by the President of the Commission on confidence pact for employment. There are some good things in this document, but others which we cannot accept.
"Unemployment in this country is now the lowest of any major European competitor. We have created more jobs over the past three years than Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Indeed, we have created more than Germany, France, Italy and Spain added together. That is because we have followed policies that help job creation. That is why we will not sign the Maastricht social chapter or accept European
610
Community measures that would damage competitiveness or inhibit our ability to pursue our own successful policies.
"Florence was not a decisive stage in discussions on economic and monetary union. The European Council considered a report from economic and finance Ministers on work done since Madrid. This included the relationship between those inside and those outside any future single currency. It covered the proposal to create a new ERM. Most of our partners favour creating such arrangements. Let me assure the House that it has been confirmed that any new scheme will be voluntary. We will certainly not join any new ERM.
"The European Council also reached agreement on the role of the European Court of Justice in the Europol Convention. I said after the Cannes European Council that the ECJ would not be the arbiter in any case relating to Europol which involved the United Kingdom Government or arose in the courts of the UK. Other member states saw a need for a role for the ECJ on questions of interpretation of the convention arising in their national courts.
"The outcome allows other member states the option of providing such a role for the ECJ for themselves. The UK Government and our courts will not be bound by this in any way. This is a satisfactory outcome and another example of the EU developing in flexible ways.
"Finally, the European Council confirmed that enlargement negotiations with central European countries should open at the same time as with Cyprus and Malta, six months after the IGC ends. It also agreed a number of statements on external issues, the most important of which were on the Middle East and Russia.
"The Florence European Council marked a decisive turning point in our efforts to protect the interests of those hundreds of thousands of people working in the British beef industry. The issue will now be dealt with on a proper, rational basis, with the timetable for the lifting of the ban dependent on our own efforts. This has enabled the restoration of normal business in the European Union.
"This has been a difficult episode in this country's relationship with Europe. We were right to stand up for our interests. But I now look forward to working with our partners on our positive vision of Europe as a strong partnership of nations."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. What a Statement we have just listened to! As I understand it, British foreign diplomatic policy over the past month or so has been reduced to blocking 74 decisions of the European Union. I wonder how many of those decisions we actually wanted. Perhaps the noble Viscount will tell the House how many of the

611
decisions that we blocked were decisions of which Britain approved and thought were in our interests to advocate.
This hollow deal could have been achieved better by patient diplomacy and a bit of governmental humility and foresight right at the beginning. The European Union insisted on a coherent plan for the eradication of BSE from the British herd. Eventually that was achieved, but only after a period of confrontation which I think has seriously weakened our position with our European partners, the effects of which will be lasting.
I described the deal as hollow. The diplomatic editor of The Times described it as a fig leaf so small as to be positively indecent. Will the noble Viscount tell the House when the ban will be lifted? Today we have had a series of recommendations by the Government that in October we shall do X and Y and by November, we hope to be in a position to do A and B; and that if everything goes well, the body to which we have apparently handed over the decision on whether the ban should be lifted—namely, the committee of vets—will then have to decide whether Britain has taken sufficient steps.
It seems to me that British influence in Europe has been reduced to a state in which we do something and then the vets have to decide on it. That has reduced our position in the Community to a fairly parlous one.
Will the noble Viscount tell us exactly how many cattle will have to be slaughtered? As I understand it, the pre-30 month will amount to 0.75 million cattle. The extra cull originally started off at 40,000, increased to 80,000 and after that has become rather woolly. Perhaps that is too much of a sheep-like metaphor to apply to cows. Last week on television the Deputy Prime Minister said that the number amounted to only a handful. At No. 10 on Thursday, guidance was issued saying that it amounted to only a few clapped-out old milkers. On Sunday morning, Mr. Hogg, the Minister for Agriculture, said on television that it amounted to 67,000 animals. As I understand it, the present figure is put at about 40,000 cattle. The position is that 0.75 million of the old cattle will be slaughtered and 120,000 extra animals are to be culled.
I ask two questions. I understand that the scheme is to be voluntary. How is it to be voluntary? Are the farmers supposed to notify somebody that a cow in their herd looks as though it has BSE and therefore should be slaughtered? If so, how much compensation will be paid? How will that scheme be policed if it is supposed to be voluntary? Secondly, if all this goes through, what incidence of BSE do the Government expect to find in the British herd? Do they expect it to be zero, 10,000 or 5,000? I should like to have an indication of the Government's position.
This has been a sorry tale in the history of British relationships with the European Union. The end result seems to be tramelled cows, a bill estimated at about £2 billion and no guarantee whatever as regards when the ban will be lifted. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there is no automaticity in this deal whatever? It is hoped that the ban will be lifted but there is no guarantee of it.
612
As regards EMU and the IGC, it is perfectly clear that the other members of the Union are moving inexorably and quite quickly in two directions: first, in the direction of a radical revision of the treaties under the IGC; and secondly, towards EMU by the end of this decade. It is also perfectly clear from what the Prime Minister said that we shall be moving in the opposite direction. I merely warn the Government that in the long run, a two-tier Europe in which Britain is in a tier of one will be deeply damaging to this country both politically and economically. Nothing in this Statement gives me much encouragement for future relations between Britain and the European Union.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal for repeating this extremely low-key Statement. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister, with his phrase about the great step forward in the past few days—or was it a great leap forward?—has added another memorable phrase to the collection of aphorisms which have punctuated, with almost relentless regularity, the evolution of European policy: from a Britain at the heart of Europe in 1990; to game, set and match for us in 1991 after the Maastricht summit; to his description of M. Santer as the right man in the right place at the right time in 1994. It has been a remarkable series of phrases. We must all hope that the phrase, "a great step" or "a great leap forward" will not come back to mock him quite as soon as others have done.
The great beef war has been a most extraordinary saga. The Government's fundamental weakness is that throughout they have given the impression that they were more interested in picking and, it is to be hoped, winning a quarrel with Europe for internal party political reasons and perhaps in the hope, misplaced I think, of electoral salvation than in eradicating BSE. A month ago Mr. Major stamped his foot and ordered mobilisation. The trouble was that the nearer to the battlefield the forces got, so the faster martial ardour evaporated. Therefore, we had last Friday's anti-climax and the extremely vague agreement dripping with conditions of which anyone can make what they like. The result is certainly no better than could have been obtained by competent Ministers of foreign affairs and agriculture without all the huffing and puffing.
If one wants an example of what I mean, one only has to read the Statement. I am amazed that the Statement, at least by implication, almost directly claims that the removal of the ban on derivatives was a direct result of our refusal to co-operate. It was totally known at the time that we took the decision—and the Commission had already voted for this—that under the procedures of the Community (the Council of agricultural Ministers having failed to agree) the Commission could then take a decision by its own perquisites to implement the removal of the ban. That is a power which the Commission has under the Treaty of Rome but which, if it had not existed and the Commission had asked for it at the IGC, would, without question, have been vetoed by Her Majesty's Government. Further, the only result was that, whereas in the previous week the Commission had voted unanimously for removal of the ban, in the week after the ban was imposed it voted by about a two

613
to one—a bare two to one—majority. So we can appraise exactly how effective it was in that particular field.
Although nothing has been achieved which could not have been obtained by proper competent diplomacy, it is clearly the case—and I put this most cautiously—that our long-term position in Europe has been somewhat damaged. I say "somewhat" because, first, I do not like exaggerating and, secondly, because, to be honest, there was not all that much there previously to damage.
In my view, in any negotiation one can hope to gain one's ends either by being liked or being feared; or sometimes by a judicious combination of the two. What we have just done is to undermine our strength in both those alternatives at one and the same time. We have obviously not made ourselves more liked, and we have certainly not struck awe into our partners.
Equally, your Lordships may recall that at the beginning of his Foreign Secretaryship, Mr. Rifkind tied himself, I thought, slightly into knots by trying to strike a new balance between pursuing Britain's interests and Britain's influence. He need not have worried about the distinction. Both he and the Prime Minister have shown how easy it is to damage both our interests and our influence at the same time.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am disappointed to find that both noble Lords, if I may say so with the greatest respect and indeed affection for them, have fallen into what I can only describe as the tabloid trap. There is a very unfortunate set of headlines in this morning's tabloid press which seems to be encouraging us in sporting terms to go to war with our friends the Germans. I deprecate such headlines, as I am sure do both noble Lords. Therefore, it is a little curious for both noble Lords to employ military metaphors when it comes to referring to our, fortunately temporary, disagreement with our European partners over beef.
I believe it fair to say that neither of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary took the step with any martial ardour. In fact, I do not think that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I do not believe that military metaphors are in the least bit appropriate for negotiating difficulties of the kind we have experienced. Indeed, I should point out to both noble Lords that I am astonished by the Government's moderation when one considers that after eight weeks of what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, described as "patient diplomacy", and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said about the Commission (to whose helpful attitude I am happy to be among the first in your Lordships' House to pay tribute), not one single step was taken in terms of actual concrete progress towards establishing a framework towards lifting the ban.
Given our extraordinary patience, I can only refer both noble Lords to the remarkable fact that we have a deal four weeks later which accords in every material respect with the objectives we set out very clearly at the beginning of our conversations with our European partners on the question of BSE. I leave it to the House to draw its own conclusions.
614
I also have to say that I do not believe it to be entirely right—although, as always, I defer to both noble Lords who have infinitely more experience of the Commission and of Brussels—to suggest that this is some sort of millennial apocalyptic event which will destroy our relations with Europe for ever and a day. After all, we are not unique in doing what we have done. I am sure that both noble Lords will remember that a number of our European partners took action when they felt the situation warranted it, beside which our steps seem moderate in the extreme. I merely suggest that they should look into recent history to see what, for example, the Italians and the French have done on occasion.
My message to both noble Lords is that although this House always enjoys listening to their higher flights of fancy—indeed, we enjoy their rhetoric, their vocabulary and the statesmanship with which they deliver their homilies—I believe that to erect the whole affair into a sort of re-run of the battle of Crécy, the Somme or Agincourt is hardly what it merits. What we want is very simple. We want to ensure that our beef industry is once again re-established, and re-established as quickly as possible.
In his splendidly rhetorical style, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked when the ban would be lifted. The answer is perfectly simple. The ban will be lifted when the steps that we have agreed have been taken. As noble Lords will be well aware, such steps are extremely complex to put into operation. If we were to say that we thought that the steps should be taken by such and such a date—let us say, 1st January—there is absolutely no guarantee that we would be able to do so or that we could go to the Commission and indeed to the SVC and say, "It is 1st January. You must assume on the basis of our having reached that date that we are able to take the particular step referred to in our agreement to lift the ban".
No, my Lords, how much more sensible to say that we will define the individual step that needs to be taken and do what my right honourable friend set out in the Statement; namely, give some broad indication of the time by which that step will, we hope, have been arranged mechanically at home. We will then work hard to ensure that we have done what we need to do in order to be able to go to the Commission and explain how we have fared.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me how many extra cattle will be slaughtered. He knows that this is a highly emotive question. As a farmer myself, I am well aware of that. The extra number of the 89/90 cohort is nothing like the 67,000 which has been bandied around. That is the highest potential number. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, many of the cattle concerned will already have been slaughtered under the 30 month plus scheme when they reached the end of their working lives. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, the average age at which cattle are slaughtered is 6.8 years. The number could well be as low as 20,000, or perhaps as high as 40,000. However, I do not think that the theoretical figure of 67,000 is what we are talking about.
The noble Lord also asked when BSE would be eradicated. Again, the noble Lord may not be altogether happy with my reply, but I hope that he will see that it

615
is reasonable under the circumstances. Our objective is, of course, to eradicate BSE as rapidly as we possibly can. That will take time. We have never made any secret about that. It may take a relatively small number of years. We believe that the measures we have taken will greatly accelerate the elimination of the incidence of BSE and we can get back to a reasonable basis for the continuation of our export trade, and indeed reassure all consumers of British beef whether in this country or abroad.
The noble Lord asked about European monetary union. I shall not go into the Government's position again. The noble Lord knows as well as I that we have quite sensibly kept our options open. Unlike some other parties we have made it clear that if by any chance a Conservative government were to decide that it was to our national advantage to join a single currency, we would give the voters an opportunity to give their verdict. Of course for us to say at the moment that we would not join at all would be foolish in the extreme because we have an interest in trying to make sure that the negotiations leading up to the establishment of a single currency—if it happens—should take proper account of vital matters which have to be decided. One vital matter to which my right honourable friend referred in his Statement is the relationship between "ins" and "outs". The noble Lord will be aware that "ins" and "outs" do not necessarily fall into those categories because they want to be in or out. Some of them—indeed perhaps even a number of them—will not meet the Maastricht criteria and therefore will put themselves out of contention for a single currency anyway.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, over the past few weeks I have been approached by a number of farmers, notably in my area of north Wales and Anglesey. I have never known them to be so confused, worried and uncertain about the future. I should like the noble Viscount to tell the House—if he will—what consultation there has been with the farmers over the past month or so, and especially over the past few days when these conclusions have been arrived at. Are they satisfied? Were they properly consulted? By that, I refer to all the unions. What is the response of the farmers to the result of the talks in Florence? Can the noble Viscount say what compensation they can expect? They have lost a great deal of money. Their way of life has been interfered with in a substantial way. I can assure the noble Viscount from my personal contact with them that they are going through a difficult time. I feel sorry not only for the farmers but also for the families of the farmers and for those in the villages who depend on the farmers. The consequences are far greater than has been made clear by the Government to the country at the present time. I shall be grateful if the noble Viscount can enlighten us on those points.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I say straightaway that I fully agree with the noble Lord as regards the difficult time that farmers in all parts of the United Kingdom have had to endure as a result of the BSE crisis. I wish to be associated with the noble Lord's
616
sympathy for the farmers, particularly those in his part of Wales. In my view, it has been extremely important for close contact to be maintained between farmers and the Government so that there should be a proper flow of information between the two, and to enable farmers' views to be taken into account and to enable them to feel that they have ready access to officials and to Ministers.
I believe that on the previous occasion I discussed the matter of BSE in this House I made it clear that it seemed to me there had been a rather slower response than we ideally would have liked to making sure that proper communication was established. Although arrangements can never be perfect, I am afraid that in my view the complexity and the suddenness of the crisis contributed to that. An enormous amount of work has been done to try to put that right, in particular under the leadership of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is particularly charged with making sure that farmers are aware of what is going on in England. The appropriate Ministers in the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh Offices ensure that farmers are aware of what is going on in those countries. I hope that the noble Lord will not hesitate to get in touch with my colleagues if he feels that these arrangements are not working as to details. I wholly agree with him that this is one of the most important areas which the Government should address. I had hoped that that had improved enormously over the past six weeks in particular.
As regards compensation, I think the noble Lord is aware of the rates of compensation for cull cows over 30 months, and as regards the calf compensation scheme. We have yet to announce details of compensation for the cull scheme for the 89/90 cohort, but as this will be a voluntary matter—I think that is the way to describe it—the rate of compensation for that cohort has to be sufficiently high to be an inducement for farmers and to make it worth their while to take it up. Our objective—I am sure the noble Lord will agree with this—is to re-establish confidence in the beef industry, to eliminate BSE, and to continue to reassure the consumer because, after all, an even higher priority than the welfare of the farming industry is the importance of public health. Of course the two are intimately connected.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, first, will my noble friend desist from using the expression "single currency" as it is manifestly obvious that even if some member states enter a monetary union, there will be several different currencies circulating within the European Union and therefore none of them can conceivably be a single currency? Secondly, will he confirm that I heard him aright quoting the Prime Minister as saying that the original ban which was imposed by the European Union was unjustified? Will he confirm that he further said it would be removed in stages and that judgment on that removal will be reached only on objective criteria concerning public health? But if it was unjustified in the beginning, how can there be any concern today about public health? Surely that is a nonsense.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I stand corrected in regard to the single currency. My noble friend will agree with me that we slip quickly into the most convenient way of describing something. Convenience often takes precedence over absolute accuracy. It is known as the "single currency", and I suspect that, like the poll tax, my noble friend's efforts to get it called something else are doomed to failure.
As concerns the ban, I can confirm that my right honourable friend used the word "unjustified". My noble friend is right that my right honourable friend said that public health would be the first priority. Perhaps my noble friend also agrees with me that the measures we have taken are concerned with restoring public confidence. I hear my noble friend say "Ah!", but if he reads Hansard again he will find that public confidence also plays a part in what my right honourable friend said. It is no good basing ourselves entirely on public health because if no confidence is expressed by consumers, despite our satisfaction over public health, we can produce as much safe beef as we like but they will still not buy it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the Leader of the House on his Statement. First, I ask him to confirm that in 1988 the European Commission first raised the issue of the safety of animal feed. The view was then taken by a number of member governments, including our own and that of France, that it was not a matter suitable for the European Commission. No regulations were laid down until 1994.
Secondly, in view of the noble Viscount's welcome commitment to the cause of truth in the tabloids, will he confirm that the ban on beef exports from Britain was not first brought in, as the impression is given, by the European Union countries but that Canada, Japan, Russia, China, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and many other countries had banned British beef exports as long ago as five years previously? Will the noble Viscount confirm that the European Union ban was among the last of the series?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, probably my memory is more defective than that of the noble Baroness. On the first point, I can confirm what she said. Secondly, I did not hear her mention the United States of America. I believe that I am right in saying that it imposed its own ban as long ago as 1989. The noble Baroness will agree with me that the terms of the ban differed substantially from that imposed by the European Union. I am sure that the noble Baroness will also agree that it is important for us to try to get the European Union ban lifted. It will improve our chances of persuading other countries to do the same.
I remind the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend also pointed out that we were proceeding with an interim measures appeal in the European Court of Justice. We believe that the ban on exports to third countries for internal consumption was unjustified and we intend to pursue the claim. We are reasonably optimistic about the outcome. We hope that at least some of the steps that have been
618
set out by my right honourable friend in regard to the third country ban will ensure that it is lifted earlier as a result of the successful interim measures action.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount further explain what is implied by his statement that during the period of non co-operation, which I believe lasted a month, no fewer than 70 decisions—74 decisions, according to my noble friend—were blocked? Has the noble Viscount any information as to the number of decisions and regulations that were passed by qualified majority during that time? We should bear in mind the Government's continued assertion that the flood of regulations from Europe was diminishing. The figures the noble Viscount has just given, which cover one month, indicate that the number of decisions has increased and that more and more regulations are coming from Brussels. I should be glad of an explanation.
Will the Minister say whether, to the best of his information, the individual transactions in imports and exports between ourselves and the various countries of Europe and our transactions over the exchanges and with invisibles have suffered during the month? Are not the people most likely to be inconvenienced the bureaucrats themselves in all countries rather than those involved in the ordinary normal intercourse between countries? Since only one-and-a-half hours ago we considered vital questions of public expenditure and taxpayers' money, will the Minister inform the House how much the settlement will cost the United Kingdom in the remainder of 1996–97 and the years 1997–98 and 1998–99? Will £2 billion or £3 billion have to be paid by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom? If so, what do the Government propose to do about it?
Finally, while the noble Viscount was in conference in Florence, or while the Government were in conference in Florence, was it pointed out to our partners that there were serious complaints about the spread of BSE in France, the Netherlands and Portugal? Did the Government mention that and ask whether those countries should have their exports of cattle banned?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, sadly, as someone who has nothing but the most vivid and affectionate memories of Florence, I was not privileged to be there last weekend. However, I was fortunate to be in South Wales, I am able to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and perhaps did better as a result.
I am aware that I failed to answer one of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the number of matters that we vetoed which were subject to unanimity. As both noble Lords are aware, they are the only ones that we vetoed because under QMV, the veto would probably not have had much effect.

619
I was asked how many we agreed with. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will allow me to be somewhat imprecise. There were a number of matters. I am sure that he can think of some which we wanted agreed, but it is fortunate that we merely delayed our agreement to the ones with which we agreed for a relatively short time.
On whether or not trade has suffered, in view of the latest set of trade figures we cannot be precise but it does not look as though our trade has suffered enormously. One of the reasons can easily be found: unemployment in this country is decreasing whereas in other countries in the European Union it is increasing. That is because we have made what is proving to be an accurate analysis of what creates jobs. The sort of social market arrangements to which the noble Lord's party is so keen to sign up are just those that are ensuring very high and growing rates of unemployment in continental Europe. So long as our competitiveness continues to grow in comparison with that of our European partners, I think we can safely say that our trade with them is likely to increase rather than the reverse. There is no doubt that if we are more competitive than they are we shall find our goods rather more attractive in due course and over a period of time than theirs.
As to BSE in other countries, so far as I know, no specific reference was made to it by my right honourable friend in Florence. If I am wrong in saying that, I will write to the noble Lord. I know that a number of farmers in particular have expressed doubts about the accuracy of the reporting of the incidence of BSE among our partners. I do not think that I am qualified to comment on that. It would be very helpful from our point of view if the European Union as a whole could co-operate in order to try to eliminate this terrible disease.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the Government have stated that they are to base their whole policy on science. In view of that fact, will they examine the whole issue again, considering that Dr. Robert Will, of SEAC, was quoted in The Times last week as saying that the clinical basis for the 10 new cases is now in grave doubt, so therefore there are almost certainly no further doubts about CJD? Secondly, SEAC also said that there was nothing wrong in eating beef over 30 months old provided it was on the bone. Thirdly, considering the grave doubt that is now put on the food chain theory as to the cause of BSE, will my noble friend please make sure that all the science is examined again with a far more rational mind and a much more open approach?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Looking at the science in a rational manner is precisely what we are doing. In fact, I repeat that there is probably a more concentrated and expensive programme of research into BSE being carried out in this country than in any other country in the world, for reasons that must be obvious to the House. It is far too early for us to come to certain conclusions about the origins of BSE, its cause and its transferability into humans. Also, so far as I know it is still not proven that
620
transferability is a fact. The sooner the research can come to solid conclusions on that, the happier I shall be, as will my noble friend.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
4.43 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 58:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
("Young unaccompanied asylum seekers

YOUNG ASYLUM SEEKERS: SPECIAL APPEALS PROCEDURES
. Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to an appeal by a young unaccompanied asylum seeker and accordingly paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act (special procedures for claims without foundation) as heretofore enacted shall continue to apply to such an appeal.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 101 which defines what is meant by a young, unaccompanied asylum seeker. So far as I am aware, nothing turns on the definition, and I can leave it unless anything arises at a later stage.
The amendment disapplies Clause 1 of the Bill in the case of a very vulnerable category of asylum seeker; namely, children who are 17 years old or younger and completely on their own in this country. The special case of these children was, to the great credit of the Government, recognised by the establishment, in 1994, under the auspices of the Home Office of the panel of advisers with a particular commitment to unaccompanied refugee children. With this amendment, I ask the Government to recognise the special problems of these unfortunate youngsters by leaving the law as it now stands in their particular case without subjecting them to the tighter disciplines of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Perhaps I may take up a few moments of your Lordships' time to explain briefly what the law now is and how Clause 1 of the Bill will change that law, so that your Lordships can decide whether you wish to see unaccompanied child refugees subjected to that change.
Under present law, when an asylum seeker arrives in this country his application for asylum is first considered by the Home Office. If entry is refused by the Home Office, the asylum seeker can appeal to a "special adjudicator". If the special adjudicator decides against the asylum seeker, the asylum seeker has an unrestricted right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. All that is laid down by the 1971 Act.
The 1993 Act added a restriction on the right of an asylum seeker to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The restriction is this. If both the Home Office and the special adjudicator agree that the claim of the asylum seeker is "without foundation", there is no right to appeal from the special adjudicator to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The decision of the special adjudicator is final. "Without foundation" is defined as meaning "frivolous or vexatious". I do not

621
seek to change that law in any way. I am content that unaccompanied refugee children should continue not to have a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal if their claims are frivolous or vexatious.
However, Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to impose a far greater restriction on appeals, whether by adults or children. First, the clause provides that if the asylum seeker comes from a designated country—that is, a country that has been designated by the Secretary of State as substantially persecution free—then and in that case the Home Office and the special adjudicator can agree that there should be no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Secondly, Clause 1 gives an extended meaning to the phrase "without foundation". It means not only a claim that is frivolous or vexatious; it also covers this sort of scenario: unexplained failure to produce a passport; production of a false passport without disclosing its validity; delayed claims to asylum; or making untrue statements.
Taking into account the fact that we are dealing with children who may have fled from horrors that we can scarcely imagine, and who may be traumatised at finding themselves without parents or friends to accompany them in a country whose language they almost certainly cannot speak, is it right to add to their problems by subjecting them to the stricter regime imposed by Clause 1? Would not it be more humane to leave those children subject to the existing rule laid down by the 1993 Act and deny them a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal only when their claim is without foundation; that is to say, frivolous or vexatious?
We know from the Minister's own words at Committee stage that the objects of Clause 1 of the Bill are twofold: first, to bring down "the large backlog of unresolved cases"; and, secondly, to,
"send a strong signal that unfounded claims will be met by robust procedures".—[Official Report, 30/4/96; col. 1540.]
Will those two objects be furthered by impeding the right of appeal of a mere 600 children? Do we want to be seen applying robust procedures to children aged 17 and under who are here on their own?
Your Lordships may wish to know how this matter was dealt with by the Government at Committee stage. An amendment similar to this one was the first limb of an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and ultimately withdrawn. I have carefully scrutinised the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Batch, and only three arguments were submitted against the exclusion from Clause 1 of 17 year-olds and younger children who arrive here unaccompanied. First, Clause 1 does not change the special arrangements for considering applications from unaccompanied children put in place by the Home Office in May 1995. Their cases will continue to be given special priority and care by the Home Office. That is a reference to paragraph 350 of the Immigration Rules. Secondly, unaccompanied children 17 and under will continue to have the services of the Refugee Council's panel of advisers, the local authority and the Red Cross. Thirdly,
622
the Home Office will take into account the child's particular circumstances and each case will be considered on its merits.
Those were the only arguments advanced by the Government at Committee stage. I do not see how they support the proposition that it should be made more difficult than it is already for unaccompanied 17 year-olds and younger children to appeal from the special adjudicator in a case which is not frivolous or vexatious.
To sum up, a child (like an adult asylum seeker) under existing law is barred from appealing to the tribunal if the claim is without foundation; that is to say, frivolous or vexatious. Do we want the claim of a child of that young age who arrives here alone also to be barred because, for example, it comes from a country designated by the Secretary of State as substantially persecution free, or has a false passport without disclosing its invalidity, or makes a false statement to an immigration officer? There are only about 600 children a year involved compared with a total tally of about 44,000 asylum seekers each year. I ask your Lordships to leave the law as it now stands with regard to child asylum seekers who are on their own and not to increase their problems.
Finally, this amendment is strongly supported by the Refugee Council, which is a government funded concern and is probably as well informed as anyone about the plight of children who are here on their own. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I thank him for moving it. It is good to see him in his place. We missed him sadly at the Committee stage of the Bill.
Children are among those who, at every stage in history, have been most vulnerable in situations of conflict. One has only to remember the Biblical story of the Massacre of the Innocents under Herod the Great. Children are always at risk during conflicts. They are particularly deserving of our close attention.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, made clear the legal consequence of this amendment. Particularly at stake is the right of somebody seeking asylum to have a right of appeal. Were the Bill to be made law as it stands, those young unaccompanied asylum seekers who fall under the provisions of Clause 1 would not have the right of appeal.
I want to add only one or two points to the noble and learned Lord's argument. Those of us who read the applications and determinations of asylum seekers realise how easy it is for all asylum seekers at times and in certain circumstances to be confused, disoriented and unable to present immediately a clear story. Time and again that comes through the papers that many of us read. If that is true of all asylum seekers, how much more true is it of those who are young, under the age of 17, particularly if they are unaccompanied and separated from their families, finding themselves on their own in an unfamiliar country, in an unfamiliar culture and

623
among people whom they probably do not know. Also, they may have all kinds of difficulties in articulating the reasons which made them come to this country.
What will happen if the right of appeal is removed, even if only for those in certain circumstances? It might well be the case that such young children find difficulty in presenting their full case before the appeal stage is reached. I know that the Minister will say that those coming from countries declared safe will surely not be in situations where they suffer trauma. That may be true in general but it is not always true in particular circumstances. It is the case that children who arrive with false documents will fall under the provisions of Clause 1 and there may be many who arrive with false documents for perfectly good reasons. That may be the only way in which they are able to get into the country; they may not be able to obtain any kind of document until they reach the age of majority; or there may be a very inadequate system of registering births. There are all kinds of reasons why children arrive with false documents. Of itself, that does not meant that their cases should be given less attention.
It seems to me that our own legislation on the need to pay attention to the rights of children, together with those international obligations to which we are a signatory—for instance, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—should make us pay the sharpest attention to the situation of young, unaccompanied, asylum seekers. I am glad to support the amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, whom I am delighted to see back in his place, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, in supporting this amendment. They have said so much that I can be relatively brief in expressing further support for it.
The amendment and associated amendments—the House will bear with me if I refer to the group of amendments which deals with the issue of unaccompanied children—are extremely carefully phrased and try to deal with all the legitimate objections which might be raised. This amendment deals with the legitimate objection that some people may pretend to be younger or older than they are and therefore makes provision for reference to a panel of paediatricians to determine that issue. It may be that some young, unaccompanied asylum seekers will not have any knowledge about how to handle the issues before them. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, pointed out, the amendment makes provision for them to be referred to the panel of advisers to the Refugee Council—the government-financed expert body.
The amendment tries to deal with the issue of placing young people in detention if they might abscond as distinct from placing them elsewhere in detention if they are likely to abscond. It recognises that it is better for young people under the age of 18 not to be detained with much older people and in conditions where they cannot receive continuing education. Our understanding,
624
as the proposers of the amendment, is that children kept in detention, sometimes for weeks and even months, do not have access to education and in most cases are being held together with others.
The amendment tries to express its qualification to the Bill in the most moderate and carefully thought-through terms. At the end of the day it argues that young people under the age of 18 who are not accompanied by any responsible adult should be treated in more merciful and careful ways than those who are over that age or who are accompanied by a responsible adult.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon argued, many young people will need to obtain records from their home country to establish their position; in some cases they may need to go through a medical examination to establish their age and in some cases they are so traumatised that it is difficult for them to put their case together. The amendment pleads only that they should not be treated via the fast-track procedure; that they are rightly judged as being in a separate category and one to which we should show a more extensive understanding than we do in the case of adults. It gives me not only great pleasure, but also a sense of great honour to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and spoken to by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate, with whom I would have wished to agree on this occasion, that I am not able to do so save in one respect; that is, in relation to the absence of appeal from the designated states and false documents. On that—I am speaking to the group of amendments as a whole, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—I have my reservations. I accept that this is a matter containing a strong moral element of which the law should take account otherwise than in the case of judicial review.
This series of amendments is designed to fill a gap. Apart from the reservation of which I have just spoken—a reservation made also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the right reverend Prelate—in relation to the appeal, on an objective examination I can see no gap. The Immigration Rules provide that applications for unaccompanied children must receive priority. I made some inquiries—I am open to correction—and it appears that on arrival the child is seen and dealt with by a panel of advisers which is a non-statutory body funded by the Home Office and administered by the Refugee Council. Accommodation is found for the child; food and care are provided and also help with arrangements concerning the Home Office through an asylum directorate which last year dealt with over 600 children.
The asylum directorate was widely welcomed by local authorities, the Refugee Council, the international social services and others working for children. The Home Office has a special unit which deals with unaccompanied children and notifies the Red Cross. Broadly speaking, that is the regime which operates. It seems to me that those arrangements provide the necessary safeguards for unaccompanied children.

625
Clause 1 will not affect special arrangements for the initial consideration of claims by the Home Office and appeals made by unaccompanied children are already given priority by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Furthermore, on the question of removal, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 49/172 of 1994 reaffirmed the importance of family reunification. If that is not possible, it is the intention to return the children to other suitable carers. I am informed that the Home Office would not remove unaccompanied children to safe third countries unless it is confirmed that suitable arrangements are in place in the country concerned.
There is little else with which I wish to detain the House other than the question of detention. According to my information the children are only detained in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I have not spoken to any amendment except Amendment No. 58. I am wondering whether we will get into a muddle and whether I at any rate will be pre-empted if your Lordships speak on other amendments before I have had an opportunity to express my views to your Lordships.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with deference to the noble and learned Lord, I was not going to say much more and what more I was going to say shall not now be said. I do not wish to impose on the noble and learned Lord or the House.
My point is this. Leaving aside the issue of detention, which your Lordships will consider later, the question is whether or not the present regime is satisfactory. If it is, as I understand it to be, to what purpose do we add further administrative burden and complexity? It is reasonable to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, that I am speaking also to Amendment No. 60.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, defends the present regime. I do not think he has entirely taken on board the fact that the present regime is altered by Clause 1, from which this amendment would exempt unaccompanied children. Clause 1 of this Bill introduces a fast-tracking procedure, which may, we fear, be a little like getting into a current leading to a waterfall. In those circumstances the noble Lord's safeguards may no longer operate.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 58 and I shall speak only to that amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, described in some detail the way in which the present system gives priority to children. One applauds that. However, the change that will be introduced by the Bill is that children may well be given priority, but they will not be given time. The consequences of the fast-track procedure are that although children may be given priority they will find themselves out of the country perhaps even faster than adults. They would not have the time they receive under the present appeals
626
system. The whole purpose of the amendment is to prevent children being subjected to the fast-track appeals system.
We are talking about a very small proportion of asylum seekers—merely 600 children. It is said that traditionally this country has a reputation for fairness and generosity. It seems shameful that we should jeopardise that reputation by subjecting children to the fast-track procedure of appeals. Children fleeing persecution are even less likely than adults to present a coherent and convincing account of their ordeals and may have even more difficulty getting together the necessary paperwork. Therefore, it is inappropriate that they should be subjected to a fast-track appeals procedure. The amendment will give children the opportunity to present their case without the appearance of hurry and, therefore, rough injustice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will listen sympathetically to what has been said. The position of children in this country apparently without proper documentation and the support of adults is a difficult one. I do not believe that many children are involved. The opportunity has been given to the Minister to make their position absolutely watertight and safe if this amendment were accepted. I hope very much that my noble friend will see the advantage of making absolutely sure that we do not treat badly the most pathetic cases of all, refugee children.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when my noble friend replies, will she comment on two points? I understood that Clause 1 will not affect the special arrangements for the initial consideration of such claims by the Home Office. It is also my belief that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will support applying the accelerated procedure for children. I ask my noble friend to comment.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene. I have listened with great care to what has been said. We all want the best for children in this situation. But no mention has been made of the families and parents of the children. Can the Minister say what happens when the parents are in other countries? What efforts are made to reunite the children with their families?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments concern the procedures that should apply to the consideration of asylum claims made by unaccompanied children. As I have said previously during the passage of this Bill through this House, our proposals in Clause 1 to extend the accelerated appeal procedure do not affect the way in which asylum applications are considered initially by the Home Office. The issue of whether to certify a claim only comes into play after the application has been considered fully and a decision made to refuse. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that Clause 1 does not introduce a fast-track procedure but merely extends the circumstances in which the

627
accelerated appeals procedure introduced by the 1993 Act can be triggered. That was the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Children are given as much time as they need to prove their case. It is only when they have been found not to merit asylum that the specialist unit will consider applying a certificate. That certificate will only be applied and justified, given the maturity of the child. So all that will be taken into account.
The special arrangements we already have in place for considering asylum applications from unaccompanied children will not be changed by the provisions in Clause 1. So I can give my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter the assurance that special arrangements are in place and will continue to be in place to deal with children. As regards the exchange between my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend is absolutely right. We have in place special arrangements and the measures in the Bill do not alter them at all.
Before I address the precise terms of the amendment, it may be worth reminding the House of the safeguards. First, cases of such children are given special priority and care and are considered by specialist case workers in the unaccompanied children's team in the asylum directorate. When children under the age of 18 arrive, they continue to have their cases considered by the special unit even after they reach the age of 18. In order to minimise stress, children are interviewed about their asylum claim only when it has not proved possible to obtain sufficient information by written inquiries. It is rare for an interview to be needed, but if one is required an independent adult will be present to look after the child's interests. Staff who interview children have had special training to equip them for the task.
Secondly, the Government fund a panel of advisers for refugee and asylum-seeking children, which is managed by the Refugee Council. All unaccompanied children who claim asylum are referred to the panel which helps them in their dealings with the Home Office and other agencies. The British Red Cross Society is also given details of all unaccompanied children, whether asylum-seeking or not, for inclusion in its confidential register. Children are encouraged to use the Red Cross tracing service to restore contact with their families. In addition, the Department of Health has provided a practice guide and a training pack on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to assist social services departments in providing for their needs.
I felt that it was worth spending some time to show the range of measures already in place to ensure that the cases of unaccompanied children are given particular care and priority. As I said, Clause 1 of the Bill will not affect those arrangements. Moreover, the short procedure, which is an accelerated determination procedure for the initial consideration of asylum claims by the Home Office, is not applied to claims from unaccompanied children and we have no plans to do so.
Children are always given sufficient time to provide evidence to support their claim before an initial decision is reached. I should also state that the immigration appeal tribunal has recently said as regards unaccompanied children:
628
"We are satisfied that the Home Office has taken, and continues to take, the utmost care in assessing each individual case on its merits".
I now turn to Amendment No. 58 which is coupled with Amendment No. 101. Is that right?
Lord Brightman: My Lords, it is coupled with the interpretation clause. That is perfectly correct.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no conflict between our careful approach to applications from unaccompanied children and the proposals to extend the special appeals procedure. Children are not exempt from the current provisions for accelerated appeals, although the number of certified cases is very small. We expect the number to remain small. The amendment will not exempt children entirely from the accelerated appeals arrangements. Instead, it will leave them in the anomalous position of being the only category of claimants to whom the 1993 Act provisions applied.
Applying the accelerated appeals procedure to children is consistent with the UNHCR guidelines which emphasise the need for speedy determination of their status. Indeed, it is for that reason that appeals made by unaccompanied children already receive priority listing by the Lord Chancellor's Department. If a child has no claim to refugee status, the speedy return to its family in the country of origin can only be beneficial. Clause 1 will assist in that process. That has to be considered in conjunction with the amount of time that may be necessary for that claim to be made in the initial stages of stating a claim for asylum.
The Government recognise that applications from unaccompanied children raise sensitive issues and, for that reason, we do not propose to certify particularly complex or compassionate cases. Each case would, of course, be considered on its merits. That is particularly important. I say that in response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon who was concerned about taking a general view of the situation while recognising fully the particular situation of a particular claimant. That is properly recognised in our procedures.
The appropriateness of using the accelerated procedures would be given careful scrutiny in the light of the circumstances of each individual case. We would take into account a child's individual circumstances, including his ability to understand his situation and to take responsibility for his actions. It would not be reasonable, for example, to expect a young child to know whether the passport he had been given was valid, but the same might not be true in the case of a young person of 17. It is right that the Secretary of State should make those judgments on the merits of the individual case. Certification, and therefore the accelerated appeal procedure, could clearly be appropriate in some cases. I cannot accept, therefore, that all unaccompanied children should be exempt from the provisions of Clause 1, but I must stress that the specialist caseworkers who consider claims from unaccompanied children would only certify a refused claim when that was clearly appropriate in the individual case.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The noble Baroness has said that the present safeguards would largely obtain even if Clause 1 were to be accepted by the House. Will she comment on what is at the heart of our concerns, which is that the accelerated procedure (followed by the accelerated appeal procedure under Clause 1) would make it particularly difficult for a child who might need to get records from the home country to make out the case for being treated as an asylum seeker? That is what is at the heart of our fears about Clause 1.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have dealt with that point but I shall deal with it again. Because we have special procedures in place for children, the time to which the noble Baroness refers is allowed for in the initial stages. I am referring to the time that is needed to gain the documentation and to secure the information to support the claim. That time is allowed for in the initial stages. Certification follows that; it does not precede it. That is why we believe that the special procedures are an important safeguard. Albeit that that was one of only three arguments that I deployed on the first occasion, I believe that it is important. We do not accelerate the initial decisions. That is where the time is material. I am referring to difficult cases where a child does not and cannot understand, and where the time that is needed to support the claim may need to be prolonged. That is allowed for.
I turn now to Amendment No. 101 which concerns the definition of a "young unaccompanied asylum seeker". First, the amendment is relevant only if any of the new clauses on unaccompanied children in Amendments Nos. 58 to 62 is adopted. The Government oppose all of those amendments for the reasons that I have given.
Secondly, we consider that the definition proposed in Amendment No. 101 is unnecessary. Indeed, we believe that it is unhelpful. The Immigration Rules define "a child", whether accompanied or not as:
"a person who is under 18 years of age or who, in the absence of documentary evidence, appears to be under that age".
That definition has the advantage of giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt. It makes clear that unless there is documentary evidence such as a valid passport, a person who appears to be under 18 should be treated as such. On the other hand, Amendment No. 101 makes no allowance for appearance and would make it more difficult for the young applicant to establish that he qualified to be treated as a child. The current definition of a child in the Immigration Rules contains the right balance and we believe that it should be retained.
There is a further difficulty with the amendment. In each case it would raise the issue of whether an adult who is here with the child is capable of looking after him. Such issues have no place in asylum legislation. They are legitimate in terms of child protection, but the Children Act and other legislation provide the necessary measures for safeguarding a child's welfare. The effect of the amendment could be to invite abusive claims that a child's parent or other accompanying adult was unable to look after him simply in order to bring him within
630
the definition and to prevent him from being returned with his family to his own country. For those reasons, we have difficulty with Amendment No. 101.
I assure my noble friend Lady Gardner that she can be entirely satisfied on both the questions that she raised. My noble friend Lady Seccombe referred to reuniting children with their families. The Government's view is that unaccompanied children whose asylum applications have failed—after the special procedures consideration—should wherever possible be returned to the care of their family in the country of origin. That is in line with the principle of family unity which is contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 49/172 of 1994 reaffirmed the importance of family reunification. If that was not possible, consideration might be given to whether it would be possible to return the child to other suitable carers. The Government consider that it is better for children who have no basis of stay in the United Kingdom to return home voluntarily as that is the least stressful arrangement. The Home Office encourages that option. Only where voluntary departure cannot be agreed are steps taken to enforce return.
The Government made it clear during the passage of the 1993 Act that they will not seek to remove a child who is under 18 years of age unless it is possible to put in place acceptable reception arrangements in the country of origin. The Government remain firmly committed to that policy on humanitarian grounds. I therefore believe that the provisions that we have in place recognise fully all the concerns that have been expressed in the House about children, particularly unaccompanied children, seeking asylum.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I can be brief. First, we are not concerned with any acceleration of asylum procedures. All that Clause 1 does—the clause from which I wish to exclude young unaccompanied children—is to cut the right of asylum seekers to appeal to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. It does nothing else. If I am wrong on that, I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me. My amendment is designed merely to preserve the existing right of young unaccompanied children to appeal to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal—that is, a right to appeal if their claim is not frivolous or vexatious. The amendment does not seek to do anything more than that.
I had intended to give your Lordships the numbers who would be affected by the provisions of the amendment. According to the Home Office figures, in 1995 only 486 unaccompanied children aged 17 and under applied for asylum, and only 99 children applied for asylum after entry. That is a total of 585 children out of a total tally of asylum seekers of 44,000 during that year. Your Lordships will see that the numbers involved are a drop in the ocean.
When making up your minds on this amendment I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that the amendment is strongly supported by the Refugee Council, a Government-sponsored body, which above all should know what the problems are. I understand that the definition provided in the amendment is that which has been operating since April 1994 under the panel of

631
advisers which was set up by the Home Office. I do not think that there is anything objectionable in its wording. In the circumstances and having regard to the strength of view of the Refugee Council, I beg leave to seek the opinion of your Lordships.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kintore, E.

Avebury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bancroft, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brightman, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNally, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clancarty, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Onslow, E.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Redesdale, L.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Rix, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Seear, B.

Gregson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey,E.

Serota, B.

Halsbury, E.

Sewel, L.

Hampton, L.

Shannon, E.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Healey, L.

Stafford, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tenby, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hylton, L.

Thurso, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Inchyra, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wigoder, L.

632

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Addison, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Ailsa, M.

Layton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Liverpool, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L

Lucas, L.

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Bemers, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Boardman, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brain, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burnham, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Newall, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Courtown, E.

Norrie, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Northesk, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

O'Cathain, B.

Cromer, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denman, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Downshire, M.

Pike, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Feldman, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Goold, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Granard, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Slim, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Strange, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harrowby, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hogg, B.

Vivian, L.

Holderness, L.

Wakeham, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Howe, E.

Westbury, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wolfson, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wynford, L.

Kingsland, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 59:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

DETENTION OF CHILDREN
(". Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act (detention of persons liable to examination or removal) shall not apply to a young unaccompanied asylum seeker unless it appears that he is likely to abscond if he is not detained under the authority of an immigration officer.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 59 relates to the detention of young unaccompanied asylum seekers of 17 years of age or younger. The amendment seeks to insert the following new clause:
"Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act … shall not apply to a young unaccompanied asylum seeker unless it appears that he is likely to abscond if he is not detained under the authority of an immigration officer".
The 1971 Act empowers an immigration officer to authorise the detention of a refugee pending a decision as to his right of entry. This provision applies to children as well as adults, whether accompanied or unaccompanied. Detention takes place in an immigration detention centre or a secure hostel run by the Immigration Service. Sometimes it takes place in police cells or prisons for short spells. In none of those places is there any special provision for unaccompanied children, or indeed children at all. My amendment provides that a child refugee who is unaccompanied should not be locked up by the Immigration Service unless it appears that he is likely to abscond if not detained; that is to say—I use the definition in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary—
"If he is liable to go away secretly or fly from the law".
According to the Refugee Council, over 50 unaccompanied children have been detained by the Immigration Service since April 1994 while their applications for asylum were being considered. To their great credit, the Government have issued directions for dealing with the detention of child refugees in a document issued by the Home Office entitled Immigration Service Instructions to Staff on detention. It states in paragraph 12:
"Authority at a minimum of Inspector level is required for the detention of children under 18, whether accompanied or not. Once authorized, detention should be reviewed by an Assistant Director within 24 hours".
My amendment seeks to fill the gap left by the Home Office instructions relating to unaccompanied children by specifying the circumstances in which detention may properly take place. If the amendment is not accepted by the Government, there will be no law, no practice directions, no guidance whatever for an immigration officer as to when it is proper to authorise detention. Surely he ought to be told, and surely the test should be: is the child likely to abscond, to go away secretly, or fly from the law? I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment. The number of young accompanied asylum seekers detained is not large, as the noble and learned Lord made clear; but, nevertheless, it is sufficiently large to arouse concern. I have the figure of some 54 young people who have been detained since
634
the Refugee Council panel of advisers was set up. Most of them of course have been 16 and 17 year-olds, but there have been some 15 year-olds.
I have two particular concerns. The first is that those young people are placed in centres which are primarily for adults. They are therefore in the setting which is appropriate for adults but which is by no means appropriate for young people. My second concern is that I understand that there is no formal education provision within those detention centres. Therefore young people are being deprived of any opportunity for education during that period. That appears to put this country in breach of Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We have been given a number of examples of children who have been detained. One of the points which strikes me, which bears on our debate on the previous amendment, is that in some cases the family situation is such that either one or both parents have been killed in a conflict. That means that such children are not merely in a strange country but may well have suffered the trauma of not just separation from, but the death of, other members of their family. It is wrong that such children should be detained in those circumstances.
I accept entirely the proviso which the noble and learned Lord included. There are circumstances in which it is right that such people should be detained, but unless that criterion is met, I do not believe that that is right. I am glad to support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I support the amendment. My name is to it. It must seem intolerable to all of us that children can be detained, and very often these children are in adult prisons. It seems even more wrong that they should have to mix with adults on these occasions. The numbers, as has been said by the previous two speakers, are very few. So it would not be so difficult to get these children dealt with in a different way, and I am sure that that is possible.
In locking up these children, we are going against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the UK is a signatory. It quite clearly states in Article 37:
"The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child … shall be used only as a measure of last resort for the shortest appropriate period of time … Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated … in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interests not to do so".
While these children are in adult prisons it is most unlikely that they are getting any education at all. Their needs are not being taken care of. The panel of advisers is strongly against this locking up of children. I think that the House must feel that it is totally wrong that this should be going on in what we think of as a civilised country. I have great pleasure in supporting the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, in some ways we seem to be treating young people who are asylum seekers in a way which is worse than the way in which we treat young criminals. Under Section 38 of

635
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, children may not be detained in police stations. They must be moved to local authority centres unless that would not be adequate to protect—is the Minister listening?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I listen all the time, but of course I have to take notes while people are speaking. I was taking a note at that particular moment. I have heard what the noble Baroness has said so far.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that. I wish to make a point about young juveniles who are detained. They may not be detained in police stations unless local authority accommodation would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from that child. I feel that a similar standard should be applied to asylum seekers who have committed no crime; against whom a crime may well have been committed; and who, by being detained in a detention centre, are not receiving the education that they should. They are being detained with adults who may bully them or molest them in other ways. It is clearly inappropriate that children should be detained in detention centres rather than with foster parents or in local authority accommodation.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, detention is of course a serious situation. It may be even more traumatic for a child. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could put this matter into perspective. What percentage is currently detained? How many does that represent? How many are children? I have read that only one child is involved. Is it correct that the majority of those in detention have already had their claim for asylum refused? Are we dealing with cases that are not straightforward? So do we need to legislate specifically for such a small number? Surely they could be dealt with as very special cases.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the subject of families. Will my noble friend the Minister tell us whether the children who are detained are detained because they are with their parents? It may be better for children to be with their parents than to be taken away and put in a place on their own.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as I understand it, only 1 per cent. of all asylum seekers is detained. A recent spot check—I am told on 19th June—showed that only one child under 18 was detained. If that is so, we need to bear that factor in mind.
It is also very important to remember that if a child comes here and is not genuinely seeking asylum—we know that there are a number of such children—it may not be in the child's interest to allow him or her simply to abscond and to get lost in the community. The child will find it difficult to live and may not have any money. The circumstances may be bad for the child. I should have thought that in such a case detention would be an advantage. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say, but I believe that it is a matter on which we need to be very careful.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will agree that it is of the essence
636
of a concept of a right that it is equally valid if it applies to one person or to 10,000. If by law it can be done to one, it can be done to many others as well. John Wilkes was a single individual, and not a particularly deserving individual at that. However, the principle that another place could not override a free election, which arose in his case, was of general application and the unworthiness of the smallness of a single individual was no ground for sweeping it away.
The practice of detention is not widely used by other states which are signatories to the UN convention. The UN Commission on Human Rights and Amnesty International have considered the matter. For reasons which a number of speakers have mentioned, it is contrary to a good many of our international obligations. It is contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, especially if children are detained with adults and if, as regularly goes with detention with adults, they receive no education. Of course, with the debate about proof of age, many people are detained as adults who in the view of many expert people should not be.
There then arises the question of whether such detention without any procedure that can be used to review it is contrary to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I engaged about the clause on the first day of Report. The words were agreed:
"No one shall be deprived of his liberty … save in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law".
Last Thursday I asked the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whether for the detentions prescribed by statute we have a procedure or a power. When I read the words "a procedure prescribed by law", my understanding, subject to correction, is that one is dealing with a procedure for reviewing the legality of the detention; that the mere conferring of a power without any procedure to check its exercise does not come within the letter of the law. I should be most interested if anyone learned in the law, as I am not, could tell me whether that reading is correct. Subject to correction, it is my reading.
As recently as four years ago in this Chamber we used to hear Ministers of this Government proclaiming how proud this Government were of their ability to abide by their international legal obligations and how much they wished other governments would match the standards which they set. That does not seem to be the case now. Whenever we cite any international legal obligation we receive very much the standard reply—that the Government are confident they are not in breach of their international legal obligations.
However, it is not the Government's task to judge whether they are in breach of their legal obligations. That is something to be done by courts, whether national or international. So if the Government believe that they are not in breach of their legal obligations, that is simply their private opinion. It has no more status than the private opinions of any other litigant, and those are often wrong. It is because on questions of this kind the Government so regularly mistake their private opinion for fact that they are having such an unfortunate series of encounters with the courts. They ought to consider that their view of the matter is not necessarily infallible;

637
they should not risk resembling the servant who offered an open testimonial and displayed it with pride, but when read, it stated, "During his period of service with me, Mr. So-and-so discharged his duties entirely to his own satisfaction".
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that I am in order in intervening but the noble Earl issued a challenge and mentioned me to answer it. Perhaps I may remind him that procedure is laid down under the Immigration Act 1971, Schedule 2, paragraph 16, which the amendment proposes to leave out. That paragraph refers to the procedure in paragraph 2, and we know that there is a mass of procedure governing the whole of this matter.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, was concerned about the need for children to be reunited with their parents. Perhaps I may point out to her that the amendment deals only with unaccompanied children. Therefore, any child accompanied by an adult—the phrase used is "a responsible adult", and one assumes that the child's parents would come into that category—would not be caught by the amendment. I fully sympathise with the noble Baroness's wish but I do not believe that the amendment addresses that issue. It addresses only the issue of children specifically not so accompanied.
As regards the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, I believe that there is no Member of this House with more knowledge of what is involved in keeping people in detention. As a former senior police officer she is well aware of what she is talking about. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said, at any time about 600 young people under the age of 18 are kept in detention while their cases are being considered. That has been the situation since about 1994. Of that number, some 54 have been dealt with and have received advice from the Refugee Council. I understand that of that latter group a substantial number is kept in detention for six or seven months. It is true that most are kept only for a few days but a substantial number has been kept for longer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the significance of what happens when a youngster under the age of 18 is kept with adults. All those children to whom I referred are detained with adults. The noble Baroness mentioned the difficulty of breaking off their education. None of those children has received any education; that appears to be true of them all.
Therefore, in pressing the amendment we are entitled to ask for a reassurance from the Government that children under the age of 18 will not be kept with adults, which in many cases may put them at grave risk. Secondly, I believe that we are entitled to ask for an assurance that in so far as is possible—none of us is asking for the impossible—those young people will be allowed to continue their education.
638
I strongly support the amendment. I believe that the objection raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, has been met and that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, should receive significant consideration.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly in support of the amendment. When I was at the Refugee Council some time ago I visited Campsfield House. I was surprised to find a young man of 14 or 15 in detention. When I queried that with the officials in charge of Campsfield House they stated that the reason he was there was that his elder brother, aged about 20, was being detained and they thought that they had better keep the two boys together.
I appreciate that the amendment would not cover that young man because he was not unaccompanied; he had an elder brother. However, I believe that in principle there was something wrong with keeping in an adult centre a young man of 14 or 15—Campsfield House is a prison—simply to keep him with his elder brother. But at the Refugee Council, when the panel of advisers was initiated, we discovered through the reporting mechanism that a number of young persons were being detained in various centres in different parts of the country. That certainly gave us a great deal of cause for concern.
In the case of the Campsfield House pair of brothers to whom I referred, it seemed to me that the answer was that neither of them should have been detained and then everything would have been on a sensible basis. However, there is one problem. If a young person is unaccompanied, it is appropriate and proper that he should have accommodation. But I do not think, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, hinted, that the detention of a person can be justified by accommodation difficulties. It would be a lot more humane and proper to look after a young person in other accommodation, perhaps local authority or voluntary organisation accommodation, as an alternative to putting him in detention. This is a very sensible amendment which I hope the House will support.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that those who have spoken in favour of the amendment would have justified their case rather more strongly if, in the course of speaking to the amendment, they had not described a situation which simply does not pertain in this country on the scale which has been referred to.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to our international obligations. First, our record in relation to adhering to international obligations is very good in this country. The noble Earl is all too ready to note those few cases where the Government have lost a challenge on these issues, but the vast majority of cases, and in particular asylum cases, are won by the Government. Therefore, there is some imbalance in the criticisms made by the noble Earl.
Secondly, the procedure described by law is satisfied by the 1971 Act which confers the power to detain as confirmed by Strasbourg. There is also a right to apply

639
for bail in all cases plus, of course, the supervision of judicial review which, again, the noble Earl was not ready to recognise.
The noble Earl said that we are not consistent with our obligations under the ECHR. That is simply not the case. This is not just our law. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed that the 1971 Act is indeed consistent with the convention.
Amendment No. 59 would exempt unaccompanied children who are seeking asylum from the powers of detention contained in the 1971 Act, unless it appears that the child is likely to abscond if he is not detained. That is the Government's policy in any event. I recognise that this is an important and sensitive issue. But I hope that those who have put their name to the amendment and others who have spoken during the debate will be able to derive some reassurance when I set out our approach to this issue.
It is the Government's stated policy that unaccompanied children under the age of 18 are detained only as a very last resort. Detention is authorised only where there are good grounds for believing that the minor would not comply with the terms of temporary admission, or to facilitate removal. Moreover, when it is considered necessary to detain a child who is under 18, whether accompanied or not, authority at a minimum of inspector level is required for the initial decision to detain, and this must be reviewed by an assistant director within 24 hours.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to a spot check of case records on 19th June which indicated that only one asylum applicant who we were satisfied was under 18 years of age was in detention. It would be wrong for me to go into details about the case, which is now being considered by the Asylum Directorate. But I can say that the person is 17 years old and claimed asylum after he had entered the country illegally. That confirms that detention of young unaccompanied children claiming asylum is indeed very rare. There is therefore nothing between the movers of the amendment and the Government in terms of approach. The amendment reflects our current practice in cases involving detention.
However, we do not think it would be appropriate to include a provision of this nature in statute. First, the Government consider that the Immigration Service must retain the discretion to detain where absolutely necessary. I remind the House that fewer than 1 per cent. of asylum seekers are currently detained, the majority of whom have already had their asylum applications refused, a point made by my noble friend Lady Rawlings. Moreover, Schedule 1 to the Bill extends the right to apply for bail even further. Any passenger who has been detained for longer than seven days will be able to apply for bail to the appellate authorities, and detention may also be challenged in the courts by way of an application for habeas corpus or once a case is before the courts on an application for judicial review. This applies to all detained applicants, including unaccompanied children.
Secondly, the amendment refers specifically to unaccompanied children who are seeking asylum. Our approach to the detention of children, which I have explained to the House, applies equally to
640
unaccompanied children who have not sought asylum. I believe that they are also of concern to us all. We do not consider that it is either appropriate or necessary to make a distinction between asylum and non-asylum applicants in terms of our approach to detention.
This amendment would distinguish between different kinds of asylum seeker—those who are port applicants or illegal entrants and those who are subject to deportation action. It would only affect the detention of the former—that is, port applicants or illegal entrants—and not those subject to deportation action.
There is general guidance on detention under the Immigration Act which applies to all those detained, including children. Detention is always regarded as a last resort and factors which are taken into account include risk of absconding; previous failure to abide by terms of admission; whether the applicant has close ties within the United Kingdom; and, indeed, criminal conduct or other matters which may make detention appropriate in a particular case. Children are not detained unless they fall within the existing guidance, and only then as a last resort.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to his visit to Campsfield. I think there may well be a very good argument for keeping a younger brother together with his older brother. I do not believe that it is right for the noble Lord or for this House to second-guess the serious consideration which would have been given to the case of both brothers and to the case of the younger brother in particular.
I also think that it is quite wrong to assume that the older brother was there for no good reason, because the noble Lord suggested that even he should not be there. I suggest that a 17 year-old or even an older young person is quite capable of falling foul of the conditions necessary for him not to be detained.
As I have said, fewer than 1 per cent. of all asylum seekers are currently detained. On 7th June, 751 asylum seekers were detained. As I said, that represents about 1 per cent. of the total number. The great majority of those in detention have already had their claims refused. Of the 751 in detention on 7th June: 181 were awaiting initial decision; 400 were awaiting the results of appeals; and 170 were awaiting removal.
Therefore, children are detained only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort and almost always because there is a serious risk of absconding. The Government have no plans to change that approach. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, will, first, recognise that we genuinely concern ourselves with the welfare of young people seeking asylum, whether accompanied or not; and, secondly, will feel able to withdraw the amendment in the light of the assurances that I have given to the House.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the detention of child refugees was rightly described by the noble Baroness on 4th July, 1995, at col. 1080 of Hansard as a "vexed issue". It is indeed a vexed issue. I should like to study what has been said during this short debate. I hope that the Government will consider giving a little more

641
guidance to immigration officers as to the circumstances in which it may be considered proper to detain an unaccompanied child. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 60:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

REFERENCE TO PANEL OF ADVISERS
(". If it comes to the knowledge of a local authority or a health authority that a young unaccompanied asylum seeker has not been or may not have been referred to the Refugee Council's Panel of advisers for young unaccompanied asylum seekers such authority shall notify the Panel accordingly.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the panel of advisers for unaccompanied children. The panel is universally recognised as a highly successful innovation and the Government deserve great credit for setting it up and funding it. The panel's function is admirably described on page 35 of a practice guide issued by the Department of Health:
"The Advisers are recruited from the communities from which most children will be expected to come. They are selected for their suitability for the role as adviser and are given the necessary training. When an unaccompanied child applies for asylum either at the port of entry or in country, immigration officials will notify both the appropriate social services department and the co-ordinator of the panel, who will offer the services of an adviser to the child. One main function of the adviser is to ensure that the social services department takes the child's wishes and cultural considerations into account. Further, that the child understands as far as possible, taking his age into account, what is happening and what choices he has".
The object of the amendment is to bolster the work of the panel by ensuring as far as possible that unaccompanied child refugees, who for one reason or another slip through the net, are in due course notified to the panel. The amendment says:
"If it comes to the knowledge of a local authority or a health authority that a young unaccompanied asylum seeker has not been or may not have been referred to the Refugee Council's Panel of advisers for young unaccompanied asylum seekers such authority shall notify the Panel accordingly".
There is a need for such a provision. Examples given to me by the Refugee Legal Centre include a child refugee from Zaire who arrived unaccompanied in this country in 1994 but who did not come to the notice of the panel until 1996. The child had in fact been placed by a local authority with foster parents while his refugee status was investigated without the help that the panel of advisers could have given.
There was also the case of the child refugee from Ghana who arrived in this country in November 1994 but who was not referred to the panel until March 1995. In the meantime the child was sleeping on the floor of a solicitor's office—of all places—while his claim for asylum proceeded in a leisurely and unproductive way without the help that the panel of advisers could have given. I do not suppose for a moment that those cases are isolated examples.
A somewhat similar amendment was moved and withdrawn in Committee. It was described by the Minister as being complicated and burdensome. The
642
present amendment differs from the previous one in two important respects. First, the new amendment applies only to unaccompanied children whereas the previous amendment would have applied to all child refugees whether accompanied or unaccompanied.
Secondly, the new amendment only requires a reference to be made to the panel of advisers if the local or health authority concerned with the child knows that the child has not been referred to the panel. Otherwise, there is no duty on a local authority or a medical authority to do anything under the amendment. The previous amendment required every statutory authority to notify the panel of advisers as a matter of course whenever a child refugee came within its ambit—or, at any rate, that was the interpretation put upon it by the Minister.
The amendment can only do good. It will cost nothing, except the price of a single telephone call per child when necessary. It supports the Government's own scheme for helping young unaccompanied asylum seekers. It cannot be described as complicated, nor can it be called burdensome. Therefore, the only objections raised in Committee have been met.
Of course, I accept what the noble Baroness said in Committee—namely, that arrangements are in place that should ensure that every unaccompanied child aged 17 or under who arrives in this country as an asylum seeker is referred without delay to the panel. However, it is not difficult to suppose that some children will slip through the net; for example, a child may not be identified by an immigration officer as being an unaccompanied asylum seeker under the age of 18 and, therefore, a candidate for the panel of advisers. I have tried to draft an amendment which is helpful and which will not in any way cut across government policy. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I hope that the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord will prove to be uncontentious. It is agreed by all in the field that the work of the Refugee Council's panel of advisers is excellent; indeed, it is highly regarded. The Minister said in Committee that the panel is valued by all those working with unaccompanied children and has proved to be another positive development in this sensitive area.
As the noble and learned Lord said, it is not a burdensome amendment. If the work of the panel of advisers is so highly regarded, it seems to me that every effort should be made to ensure that unaccompanied young people take advantage of the facilities that it can provide. As with previous amendments, it may be argued that the numbers involved are small but, even so, if the amendment would help to ensure that a greater number of unaccompanied young people are able to use such facilities, then surely it will do something which is good. I hope therefore that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment or at least indicate that she is willing to respond to the concerns expressed.
Baroness David: My Lords, I moved the amendment in Committee to which the noble and learned Lord referred. It was very late at night and, therefore, it is

643
possible that it was not completely understood. In the light of what the noble Baroness said on that occasion, I believe that the amendment has been modified to meet her criticisms. It is an important issue. Children can slip through the net. For example, someone may come here on a visitor's visa, outstay that visa and then stay here illegally. Ultimately, it is possible that such a young person may find himself in the care of a local authority or indeed of foster parents. It is most important that such young people should not be here illegally and that the panel is able to give them help to prevent that.
Prompt referrals help to avoid complications which may prove costly and difficult to resolve at a later date. It is a very modest amendment and, as the noble and learned Lord said, it would cost only the price of a telephone call. I hope very much that the Minister can accept it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the loss of Amendment No. 58 and the decision by the noble and learned Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 59 makes this amendment all the more important. In response to Amendment No. 58 the Minister said—I hope that I correctly paraphrase her remarks—that the procedures in the first stage of seeking asylum were ones that were thoroughly undertaken on behalf of a young person. Clearly, if such procedures are thoroughly applied then the more advice the young person can receive during the first stage the more likely it is that justice will be done.
As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, many of those children do not speak the language of our country and know very little of our procedures. Therefore, on the grounds that Amendment No. 58 was not accepted by the House, there is a stronger case for accepting Amendment No. 60. Similarly, Amendment No. 59, which was withdrawn by the noble and learned Lord, also strengthens the case for the acceptance of this amendment. I say that because our discussions on Amendment No. 59 indicated that, in some cases, a young person may find himself in detention despite the fact that he is under the age of 18. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that such young people should have the support of an outside body and assistance from someone who will listen to them and try to understand what they are saying; and, indeed, be something of a comfort and support to them. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider accepting the amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I worked at the Refugee Council when the panel of advisers was established. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who played a key part in getting the whole idea accepted and approved by this House. Occasionally a young unaccompanied asylum seeker has slipped through the net. In my experience the system works well on the whole. Certainly immigration officials and other officials at the Home Office who have come into contact with young unaccompanied asylum seekers have ensured that a quick and effective referral has been made. However, sometimes an unaccompanied young asylum seeker has showed up, after having entered the country, and at that point a referral to the panel of advisers has not always occurred. Noble Lords may ask how we know about that. Occasionally such individuals are discovered, but it is
644
also likely that occasionally some such individuals enter the country and are not caught by the procedures that are in place. I am quite certain that the wording of this proposed new clause is exactly what the Government want the policy to be. I am quite certain that no one would disagree with that; the question is whether this is the most effective way of achieving that. I believe that it is, and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I declare an interest as an active member of the British Red Cross for many years. One of the most successful activities of the Red Cross is its tracing service. The Home Office notifies the British Red Cross of all unaccompanied children for inclusion on its register. The Government encourage children to make use of that service. Perhaps it could be extended rather than introducing new legislation with regard to the panel of advisers.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the difficulty at Report stage is that because one cannot speak after the Minister one does not know whether one is earnestly trying to persuade the Minister to accept something she has already decided to accept, or whether one is proposing arguments to resist arguments she is not going to advance. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider that this new clause would not provide anything for young children which it is not already Her Majesty's Government's intention that they should receive. It would merely come into effect if that intention had in some way been frustrated. It cannot therefore be regarded as adding any administrative or other burden. If there are few cases, that suggests that the burden will be even less. The cases of those individuals may be difficult. The help that has been mentioned is something they were intended to receive. The amendment is designed to ensure that they will get it in all cases. I hope that my noble friend will be friendly in her reception of it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I say to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that we are talking about means to ends here and not ends. We all want to see young people in this category referred to the panel.
Amendment No. 60 would place a duty on local authorities and health authorities to refer young unaccompanied asylum seekers to the panel of advisers if there was any doubt as to whether the child had already been referred. The panel of advisers is a non-statutory body administered by the Refugee Council. The advisers act as friends to unaccompanied children who are actually seeking asylum in the United Kingdom and assist them in their dealings with the Home Office, social services and other agencies. In the past financial year the panel dealt with over 600 children. The panel is valued by those working with these unaccompanied children and has proved to be a positive development in this sensitive area.
I should stress that the panel was set up to help those unaccompanied children who make a claim for refugee status. It was never intended to help children from abroad who have simply been abandoned in the United Kingdom. As I indicated earlier, general welfare

645
issues are covered under the Children Act. Local authorities of course have a duty to look after children in their area who are in need.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, has referred to a particular case. That case would fall absolutely within the category I have described. The child was not an asylum seeker. The child had entered the country by illegal means—as the noble Baroness pointed out—and was probably an illegal over-stayer. The child was in the hands of someone in the country. The welfare of that child would be a matter for the authorities because at that stage the child was not an asylum seeker and may not even potentially be an asylum seeker.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to children who may have come here as visitors and overstayed—she has given an example today—and said that it was important that someone helped them to establish their immigration status. I agree that it is important that children's immigration status should be clarified. But we should not confuse that issue with the issue of unaccompanied children who are seeking asylum. These amendments seek to address that issue. Nor would it be appropriate for a child to make a claim for asylum simply as a means of prolonging his stay in the United Kingdom. It is recognised that asylum seeking children may be potentially vulnerable because of their circumstances before coming here, and it is therefore appropriate that they should have the special assistance of the Refugee Council's panel of advisers. That is not the case where a child is simply here without a family to look after him.
Well over half of all referrals to the panel are made in the first instance by the Immigration Service or the Asylum Directorate. Our special unit dealing with unaccompanied children always checks to see whether a new case has been referred, and if there is any doubt it will contact the panel. The amendment would place a statutory duty on schools, housing departments, social services departments, GPs, hospitals, child psychologists and others to notify the panel in any case where there is doubt as to whether a young unaccompanied asylum seeker has been referred to them. For some of these agencies the amendment could raise difficult issues of confidentiality. It could also lead to children being asked unwelcome or inappropriate questions about their immigration status. Let us consider the child in school. There may be no question of that child seeking asylum. The child may never have thought of seeking asylum. However, in some way the teacher may become an interrogator. The head teacher may become an interrogator. There will be phone calls made all over the place. The welfare of that child is important and the school and the authorities have a responsibility for that. However, we are talking here about asylum seekers.
The Asylum Directorate liaises regularly with local authorities to increase understanding of the procedures for handling these sensitive cases. Staff from the special casework unit have attended a number of meetings and seminars with social workers to talk about the issues. Directors of social services in London, where most of the unaccompanied children live, have been reminded
646
of the importance of referring children to the panel. These are effective and practical ways of ensuring that children are referred where appropriate.
While I understand the sentiments behind the amendment, I am not sure that to put an absolute legal obligation on all these agencies to inform the authorities is necessary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, gave an example of a child coming here in 1994 who was not referred to the panel. It was a real case. The unaccompanied children's team in the Home Office was only established in May 1995. It now ensures that all applicants are referred to the panel. On seeking asylum status the child is automatically referred to the panel. The examples mentioned by the noble and learned Lord do not support the case for this amendment now that those measures are in place. All cases are referred to the Home Office unit which ensures that all of those cases are or have been referred to the panel. Those arrangements are in place. There appears to be some confusion between the welfare of a child and the care of a child who is not an asylum seeker, and those who are asylum seekers. The moment a child becomes an asylum seeker the panel is automatically notified.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, recognised that amendments have been adjusted since the Committee stage. I am grateful for the work that has been done. However, the movers of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon have not established the existence of a significant problem because, as I said, measures are now in place and it is unlikely that any child anywhere will fall through the net. Even if a school or an authority identified such a child, and in addressing the needs and the care of that child it became obvious that the child should be an asylum seeker, or was an asylum seeker, the moment that is discovered the new system comes into operation.
That is not a sufficient basis for creating a new statutory duty for a wide range of bodies. We believe that it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and are fearful of the burden that would be laid on all the bodies; namely, the duty, in all cases, to refer asylum seekers to a panel, with the duplication that would exist if a particular child were in school, under the care of a doctor, in hospital, and so on. Of paramount importance is the care of the child, not necessarily that the child is an asylum seeker.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, she may have slightly misunderstood the amendment. There is no question of the health authority, local authorities or anyone else having to interrogate children. The amendment states:
"If it comes to the knowledge of a local authority or a health authority",
and so on. It is entirely passive. No duty is thrown on any of the services unless the suspicion that a child has not been referred comes to light. There is no interrogation whatever.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.

647
I wish to make the point that if it came to the notice of any of those agencies that the child was an asylum seeker, under the present arrangements that fact would have been picked up and notified to the panel. There are all the informal arrangements. Social services departments telephone the Home Office from time to time about a child and so do health authorities and others. We prefer to leave it to the good will of authorities if it came to their notice that a child was an asylum seeker. The very fact that a child was an asylum seeker means that the authorities would know of it and a reference to the panel would have been made.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I believe that my proper course is to read what has been said during the course of this short debate. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 61:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

DETERMINATION OF AGE OF ASYLUM SEEKER
(". If apart from any travel documents held by a young unaccompanied asylum seeker a doubt would arise as to whether such child is or is not over the age of 18 years, such child shall not be assumed to be over the age of 18 years by reason only that the travel documents or any of them held by such child so state.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, together with this amendment I ask leave to speak also to Amendment No. 62. The amendments deal with the difficult question of the age of a young unaccompanied asylum seeker. Age is very important because special procedures and practice directions apply to an asylum seeker who is under the age of 18. I can give your Lordships five examples. The first is that once an immigration officer establishes that he is dealing with an unaccompanied asylum seeker who is under 18, he is required to alert the social services department of the local authority responsible for the area in which the entry point lies. Secondly, the Department of Health has issued a practice guide devoted entirely to unaccompanied asylum seekers under the age of 18. Thirdly, unaccompanied asylum seekers under the age of 18 have access to the Refugee Council's panel of advisers, as your Lordships know. Fourthly, there are special immigration rules issued by the Home Office which apply to asylum seekers under the age of 18. An important and well known rule is that interviews with a child under 18 have to be conducted in the presence of an independent adult. Fifthly, immigration officers are not supposed to send an unaccompanied asylum seeker to a detention centre if he is under 18, except as a last resort.
Amendment No. 61 provides that:
"If apart from any travel documents held by a young unaccompanied asylum seeker a doubt would arise as to whether such child is or is not over the age of 18 years, such child shall not be assumed to be over the age of 18 years by reason only that the travel documents or any of them held by such child so state".
I am told by the Refugee Council and the Refugee Legal Centre that passports not infrequently exaggerate the age of an asylum seeker. The reason seems to be that some
648
countries will not issue a passport to a person who is under the age of majority, which may be 18 years. So the asylum seeker arrives here with a passport saying that he is 20 when really he is only 16.
I have been given a number of examples by the Refugee Council and the Refugee Legal Centre of what may happen. In 1994 a refugee came from Angola, passport age 19, real age 16; he spent two-and-a-half years in a detention centre before his real age was established. Similar cases include a refugee in 1995 from Nigeria, passport age 23, real age 17, who spent almost a year in detention, another refugee from Nigeria in 1994, passport age 19, real age 16, who spent five months in detention, and a refugee from west Africa, passport age 29, real age 15, who was detained for three months; all until their real ages were established.
I turn to Amendment No. 62, which is intended to speed up the immigration process. As the leader in The Times said on Saturday in relation to immigration:
"It cannot be beyond the powers of invention for Britain to speed up its procedures".
My invention for speeding up immigration procedures and so avoid wasting time ascertaining the age of an asylum seeker in cases where it is relevant is Amendment No. 62. The amendment reads:
"The Secretary of State shall have power to establish a panel of paediatricians to enable him when he thinks fit to refer a child claiming to be a young unaccompanied asylum seeker to a member of such panel for the purpose of expressing an opinion whether such child is or is not over the age of 18 years. The opinion of such paediatrician shall be final in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary".
I wish to emphasise that the establishment of the panel and the use made of it is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The members of the panel will be selected by the Secretary of State. The amendment places in the hands of the Secretary of State a facility which he can use or not use, as he thinks fit. In my submission, the amendment can only be helpful to the Home Office. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give it favourable consideration. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, at Committee stage we discussed the difficult question of establishing the age of a young person, particularly when there was some doubt about whether the person was over or under the age of 18. I had some exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who resisted any means of determination which would somehow be invasive, particularly of the body of anyone concerned.
The proposals now before us are much more modest than those discussed in Committee. Amendment No. 61 simply asks that the travel document be not taken as in any way conclusive as to the age of a young unaccompanied asylum seeker. We have already given reasons why such people might travel on documents which give a false age and I do not wish to go over that ground again.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, made clear, Amendment No. 62 is a permissive power. It does not require the Secretary of State to do anything but gives him the power to establish such a panel and to refer a child claiming to be under the age of 18 to that

649
panel. It meets the concerns expressed by the Minister when we discussed the matter in Committee. It seems to me that the set of amendments is a good way of responding to the concerns we expressed. As we said in Committee, there are a number of cases of those whose age is undetermined but who later are discovered to have been under the age of 18. In the meantime, they may have been treated as adults for a considerable period. It is important that we find some way of resolving the difficulty. I hope that the noble Baroness will find the proposed procedure acceptable.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, am happy to support these amendments. The difficulty of determining the age of children is one that was extremely common in societies that did not have the benefit of large quantities of written records. Parish registers in this country were introduced precisely in order to bring an end to problems of exactly that type—which is why Thomas Cromwell remains to this day the great hero of English demographers.
There has to be some procedure one uses in the absence of written records. In this country they used to use the testimony of the oldest inhabitants. The difficulty with that was that it was not numerically determined in its memory of chronology. They remembered the "year of the great flood", or "the year when I broke my leg", which does not get us very much further. That will have been the state of affairs in the countries from which many asylum seekers come. That is why the age stated on their passports may not necessarily be correct. It will have been determined by methods that are rough and ready, very much like the ones we used to use here.
The method of determination by the oldest inhabitants is of course not available to us in the case of asylum seekers. The oldest inhabitants of the place where they were born are not here—and one presumes would hesitate to testify on their behalf if they were. So there has to be a method of refereeing the problem of determining age. My noble friend Lord Avebury made a very powerful case against the use of X-rays, which I understand also has the support of the BMA. If we are not to use that method—and in this case the Home Office is likely to be judge and jury in its own courts—the proposal for a panel of paediatricians to be appointed by the Home Secretary is the nearest way I can think of to bring the procedure under some sort of quasi-judicial regulation. It has to be done somehow. I cannot think of a better way of doing it than this. Therefore, I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, Amendment No. 61 seems to contain an accurate statement of the obvious. But whether we need to make that part of the law, I doubt. It is a statement of the obvious because we all know that travel documents are not conclusive as to age. They can be forged; or they can be the result of innocent misrepresentation. It is perfectly right that there should be no assumption about age just because it is stated in a travel document. It may provide prima facie evidence, but that is not the end of the matter.
650
I am not sure, and my noble friend Lady Blatch will tell us, whether or not the amendment is necessary. Even if the point is not covered in law at present, I am doubtful as to whether this is the sort of detail we need to go into. I personally think it is better to try to state principles instead of covering endless hypothetical cases. That is the doubt I have about Amendment No. 61, although it appears to be accurate in what it says.
As regards Amendment No. 62, there is a difficulty. Nature is notoriously inconsistent; and medical opinions vary very much in relation to the same circumstances. I am told that experience has shown that there is very often a margin of error of as much as two years between the reality of a situation and the medical opinion given. Doctors are just as likely to disagree as lawyers are. I happen to be the son of a doctor, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and I are lawyers. It is quite right that we should make that plain. By all means let there be some paediatricians available. But whether the opinion of one paediatrician should be final, I seriously doubt. In cases like this, very often it would be better to obtain a second or even a third opinion. This is another matter of administration which is best left to the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in Committee I spoke on points similar to those mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. We discussed them in considerable detail. I think we were all agreed that X-rays were not a desirable method of assessment.
I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in relation to Amendment No. 62. It is impossible for any one paediatrician to make a decision. I remember years ago going with my daughter to the hospital. We were rather concerned about her because she had not been well. The man weighed her and said, "You are absolutely perfectly proportioned in height and weight for the age of 10". She said, "But I am 12". The person she saw was an expert paediatrician at the children's hospital. So it is impossible to take the opinion of one paediatrician as completely binding. It is desirable, if there is a real doubt, that someone should check on those points.
Turning to Amendment No. 61, I find it very difficult to reconcile the point made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in relation to the fact that people quote their age as 18 in order to obtain a travel document. The noble and learned Lord went on to quote cases in which someone came into the country supposedly aged 29 and was then found to be 15; someone else came in supposedly aged 23 and might have been 16. Quoting your age as 29 or 23 is not the same as simply quoting it as 18 in order to obtain a travel document. I found that point somewhat hard to appreciate.
If people arrive with travel documents, some weight must attach to statements in those documents. The Home Office may then wish to question the information or have cause for doubt. As I said in

651
relation to determining age, my experience at the hospital is that it is extremely difficult with adolescents to know whether to put them into a children's ward or an adult ward, because they vary so greatly in size and development. These matters are not at all easy to determine. I therefore have reservations on these amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 deal with disputes about the age of an asylum applicant. Clearly, cases where there is a dispute over the age of an applicant do not involve young children. The dispute centres on whether or not a young person is under 18 and we are therefore talking about older teenagers and young people. The Immigration Rules clearly define an asylum seeking child as,
"a person who is under 18 years of age or who, in the absence of documentary evidence, appears to be under that age".
Where a person holds a valid passport showing him or her to be 18 years or over it is entirely right, as my noble friend just said, for the Secretary of State to accept that age in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary. Amendment No. 61 would encourage unsubstantiated claims to be under 18 in order to circumvent normal immigration controls. This is a very fertile area for abuse of the system.
As I explained in Committee, where satisfactory evidence of age is provided we will accept an applicant as a minor. My noble friend Lord Renton said on that occasion that the burden of proof must lie on whoever has or is most likely to have the necessary information as to the applicant's age. That proof could take the form of documentary evidence such as a bona fide birth certificate which the child or his carers may be able to obtain but which the Secretary of State clearly cannot. I entirely agree with my noble friend.
A young person seeking to obtain the required evidence will not be without assistance at that stage. Apart from the advice of a legal representative, the applicant may have the support of social services and the Refugee Council's panel of advisers. The Immigration Service has agreed with the panel of advisers that it will refer young people who have been detained where there is a dispute over their age.
It is for the young person and his legal representatives to decide what evidence should be put forward. If they are unable to obtain reliable documentary proof, they may choose to commission an independent age assessment. However, I understand that no medical assessment of this kind can be very precise. That point was made by my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Renton. The margin of error is around two years either side of the assessed age. For this reason it would be unlikely to carry as much weight as any validly issued documentary evidence. Nevertheless, it is for the applicant to decide whether he wishes to obtain a medical assessment and, if so, from whom. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to require him or her to submit to an examination for reasons which are wholly unrelated to health or medical needs. Nor would it be right to restrict his choice of medical adviser.
652
Moreover, placing such emphasis on medical assessments, which, as I have said, cannot usually be very precise, could encourage more applicants to attempt to deceive the United Kingdom authorities about their age to take advantage of our generous approach to unaccompanied child asylum seekers. To put this in perspective, in 1995 8 per cent. of asylum seekers were aged between 18 and 20 and a further 19 per cent. were aged between 21 and 24. It is clear, therefore, that the potential scope for abuse is very significant, which would not be in the interests of genuine unaccompanied children.
There have been a number of cases where people who are over 18 have, nevertheless, claimed to be younger in order to take advantage of our generous approach to unaccompanied children, often destroying their own documents so that there is no evidence to contradict their claims. Moreover, some people initially present documentary evidence stating their age as over 18 but then change their story at a later date. The special arrangements that are in place for unaccompanied children have been well received. But the Government believe it is essential to guard against putting in statute any provisions that would provide an open invitation for any young adult asylum seeker to abuse these special arrangements for their own advantage. As I said, that would certainly not be in the interests of child asylum seekers.
Where credible documentary evidence is available, including a passport that appears to be genuine, it is entirely right that full weight should be given to that evidence.
Some children may arrive in the country without documents or with obviously forged documents. Each case would be considered according to its individual circumstances. We have made absolutely clear that we understand that it may have been necessary for young people or persons of any age who arrive in this country to have travelled across the world with forged documents or documentation that is not in order. They are given a proper opportunity to admit that the documents are forged and then to prove the authenticity of their age and case for asylum.
In many cases it will be obvious that the person is under 18 years of age. That will, of course, be the case for very young children, who are probably the most vulnerable. But in other cases, particularly 16 to 18 year-olds, the issue may be less clear-cut. The Government consider that the burden of proof must rest with the applicants seeking entry to the United Kingdom to satisfy our immigration officials of their age. If the authorities believe and have come to the view that they are under 18, of course they will accept under 18 as the age, but where they have doubts about that, the whole issue is in contention. The Government do not think it is unreasonable in most cases to expect a 16 or 17 year-old, for example, to take steps to obtain documents, such as birth certificates or other material, to establish their age.
Medical assessments, although useful in the absence of documentary proof, cannot provide conclusive evidence as they measure maturity and not chronological age. That point was well made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. In all instances there is a significant margin of error which would create the difficulty.

653
The other point that I mentioned earlier is that, if the Secretary of State appoints the panel of paediatricians, many asylum seekers would not have confidence in that panel because it had in fact been chosen by the Home Secretary and not themselves. Therefore, we believe that it is important that the individual asylum applicant should be left free to choose how he will prove his particular age.
If we move to a position that the Home Office cannot have regard to credible documentary evidence of age, or to a system based more heavily on medical assessments rather than documentary proof, the Government's view is that it could put the special arrangements for unaccompanied children at risk of being exploited by those who are over 18. We should find that wholly unacceptable.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell the House where the amendment says that the Home Office should not have regard to credible documentary evidence of age?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the first amendment states that we should not give weight to it. We are saying that it is very important that we should give weight to documentary evidence given in good faith by an asylum seeker.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am not particularly wedded to Amendment No. 61 but I am wedded to Amendment No. 62 which seems to me to have all the virtues for which we look. It is a speedy way of settling a child's age when there is no documentary evidence of that age. The child comes perhaps from a country in which no register is kept and the age of the child must depend, particularly if the parents are not available, on circumstantial evidence. It seems to me that Amendment No. 62 could only be helpful to the Government. It gives the Government a chance to produce finality and prevent endless litigation and so forth in order to ascertain the age.
I should have thought that the amendment was totally in the interests of the Government. I have heard arguments to the contrary. I should like to consider those arguments before Third Reading and perhaps bring back the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Restrictions on employment]:
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 6, line 22, leave out from ("employs") to ("as") in line 30 and insert ("a person subject to immigration control ("the employee") who has attained the age of 16, the employer shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) the employee has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or

(b) the employee's leave is not valid and subsisting, or is subject to a condition precluding him from taking up the employment,

and (in either case) the employee does not satisfy such conditions").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should say that it is coupled with Amendments Nos. 65 and 66.
Amendment No. 64 responds to concerns expressed during Committee stage when we discussed Clause 8. The amendment does not in any way change the substance of the clause, but I believe that, as amended, the clause will be easier for employers and others to understand. While we shall, of course, be providing employers with guidance, I agree that it is desirable for the legislative provision itself to be as straightforward as possible.
I informed the Committee that the Government recognised that unease had been expressed in this Chamber and elsewhere about the use of the word "immigrant" in this Bill. We made clear that the term was used as a neutral term to refer to a person subject to immigration control. Its use did not in any way affect anyone's immigration status. In particular, nothing in the Bill affects the immigration status of those who are settled here. Nevertheless, we accepted that, however irrationally, the word "immigrant" is perceived by some as having a pejorative connotation and there were suggestions that the use of the term could give rise to anxieties.
We also recognised that the term might be seen by the layman as referring to anyone who has come here from abroad to live rather than only to a person subject to immigration control under the Act.
The Government therefore have come forward with a series of amendments, including this amendment to Clause 8, which removes the term "immigrant" and replaces it with the phrase "a person subject to immigration control". I am satisfied that that phrase, which simply reflects the scope of the Bill, is a technical definition with no pejorative connotations. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, if Amendment No. 64 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 65 to 67.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for listening to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and many on these Benches have said about the wording of the amendment. I take the point that the use of which we complained is irrational. People have been known to be irrational before and will continue to be so.
This amendment softens the image created by the Bill and makes it less misleading. As to the substantive effect of the provision, I understand that there is no significant difference. So I give the amendment a welcome by looking forward to continuing the major arguments on the issues of the Bill.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am concerned about only one thing in this government amendment; that is, the words,
"who has attained the age of 16".

655
I do not believe it is legal to employ anybody under that age. I therefore wondered whether between now and Third Reading my noble friend would consider those words.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment which arises in part from a conversation I had with her right honourable friend the Home Secretary and herself, as well as out of debates in your Lordships' Chamber. Perhaps I may ask one question which I am sure arises out of ignorance. I listened carefully to the Minister but was not sure at the end precisely who is,
"a person subject to immigration control".
My noble friend said it is those who are subject to the Bill. Perhaps she could elaborate on precisely who are the people "subject to immigration control". Is there not a sense in which we are all "subject to immigration control"? What is the specific category referred to?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that a person who has applied for entry, is awaiting some part of the appeal procedure or is waiting to have a case heard but has not had a proper determination of his case is subject to immigration control. Other people who are here with conditions attached—it may be time-limited conditions; they may be here without permission to work or here with permission to work which is also time limited—are also people to whom the provision applies.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would it not also include a person who has been granted a work permit to be in this country for a limited period or somebody who has been granted leave to be here for a limited period without a work permit?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it includes both categories. In response to my noble friend who queried the age, I shall continue looking at the wording of the amendment between now and the next stage. I believe the wording is correct. We are talking of people who are of working age, 16 and above. However, I take the point about those under 16 and will come back to my noble friend on that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take it that this toing and froing has been interventions in the speech of the right reverend Prelate. I apologise to the House for not being present during the Minister's opening speech. She will understand in a few minutes why I was not present.
First, I thank the Minister for fulfilling her undertaking made at Committee stage to remove the word "immigrant" from the Bill. However, I want to take those thanks three-quarters back because the amendments which begin with Amendment No. 64 are about the minimum she could possibly have put forward in the face of the considerable opposition expressed to the use of the word "immigrant" and, above all, to the definition of the word "immigrant".
Noble Lords will recall that at Committee we were concerned not just about the use of the word "immigrant", but at the fact that in Clause 12 immigrant was defined as,
656
"a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given)".
We argued that that was a much wider definition than it was intended should be covered by the provisions of Clauses 8, 9 and 10. Unfortunately, if we look at Amendment No. 100, the Government have changed "immigrant" to,
"person subject to immigration control".
However, they have not changed the offensive inclusion of those who have been given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. It was and still is our view that those people should not be included in any definition in the Bill. It does not help for them to be called,
"person subject to immigration control",
rather than being called "immigrant".
I am sorry to say that we have a change of wording but in most of the cases in which it occurs not a change of substance. I do not propose to suggest to the House that we vote against Amendment No. 64 at this time. But I am not happy about it. It is nothing like as good as our Amendment No. 80 moved in Committee. It contains the same faults as the Bill as printed contains; that is, it gives and it takes away. It has the same fault in that it requires conditions to be specified by order by the Secretary of State, which makes life difficult for employers who have to try to interpret who is covered by the provisions of the Bill. Although to some extent it is simpler and reduces to one subsection the original wording, it is only a marginal improvement rather than a major one.
We are grateful for what we have; but it is a small amount compared with the intentions of many of us who opposed the use of the word "immigrant" at the Committee stage. I fear that the implications of unnecessarily and undesirably identifying and isolating hundreds of thousands of people who have a right to be in this country, who have leave to be here or remain here, still exist.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if the words "subject to immigration control" or some other limiting words are not inserted, it would mean that a person—the employee—who has attained the age of 16 would be subject to the Bill. That would include anyone, even someone who was born here. It would be absurd to say that somebody born here should be guilty of an offence if they have not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take that as being an intervention, and the answer is that I was not moving or speaking to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 which in any case, like Amendment No. 67, are pre-empted by Amendment No. 64, as we were no doubt told by the Deputy Speaker.
The amendments which we will be debating substantively on later clauses refer to a "relevant" person and then define that relevant person. My objection to Amendment No. 64 is that it uses a form of words which then relate forward to Amendment No. 100 in Clause 12. It is up to the Government how they group their amendments. I should have thought that they would wish to group Amendment No. 64 with

657
Amendment No. 100. It would make debate a good deal easier. However, I am not speaking to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66; they will not and cannot be moved.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am not sure why the noble Lord keeps saying that these are interventions in the Minister's speech. As I understand it, at Report stage she moves the amendment, we are all then entitled to speak to it and then the Minister winds up.
I wanted to comment briefly and say, as I said at Committee stage, that I have always been proud of being an immigrant. I do not dislike the term and any suggestion of change was because the noble Lord wanted it. However, there may be other people like myself who have come to this country and who are happy to be called immigrants.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. The noble Baroness does not have a black face and is not likely to be asked questions about her employment status by an employer if she goes for a job.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be brief in winding up on the amendment. The change is correct. The noble Lord tempts me to enter a debate which rightly belongs later in the Bill; that is, in relation to the scope of Clauses 9 and 10. We will have that debate later and I rest for the moment on moving Amendment No. 64.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned and, in moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 10 minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Ipswich Port Authority Transfer Scheme 1996 Confirmation Order 1996
7.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if agreed, this order will enable the Secretary of State to confirm the transfer of the assets, rights, liabilities and duties of the Ipswich Port Authority to the private sector. All property, rights and liabilities of the authority and all functions conferred or imposed on the authority by any local statutory provision will then be transferred to the successor company set up by the authority.
It may be helpful to place this order in the context of the Government's general policy for ports for over a decade and more. More than 90 per cent. of the UK's
658
trade passes through ports, and thus they play an obvious and crucial role in the economy. Well over half the tonnage handled in UK ports is now handled by the private sector. Our policies and objectives have been increasingly to expose the ports industry to the discipline of the marketplace, and to enable ports to compete fully and fairly with each other. We have sought to encourage choice and competition, to allow transport to benefit from enterprise and the investment of private capital and to limit intervention to areas such as safety and environmental issues. Through privatisation, deregulation and removal of subsidies and grants, we have encouraged the growth of an efficient ports industry based on sound commercial practices and investment, which is the envy of many others throughout the world.
In furtherance of these objectives, the Transport Act 1981 enabled the transfer of the nationalised harbour undertakings of the British Railways Board and the British Transport Docks Board to the private sector in 1981 and of Sealink in 1984. The abolition of the Dock Labour scheme in 1989 enabled many ports to modernise their working practices and to take advantage of up-to-date cargo handling technology. These actions released competitive forces which had been dormant for years and led to great improvements in productivity. Other ports, including trust ports, had to respond to the new competition to become more competitive. By the end of the 1980s some trust port authorities had come to see that their position could best, indeed perhaps only, be developed by moving into the private sector, and at the beginning of this decade Tees and Hartlepool, and Forth, started to pursue the lengthy and expensive Private Bill process required for this transfer. It proved difficult and the Government, by way of an alternative, introduced a Ports Bill. The Ports Act 1991, as it became, is an enabling measure, providing a simpler and quicker mechanism than the Private Bill procedure for trust ports to privatise themselves. It also permits the Secretary of State to compel the larger trust ports to privatise.
The procedure in both types of privatisation is similar. A scheme is drawn up for the transfer of a trust port's undertaking to a Companies Act company formed by the vendor port authority. The scheme must be confirmed by order. In the case of compulsory privatisations, parliamentary approval is needed for the transfer order. The subsequent sale of such a company into the private sector, which requires the consent of the Secretary of State, completes the privatisation process.
So far six ports have used the voluntary privatisation procedure in the Act: in 1992 Tees & Hartlepool, Clyde, Forth, Medway and Tilbury, and in 1995 Dundee. All the 1992 privatisations have been a success and I am confident that that of Dundee will prove to be another. The post-privatisation increase in valuation of two of the ports, Forth and Tilbury, is one clear indication of the improvement in operating ability following privatisation. It also demonstrates investor confidence in the profitability of private sector ports. Tonnage handled at Forth rose from just over 23 million tonnes in 1992 to 44 million tonnes in 1994. The Government's

659
intention in seeking the compulsory privatisation of the Port of Ipswich is to create the opportunity for that port also to benefit from such improvements.
The powers of compulsion in Section 10 of the Act enable the Secretary of State to consult the board of any trust port with an annual turnover of over £5.6 million to ascertain its views on privatisation. My right honourable friend, the former Secretary of State, consulted the Ipswich Port Authority last June. The authority was given three months to respond with its views. Following its submission, the Secretary of State wrote to the chairman on 7th November to direct the authority to form a successor company and to prepare a transfer scheme to enable the authority to transfer all its property, rights, liabilities and functions. The Ipswich Port Authority met the requirement within the Secretary of State's timetable, and subsequently published the statutorily-required notice inviting representations to the transfer scheme and articles and memorandum of association of the successor company. Only one representation was in fact received and this related to matters which are appropriate for consideration during the working up of the sale documentation. The scheme submitted closely followed the model provided by my department and the few technical amendments now incorporated in the scheme, appearing as a schedule to the order, have been agreed with the Ipswich Port Authority.
The Port of Ipswich is one of the oldest in the country. Dating back to Roman times, its first charter was granted in 1199. The port has long served local traders and has a long history. The port has been continuously developed, with major works taking place during the 1830s and again in the 1920s. Throughout the years the emphasis has been on agricultural and, more recently, on oil products. In the 1970s the port also developed the ability to handle ro-ro and container traffic and had its most successful year ever in 1994. More recently, intense competition from the Channel Tunnel and other ports, notably Tilbury, and the ease whereby the non-local customer base is able to switch ports, have removed a substantial proportion of Ipswich's trade, in particular the ro-ro and container traffic. By contrast, national trade through our ports has risen from 495 million tonnes in 1991 to 538 million tonnes in 1994. To help counter the decline at Ipswich, the management of the port has moved ahead with plans to redevelop the port and has already found new trade to balance the loss of trade to Tilbury.
The board of the authority originally represented to us that privatisation was not in the best interests of the port, but I now understand that subject to parliamentary approval, it will proceed with privatisation expeditiously as the best way to remove uncertainty about the future of the port and increase the confidence of potential customers. The sale of the port, most probably by a trade sale, will be undertaken by the Ipswich Port Authority and its advisers. The Secretary of State will have to approve the choice of purchaser and completion is expected in early spring 1997, if this order is accepted by the House. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full explanation. His information seems to be more up-to-date when he says that the people of Ipswich have changed their minds. All the information I have is that the Ipswich Society in particular is looking more to the community as a whole than just the port itself, although it is very conscious of the fact that the port is a very important part of the community. The society has provided very interesting and crucial information to both Houses.
I got the impression that it was a very proud and a very civically organised and oriented society. It has gone to great trouble to inform both Houses of its concern, fears and worries for the future of the port and also—and this is very important—for the town.
I understand that the borough council and its predecessors have run the ancient port since about 1200. I am interested in the deeper research that the Minister has been able to undertake saying that the port goes back to Roman times: I go back only to 1200. The port has been sustained and developed over the past almost 800 years by the industry, energy and money provided largely by local effort. If the letter sent by the Ipswich Society to the Secretary of State for Transport is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt its contents, then the privatisation of the port without compensation to the local economy is unforgivable.
The town has plans for new economic development dependent on the use of the port area and in particular as regards the Victorian wet dock of which it is particularly proud. In its day it was the largest in existence. I am told that if these assets are removed from local democratic control and, once the port is privatised, are privately developed for the profit of a few, who may have no interest in Ipswich and who may in fact belong to another part of the world, it will be an ungrateful blow to the people referred to in the new political jargon as "Middle England".
I had intended to paraphrase parts of the letter from the Ipswich Society, but it is so well put that I find it difficult to improve on it. It states that the new company that is to take over does not seem to be required to,
"continue the activities of the port of Ipswich, but rather to be allowed to do so, if it so chooses. Article 2, moreover, indicates that the registered office of the company can be situated anywhere in England and Wales, rather than in Ipswich: as is currently and has hitherto always been the case. Article 3, section AM, furthermore, permits the company to amalgamate with any other person and to procure the company to be registered … anywhere in the world. The potential remoteness of the company from Ipswich carries with it an implied threat of minimal interest in Ipswich".
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that the whole being of a proud little place like Ipswich is tied up with its port. The area would not appreciate it if the port was owned by a company in the Bahamas which had no interest in its core business.
The society, as a local body carrying out its legitimate responsibilities to its members, states that it,

661
"is equally concerned over the lack of any requirement in the Memorandum of Association for Ipswich Port Ltd to continue with the progress already made, in association with the Ipswich Borough Council and others, towards projects for the redevelopment of the older parts of the port for non-maritime functions such as housing, leisure, recreational, educational and other activities and for associated services, including transport facilities. Agreements on these prospects are vital to the successful rehabilitation of a large area of south-central Ipswich".
Local people feel that they may lose something into which they have put a great deal of energy and thought. They realise that the port, even with all its vitality, has limitations in the modern world and that it does not need as much space as was perhaps once required. That is why local people and bodies have sought to extend housing and recreational facilities in the area.
The Ipswich Society also states:
"The port of Ipswich has had an essentially local character in terms of ownership, management and financing over many centuries (since the first public quay was built in 1308) and a close and intimate relationship with the governance of the Borough over an equally long period. We would thus have expected the Memorandum of Association of Ipswich Port Ltd to specify that representatives of Ipswich be members of the board of the company (through the Borough Council and/or the Chamber of Commerce)".
There may be time to consider that. I think that such a company would be wise to get the local people on its side. The society continues:
"We would also have expected that provision be made for a port Consultative Committee, consisting of representatives of local interests on all matters relating to the use of the port, its land holdings and its associated facilities".
There is absolutely no evidence of any enthusiasm among the people of Ipswich for this privatisation. Indeed, a survey conducted by one of the area's two MPs, Mr. Cann, indicates the reverse. Overwhelming opposition was displayed against any notion that the Government should receive the proceeds. Again, there was overwhelming support in favour of an obligation being imposed on any purchaser to continue its use as a port. It is also a question of compensation for the town of Ipswich, not only for the land, but also for the developments on which so much energy has been spent over the centuries, all of which was internally sourced or came from profits from the port.
I hope that the Minister will think about the damage that could be done. Places such as the Clyde have enormous hinterland developments, but its port is an enormously important part of a small place such as Ipswich. It is a question of chalk and cheese. The Minister quoted the example of the Clyde which has, indeed, been successful although to some extent the traffic has declined for technical reasons. Ipswich is a different matter altogether. It is a small town that is dependent on the port almost for its very existence. It should therefore be given more support.
I believe that this is an order too far and that the Government will pay for it electorally in the area around Ipswich. There is already one Labour MP there and I should not be surprised if, because of this matter alone, after the election we have two Labour MPs there. This will then have been a costly privatisation of a port that could have continued its development in a part of England that badly needs it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister was somewhat disingenuous in his preamble to his description of the order. He tried to imply that what was done in respect of British Rail harbours and what has been done so far in the voluntary privatisation of six ports was on a par with the order we are considering. In the case of the British Rail harbours, the state was perfectly entitled to denationalise them, as has happened with other assets. In the case of the private ports, their future was for them to decide. However, this is the first time that your Lordships have had to consider a scheme for compulsorily transferring a port into the private sector against the wishes of the local inhabitants and against the original wishes of the Ipswich Port Authority.
Moreover, we are considering an order which was published on 5th June. Very little opportunity has been given to anyone to express an opinion. The sale of the port is a most important matter for the whole region as well as for the town of Ipswich, yet it is to go through without any pretence at consultation or even explanation. The Department of Transport has not bothered to hold any local meetings to explain the proposals, and the correspondence between the department and the Ipswich Port Authority is, I understand, classified material.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, Ipswich Borough Council is not to appoint any members of the new authority although it does appoint one of the trustees of the Ipswich Port Authority. I understand, however, that he is not allowed to speak on these issues and has made no public comment. So much for open government.
We have heard something of the history of the port. There is a dispute only about whether King John granted the original charter to the borough in 1199 or 1200. However, the fact is that the port has been going for a long time. Indeed, there has been trade there since even earlier when the port of Ipswich was used by the Angles for transporting goods between their original territory across the North Sea and their new lands in England.
Down through the centuries, the local people owned their port and invested in it. In 1842 they constructed what was then the largest wet dock in the world. As the Minister acknowledged, they poured substantial investment into the port in both the 1830s and the 1920s. The port has made a huge contribution to the prosperity of the town and the region. By 1992 it was still handling 5 million tonnes of cargo a year.
However, trade at the port has recently fallen—to an average of one ship per working day, according to the East Anglian Daily Times. Today's paper, which lists the arrivals for the week, gives three at Ipswich, compared with over 100 at Harwich and 200 at Felixstowe. As the Minister explained, that is because P&O North Sea Ferries withdrew last year, cutting the port's revenue by some £4.9 million or 38 per cent. of the total for the year. That was followed by the departure of Geest North Sea Lines and Bell North Sea Lines, which have concentrated their operations at Tilbury. The decisions of these operators may or may not have been

663
influenced by the looming threat of privatisation, but what is clear is that the acquisition of new business to replace the losses was made far more difficult as a result of the uncertainty created by the threat of privatisation. Trade fell from £13 million in 1994 to £9.5 million in 1995. It has been estimated that in the current year the figure has fallen to £6.5 million, although I understand that trade has begun to pick up recently through the efforts of the port authority.
No doubt the port authority has done its best to keep the business going, even though the passing of this order will bring its existence to an end. The order provides for all the property and functions of the authority to be handed over to Ipswich Port Limited, which has been formed as a result of directions by the Secretary of State under Section 10(2) and (3) of the 1991 Act, as the preamble to the order recites.
One might imagine that the authority would have been demotivated by having to organise its own euthanasia, having first protested against it but finally succumbing to what was inevitable. Worse still, the exercise is budgeted to cost £887,000. Only the most irrational Tory doctrinaire can believe that such a diversion of money and management effort—pointless expenditure for completely non-productive purposes—can do any good for either Ipswich or the country as a whole. One negative result for the city has been the abandonment of negotiations which have been taking place between the authority and the borough council for an exchange of land between the two bodies. The borough was to acquire land around the wet dock for an important cultural initiative—the Centre for the English Story—which it was hoped would attract millennium funding and become a tourist spot for visitors from all round the world. Even if the new owners are sympathetic to the scheme, the millennium boat has been missed. That is the only way in which the project could have been made financially viable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has already observed, the transfer scheme has been opposed all along by the Ipswich Society. When it canvassed the views of its members, 108 replies were received all but one of which supported the proposition that the society should persuade Parliament to reject the order. The society tried to persuade the local newspaper, the Evening Star, to test public opinion more widely by conducting an opinion poll, but the paper did not respond. Dr. Peter Odell, chairman of the society, wrote to the Secretary of State on 5th April to make representations against the scheme and the provisions of the memorandum of association of the company to be established by this order. He referred to a previous letter of 16th August 1995 in which the society had argued for postponement of the compulsory privatisation, reaffirmed the views then expressed and added further points dealing with the memorandum.
I briefly summarise these points. Activities in Ipswich are not the prime objectives of the company, nor is the company even obliged to continue to operate the port. The registered office can be anywhere in England and Wales and the company is empowered to merge with another company and thus to become registered abroad. The company may demolish any building and sell off
664
any of the land and buildings in the port. There are 30 permitted activities in which the company may engage, only one of which concerns the port itself. There is no obligation to continue to work with Ipswich Borough Council and others for the redevelopment of the older parts of the port for non-maritime activities, such as housing, leisure, recreational, educational and associated facilities such as transport. The board does not have to include a single director from Ipswich, let alone any person who is representative of local interests; nor is there any consultative committee through which these interests may be raised with the company.
One would have thought that, even if there had been no statutory right to make representations, the Secretary of State would have had the courtesy to answer a letter of this kind. When a person writes in response to a public invitation issued in accordance with a legal requirement it is quite intolerable that he should receive no answer right up to the day when the order is supposed to be approved. Surely, the House is entitled to demand that a full reply be given and that adequate time be provided for its consideration by the society, and for any further representations that it may wish to formulate in the light of the Secretary of State's response, before the order is passed.
Given the way that this process operates, we have to approve the order without having the faintest idea of who the future owners will be. Ipswich Port is to be sold off under provisions which are not even in the order. They are to be sold under tender procedure. It is for the Secretary of State to decide in his absolute discretion which of the tenders to accept. The bidders could offer to meet some of the concerns expressed, and theoretically a higher bid without concessions might be rejected in favour of a lower bid which was accompanied by promises of local co-operation and consultation. But no such assurances could be made legally binding on the new company.
The proceeds of this sale go to the Secretary of State. To disguise the fact that he is taking something that does not belong to him, the Act provides that the purchaser has to pay double the real consideration for the sale. The Secretary of State then charges a 50 per cent. levy on the sale and the other 50 per cent. is handed back to the purchaser. This is the kind of deal that one would expect from shady traders in Walworth Road market. If someone takes an asset away from me without permission or compensation I call it theft. Perhaps there is a different kind of moral principle at work when the state confiscates and sells for its own benefit assets that have been an integral and important part of a city for 800 years. Accountants may say that the town is not the owner and so nothing has been taken from it. But it was the borough which created the port and sustained it by investment and mutual co-operation over the years.
My party is against the compulsory privatisation of ports. Our Federal Conference passed a resolution in March 1991 opposing this feature of the Ports Bill and calling for legislation to take account of the wishes of local communities as well as environmental considerations. This order rides roughshod over the wishes of the people of Ipswich. There has been no pretence of finding out their views. Not only does it fail to

665
make any provision to safeguard the local environment; it gives carte blanche to the future owners to do whatever they can get away with under planning laws.
As recently as October 1994 your Lordships reaffirmed that this House had an unfettered right to vote on delegated legislation. This particular order is so uniquely objectionable that I propose to test the feeling of the House this evening.
7.38 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, took us through a number of the provisions and some of the history of the port. He made clear the view of the Labour Party as to this provision, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made clear his view. However, since he spoke as a Back Bencher I am not sure whether or not he expressed the official view of the Liberal Party. Since there is a considerable amount of nodding on the Front Bench of the Liberal Party I presume that the noble Lord was performing a dual role. Of course, I fully accept that.
A good deal of anxiety has been expressed in the House this evening. I believe that a number of points have not been fully considered. Parliament has passed the Ports Act 1991. Therefore, all accusations of theft and so forth are quite unfounded. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, charged me with being disingenuous to the House. In no way is that true. The other points not fully taken on board by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and not recognised at all by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, concerned the protection and the fact that the successor company would inherit not only the assets but also the statutory obligations of the port. To all intents and purposes, that point was totally ignored by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his peroration. I firmly believe that this order, should it receive the approval of the House, will provide a number of benefits to Ipswich.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, objected to the fact that no compensation was to be offered to the people of Ipswich. I see no reason why any compensation should be paid to the people of Ipswich. Compensation is to cover losses, as it were. The assets owned by the trust port belong to the trust port itself. As it is a trust, by definition it has no legal owners. So the assets do not belong to the people of Ipswich; they belong to the trust port. We are taking the trust port into the private sector. We believe firmly that that will produce full benefits.
Another accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which was wrong was that there was no consultation. There was consultation. We followed to the letter what was laid down by the Act which Parliament approved some five years ago. The Act allowed six weeks for views to be expressed, and only two were received.
666
The noble Lord's accusation that we did not consult properly was wrong. We did consult properly. Both of the representations were considered fully.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister say from whom the representations came, and whether they were representative of a number, perhaps even a large number, of people?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall have to give the noble Lord precise details of those representations at a later date so as to ensure that I do not make any error when conveying the details to him.
The important point is that with many other privatisations and statutory processes we have received many, many representations. In this case only two were received. I shall inform noble Lords whether they were by way of being a multiple response.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the Minister received only two representations, why does he have such difficulty in answering the question?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, before the Liberal Benches dissolve entirely into mirth on this point, we have a consultation process. Responses are invited. They are submitted. They are then considered. It would not be appropriate to answer them individually. That has never been the process with consultations. Responses are sent into a consultation exercise. Full consideration is then given to them. In the middle of a consultation, it would be wholly inappropriate to treat each representation as an individual piece of correspondence, to reply to them and then to have an ongoing debate.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, rises to his feet, that is the process that we take forward with consultation exercises. My department has many of them under way at the moment. That is the way we shall continue to run consultation exercises. I dare say that that was even the way they were run when the noble Lord was in government. If I am wrong, I am sure that he will correct me.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. When I was in government, which is now a substantial number of years ago, we had one habit in the Home Office. That was to reply to letters. Apparently the noble Lord's department does not consider it necessary to do that. That seems a little odd.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we could test the system. The noble Lord could write to me and see whether he receives a response. It is my practice to respond to correspondence that I receive. The noble Lord is splitting hairs. We had a public consultation process. Some public consultations involve many thousands of responses, in which case it would not be appropriate for the Minister to sit down in the middle of it and answer every one, in order to obtain further representations. That is not how the process works.
I am sure that we can find out what happened with consultation exercises when the noble Lord was in government if records go back that far.

667
I was demonstrating, I trust, the effects of the order. It will enable the management fully to develop the port's potential and to respond to the commercial environment. We have had a good debate about some of the issues. The issues that have been debated have wholly ignored that this country's port industry has become a huge commercial success. It has become efficient in the face of its history of inefficiency. That is not the case now. Our industry has a great deal of which to be proud.
We believe that this order will provide access to share capital as well as loan capital, which was not historically available. We believe that it makes the port more attractive to companies which might wish to go forward in joint ventures—another point ignored by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It also enables the management more easily to develop land surplus to its requirements. It will make for easier diversification of the port's activities.
The management of the Ipswich Port Authority has now accepted that uncertainty would be bad for the port and that privatisation would help to resolve that uncertainty. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, might like to be aware that a press statement that was released on 21st June by Mr. Alan Howell, the chief executive of the port, states that the authority has been informed that Parliament will consider the confirmation of the order which will effectively start the sale of the Ipswich port. It states:
"In considering its position the port has recognised that the overriding requirement is that the situation should be resolved".
The noble Lord appears to be ignoring that too. The chief executive continues:
"The effect of uncertainty on the port's business must be quickly eliminated. This is widely recognised by both management and employees".
The chief executive goes on to say:
"Whilst opposing the principle of compulsory privatisation"—
something about which I have spoken—
"Ipswich Port Authority acknowledges that the sharp fall in the port's trade since the summer of 1995 means that a further period of uncertainty will be detrimental to the future of the port and must be avoided".
The important quotation comes later, where the document states:
"Now that the Government has taken the decision to move ahead with the privatisation, the Port Authority has accepted this decision and does not intend to reopen the debate".
It is the clear and primary objective of the Ipswich Port Authority to ensure that Ipswich Port not only remains as a port but grows as a port. That is an interesting point for the House to take into consideration. The issues surrounding the assets and the port's obligations are important. I would not say that they were misrepresented, but perhaps that they were misunderstood by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He is painting a disaster scenario while ignoring those ports that have already privatised. Yes, they have privatised voluntarily, but after that the port is in the private sector. It is in the same position as Ipswich in that it has obligations imposed by various local Acts. It operates within that. It does not just close down, asset strip and forget all about it.
The noble Lord paints a scenario that does not exist and will not exist. He ignores the fact that this country's ports industry has moved considerably into the private sector.
668
The disaster scenario that he painted of a port just closing down and ignoring its customers has failed to happen. Those ports which have moved into the private sector have been successful and are now working much more closely and much more fully with their customers to the benefit of those customers, to the region as a whole and to the economy of the country by operating as efficiently as possible.
One harkens back to the bad old days of the dock labour scheme when this country had an incredibly inefficient ports industry. Now that labour relations have changed considerably with the abolition of the dock labour scheme, the ports can now take full advantage—
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord made a long intervention. I am attempting to answer all his points as fully as I can for the benefit of Parliament and all those in the House today.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I did not mention the dock labour scheme.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord should have done so because the dock labour scheme was one of the major considerations in releasing the ports industry of this country to take full advantage of the new efficiencies.
Earl Russell: My Lords, earlier today the Government opposed a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that we should not complete the Asylum and Immigration Bill tonight. Is it the Minister's wish to indicate his covert support for that Motion?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am here to listen carefully to the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. I shall listen to many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who occasionally speaks at some length on many important issues.
This is an important issue. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated his intention to vote against secondary legislation, which is not the normal practice of the House. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is an expert on whether or not to vote against secondary legislation. He has raised the issue on a number of occasions with regard to social security legislation. Nonetheless, this is an important issue; we are considering a major plank of privatisation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated his desire to vote against it. I am merely trying to give the House the fullest possible explanation of the provisions of the order so that the House can make its own decision.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Viscount. I do not believe that he has convinced a great number of people in this House. However, we accept the convention, although in this case not with enthusiasm. The enabling legislation was strongly opposed in the other place, but in this House we have a convention not to vote against secondary legislation.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am extremely glad to have the noble Lord's clarification of the Official

669
Opposition's position on the principle of voting against secondary legislation. That is extremely helpful, not only for the wider issue but also in respect of tonight's deliberations. Nonetheless, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke strongly against the order. I believe that he has fundamentally misunderstood a number of its provisions.
The central point is how existing customers will be protected. All successor companies are required to take on a former trust port authority's statutory obligations after privatisation. As a general rule, port authorities have an obligation to be open to all customers for the loading and unloading of goods and for the embarking and landing of passengers. Port charges are subject to an appeal process. Therefore, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, needs to be concerned about that matter.
The noble Lord raised the issue of surplus land, operational land and the disposal of surplus land. The company which will own Ipswich Port Authority, although in the private sector, will nonetheless be a statutory harbour authority. It may not close the port or dispose of operational land without the consent of Parliament. It will inherit by means of the transfer scheme not only the assets and liabilities of the port but also the legal duties, including observing the right to use the port. Dues and charges must be reasonable.
Any gain on land disposed of during the first 10 years after privatisation by way of sale or long lease is subject to a clawback levy payable to government. Disposals in the first five years are subject to a 25 per cent. clawback. In the sixth and seventh years they are subject to a 20 per cent. clawback. In the eighth, ninth and tenth years they are subject to a 10 per cent. clawback.
The noble Lord was also concerned about the way in which the levy works. I do not see that as a problem. The noble Lord accused me and the Government of acting like second-hand car traders. I forget his actual words but they were something of that nature. That is not the case. The way in which the sale process is due to work was enshrined within the Ports Act 1991. It is very clear. Parliament voted on it and it was approved by Parliament, so there is no underhand nature. The Government are not suddenly turning up with a brand new scheme. The fact is that it was agreed by Parliament. The way the levy works is that 50 per cent. goes back and 50 per cent. is received by government. There is nothing underhand. The scheme has been approved by Parliament.
I have spoken at some length in order to explain the provisions of the order—
Lord Avebury: Hear! Hear!
Viscount Goschen: Much to the annoyance of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. However, I hope he will realise that I do so in order to explain fully to him that his fears are groundless. Consultation did take place and the Government have acted within the provisions of the 1991 Act. There is nothing to worry about. Privatisation has been of great benefit to the ports already privatised. I understand there was some original uncertainty. But the Ipswich Port Authority has agreed that privatisation going
670
forward with this order is the best course. I hope that with that explanation the House will approve the order. I commend it to your Lordships.
7.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 16.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Kingsland, L.

Balfour, E.

Kintore, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blaker, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blatch, B.

Leigh, L.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McConnell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chesham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rankeillour, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rawlings, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Reay, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rennell, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renton, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Renwick, L.

Flather, B.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hacking, L.

Teviot, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Hardwicke, E.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wakeham, L.

Hogg, B.

Westbury, L.

Howe, E.

Wharton, B.

Inglewood, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Russell, E.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Walliswood B [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

McNair, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNally, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ogmore, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.4 to 8.10 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 8.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, Amendment No. 67 was pre-empted. Therefore, I call Amendment No. 68 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, with respect to the Deputy Speaker, I must ask why it is not possible to call Amendment No. 67 at this point? I understood that Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 were pre-empted. Is that the case?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, that was my original belief. However, I have since been told that Amendment No. 67 is pre-empted because Amendment No. 64 covers line 30 in the clause, which I believe overtakes "line 29" as referred to in Amendment No. 67. That is my understanding of the matter, but if the noble Lord has something to say then I shall call the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, if that is the case, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 67 when Amendment No. 104 is called.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, if that is what the noble Lord wishes to do, it seems to me to be a good compromise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to an employer who employs fewer than 20 persons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 68 is a serious attempt dramatically to reduce the burden of Clause 8 of the Bill while reducing its scope very much less. I am encouraged to press the amendment now because of renewed support from the Federation of Small Businesses which wrote to me as recently as last Friday to confirm its support for the amendment.
The House will recall that originally, when the White Paper appeared in October of last year, a great deal of concern was expressed by employers about the provision in Clause 8 which states that employers should be required to act in effect as immigration officers and satisfy themselves that they are not employing illegal immigrants. The Federation of Small Businesses, the TUC and the Institute of Directors wrote a joint letter to The Times on 30th October 1995 saying that immigration policing in the workplace is not the job of employers and that checking immigration status is not straightforward and not always indicated by possession of a national insurance number, passport or other such documents.
Following a meeting between employers' organisations and the Home Office, the Minister, Mr. Kirkhope, expressed the Government's preference for a light regulatory touch to be applied in the new
672
legislation. It is certainly not a light regulatory touch in Clause 8; it is a new criminal offence applying to all employers regardless of the size of their organisations.
I need to give the House only two figures to emphasise how serious a burden that would be and how much it could be reduced by the provisions contained in the amendment. Indeed, 97 per cent. of employers in this country employ fewer than 20 employees. Therefore, the burden on 97 per cent. of all employers could be removed by agreement to the amendment. On the other hand, those 97 per cent. of employers employ only 35 per cent. of the workforce. Therefore, 65 per cent. of the workforce would still be covered by this very modest fall-back amendment, if it were carried, at the expense of removing the threat from 97 per cent. of employers. I suggest to the House that that is rather good value for money.
The problem for small employers—and I spent many years of my life as a small employer, though only in the early stages as an employer with fewer than 20 employees—is that they already have enormous difficulty with VAT, PAYE and all the regulations with which they must comply regarding the very simple business of employing any person—that is, even one person, let alone five, six, seven, 15 or 19 employees. They are simply not familiar with the documentation required, which would be called into question if the provisions of the clause were applied to small employers. National insurance numbers, medical cards, old National Health Service numbers, P45s, student cards and even signed P46s are not legal documents in the sense that Clause 8 would require.
Anyone who wishes deliberately to mislead or defraud an employer can easily do so; indeed, there is no difficulty about inventing numbers, handing in the wrong forms or signing incorrectly or fraudulently. I see the Minister shakes her head. I give way.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I am much obliged. If someone produces a fraudulent document, the offence is not that of the employer; the offence is that of the employee. If the employer has assured himself that a P45, a national insurance number, a birth certificate or a P46 certificate has been submitted and makes a record of that fact, he has availed himself of the defence in Clause 8. As I said, the offence is that of the employee who has submitted fraudulent documents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has said about fraudulent employees. Of course, she is right to say that Clause 8 provides an exemption. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention.
However, even in that intervention, the Minister referred to the fact that an employer may assure himself by means of such documents. It is that question of self-assurance which raises the difficulty. The fundamental point about the amendment is that it is not the job of the employer to check immigration status if, for reasons that we shall deal with in more detail on later amendments, it will lead to increased race discrimination against minority members of the

673
community. The Federation of Small Businesses believes that if the legislation is put on the statute book unamended it will be unworkable.
Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses goes further than I would go in that respect. It says that the whole of Clause 8 should be deleted. I am asking for a rather simple and modest amendment to be accepted which would remove from the scope of Clause 8 those firms with fewer than 20 employees. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for entering the Chamber a few minutes late. I was detained by what appeared to be an urgent message. I support what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said. One of the great worries that noble Lords have on Clause 8 is whether it may cause discrimination against legitimate, perfectly settled, non-white members of our community. One of the disturbing points that I believe the federation of small businesses made is that there is a real danger of discrimination arising in this area. That is the belief of the federation, not mine. It points out that an employer with 20 or fewer employees is unlikely to have a great deal of understanding of, or time to study, regulations that may be made, and that he will not know a great deal about the documents that are produced. In that situation such an employer may find it easier simply to say that anyone who looks as if he might conceivably be an illegal immigrant should be excluded at the first stage. I repeat that is not my view; it is the view of the federation of small businesses.
I hope that the Minister will consider carefully that submission, and how far we can simplify the regulations. She has already dealt with that point in previous discussions in Committee. I hope that she can make this exception given the special problems and pressures of small businesses.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should declare an interest as an employer of fewer than 20 people. It seems to me quite wrong that the Government should attempt to recruit small employers as unpaid, honorary immigration officers, just as it is quite wrong for the Government to recruit airline companies and ferry companies in a similar kind of role. Those companies which have considerable power and influence have a good deal of support on the Government Benches. I hope that the small employers will find just as much support on those very Benches.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I suggest that this amendment destroys itself on the information which has been given to us by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He has pointed out that a vast proportion of the employers of this country are small employers; that is, with fewer than 20 people. Let us say that the average size of workforce of each of a thousand small employers is 10. If this amendment were accepted, it would mean that 10,000 immigrants would be breaking the law. It is an absurd proposition and I assume that the noble Lord would not dream of pressing it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the worry I have with this amendment is that I believe the noble Lord probably
674
wishes to press it. The noble Lord is condemned by what he said. He claimed that 97 per cent. of companies employed fewer than 20 people. That would mean that this clause would be worthless if the amendment were accepted. As I understand it, 97 per cent. of employers employ 50 per cent. of the workforce. If that is the case, a large percentage of the workforce would be exempt from the measures in Clause 8. A large percentage of companies—I would say the majority—would also be exempt. I certainly could not accept what the noble Lord says.
I may goad the noble Lord slightly when I say that this is a real problem. We have said there are about 10,000 people in the country who are employed illegally. We believe that is a serious problem. We cannot create an exemption thereby allowing that matter to go unheeded and allowing the racketeering to go unheeded whereby often vulnerable people are exploited and taken advantage of. We cannot allow that situation to go unchecked by the measures in this clause. There is a real difference between noble Lords opposite and those of us on these Benches in this matter.
The amendment seeks to restrict the application of Clause 8 to those who employ 20 or more people. The aim is to minimise burdens on those small businesses whose success is of course so important to our economy. I agree wholeheartedly with that. Small businesses are the backbone of economic activity in this country. We do not wish to increase burdens on those companies. To suggest that a P45, a national insurance number or a P46 are alien documents frankly defies my understanding of small businesses where staff have to grapple with tax returns, VAT returns and other documents. Those businesses recruit people properly. They would certainly be familiar with those documents. I suspect that they would deal with those documents on a day-to-day basis while recruiting people to their companies.
We agree that it is vital that the impact of any proposals affecting business are very carefully considered. That is why this Government have introduced a range of measures designed to keep the burden of government regulation to a minimum. It is also why compliance cost assessments are now being prepared in respect of regulations or other legislation which will involve costs to business. We believe that the financial implications of new measures for business must be understood.
We have made clear that a key part of any such consideration must be the effect any regulations will have on small firms. Will they be able to cope? Will the effects of new measures affect small firms disproportionately? In some cases consideration of these questions leads to the conclusion that small firms should be excluded from the scope of a measure. This is particularly likely to be appropriate where there are significant capital or other costs involved which would have an impact in a disproportionate manner on small firms. However, the fact that some measures properly exclude small firms does not mean that it is right or necessary to exclude them from all measures.
The proposals which we outlined in our consultation document and to which Clause 8 would give effect have, as we have made clear all along, been developed with

675
an eye to keeping the burdens on all business to a minimum. Any burden imposed by our proposals will, of course, depend to a large extent on the scale and speed of turnover of staff. For many small businesses, with a stable workforce, any impact would in fact be pretty small and almost negligible.
It may be helpful if I provide an example. If a business has 12 employees and has a 25 per cent. turnover of staff in one year—that is quite a high turnover—checks of some sort will need to be made on only three occasions. If the new members of staff have normal, everyday documents as regards an employer, such as P45s, or otherwise documented National Insurance numbers—which is most likely—compliance costs would be absolutely minimal. They would be insignificant even if other checks had to be made.
We are of course concerned about the compliance costs of this provision. However, the responses which we received to our consultation document from organisations representing smaller firms do not lead us to think that the compliance costs for small businesses will, in the main, be anything other than minimal. Small business organisations chiefly emphasised the importance of clear guidance and welcomed the promise of a telephone helpline facility that could be called in case of difficulty. If a small employer is faced with an unusual document, help will be readily available. We will, of course, make every effort to ensure that the information and guidance which we provide are tailored to the needs of smaller employers.
However, we do not think it would be appropriate to exclude from the scope of this provision such a large proportion of employers. Estimates suggest that between 91 per cent. and 97 per cent. of businesses have fewer than 20 employees. These businesses between them employ millions of people. Any exclusion would clearly undesirably limit the effectiveness of the proposals. However, that, I presume is what noble Lords opposite want to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has said firmly that there is a great difference between us on this amendment. I glory in that difference. That difference shows the extent to which the Government are now driven by dogma rather than by reason in dealing with immigration matters. The Minister queried our figure of 97 per cent. She herself said in Committee,
"about 90 per cent. of companies … employ five or fewer employees".—[Official Report, 2/5/96; col. 1825.]
That certainly squares with my figure of 97 per cent. which employ 20 or fewer employees. The Minister mentioned the response to consultations with representatives of small businesses. I do not know who they may be, but the Federation of Small Businesses wrote to me as recently as 21st June,
"to add the support of the Federation of Small Businesses to your Amendment No. 68 aimed at exempting those employing less than 20 workers from the harsh penalty regime embodied in Clause 8 of the Asylum Bill".
The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, seemed to believe that the figures that I quoted about the importance of small businesses in the economy
676
somehow negated the force of my argument. I say the contrary. I say that the fact that we can remove the threat of Clause 8 from all but 3 per cent. of employers in this country, while excluding only 35 per cent. of employees, is good value for money. I repeat what I said in my opening speech. By this modest amendment, we can reduce the requirement on the Government to consult employers by a factor of 100 to 3, while still excluding only 35 per cent. of employees.
The Minister seems to think that there is a known figure of illegal employees in this country. I thought she said 10,000, but I may be wrong. The number of illegal immigrants working in this country is an unknowable statistic. None of us knows because no one can or will answer the question if it is posed. It is a guess. It can be the Government's guess, my guess or anybody else's guess. I am willing to do more than guess. I am willing to assert that the vast majority of illegal immigrants working in this country—however many there may be in total—work illegally in more ways than one. They are not just working illegally in the sense that they are illegal immigrants; they are working for firms which almost certainly do not fulfil the other obligations of employers. Many will be domestic workers. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will return to that on a later amendment. The employers are people who are not collecting or paying PAYE; they do not observe all the other obligations on employers and they will not be affected by Clause 8, whether or not it includes such employees.
In resisting the amendment, the Government have missed an opportunity enormously to reduce the burden and only marginally to reduce the coverage of Clause 8. I think that they are mad. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 6, line 34, after ("began") insert ("or within 2 weeks of the commencement of the employment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 69 refers to another practical issue which anyone who has been a small employer will appreciate. It is the requirement in Clause 8 that all the checks should be made and completed before employment commences. At Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Dubs moved an amendment which would have allowed a period of grace of two months between the start of employment and the completion of the immigration checks. We are more modest in the amendment today. We propose merely a period of two weeks. It means that the threat to the thrust of the Government's intention in Clause 8 is only marginally affected but, as with the previous amendment, the burden on employers is much less.
We are talking here mainly of small companies which have substantial numbers of part-time or casual labour who come in to fill a gap, to complete the need for a plumber, a bricklayer or whoever else it may be on a building site. They provide the small employer with the ability to complete an urgent order which cannot be

677
completed by full-time staff. We must remember that the clause applies to all employees, not just full-time and long-term employees. Frankly, the idea that before filling a gap in the labour market, providing perhaps short-term employment, perhaps part-time employment, an employer should go through the checks which will be required by the regulations set out or envisaged in Clause 8 is ludicrous. The Government argue for flexibility in the labour market. This afternoon the Prime Minister came back from Florence and claimed that he had been protecting flexibility in the labour market by continuing his resistance to the social chapter. Here his own Government encourage the greatest degree of inflexibility with regard to small employers that I can imagine.
What is happening is that the Government have gone overboard for ideology and are determined to apply to all employers penalties which only arise because of a small number of employers, probably illegal themselves in other ways, who employ illegal employees.
I suggest that in Clause 8 the Government are using overkill. This modest amendment would in no way damage the thrust of what the Government want but it would make a huge difference to employers' ability to carry out their business without interference from government. One would expect to hear that kind of argument from the Conservative Benches. It is a shame that we do not hear it from either the Conservative Front Bench or the Conservative Back Benches. Who is on the side of small businesses? Who is on the side of industry? The answer is the Labour Party. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I find the amendment interesting and in many ways it is a good one. There is a parallel between it and the driving licence. If you are in an accident and cannot produce a driving licence instantly, you are given a little time to do so. Then, listening to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I was concerned because I felt that he argued against himself. He said that an employer might want someone in a hurry who would come in for a short time, a few days, and go again. That would be no use because the person would be gone before the two weeks were up. So it would not apply to someone who came in on short-term or relief employment. That person would have to bring some type of document with him if he were coming for a few days, as the noble Lord suggested. However, for someone entering longer term employment, there is a case. Often people cannot produce documents in an instant, when they should. The parallel with the driving licence after an accident is interesting.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment would provide an employer with a defence if he could show that one of the specified documents had been produced to him within two weeks of the employment starting. At present the clause specifies that the document should have been produced to the employer before the employment began.
As I explained when we discussed a similar amendment in Committee, the suggestion that there should be a period of grace allowed to employers within
678
which they could establish their defence was put forward by a small number of those who responded to our consultation document on the prevention of illegal working.
The main reason put forward in support of this amendment is that a period of grace would prevent the introduction of potential delays into the recruitment process while documentation is requested. I know that this has been a concern to some employers, although we believe that that concern has been exaggerated. I can understand why some employers, and others, have found the idea of a period of grace attractive.
However, while I can understand the concerns of those who seek a period of grace, I believe, as I said during our earlier discussion in Committee, that it is not unreasonable to assume that Clause 8 will have an effect on the recruitment process. At present there is no need for a person to carry certain documentation when going for an interview unless it has specifically been asked for. As a result it will therefore rarely be available.
Our expectation is that such documentation will be readily available in many more cases in the future because it will be understood that the offer of employment may be dependent on its production. This will tend to concentrate the minds of those seeking employment. It will be a matter for employers when they choose to request the documentation. But it would be satisfactory for the purposes of this clause if the documentation was presented when the new employee turned up on the first day.
For the vast majority of people it should be a straightforward matter to produce one of the specified documents. Evidence of a national insurance number will be provided by a wide range of different documents, including the P45. If such evidence is not available, most people keep documents like passports or birth certificates in a safe place. Letters issued by the Home Office to asylum seekers and refugees will also tend to be kept in a safe place.
I do not accept the contention put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Committee that it is likely that black people will have more difficulties in arriving with the relevant documents than will white people. Those who will have very real problems will be those who are not entitled to work here—perhaps because they are here illegally or here as a visitor and prohibited from working.
I explained during our previous debate why the then suggested two-month period of grace would seriously weaken the impact of Clause 8. However, even a shorter period of grace would significantly weaken its impact.
It could certainly provide a loophole which could be used by unscrupulous racketeers trying to evade the impact of the clause. If we made it 14 days, they would employ people on a 13-day basis; if we made it seven days, they would employ people on a six-day basis; if we made it 24 hours, they would employ people on an hourly basis. The loophole is there, whatever period of grace is determined by noble Lords opposite.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister having come back from the Florence Summit referring to flexibility. I

679
believe he made a point, and I support him in that. But we are protecting jobs in the labour market for the people in this country who have a right to those jobs and not for the racketeers or those who are working here illegally. To the noble Lord's accusation that, "the noble Lord and his friends are on the side of the small employers", I would say that those who are on the side of this amendment are on the side of the racketeers and on the side of those working illegally—
Earl Russell: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not out of order. We have here an offence against the racketeers who are exploiting very vulnerable people who come here and are taken advantage of, very often at very low wages, and exploited in the workshops of those companies. We are saying that this offence deals quite explicitly with that. Those who oppose making this an offence to catch people like those racketeers, frankly, must be on their side if they are not prepared to support the Government in making it an offence.
More sig—
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness has impugned our honour. I will ask her to withdraw that remark.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as a former Minister of State at the Home Office, I simply cannot accept the allegation that Members of the Front Bench of the Opposition parties are engaged in supporting racketeers. We understand about racketeers; we have no time for them; and we certainly do not wish it to be implied that we will give them any kind of support at all. I must ask the noble Baroness to withdraw that remark.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to respond to that with a direct retort. If the noble Baroness is serious, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is also serious, what are they going to do about the racketeers? What are they going to do about those employers who exploit the vulnerable in the workplace, who do not have to pay them very well or treat them very well because they are not caught by these measures? The intention is to put this measure on the statute book to deal with that explicitly.
We have given an absolute assurance to the small businesses in this country, most of which will not be caught by these measures. Already in their everyday practices most have a defence against this offence and will have no problems with it at all. We will operate a light touch and we will be serious in that. We will produce guidance which will be user-friendly for the majority of small businesses. But the measure is quite specifically to catch the unscrupulous. If the noble Baroness and the noble Earl are serious in that, and if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is serious, they will support us in putting a measure on the statute book that will catch those racketeers. That is what we intend to do; and I stand by that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, it would be perfectly possible to
680
reach agreement on an amendment at Third Reading that would meet both our needs. Many honest and decent small employers represented by the Federation of Small Businesses have asked us to raise this matter since they believe they will be caught by the Government's net. We must ask the Government to consider whether federation representatives would themselves try to allege that small businesses would take part in an attempt to help racketeers. It is a serious allegation, not just against Members on the Front Bench of the Opposition parties but against the Federation of Small Businesses itself. I am sure that the Minister does not wish to make such an allegation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I certainly do not want to make that kind of accusation against small businesses. As I began by saying in response to this amendment, I believe they are the backbone of economic generation and activity in this country. I do not demur from that. I also believe that the majority of small businesses have absolutely nothing to fear. I further believe that most small businesses, in their normal recruitment practices, look for a national insurance number or a P45 and they will not be caught by this measure. I also believe that, even if those small businesses accept those documents in good faith and they then turn out to be forged, unlike the way in which the noble Lord initially addressed this amendment, they will not be caught by this provision. They will have a proper defence, because they will have looked at the document. If it is fraudulent, it will be a matter for the applicant to answer. He will be in breach of the law, not the employer.
We have further said that we will do what we can to operate a light touch on employers. And we have said that we will produce the friendliest user-friendly information and guidance to small businesses, and will produce a helpline for them to contact if they are in any difficulty about recognising a bona fide document. We will go a very long way to recognise the difficulties and to reduce the burdens on small business. But we are deadly serious in making sure that people do not use the system to work here illegally. We shall make absolutely certain that we do not have any truck with racketeering in this country. This part of the clause is there because we believe it will catch those who exploit the most vulnerable people.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not intervene in the Minister's speech because I try to avoid that if I can. However, I want her to know that my noble friends and I share the resentment expressed by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench about what is more than an implication that we are supporting racketeers. It was a direct statement that we are supporting racketeering. It was as clear as that, and Hansard will show it to be so. That is not easily forgivable.
I often wonder whether the Conservative Party knows anything at all about the way business operates. I often wonder whether its members are not living in a dream world of what they think is Adam Smith economics but in fact is probably monetarist economics of the most

681
extreme and theoretical sort. Have they ever been to the hotel and catering jobcentre just north of Oxford Street on the Corner of Mortimer Street and Wells Street in the early morning? Do they know how hotel and catering workers are actually recruited? The hotels, restaurants and others send out a call at six o'clock or seven o'clock in the morning for x number of people to do washing up, or to be supplementary waiters, or sous-chefs, or whatever it may be. These people have to be taken on at a minute's notice, not half-an-hour's notice. They have to be there to fill a job. Do the Government know what happens when farmers recruit fruit-pickers? Do they think that fruit-pickers, when they arrive, will come with their passports or their P45s? When the cherries, plums or whatever are ripe, these people have to be recruited at the time; and they will be recruited at the time. For the Minister to tell us that the effect of Clause 8 will be that employees will have to be more responsible in bringing their documents with them when they come for jobs is a denial of common sense and of the way in which the employment market actually works.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has made two points, one about the catering industry and one about the farming industry. He will note at a previous stage of this Bill we made quite a concession to the farming industry, because we recognise that there is an issue there. We have doubled the number of people from abroad who come in on special schemes and work in the farming industry, because we recognise just that.
As for the catering industry, many of the people who go to the organisation in Oxford Street are working for McDonalds, the large hotels or Kentucky Fried Chicken. They are working for all those organisations, none of which will be caught by the noble Lord's amendment.
Is the noble Lord saying that somebody recruited in that sense should be party to the provisions in Clause 8 and those working for the 90 per cent. or so of companies which the noble Lord wishes to be exempt from this provision should count as a different kind of citizen?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister speaks to the previous amendment. This amendment is not about firms with fewer than 20 employees. It is about the two weeks' grace. I should be grateful if she would withdraw the remarks that she has just made.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, let me say that the issues are very similar. We are talking about those who will employ people on a sessional basis. If we allow a period of grace, they will resort to a sessional basis. Many of the people described by the noble Lord in his amendment are people who will be taken on in the morning for one, two or three days' work. Many of the people about whom we are talking, many of the employers whom we are trying to catch by the measures in Clause 8, will resort to just that. If the noble Lord makes the period a fortnight, they will resort to periods of less than a fortnight; if he makes it seven days, they will resort to
682
periods of less than a week; and if he makes it 24 hours, they will resort to periods of hours. We believe that the scope for exploitation by the unscrupulous is legion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are some trades in which inflexibility is a virtue. Inflexibility of that kind at the Dispatch Box is no virtue. The Minister has moved away from the thrust of the amendment that we have been arguing to try to talk about small employers. That is an issue which we are not debating at the moment. Even when she is challenged directly on the issue, she refuses to acknowledge that she is in fact reading from the wrong part of her brief.
The Minister shows no understanding of our two fundamental criticisms of Clause 8 of the Bill. One is that to attempt to have a blanket obligation on all employers to be part of the criminal law in pursuing illegal immigrants is a huge burden on employers. The second is a failure of the Government to understand that there is a very considerable black economy which will in no way be affected by this clause.
I had certainly not intended to divide the House on this issue. But in view of the intransigent response that the Government have given to this amendment, I believe that it is my duty to press it.
8.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 69) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 55.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Berkeley, L.

Hylton, L.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brightman, L.

Kintore, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Geraint, L.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thurso, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Howell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Burnham, L.

Balfour, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Carnock, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Courtown, E.

Berners, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Blaker, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Boardman, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

683

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Harlech, L.

Rawlings, B.

Henley, L.

Reay, L.

Hogg, B.

Rennell, L.

Howe, E.

Renton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Renwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kingsland, L.

Sharples, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Leigh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

McConnell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wakeham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Westbury, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wise, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 6, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 36.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these government amendments simply make some minor adjustments to Clause 8.
Amendment No. 70 will remove from subsection (3) of the clause the requirement that an employer would need to prove that the document which he had seen to provide himself with a defence had been produced with a view to establishing that the employment would not constitute an offence.
On consideration we take the view that that is not a necessary requirement. The important elements are that the document was produced and, where necessary, copied. Furthermore, while in many cases the document will have been produced simply because of the requirements of this clause, that will not necessarily be the case. A P45, for example, will continue to be produced principally for purposes related to income tax.
Amendment No. 71 is a minor but not insignificant drafting amendment which will make clear that employers are only expected to prove that a document that was produced to them "appeared" to be one of the specified documents. The current text specifies that the document,
"was of a description specified".
Theoretically that would not cover a forged document. We made clear in the consultation document that employers would only be expected to satisfy themselves that a document appeared to be one of those specified. The amendment will make sure that there is no doubt about what is expected of employers on this point. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these amendments are well intentioned. To the minor extent that they go, they are welcome. We have no intention of opposing them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, a number of small employers have said to me that they have no way of knowing whether or not a national insurance
684
card is genuine. It would be useful if the employers' federation or a similar group had access to the computer in Newcastle so that they could tell whether or not people really existed. I felt that there was a case for such access when I read in the paper recently that a woman who lived a few doors from where I am in London collected pensions for thousands of people—not hundreds—involving £2 million or more in forged pension books. Can my noble friend say whether it is a possible proposition for employers to have access to a simple way of determining whether or not cards are genuine?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in our attempt to make it as little burdensome as possible for employers, we are not asking them to be investigators on behalf of the Home Office in this matter. If somebody comes along to whom an employer is prepared to offer a job and he or she produces a P45, P46, a birth certificate or a national insurance number, we expect the employer to take it in good faith unless he has good reason for believing that it may not be genuine, in which case he can ring the help line and make inquiries about that. We are not putting the onus on the employer to worry about it being a fraudulent document. The breach would be on the part of the employee who proffered a fraudulent document.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 6, line 37, leave out ("was") and insert ("to be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("5") and insert ("3").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 72 and say right away that my concern is with the possibility of making a criminal offence out of what may well be an action on the part of an employer which arises from—to use the terms of the Bill—an issue of neglect,
"on the part of … any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate".
I fully accept the Government's wording with regard to "connivance" because that implies a systematic attempt to avoid the law and falls squarely within the area about which the Minister was talking; namely, that of racketeering. Noble Lords on this side of the House have made it as plain as they possibly can that we do not support racketeering in relation to vulnerable immigrants.
However, it is also the case that a number of employers, and especially small employers—though this may not be a matter of interest to the colleague of the Minister who is clearly engaging her attention—simply through neglect or misunderstanding fail to act in the proper manner to remove themselves from the terms of the Bill. I draw the Minister's attention again to the words of the Bill as amended, which refer to,
"neglect on the part of … any director … or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity".

685
My concern is with the high levels of punishment implicit in Clause 8 and in particular the fact that Clause 8 implies a criminal offence. I hope that the Government can distinguish between those who legitimately can be described as being engaged in a criminal offence—namely, systematic attempts to evade immigration legislation—and those who fall within the terms of the clause because of an oversight, a misunderstanding or an act of neglect.
The Minister may say that that would be a matter for the courts. However, I believe that primary legislation should give clear guidance to the courts on such a matter and should distinguish between connivance on the one hand and neglect on the other for the sentences implicit in this Bill are very substantial indeed. As the noble Baroness will know, one of the matters that the Federation of Small Business Employers has continually insisted on is its resentment and concern about the possibility of being charged with a criminal offence when it believes that its members will have tried to meet the terms of the legislation but may inadvertently have failed to do so.
I hope very much that the noble Baroness will consider the distinction between honest and dishonest employers which is rather like the distinction between bogus and real refugees and asylum seekers. The business of the House is to distinguish between the honest and dishonest, the bogus and the real. Just as the Minister asks us to try to get the balance right on Clauses 1 and 2, although we may not agree where the balance should be struck—I for one do not—on this issue I hope that we can strike a balance between the honest employer who is trying to meet the requirements but who, for some reason, has failed to meet them in full, and the dishonest employer who is engaged in an attempt to undermine the legislation and its predecessors.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the examples to be given by my noble friend about the ways in which employers try to meet the requirements and who may fail to do so. Above all, in moving the amendment, I am profoundly concerned about the possibility of employers engaging in a criminal offence. It is always dangerous to criminalise otherwise innocent people. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, it had not been my intention to speak. However, having listened to the debate on the previous amendment, I feel it necessary to support my noble friend. I have been an employer in the hotel and catering industry all my working life. I have run a number of small and medium-sized businesses. I have discussed the contents of this Bill with a number of my colleagues as it affects those of us who work in the industry. Their reaction is very straightforward. It is to say simply, "We may be publicans, but we do not necessarily want to be sinners. So we shall avoid that risk by taking on white people." In other words, they are worried about the possibility of committing a criminal offence. The worry is such that they will do whatever they can to avoid that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have previously drawn the attention of your Lordships' House to the fact that not all illegal immigrants are coloured. Certainly, one needs to watch out for those with an accent like mine.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find what the noble Viscount has just said quite extraordinary. The defence that an employer can use is simply to ask for some kind of documentation such as a National Insurance number, a P45 or P46, birth certificate or passport. There is a whole raft of documents. Someone may be black, white or halfway between those two colours. It does not matter. That is an absolute defence for the employer who will have "honestly tried", as the noble Baroness put it. That will become a defence. If the document turns out to be fraudulent and the person is an illegal immigrant, the offence will be that of an employee who has sought to gain employment by illegal means. It will not be an offence by the employer at all.
The amendment would set the maximum penalty for the new offence at level 3, which is currently £1,000, rather than at level 5, which is currently £5,000. Again, it is essential that the penalties available for an offence should provide the courts with the powers they need to deal with all offenders who appear before them. As I explained in Committee, in setting the maximum penalty for the new offence the most important consideration must be to ensure that the courts will be able to sentence appropriately for the most serious examples of the offence. Within that maximum penalty it is then for the courts to set the penalty in individual cases, taking account of the seriousness of the particular offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. Noble Lords will know that the offence can be very minor indeed, but it can also be very serious. To have a maximum penalty of just £1,000 makes it almost worthwhile for the unscrupulous not to worry about an offence.
We do not believe that a maximum penalty of £1,000 would allow the courts to deal adequately with, for example, the deliberately exploitative employer who employs people he knows or suspects to be working illegally simply because he can pay them lower wages. We believe that a maximum penalty of £5,000 will allow the courts to deal with such offenders in an appropriate fashion. The courts will still be able to set much lower fines in the less serious cases.
I emphasise that we will be providing guidance to employers and explaining to them exactly what they will need to do to establish a defence. We want all employers to be aware of their new obligations and will therefore use all available channels to ensure that advice and guidance reaches them.
There should therefore be no danger that an employer of good will will find himself without a defence. Even if he does, it is unlikely in practice that the Immigration Service, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service would think it appropriate to take forward a prosecution in the case of a first offence, except in particularly serious cases involving large numbers of people working illegally. Final decisions will, of course, be for the CPS. But as far as the Immigration Service is

687
concerned, the target will be repeated for major abuses. In the majority of cases it will probably be sufficient to caution first offenders, particularly where it is clear that the offence was committed unknowingly.
The maximum penalty will be available in respect of each offence with which an employer has been charged. If five individuals were being employed illegally, five offences would be committed. If the prosecutor chose to charge in the case of all five separately, the maximum penalty available to the court would be £25,000. I believe that that would be a real deterrent for the most unscrupulous. However, it is possible that the prosecution might prefer to bring forward a single specimen charge rather than five separate charges, in which case the maximum penalty would then be £5,000.
It has to be for the Crown Prosecution Service to select the charges which should be brought in particular cases. When selecting charges Crown prosecutors are guided by the general principles set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. This states that Crown prosecutors should select charges which reflect the seriousness of the offending, give the court adequate sentencing powers and enable the case to be presented in a clear and simple way. It is a matter for the discretion of the prosecution to decide which approach to adopt in the public interest, taking account of all the relevant circumstances, including the existence of any previous convictions. The Crown Prosecution Service regularly makes such decisions in respect of other types of offences.
The noble Baroness referred to the word "neglect". It is a standard provision and follows standard language in similar legislation. The penalties are the maximum and the courts can assess the degree of culpability, but we need substantial financial penalties for the most serious offences.
We believe that it is right to distinguish between the honest and the dishonest. That is the whole point of these provisions. An honest employer who finds himself unwittingly caught up by these measures will find that reflected in the way in which his case is handled, but we hope that the dishonest and the really culpable will be dealt with more severely. Magistrates' courts are also accustomed to sentencing offenders who have been found guilty of a number of similar offences on the same occasion. In setting financial penalties in such cases, they are still obliged to take account of the seriousness of the offence. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that in the more severe cases the flexibility to range up to £5,000 is very important.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the amendment and for her kindness in writing to me in advance of the debate to set out clearly the maximum penalty which, as she has rightly repeated tonight, applies to each individual offence. That means that the offence does not just attract a fine of £5,000, but a fine of £5,000 in each case. Therefore, if I am correct, the maximum fine for an employer of, say, 20 people if all those employees were
688
found to be outwith the regulations in some way would be £100,000, which is a sufficient fine to make it difficult for that business to carry on.
I raise this point because the type of employment in which people are employed for short periods, often from an employment agency at very short notice, is found in precisely those areas where our own minority communities seek work because they may not be highly qualified or highly skilled, especially those who are first or second generation. There is a good deal of evidence to show that they tend to go for relatively short-term, low paid jobs of precisely the kind likely to attract employers in, say, the catering or farming industries.
The Minister said—with sincerity, I am sure—that she did not regard the objection made by my noble friend Lord Thurso as one that she could accept. She said that she did not see any reason why an employer should not take on somebody of a non-white skin colour, simply on the grounds of Clause 8. However, long ago the then Minister of Health, Aneurin Bevan, said in another place that there is no need to read the crystal if you can read the book. The "crystal" may suggest—in other words, foresight based on expectations may suggest—that that will not happen, but my noble friend read the book. He gave us an account of what friends in his own industry had told him. Whether or not we approve of it, I hope that the Minister will take seriously the evidence that he has laid before the House because that is the way in which many employers will react, although we might wish that they would not.
I repeat that the idea of being held responsible for a criminal offence which may arise from "neglect" is very different from being held responsible for a civil offence and being fined accordingly. While I fully accept that those engaged in systematic racketeering ought to attract a criminal offence, it does not seem to me that this should be applied to the general run of small business people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) No order shall be made under this section unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that no racial discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Local Government Act 1985 will result from the order, and before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult organisations appearing to him to be representative of persons concerned and other relevant organisations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move Amendment No. 73, I should like to speak also to the comparable amendments which arise on later clauses: Amendments Nos. 83, 96 and 102. When I spoke about the hotel and catering industry I had not fully appreciated that the House had the benefit of the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I believe the noble Viscount will agree with me that my reference to the hotel and catering jobcentre is perhaps a gentle example of what happens. One wonders what people in the Conservative Party are like and where they live. Do they not have children who go to pubs? Do they not go to pubs themselves? What happens when one is short of

689
bar staff? One does not go to the jobcentre but to a mate on the other side of the bar. One asks him to help for the evening and pays him cash in return. I am sure the noble Viscount is right in saying that if there is a choice between black and white people, or people with a foreign accent and people with a British accent, white people with British accents will be chosen to do the work. That is true of marginal employment in many sectors, not just the hotel and catering industry.
In relation to these amendments, all those who have experience in employment and race relations say the same as the noble Viscount said based on his experience. They say that there will be a conflict between the obligations on employers and citizens under race relations legislation and the obligations laid down under Clause 8 of the Bill. All but the most scrupulous employers will take the easy way out and will not wish to be involved in any possibility of committing an offence. They will not risk the possibility of being picked up later on for having committed the offence of employing an illegal immigrant. They will cut out the possibility at source and will not employ anyone whose skin is different or who speaks with a different accent, or indeed speaks a different language.
I will not hear again from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Of course, I understand that she is an immigrant, and is proud to be one. But I am sure that, based on her knowledge of London—she has lived here for many years and has taken an honourable and active part in London society—she will understand that the difference between someone coming from Australia and working in one of the professions and someone coming from the new Commonwealth, or other parts of the world, and working in very much more marginal occupations than the noble Baroness is very great. Other people will not glory in the name immigrant in the way that she does. Much as I admire and respect her experience, it is not relevant to the case that I argue this evening.
I am not alone in making this argument. Adair Turner of the CBI has said—although this has been said before, I believe that the House should be reminded of it—that the proposed legislation will do nothing to improve equal opportunities and may undermine employers' commitment to implement equal opportunities policies. We do not claim that every employer will have his commitment to equal opportunities policies undermined, nor does Adair Turner of the CBI say it. We simply say that there is a significant danger of a conflict between those who genuinely want to implement equal opportunities policies and those who are genuinely afraid of falling foul of the law. All that has been made clear to the Government, not just in response to the original White Paper, but in response to each stage of the Bill as it has gone through.
Already, black workers in this country suffer from a higher unemployment rate; already, there is a much higher proportion of younger Afro-Caribbean men who are unemployed than those in any other age group or from any other ethnic community; already, young black men are more likely to be long-term unemployed; already, it is more difficult for them to find jobs when
690
they finish the Government's training-for-work programmes. All those factors will be exacerbated if there will have to be a check on employment when they come out of their work programmes or period of unemployment.
As I said, that will not apply to all employers. There will be good employers for whom there is no difficulty, but it will apply to enough employers to exacerbate the already unacceptable differences between the employment of people from black and other ethnic communities and those who are less likely to be questioned under the conditions of Clause 8.
In these amendments we are saying that there should be no action under the clause until there has been a proper investigation, confirmed by the Secretary of State, that there will no be racial discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Local Government Act 1985, and that the Secretary of State should consult those organisations which appear to him to be representative of persons concerned and other relevant organisations.
This is not a destructive amendment; it is a protective amendment. It protects the Government from the risk of imposing legislation which is in conflict with the existing law. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, at this late hour I believe that the House has already heard almost enough from me, so I shall make my remarks brief. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is attempting to deal with a difficult conflict for employers which arises from the fact that there are now two pieces of legislation, both of which they are supposed to obey. The first, if it receives the approval of the House, will be encompassed in Clause 8. It will require them to satisfy the requirements of the Bill in respect of the employment of illegal immigrants.
There are already on the statute book requirements with regard to the Race Relations Act, and employers are supposed to abide by them. If my noble friend Lord Thurso is right, it will be difficult for employers to walk between the small, tricky space dividing the two pieces of legislation. They are required to obey both.
The amendment would go a long way towards enabling employers to accept and obey both pieces of legislation, because it will allow employers to assure themselves that their actions were not seen to be in contradiction to the existing race relations legislation. I support the amendment, because it will go some way towards assisting employers to say that they were acting in terms that meant that they were in fact upholding both pieces of legislation which might in some way be seen to be in conflict with each other.
Lord Renton: My Lords, Amendment No. 73 and the amendments which go with it, refer to orders which are subject to parliamentary control. When we have orders of that kind, it is unusual that we should lay down that the Secretary of State shall not break the law when making the order: in effect, that is what the amendments do. It is a little unfair—indeed, rather rude—to suggest that any Secretary of State, whatever his party, would engage in racial discrimination when making an order.

691
It would be against the law to do so and it is most ungenerous of the noble Lord to suggest that such an expression needs to be made when Parliament is giving power to a Secretary of State to make an order.
As regards consulting organisations appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative, we know—in particular those who have had experience in government—that there is a great deal of consultation with the organisations involved. They may be other governmental organisations, charities or voluntary bodies. A great deal of thorough discussion takes place between officials of departments and the other organisations whose members may be affected. I should have thought that it was unnecessary to write that into the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will feel free to advise your Lordships not to accept the amendment or those grouped with it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, understands perfectly well, without any respect of party, that Parliament, as a body, should always distrust any Secretary of State of any political colour whatever. The amendment means no more than that. I am also sure the noble Lord can remember many occasions in this Chamber when a great deal of our time has been taken up because a Secretary of State failed to consult. It does happen.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards this subject it certainly does not happen. The consultation is very full. The Government are committed to maintaining and developing good race relations in this country and to ensuring that all groups are treated equally. Only last week the Council for Racial Equality confirmed the good record of race relations in this country. We are alive to the continuing need for vigilance in ensuring that all legislation does not damage those good relations.
We appreciate that some people are concerned that Clause 8 might operate to the disadvantage of people from the ethnic minorities. But we believe that those concerns are misplaced. If we thought that employers would pick out any particular group for discriminatory treatment on the basis of their colour or race because of this clause or any orders made under it we would be extremely concerned. We have therefore given very careful consideration to this point from the outset. We do not share the fears which have been expressed. We believe that our proposals will not adversely affect the position of people from the ethnic minorities.
There are two order-making powers under Clause 8 which Amendment No. 73 would affect. One will allow the Secretary of State to specify that persons subject to immigration control satisfying conditions other than those outlined in the clause itself can be employed without any offence being committed. The other will allow the Secretary of State to specify categories of document on which an employer will be able to rely for his defence and specify the way in which an appropriate record should be made to establish a defence.
The exercise of neither of these order-making powers will result in unlawful discrimination. Indeed, there would be no question of orders being made by my right
692
honourable friend if that were the result. The amendments would also require my right honourable friend to consult organisations representative of persons concerned and other relevant organisations before making any order under Clause 8.
The Government are committed to proper consultation with employers and others to ensure that the implementation of Clause 8 is as straightforward as possible. But we have made clear that we do not agree that there should be any statutory requirement to undertake such consultation every time the order-making powers are to be used. In our view, such a requirement is unnecessary. Indeed, there could well be occasions where such consultation would achieve nothing except an unhelpful delay.
Consultation will take place where it will be helpful. In particular there will be consultation on the guidance that the Home Office will be providing for employers. If those consulted have any comments on points arising from draft statutory instruments then available we will of course consider amending them. But given the purpose and likely content of the statutory instruments we do not anticipate that such comments are likely.
The key requirement, as we have said all along, will be to keep employers and others informed about Government policy in this area—and to give employers time to prepare for any changes.
In preparing an order under Clause 9, the Department of the Environment, would, as a matter of course, take into consideration the concerns of key players, such as the local authorities associations and the Council for Racial Equality, as well as having regard to legislative requirements such as those in the Race Relations Act 1976.
As your Lordships are aware, there are already restrictions in place on access to the homelessness legislation by certain persons from abroad. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities suggests a screening procedure which is applicable to everyone applying for assistance under the homelessness legislation. The screening procedure and related advice in the guidance was drawn up by the Department of the Environment in consultation with, among others, the Commission for Racial Equality. This procedure has been in place for two years and given rise to no complaints. It is the type of procedure which the Department of the Environment proposes to commend to local authorities in applying the new legislation. The department will also be preparing new guidance to take account of the provisions in the Housing Bill, now being considered in the House, and will, as a matter of course, take account of the concerns of interested parties.
Our administrative procedures for dealing with child benefit applications will establish people's nationality and filter down to people who have spent time abroad in the last few years. Only these people will be asked further questions about their immigration status. This avoids any need for enquiry into an applicant's immigration status based solely on potentially misleading factors such as his ethnic origin or style of his name. This is the same procedure as that applied in

693
the case of other non-contributory benefits and, although the provisions there have been in operation only a short time, they have not given rise to any complaints.
It also needs to be said, in the context of all those points, that there are also laws about paying tax for employees and deducting employees' National Insurance contributions. Without National Insurance numbers or some sort of identification, how can the employer communicate with the Contributions Agency of the Inland Revenue? Those are standard documents required by any employer who is legally employing people in this country. We do not believe that that would constitute an added burden. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who spoke to the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in order that I do not forget to do so, perhaps I may refer first to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who described me or the amendment as being ungenerous in raising the possibility that the Secretary of State might engage in racial discrimination. I said no such thing and the amendment says no such thing. The amendment provides that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that no racial discrimination will result; in other words, that employers should not engage in racial discrimination. There is no question of a suggestion either in what I said or in what the amendment says of the Secretary of State engaging in racial discrimination. However, I must say that I am by no means certain that there might not be a Secretary of State who would engage in racial discrimination, however ungenerous it may be to say so.
The thrust of the amendment is a rather different and more important point than that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The thrust of the amendment concerns the possibility of conflict between the requirements of Clause 8 and the obligations on employers to support and practise equal opportunities. What we have been saying and what everybody with any practical experience of employment is saying is that the effect of Clause 8 will be that less scrupulous and less careful employers will take the easy short cut to the implementation of Clause 8 and will not employ anybody who is of a different coloured skin or with a different accent.
Nothing that I have heard said by the Government or indeed by noble Lords opposite has persuaded me that that is not highly likely. All the arguments against it have been theoretical rather than practical. All of the practical experience that we have heard about this evening has come from noble Lords on this side of the House who have argued, I believe convincingly, that the danger still exists.
In her closing remarks the Minister said that the Government consult widely with many different organisations concerned with racial discrimination. I do not doubt that the noble Baroness consults; all I can say that she cannot have been listening to what those organisations were saying. They have been saying something very different and very much less supportive of the Government than would appear to be the case from the Minister's comments.
694
We did not divide in Committee and the issue is not one upon which I wish to divide the House at this time of night. However, it remains a very serious concern for the Opposition. We are by no means convinced with the answers that have been given. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 74:
Leave out Clause 8.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe that the Minister is in no doubt that, in common with other noble Lords on this side of the House, I was considerably distressed by her reply to Amendment No. 68. I do not believe there can be any doubt in other quarters of the House of my dislike of racketeers. But my dislike goes further. I dislike the bankrupting of businesses, the creation of unemployment and the increase in racial discrimination.
As I dislike all those factors, I feel, when considering Clause 8, I should attempt to strike a balance as regards how many of them are involved as well as how much I dislike them. In other words, I must try to strike a balance as to whether Clause 8 is likely to create a worse mischief than the one it prevents. That is a stiff test, and I am not certain that the clause passes it.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, dwelt eloquently and powerfully from experience, as did my noble friend Lord Thurso, on the burdens that the clause places on business. If I do not develop that line further, it is not because I do not care about it; it is because the points have already been well made and I need only say that I agree with them.
To my great regret I returned to the Chamber about a minute too late to take part in the debate on Amendment No. 68. Therefore, I take leave to say that one reason why the provisions will be more burdensome on small businesses than on others is that, very commonly, those businesses do not have someone working separately who is in charge of the office and who deals with the paperwork.
If someone is working full time on the paperwork, it is possible that a small business can cope. However, when I think of how the legislation will affect someone like my plumber who is all day on the job and does the paperwork late at night, I believe that the chief effect of the clause will be to deter people like him from ever taking on an assistant. In fact, the Bill will prevent the creation of jobs which would otherwise quite possibly have been created. I think that that is an anathema.
However, more seriously, I am concerned about the effects of the Bill on the employment of black British people. Again, I was extremely disappointed by the Minister's reaction to the evidence produced by my noble friend Lord Thurso. It is first-hand evidence and it is not the only evidence available. Indeed, we have information regarding plenty of other cases, a number of which are contained in a report published as recently as last week.
A citizens' advice bureau discovered a case in December 1995 of a British subject of Pakistani origin who was referred to a bus company by the Employment Service for a work experience course. He was told that he needed to spend £20 to obtain a new passport, which he could not afford to do. The noble Baroness may remember that in Committee I referred her to an almost identical case in the window of my local Jobcentre. I am interested to discover that that case does not stand alone. There is another case of a black British subject, a woman from Surrey, who was told that because she had spent much of her life abroad and had never worked in this country she could not have a national insurance number. That was clearly an erroneous decision but under the Bill it would have prevented the woman from ever obtaining employment.
I do not think the noble Baroness understands quite how intense is the urge to discriminate out there. I take the case reported at the press conference launching the annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality. A major insurance company instructed all those who did business with it that they were to take on no non-nationals. It instructed new staff in training sessions that NNN could be remembered because it stood for "no nignogs". I share the astonishment of Mr. Oustie that that could happen in this day and age. But it did. There are other cases which tend to suggest that this is not as unusual as we might think. There is the case of the black British subject of Asian descent who was called Mr. Birdi. Probably that name was unfortunate, as no doubt mine might be in Gujarat. Mr. Birdi applied for a job and was turned down without an interview and without any consideration. He then applied for the same job with the same qualifications under the alias of John Smith. He was offered the job. The employer was Group 4 security. They really do do it, do they not?
There is another case of an Anglo-Turkish man living in Hertfordshire. He applied for every job in sight. No one would look at him. He was even told he was unqualified for the job of stacking shelves in a supermarket. He then changed his name and used his mother's English name instead of his father's Turkish name. He immediately started picking up job offers all over the place. I think that shows the atmosphere in which these provisions will come into effect. There will be a marginal temptation to discriminate. There will be a tendency to require extra documents. I have said in the past that I think employers are likely to have great difficulty understanding this legislation. The evidence as it is beginning to emerge shows that that is indeed the case. Not only are they having difficulty in understanding the legislation: they are also having great difficulty understanding its commencement date.
I refer not only to casual employers and to ignorant employers. I refer, for example, to the social security Benefits Agency. That agency dealt with a woman from Sri Lanka who had exceptional leave to remain and a national insurance number, and who had already worked for that agency over the past two years. She was told that the Benefits Agency would have to check her employment status with the Home Office when the new regulations were introduced, although she already had all the necessary documentation and her status was in
696
order. Her start date was delayed by three weeks. However, she was a lot luckier than most. Employers seem to have great difficulty with the concept of exceptional leave to remain.
Let us take the example of Mr. Dhatt versus McDonald's hamburgers. Mr. Dhatt was an Indian with indefinite leave to remain and had been in the UK since the age of six. He was subject to no restrictions on employment, he did not need a work permit to work in the UK. He showed McDonald's the stamp in his passport: "Given leave to enter the United Kingdom for an indefinite period". It was not accepted and he was dismissed.
There are a great many more cases like that with which I shall not detain the House. However, the Minister may wish to become concerned about the case discovered by the citizens advice bureaux of a woman who produced a German passport. It was not accepted as leave to work. In the present political climate, I can think of a great many people who might wish to take such a case to the European Court. It is not understood that freedom to move within the European Union is exempt from the requirements of the clause. If that is not understood, we run the risk of a great deal of legal action.
There is a depth of incomprehension of the requirements of immigration. As my noble friend Lord Thurso said, people play safe and go white. That is why the clause will do more harm than it prevents. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is obvious from the debates we have had over the past one-and-a-half hours that I strongly agree with the arguments which the noble Earl has put forward. We have tabled a number of detailed amendments, one of which was rejected by your Lordships' House on a Division. In these amendments we have covered what seemed to us to be the principal difficulties in this difficult clause. The noble Earl has done the House a service by bringing together these arguments in a single attack on the clause. I offer him my support for his arguments. I only ask him, in pursuit of the orderly conduct of business in this House, whether it would be advisable at the Report stage not to divide the House against the whole clause. We had the opportunity to do that at Committee stage and decided not to. While I agree with what he said, I ask him to consider whether it would be a good idea to take the opinion of the House when he has to make such a decision.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. Clause 8 will be a greater benefit than a disadvantage. It is important that people should have a simple card which they may present to any employer and I believe that there can be nothing better than an identity card. I know that many people are opposed to it even though I believe it to be desirable.
I remember that the building industry suffered from people working on "the lump", as it was called. It was easily dealt with when people had to have a card which proved that they were entitled to be self-employed. That

697
was a taxation issue but there are parallels and it should be possible to have a clear document indicating that a person is entitled to take employment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a valid point in the phrase about people not understanding the stamp in a passport stating: "Given leave to remain for an indefinite period". I had the stamp in my passport for some years and I never understood what it meant, I used to find it creepy. Employers do not understand it so it would be useful to have some other phraseology introduced to make the wording clearer. However, I support the retention of Clause 8.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the House will know, the amendment proposes to remove Clause 8 from the Bill. I am not certain what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, meant by appealing to the noble Earl not to divide the House. He spoke for the amendment and against Clause 8 but asked the House not to divide. I shall ask the House not to divide, but if it does, to support the proposal that Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill.
The Government have made a clear commitment to addressing the problem of illegal working and have therefore brought forward proposals in this clause which seek to make it more difficult for people to work here without permission. The clause seeks to keep the burden on employers to a minimum. That fact has generally been recognised, and welcomed, by employers and employers' organisations.
The scale of illegal working is not, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and from other quarters, insignificant. As we have made clear, the immigration—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry; I thought I had made it clear that I believed the scale of illegal working of all kinds, avoiding taxes, PAYE and health and safety regulations, is very widespread. What we are saying is that it is linked with the employment of illegal immigrants and therefore there will be great difficulty in enforcing Clause 8, not that the problem is insignificant.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was in response to the fact that I used the figure 10,000; I think the noble Lord suggested that we did not know. As we have made clear, the immigration service detected more than 10,000 people working here illegally in 1994, compared to 4,000 detected in 1988. But the figure relates only to those detected. We cannot tell what is the full scale of the problem. However, we believe it is substantial. That is the point I wish to make, and which I believe the noble Lord rather belittled, having heard the figure 10,000.
We are not alone in thinking that illegal working is a significant problem. It is an anxiety shared by most of our European colleagues, who already have measures in place aimed to address it. The Government take the view that we, too, must take action; for we are vulnerable if we do not attempt to control illegal working when other countries do.
The noble Earl said that he does not want to see employers bankrupted. I certainly do not want to see that. We want to see not just a healthy and wealthy sector of
698
employment, and particularly of small employers; we wish to see more of them. For that reason I absolutely join with the noble Earl. However, to suggest that Clause 8 will bankrupt employers is to take a very distorted view of what the burdens on employers are likely to prove in practice.
I gave an example earlier of an employer with 20 employees, with a turnover as high as 25 per cent., looking at only three recruited people in any one year. That can hardly be said to be an issue that would bankrupt a person—and, again, using everyday documents such as P45s and P46s.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the case I had in mind was the one I used a moment later; namely that of my plumber, who is a one-man band. If he has to employ a secretary, it will bankrupt him.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I will comment on that example in a moment.
The noble Earl also said that he dislikes unemployment. We certainly dislike unemployment. We believe that if this particular issue goes unchecked, then unemployment will continue to be a serious problem, because those 10,000 people who were detected as working here illegally last year were in 10,000 jobs that could be done by people who are here legally and are entitled to them.
The noble Earl went on to say that he dislikes racial discrimination. I wholeheartedly agree with him. He gave some examples that are more a matter for the Race Relations Act 1976 than they are for this Bill. Perhaps I may touch on some of them.
First, I turn to the example of the noble Earl's plumber. If the plumber wished to employ somebody, I hope that he would pay his taxes and pay national insurance on behalf of his new employee. Then, his plumber would have nothing whatever to worry about. If he merely pays his taxes and pays national insurance on behalf of his employee, he has a defence under this clause because he will have the kind of contact and information about his employee that it will be necessary to have as a defence. So the plumber has no worry.
The noble Earl also referred to the CAB case of the lady with the German passport. If the CAB discovered that an employer told that person that the German passport did not allow her to work in this country, that was plainly wrong. It may be that she did not get a job. That is another matter; one does not know why in the end she was not employed. But if it was as a result of holding a German passport, that would simply be wrong.
The Anglo-Turkish person who had applied for every job in sight and was declared unqualified even for packing shelves is probably more a case for the 1976 Race Relations Act. Certainly that would be the situation as regards the examples given by the noble Earl.
We heard the example of the Sri Lankan who had worked for two years and was told by her employer, the Benefits Agency, that if this measure came into effect the employer would have to check her employment status. First, her employer would have her National Insurance number so that no more checks would be needed. But it

699
might well be that that person is time limited on her stay here. I do not know. It is possible that the body employing that lady would simply want to know whether her stay was time limited and whether she had come to the end of that time, in order to make sure that it had a proper defence. However, if that body had employed the lady for two years, it would have all the defence that it would need against the offences in Clause 8. I believe that the black British subject called Mr. Birdi who was turned down for an interview under that name and when he applied for exactly the same job under the name John Smith was taken on, is a very clear case in which the Commission for Racial Equality would be interested.
All the examples given by the noble Earl are, frankly, cases that could be taken to the Commission for Racial Equality. Certainly, it would not be necessary under Clause 8 to spend £20 on a passport. We are asking about people who have proof of identity in some form or other—and the documents will be spelt out—or have a national insurance number, or a P45. It is not necessary to say that it must be a passport and that £20 must be spent in securing one. Those examples are not at all helpful.
The noble Earl asked me about commencement dates. Clause 8 will be brought into effect as soon as suitable preparations have been made—and with the passing of the Act—such as publicising Clause 8, providing guidance for employers, setting up the helpline facility and making that widely known.
The clause also provides that employers should be safe from conviction and in practice from prosecution if they have taken one of a number of steps before taking on a new employee which would establish a statutory defence. Again, I repeat that there is a wide variety of steps that an employer can take to create that defence against the offence.
Much of the concern expressed about this clause has been based on the view that the clause will work to the disadvantage of people from ethnic minority communities who are British or otherwise lawfully resident. We believe that concern is unfounded. Our position is very clear. We oppose discrimination of all kinds. However, it would be wrong if unfounded fears of discrimination by employers prevented us from addressing the problem of illegal working. The effect of our proposals is action against those who are not entitled to live and work in the United Kingdom.
We believe that most employers want to ensure that their selection processes are fair and lawful. Therefore, we shall ensure that employers are provided with any advice and guidance that they might need on how they can recruit staff in ways which will be transparently fair. We shall be happy to provide whatever advice that we usefully can. The Commission for Racial Equality will be advising us of the best ways in which to do that.
Clause 8 will help to discourage illegal working and protect job opportunities for those entitled to work in the United Kingdom. I commend the clause to the House and trust that noble Lords will reject the amendment.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that there may have been some cross-purposes between us. The noble
700
Baroness argued throughout that the cases that I quoted were ones in which the law was wrongly understood. That point is not at issue. That is precisely the purpose for which I quoted those cases. I quoted them in order to illustrate the proposition, which I profoundly believe to be true, that most employers, and indeed for that matter most subjects, do not understand the details of immigration law. I have tried to argue that if this clause comes into effect, it will be very widely misunderstood and because most people can recognise skin colour much more easily than exceptional leave to remain, that is the way that the clause will be used.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness is so resistant to evidence. She heard my noble friend Lord Thurso tonight; she heard the cases I quoted. She says the Government will listen to the views of the Commission for Racial Equality. Let me quote from its annual report, published last week, in relation to this clause:
"Employers will face criminal sanctions if they employ any 'immigrant' who is not entitled to work. To avoid prosecution, employers are likely to avoid recruiting anyone who looks or sounds like an 'immigrant'".
It also reports in the chairman's introduction that:
"The campaign related to this Bill has already done very grave harm to race relations in this country".
I believe that; the noble Baroness perhaps does not. She says that these fears are unfounded. I ask her: how many cases of this sort will it be necessary to produce before she comes to the conclusion that our fears are well-founded?
The Minister misunderstood also my reference to the case of my plumber. I have no fears of my plumber attempting to break the law. My concern for my plumber is that it may place on him a burden which would force him to take on a secretary or go out of business. Since his profits are too small to enable him to take on a secretary, I believe he would go out of business. The noble Baroness argued at length that the refusal to accept a German passport was wrong. Of course it was wrong; that was exactly my point.
I do not know how much more damage this clause will do. I believe it will do a lot. With the greatest reluctance and after listening to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I do not intend to divide the House tonight. But we will be coming back to this over and over again with many more cases of the type I have just produced. I ask the noble Baroness: how many more will we have to produce before we persuade her? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Manuscript Amendment No. 74A not moved.]
Clause 9 [Entitlement to housing accommodation and assistance]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Nicol): My Lords, if Amendment No. 75 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 76 and 76A.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 74A became out of date as a result of events that took place after lunch today. We could not have taken account of that in the Marshalled List.
Amendment No. 75 seeks to leave out Clause 9(1) which provides that no housing authority shall provide a tenancy,
"or licence to occupy, housing accommodation provided under the accommodation Part … to an immigrant"—
I presume that word has now changed—
"who is of a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
It is not easy to find housing if one is looking for it on a low income. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will recall some of the debates that we were having last week on the Housing Bill on the concept of suitable accommodation. Some of it one cannot afford; a great deal of it still covertly, notwithstanding the law, does not admit people who are black; an increasing proportion of it now will not admit smokers; some will not take children. The housing benefit will not cover the rent. So there is already a very considerable body of people who cannot find anywhere to live. In London as a whole 49 per cent. of those who present as homeless are from ethnic minorities. In the inner London boroughs the figure is 56 per cent.
The only place where such people can get housing at present is through the local authorities. It is the one place where they can be reasonably confident that racial discrimination is not going to take place. That is precisely the point that this clause in the Bill bars. I do not see the justice of that. It is of the essence of being an asylum seeker that, once your claim is registered, the Secretary of State cannot make you go away. So you are here and while you are here you have to live. So we have to consider, if such people are not going to live in accommodation provided by a local authority, where else are they going to live. The general likelihood is that many of them will end up being homeless. I do not believe that that will do us any good.
Housing associations are also concerned about the application of these provisions to them. They point out that they are contrary to their articles of association which say that they should take account only of housing need. If they are to be compelled to take account of immigration status as well, the housing associations will have to re-word all their articles of association. Local authorities will also have to get information out of the Home Office. We all know that that is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Shelter produced the example of 50 cases where such information was sought under the 1993 Act. In only two of those cases did the information appear.
What will be the consequence? It will be homelessness. If I were recruiting for some evilly disposed body of revolutionary anarchists, I would welcome this clause; if I were a TB bacillus, I would
702
welcome this clause; if I were recruiting for the National Front, I would welcome this clause. From these Benches I do not welcome it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have dealt with this matter before; namely, social housing, council housing and housing association housing. As I have explained previously, when someone acquires a tenancy of a council house or a housing association house, he effectively gains housing for life. He can stay there as long as he wants. He also acquires succession rights whereby he can pass on the tenancy to a close relative. He also acquires certain rights of assignment; for example, he can exchange the property with another tenant elsewhere. He can also acquire the right to buy.
I find it hard to understand an argument which says that somebody whose right to be in this country has not yet been properly established ought somehow to have the right to get such long-term housing. I do not understand the logic in that argument at all. As a government we are concerned that such housing should go to those with clearly established, long-term needs; namely, people who have a right to remain in this country indefinitely. The classes of immigrants whom we propose to exclude from council housing are generally here for a limited period only. Their need for housing is temporary and it can be more properly met in the private rented sector.
Most of the groups we are proposing to exclude from entitlement to social housing are already excluded from other forms of social assistance. There is no reason why they should be entitled to housing created with taxpayers' money, particularly when there are people with settled residence in this country who are seeking housing. This applies equally to those immigrants here on limited leave and to asylum seekers; only a tiny proportion of asylum seekers—in the first five months of this year only 6 per cent. of applicants—are actually granted full refugee status. The others are not. Where people are granted leave to remain, they can acquire the same rights to council housing as people with settled residence, people who have always lived in this country.
It is in those parts of the country where housing pressure is greatest, such as London, where we find the vast majority of asylum seekers. It is not fair to established residents in such areas to see temporary immigrants being allocated permanent social housing ahead of them, nor is it conducive to good community relations.
The Government are investing over £2 billion a year in the creation of new housing and the improvement of existing stock. This expenditure should go to meet the needs of the established population, not those who are likely to be leaving in due course and not those who have gained entry to this country by saying that they will not be a burden on public funds or look to the public funds for any help or assistance. I believe that the argument in favour of ensuring that local authority and housing association housing goes to those people with a long-term right to remain in this country is logical and well marries with the fact that the housing itself is

703
of a long-term nature. It seems illogical that somebody should have a longer right to occupy their house than to occupy the country in which the house is situated.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister implies that the asylum seekers who will be caught by this clause and be denied access to local authority housing are here for only a short time. He implies that the decisions on their cases are made within a matter of weeks, whereas anybody who has had anything to do with asylum cases knows that some cases can take years. I quoted a case at an earlier stage of a Ghanaian asylum seeker who had been in this country since 1988 but whose case had not yet been determined. There are literally tens of thousands of people who were "left behind" by the 1993 Act and put onto the slow-track procedure—
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is taking up the time of the House at Report stage when the Minister has already answered. I do not believe that he is asking a question of the Minister; he is wandering into rather more extraneous matters.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am asking the Minister whether he is aware that many people who are still here applied for asylum as long ago as 1988 and whether he can tell the House the number who have been on the list for that length of time who, under this provision, would have been deprived of the right to access to local authority housing for as much as eight years.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, without delving through the statistics, I cannot give the noble Lord the answer that he wants, but I do not think that that matters. The fact is that no matter how long they have been here, they do not have a long-term right to remain. What we want to ensure by many of the actions that we are taking with regard to immigration is that people do not have to wait for years before a decision is made. We want decisions to be made expeditiously. If people do not have a long-term right to remain, I do not see why they should have a right to long-term housing which is there for the established population, including those people who gain the right to asylum and who stay here and who then have the right to the same long-term housing as the established population. I should have thought that that was a fairly easy argument.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the last time that I saw a figure on the point, the average length of a mortgage was nine years. An owner-occupied home is surely one which has been undertaken putatively as a permanent home. My noble friend has cited cases of people who have been asylum seekers for eight years. I think that the Minister is making a little bit of a meal of the argument about not having a permanent home. Plenty of people take local authority housing while they hold jobs. They may hope that those jobs will be for life. Sadly, a great many jobs now are not. People may move after four years, or even four months, to the other end of the country.
704
The argument of the Minister rather prejudges the outcome of the claim for asylum. The Minister said that such people would not be here indefinitely. But those who are successful in their claims may well be here indefinitely. Many of us on these Benches suspect that if cases were heard on a slightly different set of assumptions the proportion who remained here might be a great deal higher than the 21 per cent. it is now. That prejudging of the applications rather strengthens my suspicion as to the Government's argument behind the clause. I did not hear from the Minister any convincing case in reply to the contrary argument as to where these people would go instead. He suggested that they would go to the private sector. Before I decide what to do with the amendment, can the Minister tell me how an asylum seeker without property is able to rent in the private sector when he has taken away that person's right to housing benefit?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if it is accepted that the Government will restore the position to that which applied last week before the judgment of the Court of Appeal, anyone who applies at the port of entry will be eligible for those benefits until a decision is made by the Home Office. Such a person will be eligible for housing benefit and therefore will be able to get housing. Of course, they will not be eligible for long term social housing. I would have thought that the great majority of people in this country would fully support that view.
Earl Russell: My Lords, all of the cases at the moment involve people who, when they passed through the port of entry, were unaware that their entitlement to benefit was contingent upon claiming it at the port of entry. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, shakes his head. How does he know that what I say is false? I am happy to give way if he has any reason for it. I cannot see how this can be done unless it is made crystal clear before these people come in that benefits must be claimed at that point or not at all. However, since that is another argument, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 76:
1 Page 7, line 26, leave out ("an immigrant") and insert ("a person subject to immigration control").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 76 is linked with a number of other amendments tabled by the Government, Amendments Nos. 79, 93, 100 and 110. Amendments Nos. 76A, 79A, 93A and 99 will be spoken to by noble Lords opposite. The Government amendments give effect to the undertaking I gave in Committee that the Government would bring forward amendments to remove the term "immigrant" from the face of the Bill. I referred to the amendments in an earlier debate on Clause 8. I reserve the right to respond to the other amendments when they have been spoken to. I beg to move Amendment No. 76.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 76, Amendment No. 76A:

705
Line 1, leave out ("a person subject to immigration control") and insert ("a relevant person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 76A I should like to speak also to the other Government amendments and to our amendments, Amendments Nos. 76A, 79A, 93A and 99. Since this is the first and last occasion on which I shall speak to Clause 9 I should like to say a word about the agreed procedure for consideration of parts of Clause 9 as presaged by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, at the outset of our debates today.
I understand that it has been agreed by the usual channels that the Government amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has spoken will be produced as early as possible this week and that they will be considered, not in the first instance at Third Reading, but on re-commitment of Clauses 9 and 10. I suppose that if any of them took the form of new clauses they would also be dealt with according to Committee procedures. We are grateful to the Government Chief Whip for agreeing to that modest improvement in the procedure of the House. It of course means that they will be dealt with under the Committee procedure next Monday afternoon, and that the Third Reading will be taken immediately afterwards. So there will be no delay in the completion of the Bill. It will take place on the same day provided, of course, that the Government do not lose any amendments.
In return for that, as I say, modest improvement in the procedures of the House, I have undertaken, on behalf of my noble friends, that we will not seek to raise under the Committee procedure any matters which are not covered by the scope of the government amendments. To that extent, we can record a small victory for common sense and parliamentary procedure.
In moving Amendment No. 76, the Minister said, rightly, that it was in fulfilment of an undertaking that she made in Committee to remove from the face of the Bill the word "immigrant", to which exception was taken. We have debated this matter already on Amendment No. 64. The reason why I did not suggest that all the amendments be grouped together is that the inadequate scope of the government amendment is clearer when we look at Clauses 9, 10 and 12 than it was on Clause 8.
The Government are doing the absolute minimum as a response to the concerns which were expressed. All they are doing is changing the word "immigrant" to:
"a person subject to immigration control".
All the other dangerous aspects of these clauses are left unchanged. We complained not just about the use of the word "immigrant" but about the fact that there is a definition in Clause 12 which is so wide that it includes those who require:
"leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given)".
That means that an immigrant or person subject to immigration control is a wider definition and includes a large number of people who have been in this country for many years, who are equal citizens in every respect with those whom the Minister calls the established
706
population—a new phrase, and one which the more I hear him say it the less I care for it. It is approaching talking about the white population, although it does not quite do that.
Then what happens? We have this, presumably, deliberately wide definition of what is meant by immigrant or a person subject to immigration control. We have introduced into the Bill the idea that there should be the possibility of controls for people who have a perfect right to be in this country. Then we return to Clauses 9 and 10, which relate to housing accommodation and assistance, and then to entitlement to child benefit, and we partially restrict those clauses so that they do not apply to all the people who are included in the definition in Clause 12.
In Clause 9 we talk about those who are;
"of a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
And Ministers give us the assurance that that class will not include those who have been given leave to enter or remain in the UK. We widen the definition, we narrow it again and we make it insecure by referring to an order made by the Secretary of State.
The same situation arises in Clause 10(2), which provides:
"No immigrant within the meaning of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 shall be entitled to child benefit for any week unless he satisfies prescribed conditions".
We are assured by Ministers that these prescribed conditions will ensure that Clause 10 does not cover those who have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
What is the point of this round-about procedure? Why do we have this wide definition which we then seek by ministerial assurance to restrict but fail to restrict in the wording of the Act? Is this not a recipe for insecurity and for racial insecurity above all? Is this not a recipe for imprecision and for the possibilities of misinterpretation by housing authorities, housing associations and those responsible for the allocation of child benefit?
Would it not have been better for the Bill to say what it means, which is that housing benefit and child benefit shall be withheld only from those who have no right to be in this country? We do not agree with that objective but at least it would have been clear, whereas the present wording and round-about definition seems to be designed deliberately to create insecurity, uncertainty and the possibility of discrimination.
These amendments do not meet the concerns which were properly expressed in Committee and they leave this part of the Bill in a thoroughly unworthy state. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 76A, 79A and 93A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would substitute the term "relevant person" for the term "immigrant". The noble Lord has indicated that he wishes to prescribe on the face of the Bill categories of persons who are to be excluded from the

707
scope of Clauses 9 and 10. His Amendment No. 99 to Clause 12 lists the categories which he wishes to propose. The Government do not favour this approach.
First, it would mean that the eligibility criteria for council housing, assistance under the homelessness legislation and child benefit would be set out in two separate places. For council housing and assistance under the homelessness legislation there would be a list of eligible categories in the primary legislation and a list of ineligible categories in secondary legislation. For child benefit, there would be two lists of exempted categories, one in the primary legislation and another in the secondary legislation. This is overly complicated and unnecessary. Moreover, it is out of keeping with the approach adopted in other comparable legislation, such as the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, under which the criteria for eligibility are left to be prescribed in social security regulations.
The Government see no merit in adopting a different approach for Clauses 9 and 10. Indeed, the Housing Bill, which will replace Clause 9 in England and Wales later this year, follows the same approach; namely, of leaving the details of eligibility criteria to be specified in secondary legislation.
The Government could not have been clearer about the use they intend to make of the order-making powers provided by Clauses 9 and 10. We have made available to the House background notes setting out the details. The background notes make clear the groups from which entitlement is to be removed. In broad terms, they comprise those who are present without valid leave or who have been granted leave on the basis they will have no recourse to public funds. We have made clear that our intention is to align the entitlement of people who are subject to immigration control under the homelessness legislation with their social security entitlement. Indeed, enabling us to do so is the purpose of Clause 9. It follows from this that concerns that the Bill will change the immigration status or housing entitlement of people who have been settled in this country for many years are entirely groundless.
Amendment No. 99 would in paragraph (g) provide an exemption from Clauses 9 and 10 for anyone who is a member of the family of a person who is in one of the other exempted categories. This is entirely unjustified. We would, for example, be excluded from denying council housing entitlement under the homelessness legislation and child benefit to any person who was a member of the family of a person with settled status, regardless of whether that family member had been admitted on the basis that he or she would have no recourse to public funds and regardless of whether he or she was genuinely dependent on the person who is settled here. This would have a far wider scope than would be acceptable to the Government, and also, I suspect, wider than was intended by the noble Lord.
Amendment No. 99 is in any case defectively drafted. For one thing, it refers to British citizens and nationals of European Economic Area countries, who mostly fall outside the scope of this Bill. Secondly, it seeks to exclude from the scope of Clauses 9 and 10:
708
"a person named in a letter or other document issued by the Secretary of State on which there is placed no restriction upon … the entitlement to receive housing accommodation or assistance, or the entitlement to receive child benefit, as the case may be".
This loose wording could apply to a whole variety of documents issued by almost any government department. And, thirdly, it exempts nationals of countries with which the European Union has concluded Article 238 agreements regardless of the details of the agreement and of whether it applies to the individuals concerned.
For all those reasons, I urge your Lordships to resist Amendments Nos. 76A, 79A, 93A, and 99 on the grounds that they represent an unhelpful approach to clarity of drafting and that any concern about the position of people from abroad who have been settled here for many years is, I repeat, entirely groundless.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister sought to respond to the criticisms of the government amendments by a critique of our amendments which I consider to be almost entirely misconceived.
She complains that our amendments have a mixture of definitions on the face of the Bill, as indeed they do, in the amendments to government amendments and above all, in Amendment No. 99 as regards secondary legislation. The purpose of our amendments is to remove the necessity for the secondary legislation and to make it absolutely clear on the face of the Bill who is and who is not intended to be covered by the Bill. In our view, the Bill as drafted, even after the government amendments, would leave a fatal insecurity for those who have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who are not intended to be covered by the Bill and yet are covered by the definition in Clause 12. It is for nobody's benefit that those people should be included in the general and then excluded in the particular.
The Minister claims that the Government's intentions are perfectly clear because of the guidelines and the draft notes of interpretation. That is exactly what we are complaining about; that the Bill relies on guidelines, relies on ministerial documents rather than on the force of law.
It is quite unsatisfactory that, despite the concern that was expressed at an earlier stage and repeated now, the Government should still persist in this roundabout way of dealing with the problem.
The Minister says that some of the categories in our substantive Amendment No. 99 are outside the scope of the Bill. Indeed they are, and the reason we put them there is that we wanted to be clear that Clauses 9 and 10 will not apply to British citizens or nationals of a state which is party to the European Economic Area Agreement. That is clear in our amendment, but it is not clear in the Bill as drafted, even with the Government's amendments.
I do not believe that the judgment in the Court of Appeal on Friday raised this matter. Therefore, it is not a matter to which we shall return on re-commitment. However, I can assure the Minister that it is certainly a

709
matter to which we shall have to return on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 76A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 76, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 76 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 77 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 7, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 86, 87, 88 and 89. The amendment does not deal with entitlement to permanent accommodation as was the case with the previous amendment; it deals with providing emergency accommodation for people who become homeless. I fully appreciate that we discussed the amendment in some detail in Committee, but there are two or three specific aspects of this part of the Bill which were not dealt with at that stage. Therefore, I shall not be repeating old arguments if I raise them at this point in relation to Amendment No. 78. After all, it raises a very important point of principle.
It is already the case that illegal entrants and over-stayers are excluded from the provision of homelessness accommodation by case law and by government guidance. Therefore, we are talking about people who are legally and properly in this country. My concern is about changes of circumstance. In Committee the Minister said—and, indeed, the noble Lord said it repeatedly in relation to similar matters—that people arrive in this country and give an undertaking that they will not have recourse to public funds. It is on that basis that they are admitted.
However, even with the best will in the world, a change of circumstances may take place. I should like to give the House examples of the two specific changes of circumstance which are relevant to my argument. First, there may be people in this country who have a family tragedy, become severely ill or have a disabling accident; or, indeed, they may be the victims of fire. All those situations may place them in serious difficulties and lead them to become homeless, even though, had those unusual changes of circumstances not happened, they would have had no need for recourse to public funds or to request homelessness accommodation from a local authority. By their very nature such circumstances cannot be predicted or planned for: they could happen to anyone.
The second change of circumstance is one which I asked about in Committee, although I do not believe the Minister dealt with it adequately. Let us take, for example, the case of an asylum seeker who, quite properly in the Government's mind, applies for asylum at Heathrow Airport or at Dover on entering the country. He applies for asylum, is then turned down by the Home Office and wishes to appeal against the decision, pending which he has been in homelessness accommodation: what is to happen to him from the date
710
on which the Home Office turns down his claim for asylum until the time when the appeal is heard? Will the local authority say, "Well, of course we quite properly gave you and your family homelessness accommodation, but, because of the legislation, you are no longer entitled to such accommodation because the Home Office has turned down your claim for asylum. However, when you get to appeal, you may get full refugee status in which case you will be entitled to the accommodation again"? That process may take six months or a year. In the meantime, what is to happen? Will a local authority throw such an individual out because the legislation says so? Alternatively, is there some way in which we can soften the blow for such people?
The situation may depend upon the regulations made. It is possible, I suppose—perhaps the Minister will say so—that the regulations would not debar from homelessness accommodation individuals who are faced either with unexpected circumstances like a family tragedy, disabling illness or a fire, or those asylum seekers who are turned down by the Home Office and are awaiting an appeal. If the Minister says the regulations will allow for that, I shall be happy. I wonder whether he could let us know.
Finally, I have many points of unease arising from the Court of Appeal decision in relation to the Minister's powers under this clause. I wonder whether, given the Court of Appeal decision, it is not a sweeping matter for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations which could have a dramatic effect on the eligibility for homelessness accommodation, without at this stage our knowing fully who those people are to be and whether it is proper for the Government at a subsequent date to determine eligibility when at the present point in time we do not know what decisions the Government will make. We have some sense of that as the Minister has given us some inkling, but we do not have a full sense of it. Is it not running the risk that in turn the High Court and the Court of Appeal may again say that these powers are too wide? I simply utter that as a word of caution.
Of course, I understand that in many Bills the Government seek power by regulation to make further changes, but it seems to me, in the light of the Court of Appeal decision, that it depends how sweeping those changes are. I wonder whether we are not getting rather close to the likelihood that the High Court might take the same line as the Court of Appeal did last Thursday. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 79 or 79A.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, at the previous stage of the Bill I think I referred to people being cast into some kind of housing limbo. That is a serious state of affairs, all the more so, given the reasons explained by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as to why many kinds of rented

711
accommodation are simply not available to the kind of people we are considering. This amendment calls for a sympathetic reply from the Government.
Earl Russell: I trust that before we go on the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will not misinterpret me if I say a little about the Court of Appeal decision. The Court of Appeal's decision argued that the Minister could not, by regulations, reverse matters in primary legislation. So the narrow ground of the Court of Appeal decision could not apply to something in primary legislation. But the wider issues apply. The reason why the Court of Appeal reached this judgment also applies to this cause. The Court of Appeal argued that these measures between them reduced asylum seekers to a state of destitution such that no civilized country could tolerate, and that this rendered the right to seek for asylum—as it put it—nugatory. That applies to this clause, but the power to strike down does not. The courts have not struck down a provision of an Act of Parliament in this country since 1610. Personally I am not in a hurry to see it happen again. But in order to ensure that it never does we need restraint not only from the judiciary but also from the executive. But if we should have a hearing in any international tribunal that would be quite another matter because it is not bound to treat our Acts of Parliament as sacrosanct because before it we are simply another litigant to be treated just like anyone else. It is before an international tribunal that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will carry a great deal of weight. If I were the Home Office, I should be very anxious about them and would take legal advice in considerable quantities.
I also wonder what the clause is doing in the Bill. I shall have to ask the Minister's forgiveness for repeating several exchanges we had in the course of the Housing Bill last week. In doing so, I shall explain at least one reason why the provisions are unnecessary. They are to last only until repealed by another Act of Parliament which, as a Bill, is near to completing its Committee stage in your Lordships' House. With the delays resulting from this attempt at amendment, the return to another place and, doubtless, heated exchanges there, there is a real possibility that the Housing Bill may leapfrog this Bill. I wonder why we need it. The answer, I think, is for the sake of the local authorities, because the denial of benefit and the denial of homelessness accommodation has put a heavy burden on local authority social service departments.
The purpose of Clause 9 was to ease the burden of providing accommodation on local authority housing departments created by the withdrawal of benefits. I have here a letter from the director of housing and social services of the London Borough of Sutton. It appears that attempts to provide help for local authorities are not having the desired effect. So the object for which Clause 9 was put in the Bill is also not achieving its desired effect. The formula was support with 80 per cent. of costs above a certain threshold. The House may recall my asking the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on 4th March what that certain threshold was. She did not know. The London Borough of Sutton now knows. The threshold is to be 5 per cent. of the total social services expenditure.
712
At Sutton the standard spending assessment for children's personal social services is £5.222 millions. That means the authority would have to spend 5 per cent. above that allocation—£261,000—before it would be eligible to claim any grant support. That is an onerous requirement.
It has also been made clear to that authority that any support it gives to housing children will not be allowed to extend to giving support to parents or other adult members of the family. That means that the authority must take children into care which is more inhumane and a great deal more expensive. The Minister keeps telling me about the interests of the taxpayer. I am a taxpayer and I regard that provision as a gross waste of my money. I very much resent the Government undertaking it, both as a citizen and as one who thinks my money is being profligately spent in defence of an abstract principle.
The Government also indicated to the London Borough of Sutton that grant support will not be available to asylum seeking families who subsequently break up. I cannot understand the justice of that provision. They are still people; they are still asylum seekers; and they are still in need. Sadly, it is true that such gross stress frequently tears families apart. If it is to be like the benefit regulations, it is not even to apply to women who leave their partners because of domestic violence, even of the most severe kind. That is a provision wanting equally in common sense and humanity. I see no point in it. The reason for Clause 9 being in the Bill has turned out to be a damp squib.
I wish to draw attention to Clause 9(2)(b), which has caused me intense surprise. It states that any asylum seeker, or whoever else the Secretary of State specifies,
"shall be disregarded in determining… whether another person … is homeless or is threatened with homelessness; or … has a priority need for accommodation".
If noble Lords are not familiar with the law passed at the instigation of my late noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, the significance of that provision may be missed. Married couples—indeed couples—are a priority category and receive help where single people do not. So any British subject who is unwise enough to marry an asylum seeker thereby renders himself, as well as his spouse, ineligible for help under the homelessness legislation. In fact, disentitlement is infectious.
We are frequently told that this Government are the champions of marriage. I believe in it, too. I do not normally go about shouting about it. I do not think the state is the best instrument to preserve it; I believe that couples are. But this sort of wanton tearing apart of a family moves me to very great anger. We shall return to the subject.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, under the homelessness legislation families and other vulnerable individuals who lose their home through no fault of their own are provided with a proper safety net. It is one component of a wider set of welfare provisions that we have in place to help people through a crisis and to continue their normal lives. This legislation focuses naturally and rightly on those people who are settled in this country. People who have sought and gained entry

713
to this country on the grounds that they will have "no recourse to public funds" are not entitled to set aside that undertaking and obtain benefits which are, quite rightly, available to those people who are settled in this country.
I know that it does not seem to be persuading Members of the parties opposite that people have said they will have no recourse to public funds. It seems that that can be set aside just with the wave of a hand. However, it is an important point to bear in mind. Most of the people to whom we refer have come into this country without applying for asylum at the port of entry on the basis that they want no recourse to public funds. One must try to take them at their face value and assume they meant what they said to the officers at the port of entry. On that basis "public funds" includes money that comes, for example, from the Benefits Agency or from a local authority regarding the homelessness legislation. So I do think there is a very firm base in understanding that
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Suppose he should break a leg in the Cairngorms in winter, a helicopter comes to rescue him, and those in the helicopter ask him, before taking him aboard, for an undertaking that the rescue will be no charge on public funds. Would he regard that promise as obtained under duress?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I do not go climbing in the winter or at any other time, the noble Earl's clever question is not relevant. It would lead me into a false comparison. I shall simply not enter into it. We are talking not about British citizens climbing the Cairngorms but about people who came here saying they would have no recourse to public funds while they were here for a limited period. I at least can see a considerable difference in the two questions which makes no read-across possible between the answer to one and the answer to the other. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl, but I do not intend to follow him down that particular road.
People who have obtained leave to enter the country would have to satisfy the immigration control that they had the resources to maintain themselves during their stay in the country. The rules state clearly that an application for assistance under the homelessness legislation falls within the definition of public funds. The Home Office is entitled to cancel the leave to remain granted to anyone who entered the country lawfully, but who subsequently breached an undertaking not to have recourse to public funds.
As I explained earlier in Committee, the principle behind the provisions in subsection (2) is not new. The Court of Appeal ruled (in the Tower Hamlets case, in 1993) that a person who is not lawfully in the country because he entered it illegally, or has overstayed his leave, is not entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation. To that extent what we are doing here is no more than translating a well established principle in the homelessness legislation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. I am most grateful to him for giving way. He quoted the
714
Tower Hamlets case, which I mentioned in Committee. I hope, therefore, that he is not suggesting that asylum seekers and illegal entrants are the same.
11 p.m
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords, I believe I said quite clearly—if I did not, I meant to do so and the record will show whether or not I did—that the Tower Hamlets case showed that a person who is not lawfully in the country because he entered it illegally, or has overstayed his leave, is not entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation. So we are dealing with those categories; but we are also dealing with those people who sought entry and were given entry to this country on the grounds that they would have no recourse to public funds.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked me a number of questions. He postulated a number of tragedies and disasters of various kinds and asked what would happen in those circumstances. I do not feel that those events change the fundamental point that the person came to this country on limited leave with no recourse to public funds. I suggest that if I went to a foreign country for a limited period and something happened to me, I should probably try to make my way back to this country as quickly as I could. I suggest that people have that option. They can return to their country of origin or make other arrangements with friends, family or whoever it may be, if they want to stay in this country and deal with the problem that has overcome them.
I was also asked about asylum seekers who apply for asylum at the port of entry and have been granted benefit and dealt with under the homelessness legislation. Then comes the day on which they are turned down—it is well worth remembering that five out of every 100 are accepted—and they appeal. At that point their right to benefit stops, as indeed does their right to be considered by the local housing authority under the homelessness legislation. If they decide to stay in this country to await the outcome of an appeal, anybody giving them advice ought to be looking very carefully at the success rate of appeals, which is three out of every 100.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister has now repeated twice the figure of 3 per cent. of people being accepted. He will know that there is a further substantial additional number who are given exceptional leave to remain here. Will he be kind enough to tell us how the legislation that we are now discussing with regard to housing will apply to those who receive exceptional leave to remain, which is an additional 19 per cent. or so of all those who apply for asylum?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, exceptional leave to remain, which is granted initially for a limited period and has to be renewed every now and then, is not the same as asylum. After all, all the arguments have been about asylum.
In 1995, 16 per cent. were granted exceptional leave to remain. That is the outcome of the Home Office asylum decisions. But the fact still remains that 81 per

715
cent. of all the people who start off gain neither of those categories. So we are still talking about a great number of people who are found not to be eligible for either the asylum test or exceptional leave to remain. And 80 per cent. is a lot of people. I shall not go into the argument tonight that I shall probably use next Monday. But if any other part of the benefit system were paying out to people, and it was found after investigation that 80 per cent. of them were not qualified to receive that benefit, I should be in quite some difficulty at this Dispatch Box. Indeed, I should be and quite rightly so. We have to remember those figures and, if we look at them over the past year or two, 80 per cent. roughly is a great many people. Most of the exceptional leave to remain cases, as I understand it, are actually granted in the first instance by the Home Office.
I was talking about appeals; that is the question about which I was asked. I would be advising people that their chances of winning an appeal in this country were pretty slim and that they would perhaps do better to return to their country of origin rather than stay here and appeal. With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, they would cease to be eligible under the homelessness legislation and therefore, if they decided against the odds that I have just indicated to remain here and appeal, then they would have to look for other accommodation. For example, they might have to look to the local ethnic community with which they are associated, or to the voluntary sector. If they have children then they can look to the Social Services Department for assistance under the Children Act.
Frankly, unless their case is extraordinarily strong, my advice would be that they should consider returning home. As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to bring forward measures which will mean that anybody who eventually gains asylum will be able to look back to the date of their original claim. If they were either an in-country applicant or an appeal applicant, they would be able to receive the benefit due to them back to the date of their claim. A voluntary organisation, therefore, which thought there was a particularly strong case could see that, if its judgment was correct, it would receive some of the money back it had used to help the applicant.
To return to the questions, either the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, or the noble Earl, Lord Russell—or both—asked if we were looking at the words in this clause against the background of the Court of Appeal's judgment. We are obviously reflecting carefully on the judgment with regard to a number of issues, one of which is to ensure that we have the wording in this clause correct.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about children in care. I answered this question the last time. He asked whether, if children were involved, they would have to be taken into care. I made it clear the last time that the local authority, in furtherance of its duty under the Children Act, may decide that housing the family is the best solution to the children's problems. They do not necessarily have to decide that the children must go into care. There are other options, including the one I have just mentioned, open to them.
716
The noble Earl also asked about the Housing Bill and this Bill. The point is that this Bill will, we trust, be commenced ahead of the Housing Bill. Though the noble Earl does not agree with what we are doing, he understands that if we are doing what we are doing, we need to align the homelessness legislation with the benefits legislation as quickly as possible. We will not repeal everything regarding Clauses 9 and 10 in this Bill and when the homelessness Bill comes in there are probably one or two provisions that we will not repeal in that.
I was also asked about local government finance and threshholds. Threshholds of this kind are quite usual in local government finance. The well-known "Bellwin" principle in meeting a range of disasters has a threshhold.
I was asked if Clause 9(2)(b) disentitles British citizens. It does not. A UK citizen with an asylum-seeking wife and UK-born children will be entitled to assistance under the legislation. As a single person he would not be, but the children and the wife, despite the fact that they may be asylum seeking, will entitle him to be considered under the homelessness legislation.
I believe that I have answered almost every question, but I want to make one point again, which I know that the noble Earl does not agree with because he believes the opposite. A UK citizen appealing against a decision as regards the benefits system does not receive benefit during the course of that appeal. I have said that I do not believe that it is a good argument from me to the noble Earl because he believes that everyone ought to receive benefits during the course of an appeal throughout the whole benefits system. I hope I am not being unfair to the noble Earl. He indicates that that is indeed what he believes.
I am not going to argue about that tonight, but that is not the case at present. We certainly have no proposals to change the situation and I am not sure whether the main party opposite has any proposals to change the provisions in the way that the noble Earl would like. But we certainly have none. As UK citizens do not get benefit during the course of their appeal, frankly, we do not believe that it is fair or logical that people claiming asylum should get benefit during their appeal. Therefore, the decision that we are making on that issue actually squares asylum seekers with UK residents. I hope that I have answered the points which have been put to me and explained why we cannot accept this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may thank him for two points that he made. One is the interpretation of Clause 9(2)(b) and the other is the point about helping the family rather than taking the children into care. The Director of Housing and Social Services in the London borough of Sutton was given contrary advice. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell me that I can convey to him what the Minister said as the authoritative ruling. That would be very helpful indeed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always careful about being invited by the noble Earl to

717
answer a question like that. I hope I expressed the matter properly at this late hour of the night. I believe that I have expressed it correctly. I shall read Hansard in the morning and whether that is the case or not, I shall write to the noble Earl.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. He has left a few unanswered questions. Perhaps I may put the two difficulties to him because I do not believe that he has dealt with them fairly and squarely. He seemed to be saying this. A family may enter the country on condition that it does not have recourse to public funds. They may be living perhaps in a rented flat. If it burns down and the family is instantly, suddenly and unpredictably homeless, there will be no power for the local authority to provide that family with accommodation. In practice, I believe that it would be difficult for accommodation not to be provided from somewhere. But I do not know how all the families will cope.
The Minister said that such families would have to rely on other organisations and groups. But in each and every instant there may not be someone available to provide accommodation just like that. A block of flats may burn down and half the families may be taken into local authority homelessness accommodation and half may not on the technical distinction drawn by the Minister. The result would be unfair and perverse. I find it hard to believe that that is the Government's intention.
The second question concerns what happens between an asylum application being turned down and the appeal date. It is astonishing that the Minister is saying that the local authority will have to turn the family out and they will have to go somewhere else. The Minister shakes his head. In effect, that is what he was saying: that all benefit stops, which includes homelessness entitlement. If families are in homelessness accommodation and an asylum application is turned down by the Home Office, one can only conclude that the local authority has to throw them out because between the date the Home Office turns them down and the date of a possibly successful appeal there is no entitlement to benefit, including homelessness accommodation. I cannot find any other way of interpreting what the Minister said; and I cannot believe that that is right and fair.
The Minister said that all these matters put asylum seekers and UK residents on an equal footing in that benefit stops while an appeal is under way. I suggest to the Minister that homeless persons who are UK residents, whatever their benefit circumstances and whatever change or appeal is taking place, are not thrown out of their homelessness accommodation by the local authority. That seems to distinguish clearly between UK residents and asylum seekers. The Minister says, "They should do what they ought to do. They should go away and leave the country because so few will win an appeal that it is not worth bothering", but what is the point of having an appeal system if, on the one hand, the Government say, "Here is an appeal system", but on the other hand they say, "Don't bother. You're not going to win so you might as well leave the country"?
11.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, surely an exercise of judgment is required. Not every person who is found guilty in the courts appeals, because judgment is exercised by them and their lawyers as to their chances on appeal. Frankly, in the case of asylum seekers, because of the availability of benefit that simple test is not being applied. When benefit is withdrawn during an appeal, I think that that test may well be applied by asylum seekers and their advisers.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says and of course asylum seekers, like anybody else, can make a judgment as to the likelihood of being successful in an appeal. Not everyone who is turned down by the Home Office will appeal; they have not done so in the past. But the fact is that there is an appeal system and the Minister has said that asylum seekers should look at the statistics on successful appeals. He quoted a figure of 3 per cent. He then said that any asylum seeker looking at that figure ought to draw a conclusion from it—and that that conclusion should be that it is not worth persevering with the appeal. He said, "Don't worry about losing benefit; just leave the country". I am paraphrasing what the Minister said. The noble Lord seems to be nodding—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not nodding.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is what the Minister said and I think that it is outrageous. I give way—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the noble Lord gets too outraged, what I do think is that given those statistics, people should look carefully at the basis of the case before continuing with the appeal. Clearly, the majority of cases do not have any basis. I think that, logically, people should look at the statistics and at the detail of the particular case to see how strong it is. I should not have thought that people would have to do that for very long before coming to a conclusion about the strength of the case.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comment, but even if they listen to what the Minister has to say, some individuals will conclude quite properly that they have a good case and they will persevere with their appeal because they fear—this is the strength of their case—that if they return to the country from which they escaped, they will face persecution and possibly serious danger to themselves and their families. In such cases, people will of course try their chance at an appeal—and some of them will be successful.
The principle of giving asylum seekers the right of appeal is not a statistical concept; every individual has the right to exercise that right of appeal against a decision of Home Office officials. Some will win; some will not. However, the Minister is saying that whatever their chances—and they will make a judgment on that—the fact is that they will be thrown out of their accommodation while going through that process. As such appeals can take months if not years, that is

719
intolerable and, yes, I do find it outrageous. It seems totally unfair to subject people to that situation. It makes a mockery of the right of appeal.
Indeed, I could not believe that the Minister meant what he said. I thought that he would soften it a bit by saying that the regulations would make some allowance for people in that situation, but it seems that the Minister is being intransigent and unwilling to make any concession. I wonder whether he has had any further information. He shakes his head. I think that what the Minister has said is intolerable. It is an intolerable dilemma in which to place people. Some asylum seekers may well be forced out of this country by homelessness. They may have to return to the original country and to face consequences which are not pleasant and for which we, as a country, will be held responsible.
I see that the Minister is not to be moved, so it is with great reluctance that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("An immigrant") and insert ("A person subject to immigration control").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend who spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 76, I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 79A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 79, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 79 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 7, line 35, at end insert—
("provided always that nothing in this section shall be held to disentitle victims of domestic violence to a place in a women's refuge.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 81 is—and I hope will remain—a probing amendment. It is designed to discover precisely what is meant by accommodation in Clause 9. In particular, it is designed to discover whether anything in Clause 9 may be quoted to deny a woman who is a victim of domestic violence accommodation in a women's refuge. I hope that the answer to that question is no. These are not matters designed for what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, described, in a rather unfortunate phrase, as the established population. This is ad hoc temporary accommodation for those suffering acute need. On occasion it can be very acute and can arise at the most improbable time of the night. What would be available to a casual American tourist ought to be equally available to an asylum seeker. It is in hope that I may receive a reassuring answer that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House shares the noble Earl's revulsion at domestic violence. As he has rightly said on a number of occasions, there is no excuse for it whatever in a civilised society. I pay tribute, as he
720
has, to the excellent work done by women's refuges in providing safe haven for women of any background who flee domestic violence.
However, I doubt whether the amendment is necessary. Most women's refuges are run by voluntary bodies and are not principally providing accommodation under the homelessness legislation. Indeed, it is accepted under current case law that a person staying in a refuge may still be homeless within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985. In general, there is nothing in the provisions of this Bill that would prevent a woman subject to immigration control being accommodated in a refuge provided by a voluntary organisation, including a housing association. I hope that that assurance helps the noble Earl and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. As he is withdrawing it, he may be interested to hear my firming up the advice I gave earlier regarding children. We move from women to children, but it is not too great a distance in relation to some of these matters. Authorities have an obligation to discharge duties under the Children Act. It is for them to decide how they are discharged. Often, it will be more economic to support the whole family rather than take children into care. The special grant rules do not require specific action. I hope that that is helpful and will save correspondence.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. It does save correspondence. Much as I welcome what he has said, there is one further point on which I seek reassurance. Some refuges are owned by the local authority. It is those which are the subject of the anxiety which led me to table the amendment. I believe them to be very different from what the Bill envisages. I believe them to be outside the intention of the Act. I would very much like to hear that I am right in my reading of it. If the Minister can reassure me now I shall be most grateful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl makes an interesting point. Perhaps we have before us two different examples. One is that a voluntary body may lease its accommodation from the local authority. In other words, the local authority owns the accommodation and the voluntary body runs its service inside that accommodation. We will shortly be considering a Government amendment that will allow us to place specified accommodation leased to third parties outside the scope of an order restricting the use of such accommodation by persons subject to immigration control. That is very much the thinking about universities, but I believe that that provision can be applied to women's refuges when we make that order. To be fair to the noble Earl, perhaps his question goes a little further and envisages the local authority, not the voluntary body, running the refuge. If he knows any such organisations, perhaps he will write to me and I shall consider the matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am even more grateful to the Minister. What he said about leasing may well cover all the cases, but in case it does not I shall

721
check the point and write to him if I need to do so. I thank him very much for his answer, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 7, line 36, after ("section") insert—
("(a) may make different provision for different circumstances or for accommodation or assistance of different descriptions; and
(b)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the amendment I mentioned briefly during the course of my answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the previous amendment.
When this clause was being considered in Committee the noble Earl and a number of noble Lords, including some of my noble friends, raised the issue of the accommodation of overseas students. They pointed out that as the Bill is drafted, an order under Clause 9 would mean that a university would not be able to accommodate overseas students in property that it leased from a local authority. We are content for that to continue, provided the stock is genuinely surplus to the authority's requirements, and I undertook at that time to bring forward an amendment to get around that problem.
This amendment introduces additional flexibility into the order-making power and will allow us to provide for this case. I can assure noble Lords that the order we will be making under this power will not prevent local authorities from leasing housing held under Part II of the Housing Act 1985 to universities or colleges which may wish to use it to accommodate overseas students who are here lawfully, provided that the accommodation is genuinely surplus to the authority's requirements. I hope the amendment can receive a warm welcome. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the amendment can indeed receive a warm welcome. I shall even allow the Minister the amusement, which I am certain that he feels, at his chance to teach me the virtues of flexibility, as he has been trying to do for a very long time. I have always admitted that it does have virtues, and this amendment is one of them. It seems to me, as far as I can tell, to meet entirely the original case that I raised.
There is just one further question that I have to ask the Minister. I am sure that he will be expecting it. How do those powers impact on the Housing Bill? In the long term, of course, and even in the short to medium term, it is the Housing Bill and not this Bill which will govern the matter. My recollection is that there is an identical clause in the Housing Bill which will meet the case. Perhaps the Minister will assure me that that is the case.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, although the Housing Bill will generally be taking over from this Bill so far as concerns restrictions on housing entitlement, as I think mentioned a little while ago, we are minded to keep some of the provisions in this Bill, in particular this one which limits the use an authority
722
can make of its Part II stock other than through its allocation scheme. We shall do that by limiting the extent of our repeal of the Asylum and Immigration Act. That is our present thinking on how to deal with the problem.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister warmly before he sits down.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) No order shall be made under this section unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that no disproportionate extra costs will be incurred by local authorities fulfilling their social services responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 or providing services as community care services within the meaning of section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 as a result of the order, and before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult organisations appearing to him to be representative of the authorities concerned and other relevant organisations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97 and 103 standing in the names of my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Dubs. I am sure that the Liberal Benches will speak for themselves.
This is an amendment about costs. The Government grudgingly accepted that removing housing benefit, income support, council tax benefit and child benefit from asylum seekers will throw costs onto other bodies, especially local authorities, which, unlike the Government, cannot and will not walk away.
The person from abroad special grant report, which will require parliamentary approval, makes temporary arrangements for housing benefit from February to September 1996 for those eight months during which local authorities continue to have a housing responsibility under the homelessness legislation, until it is removed, if the Government get their way, by the Housing Bill. The other part of the grant reimburses local authorities for the cost of aiding children under the Children Act 1989. We understand that that grant will run from 5th February 1996 to 31st March 1997. Presumably, the Government intend then to review the situation and, if appropriate, continue the grant.
Local authorities, especially the London boroughs, are extremely unhappy about these proposals. They estimate that there are more than 4,000 families in temporary accommodation in London awaiting a Home Office decision. The majority have children and the rest are vulnerable and in priority need, with mental and physical health problems. They may have to wait a year or more for a decision about their status.
Already the Association of London Government estimated that some 300 asylum seekers came to it between the beginning of February and the end of April this year; that is a couple of months. It estimates that it is likely to face more than 7,000 claims in the current financial year, at a cost to the local authorities of cash support and service support of well over £50 million, perhaps even £100 million. The local authorities will be

723
required to pay housing costs as well as provide enough money to pay for heating, food, light and possibly some clothing.
Local authority social services departments are not geared up for that because, as the Minister has on other occasions reminded us, they are not social security departments. Yet they will have to assess each claim separately and individually and, where the asylum seeker speaks no English and lacks the support of a family or refugee network, the pressures on a social services department will be substantial.
Why are the financial arrangements so unfair? First, the grant kicks in only above a certain threshold of expenditure. For instance, Barnet has to bear the first £131,000; Barking the first £50,000; Westminster the first £107,000; and Wandsworth the first £112,000. Those are extremely substantial sums which will fall on local council tax payers. Overall, the London boroughs will have to find approximately £5.5 million out of their existing capped expenditure before any government help comes their way. The problem is not confined to London, although the bulk of it is there. I checked this morning and found that asylum seekers are being supported by the local authorities in Dover, Cardiff, Reading, Berkshire and East Sussex. A considerable charge for all of those will fall on local council tax payers. Therefore, the first concern is that the grant kicks in only above a threshold which is far too high and will put an unacceptable burden on local council tax payers.
Secondly, when the grant does kick in it will cover only 80 per cent. of additional costs. Again, that is quite unreasonable. These additional costs are falling on local authorities because central government are seeking to save £200 million of taxpayers' money from the DSS, a national decision, which is then being off-loaded on to a few local authorities and therefore a limited number of local council tax payers. It is not fair that some local council tax payers in some authorities should see their bills rise to meet the cost of government savings for all income tax payers. That is simply unfair. If that is to happen it should be topsliced across the country as a whole.
Thirdly, while grants help local authorities meet temporary housing and longer term children's costs under the Children Act, there is no reimbursement for costs to local authorities incurred under the community care provisions of the 1990 Act. That is as we understand the situation, and we hope that the Minister will comment on that. Some asylum seekers will be vulnerable because of physical or mental health problems, especially if they come from places where their situation has been life threatening; where they have been victims of torture. They will not be eligible for help under the Children Act 1989 but they will require help under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. That falls on the local authority but the Government have not arranged reimbursement for that expenditure. The Government need to clarify the position on that.
Finally, I understand that the Government are going to reimburse only the housing costs which fall on the general account; that is, where local authorities use bed
724
and breakfast accommodation. But most local authorities use their own local authority stock, the older unmodernised properties, as it is cheaper for the local authorities and, as the Minister said earlier, it is more civilised for the family because it keeps it together.
But the costs involved in funding housing in unmodernised, older council properties are borne not by the general council taxpayer but by the housing revenue account and by rent payers. If the Government will not reimburse local authorities for housing revenue account expenditure but only for housing expenditure falling on the general account, local authorities, understandably, will be pressed into using those mechanisms for housing which are funded by the general account and therefore supported to some degree by government; that is, the more expensive but also the poorer value for money and deeply uncivilised form of help which is bed and breakfast accommodation. They will do that in order to gain grant.
Therefore, the financial arrangements which the Government have made are unsatisfactory because they kick in at too high a threshold. Secondly, when they do kick in, only 80 per cent. of the costs are recovered, which is something like £100 million of additional costs, the local authorities estimate, which will fall on a few selected authorities in order to save all income tax payers. The Government seem to have omitted the cost that will fall on local authorities for community care and seem to be unaware, perhaps, of the implications of only funding housing expenditure on the general account, not on the housing revenue account, which will have a perverse, expensive and deeply uncivilised effect on seeking to house homeless families under the Children Act. The House would be grateful to the Minister if he would address those points. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government's policies on housing assistance and child benefit for asylum seekers and certain other persons subject to immigration control will reduce pressure on public expenditure overall. I would reassure your Lordships that we have addressed the impact of these measures on local authorities responsible for providing social services, and that we will continue to do so in the future.
Officials of the Department of Health and of the Department of the Environment have met representatives of the local authority associations to discuss possible costs on several occasions and will continue to liaise with them on this subject as necessary. This is in addition to the regular programme of meetings between central and local government that consider all aspects of local government finance.
I have already dealt with the question of thresholds when I pointed out to the noble Earl that thresholds are not new in central-to-local government financial aid and I quoted the Bellwin formula for disasters as one example of where there are thresholds.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister is quite right to quote the Bellwin formula. But is he also aware that that is why the Bellwin formula is no use?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords, I am not aware of that and I do not agree with the noble Earl. I was going on to explain why there are thresholds. There are thresholds because frankly, central government have a general reluctance to pay 100 per cent. grant for anything because it does not encourage financial prudence on the part of the local authority which has absolutely no interest in the cost outcomes of whatever it is doing. Therefore there is a very good case for thresholds and they will certainly be used in this example.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister said that the reason for not meeting the full cost was to encourage financial prudence on the part of local authorities. The Government do not seem to understand that there is a straight transfer of central government expenditure to local government expenditure except that, having done so, central government refuse to pick up the tab. That is not analogous with the normal argument for ensuring that local taxpayers contribute in order to keep down costs. It is not a question of value for money here. It is a straight transfer. The Government are exporting their costs—they are churning—and it is unreasonable to expect local taxpayers to pick up the bill for the Government's savings.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I do not agree with the noble Baroness. Indeed, if one followed her argument there would be no incentive for a local authority to be financially prudent, so far as concerns this expenditure. It would simply see such expenditure as a free gift in respect of which it could push up the price which would be met by Whitehall and Westminster.
In any case, if the noble Baroness is really worried about this issue she should be supportive of the Government in their desire to reduce the number of people coming to this country under the guise of being asylum seekers when they are really economic migrants. The noble Baroness has heard all the arguments before and has seen all the figures showing the way in which the number of asylum seekers has increased in this country, in contrast with most of the rest of Europe where it has declined. Indeed, she is well aware of how that growth has been particularly prevalent in the past two or three years. The way to deal with the problem as regards local authorities—and, indeed, as regards the UK taxpayer who is seldom, if ever, mentioned by the parties opposite—is to ensure that the people who come here seeking asylum are much more likely to be genuine asylum seekers than is frankly the case at present.
I turn now to the idea that all asylum seekers will virtually present themselves before local authorities under the Children Act, or whatever it is. I have a table of figures in front of me which gives me the breakdown of the principal applicants. It shows that 88 per cent. of them have no dependants—none. Therefore, I do not see them presenting themselves in that way. The other 12 per cent. do have dependants, but not all of them will need to present themselves. Indeed, some of them may actually be able to find a way to fulfil the undertaking that they gave; namely, that they would not
726
be a burden on the UK's public purse and on the UK taxpayer. Only a minority of people will actually fall to be supported either under the homelessness legislation or the Children Act.
So far as concerns community care grants, the costs and duties under the legislation are not affected at all by the asylum seekers' regulations. Therefore, the question of a change in any direction in that respect simply does not arise. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the Minister saying that any costs incurred under the community care Act 1990 will be reimbursed in the same way?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am saying that the costs under the community care Act that we have at the moment as regards asylum seekers—and I doubt that there will be very many of them—will not be affected one way or the other by the asylum seekers' regulations. I know that the noble Baroness likes to pretend that virtually all the world, bar "thee and me", I suppose, is in need of some kind of help or is traumatised and so on. However, the great majority of those people will never need the application of the community care legislation. As I said, it will not change or be affected by the asylum seekers' regulations at all. That is perfectly clear.
Therefore, if there are one or two people—and it is hard to envisage very many because the age profile of the people who come here asylum seeking tends to show that they are fairly young, male and pretty active—I do not believe that many of them will end up needing the kind of services provided by community care. However, those who do need them in the future will be treated in the same way as applies at present; in other words, they will be treated under the community care Act. They will not be excluded by virtue of the asylum seekers' regulations. It is not a case of our not paying for them at the moment and of our shifting the expense to local government. I do not understand the argument of the noble Baroness regarding the community care Act.
On 6th June we laid a special grant report before Parliament containing our proposals for a special grant to reimburse local authorities for their additional costs in social services and in providing services to asylum seekers denied benefit under the provisions of the benefits regulations made in February. Of course, in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment which found that the social security regulations which withdraw benefit are unlawful, we are considering the position further. But, clearly, there is likely to be some continuing burden on local authorities for the cost of social services functions. Our commitment given earlier in the year to provide assistance with those costs remains unchanged. The terms of the grant are likely to be similar to those set out in the report which was laid before Parliament on 6th June.
In addition, our decision to propose the grant demonstrates our more general concern to ensure that local authorities have the resources that they require to discharge their statutory functions. With that explanation and assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I found that reply disappointing. I do not think the Minister answered any of the questions I asked. Perhaps the questions were obscure or maybe he will write to me. He made the point that thresholds were not new and were a way of being financially prudent. We have already argued that. The Minister is simply failing to acknowledge that the Government are seeking to cut £200 million in asylum seekers' benefits by exporting some of the costs onto local authorities. This morning local authorities estimated that about £100 million would fall on them. I do not know whether that figure is correct; I merely repeat it for what it is worth. Having exported their costs, the Government are failing to pick up the tab for so doing. That is different from the traditional arguments about financial prudence.
The Government consistently underestimate the degree of responsibility that will fall on local authorities. The Minister said that 88 per cent. of the principal applicants have no children. The Minister must correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that 25 per cent. of all asylum seekers are children and will come within the terms of the Children Act 1989. Of those who are not—those who are single—a proportion of them (I would not like to say how many) will have come to this country precisely because they have suffered extreme distress, stress and possibly even physical torture. They will come within the provisions of the community care Act. That will be an additional responsibility for local authorities with no reimbursement from central government. Again the Minister has not helped us on that. I asked a specific question about the housing grant and the refunding of moneys spent out of the housing revenue account as opposed to the housing general account. I believe the Minister did not reply to that point. Perhaps he can help us on that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, frankly, I find that the figures of £100 million and a saving of £200 million beggar belief. If that is the best that can be produced, it underlines the need for thresholds. If that is the kind of money that would be sought from the British taxpayer, the threshold is well justified. The figures will be much less than that and the noble Baroness knows it. She should not believe these extravagant claims. I am sorry that I did not mention the position as regards the housing revenue account. I hope I may write to the noble Baroness because housing revenue accounts—as I remember from my days in local authorities—are complex.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously the Minister must write to us and make the position clear. One of the differences between us is that the Minister seems to think that people seek asylum status in this country because of the generosity of our benefits system as opposed to having any sense at all of the situations from which they come: the torture to which some of them have been exposed, the fear of killings and assassination, or of detention of relatives and the like that many of them have experienced. They come therefore, as a client group, to put severe
728
and heavy strains—rightly so—on our community care services. The Minister does not seem to understand that at all. In all his comments this evening he seems to suggest they are coming here for a holiday and he cannot see why the British taxpayer should support them. The gulf of misunderstanding on the Government Benches of the situation from which asylum seekers come, and the reception—thanks to this Government—that they are likely to get, beggars belief. However, it is late and, with the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has applied to a housing authority as a homeless person either—

(a) before the date of commencement of an order made under this section; or

(b) before becoming an immigrant of a class specified by the Secretary of State by an order made under this section.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that we should not have retroactive effect here. That applies to Clause 9(3) and to the order-making power. It would attempt to provide that,
("( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has applied to a housing authority as a homeless person either—

(a) before the date of commencement of an order made under this section; or

(b) before becoming an immigrant of a class specified by the Secretary of State by an order made under this section.").

I do not know how many classes the Secretary of State may specify. If I knew how many the present Secretary of State was to specify, I would not know how many a future Secretary of State would specify. The measure deals with two separate points of retroactivity. The Minister no doubt will tell me that Parliament has been known to pass retroactive legislation. I have known it happen while I have been in the Chamber, which, in terms of parliamentary history, is the twinkling of an eye. But it does not happen often. Every time it does, it is given the most careful scrutiny and serious consideration. Attempts are made to ask the Minister to produce the justification for the retrospective power. Normally, the proper procedure is the one set out in this House by the Earl of Strafford in 1641:
"Let the mark be set on the door where the plague is and then let him that will enter in die".
The Minister has made much of the deterrent power of the cuts. I cannot help thinking that Lord Justice Simon Brown must have known what the noble Lord was going to say, because he has illustrated with the greatest precision the point that Lord Justice Simon Brown made. It is that the measures are designed to deter legitimate asylum seekers. The Minister may recall admitting to me last Wednesday that he cannot tell whose appeal will succeed. That is by the way, and we shall return to it another time.
I wish to ask the Minister to recognise that anyone who came into this country before the measure was law could not have been deterred by a penalty which was not then in place. Therefore it would be unjust and unnecessary to attempt to apply the proceedings of the clause to them. If the Minister must do it, let him do it according to the ordinary fair procedures which we use in parliamentary legislation. I can see no reason for an exceptional claim to the use of retrospective powers. I hope that the Minister does not intend to make one. If he does, I shall listen to it with great care. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I misunderstood the Minister's statement earlier today. I believe that he said that because of the court ruling all those for whom benefit has been suspended or stopped since February would now have it reinstated. Therefore it would not be retrospective and benefit would be paid up to and until the point at which the Government's proposed changes became law in primary legislation. If that is the correct reading, I am not sure that the issue of retrospection applies.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am trying to find my way through the paper placed in the Library when the Bill was first committed to the Lords, in which various background notes were given. The noble Lord's question was how many categories will be specified. The answer will be found in the paper, I believe at G or H, but I need to read the document.
Returning to the general point, Amendment No. 85 would prevent the provisions of an order made under subsection (2) of Clause 9 being applied to asylum seekers who had been accepted as homeless by local authorities either before an order was made or before they came within the scope of an existing order. This would result in housing authorities being required to house individuals who Parliament has already decided should not receive public assistance through the payment of housing benefit.
The Government's position on using this order-making power is very clear: we propose to align the scope of the local authorities' homelessness duties under Part III of the Housing Act 1985 with the rules on housing benefit.
However, if noble Lords agree to Amendment No. 85, this would mean that persons from abroad who are here on limited leave, such as visitors and overseas students, who have not been entitled to social security benefits since 1994, would continue to be entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation and the entire cost of meeting this obligation would fall on the housing authority. It is important that we are able to make the scope of the homelessness legislation consistent with the rules on housing benefit.
We have a clear policy that visitors and other persons who are given limited leave to remain in this country should have no recourse to public funds. The definition of "public funds" includes entitlement to assistance under the homelessness legislation. Amendment No. 85
730
would weaken this policy by exempting certain people with limited leave and enable such people to avail themselves of assistance not intended for them.
This is not just a matter of ensuring that those people who have entered this country on the basis that they would not have recourse to public funds do not receive that benefit. It is equally to ensure that local housing authorities are not faced with further additional costs.
I am advised that it is Paper G that I was looking for in the document lodged in the Library. The groups are listed there. The main groups affected are: those without leave; those admitted with no recourse to public funds; and asylum seekers who claim after entry into the country.
I was not entirely sure what help the noble Baroness was trying to be to the noble Earl, but I believe—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was asking a question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords, but the noble Earl was exploring a much wider point than merely the reference to those who have made a claim since 5th February and whose claim was disallowed under the regulations. The claim they made under the regulations which have now been set aside by the Court of Appeal will now be honoured. Anyone who was not eligible under the regulations last Thursday would be eligible if he or she claimed today. However, as I made perfectly clear, we shall ensure that the benefits gained as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal end when we receive legislative powers from Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is fine so far as it goes; but what about those who did not make a claim after 5th February because they were told that they could not claim?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought I made that clear. If someone makes a claim today, the claim runs from today, as it does for any other claimant.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: From today?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall rephrase that as I understand that my words were misinterpreted. If a person makes a claim, the claim runs from the day of the claim. If the claim was made today, it would run from today. That is perfectly clear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that does not meet the point. There are people who were told that they could not claim because the regulations came into force on 5th February. Retrospectively, following the Court of Appeal judgment, they would have been eligible for the period between 5th February and now. Will their claim apply retrospectively over the period in which they would have been eligible if the law had been as the Court of Appeal has decided it is?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is asking about people who did not make a claim but can make a claim today. They could ask for it to be back-dated to an earlier period. Under the normal rules, such back-dating can be done only if the claimant shows good cause for not having claimed earlier. In this case the existence of the regulations, now deemed ultra vires, which excluded the person from claiming would constitute good cause.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has clarified a point that was not clear and I am expressing my sincere appreciation to him.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will they receive the money in a lump sum?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness likes spending taxpayers' money.
Earl Russell: I must confess that I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. It would have been the effect of this amendment to ensure that people who have already presented as homeless and who have already been housed would be able to stay where they were and the local authority would not need to evict them. I do not see why that is so very terrible.
The Minister said a great deal about persons from abroad and all the rest. But it never seems to occur to him that occasionally British subjects go to other countries. Occasionally British subjects may even experience misfortunes in other countries. Increasingly we live in a world in which people travel around, and in which their business is not confined to one country. If all of us are to be so strictly nationalistic about the help we are prepared to give to people, we are all going to find that we are in very great danger whenever we step outside our own frontiers. It is not the way to run a world. We shall have to clarify this matter further. I do not believe that we shall do it tonight. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 92 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Entitlement to child benefit]:
12 midnight
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 8, line 21, leave out ("immigrant") and insert ("person subject to immigration control").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 76. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 93A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 93, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 93 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 94 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert (", but he shall he taken to have satisfied any such prescribed conditions if—

(a) he is an asylum seeker,

(b) it is at least six months since he claimed asylum,

(c) no decision has been made by the Secretary of State upon his claim for asylum, and

(d) he satisfies the conditions required in any case to be satisfied for payment of child benefit to any person.".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to move this amendment because child benefit is enshrined in primary legislation and so the amendment is rather different from those amendments which no doubt we shall discuss to be brought forward by the Government at the recommittal stage.
Child benefit is about the well-being of the child. It is not about the ethnic origin of the parents, or their legal status as asylum seekers, or whether or not they applied at the port of entry or four hours later. It is about children. I hope that no one in this House believes that the faults or sins of omission of the parents should be visited upon their children. This House has a proud record of care for children and protecting them against abuse. I hope that tonight we shall respond to the amendment in the same way.
Ironically, given the events of the past few days, child benefit is one of the few benefits that cannot be obliterated by regulation. It has to be obliterated for asylum seekers by primary legislation. So important a benefit for children was it that Parliament wisely decided to protect it by primary legislation rather than leave it to the whim of the Secretary of State. It is therefore different from other benefits because it is enshrined in law.
It is also—this also is a significant difference of which I ask the Minister to be aware—different from other benefits because to a degree it is an earned benefit. One is not eligible for it until one has been here for six months and from then on it may well be, given that the asylum seeker has been given permission to work, that he will be paying national insurance and taxes. Child benefit, as your Lordships will recall, started life as a combination of both a tax allowance and family allowance.
Child benefit recognises that those who have children are entitled to pay less tax (or have an equivalent allowance) than those without children. It is a kind of horizontal redistribution. It is applied equally to all British citizens. It should apply equally to communities of immigrant people.
Child benefit is also different because, if an adult is denied income support the state need take no further responsibility for that individual, but the state, even if it wishes to do so, cannot walk away from children, though it denies their parents child benefit. Under the 1989 Children Act the local authority will have to pick up the pieces and either take the child into care at enormous expense—something like £800 a week for each child. Yes, my Lords, £800 a week is the going figure for a child going into care. It is a well established figure. If the Minister wishes to intervene,

733
as opposed to a contribution from a sedentary position, I shall give way. The figure is £800 per week as the cost of taking a child into care and that will fall under the Children Act to the local authority. Or more probably the local authority will seek to prevent further trauma to that child by keeping the family together and putting them into bed and breakfast accommodation at an average cost of between £250 and £300 a family.
If that family does not receive child benefit while they come under the purview of the Children Act, the local authority must make good that shortfall quite directly by providing the family with enough money or food in kind to support the child. It is cheaper as well as more civilised to pay child benefit. Child benefit is one of the cheapest of all DSS benefits to administer; it has a 98 per cent. take-up; it is successful. If instead we have to furnish the same sum through a social worker to help that family pay for food and clothing under the Children Act, and then we claim that sum again from the Government, almost as much will be spent on administration as would have been spent on child benefit in the first place. The cost will be doubled and its effectiveness will be reduced.
Child benefit is not only a benefit to be paid to the mother; it belongs to the child. What is the situation of a child born of parents who are treated as persons from abroad, but the child has British nationality? Will the child qualify for child benefit in its own right? I hope the Minister will be able to tell us tonight. Can we assume that the nationality of the parents will not deny British children access to child benefit? We have not heard from the Minister on that point.
This is a compromise amendment. It does not say that child benefit should be paid to all asylum seekers after six months. It says that it shall be paid only after six months and only until the date of the decision on the application for asylum. That means that if the Government, as they should, make a speedy decision and decide to grant or not to grant asylum status or leave to remain, then the cost in child benefit will be negligible; the cost is driven by the Government's tardiness. If the Government are not tardy and do not accept the status of the asylum seeker, they will not pay any child benefit.
This is an amendment about rights, laws, administrative costs and administrative delays. But it is also about something more profound; it is about child destitution. Child benefit would give an asylum-seeking family with two children £25 a week. That is not much, but it may be enough to keep them from utter destitution. No one here, in a private capacity, would knowingly let a child go hungry, see a child endure malnutrition, expose a child to TB, rickets, anaemia or asthma deliberately—all diseases that come from being undernourished. I am confident that none of us would tolerate it as private individuals; yet collectively we appear to be willing to tolerate it as public individuals.
We are not an elected Chamber. We are an appointed and hereditary House. If there is any justification for that state of being it is because our personal experiences, our work with charities and voluntary organisations, and our private convictions can serve to inform a public
734
policy. If the elected Chamber does not like it, it can overturn it. But if this House will not stand up for destitute children, who else will? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have heard a compelling defence of child benefit and a compelling argument from the noble Baroness. But would it not be really compelling if it were an argument being used against someone who wanted to take away child benefit from 16 and 17 year-old children of United Kingdom citizens who have full residence here? Yet that is what the party opposite would like to do. It wants to take away child benefit from 16 and 17 year-olds and I do not know how the noble Baroness can square her argument with that policy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—I rather assumed he would. We are not taking child benefit away from 16 and 17 year-olds. We are conducting a review of all the expenditure on 16 and 17 year-olds, including child benefit and educational maintenance allowances, to ensure that it goes to those who need it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if I tried that sort of argument the noble Baroness would tell me that it was very weak.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister uses that argument all the time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is a very weak argument. It would seem to me that the Labour Party is now walking away from what I thought was a pretty firm commitment to stop child benefit for 16 and 17 year-olds. Perhaps the noble Baroness has managed to convince her colleagues in the Front Bench team—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister kindly give a reference?
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is Report stage. This is wholly out of order and the Minister must have his way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the Minister misrepresents the position of the Labour Party I am entitled to correct it for the record.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is Report stage and this is a misuse of standing orders.
Baroness Hollis Of Heigham: My Lords, Report stage does not permit the Minister to mislead as regards the position of the Opposition Benches.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if I am misrepresenting the Opposition Benches, I am happy to check tomorrow morning what Mr. Gordon Brown said in his original statement. I appreciate that it has been qualified a bit since then through review. But that does not detract from the question that if the benefit is just being reviewed, has not the noble Baroness given

735
a compelling argument for keeping it for 16 and 17 year-olds and concluding at the end of her review that we were right and the initial proposal that the benefit should be removed was simply wrong?
But, once again, one of the problems of this argument is that it is bedevilled by a great overstatement of the numbers of people involved. I said earlier this evening that 88 per cent. of asylum seekers were people with no dependants. The fact is that 12 per cent. of asylum seekers have dependants but many of them are just one wife and do not include children. The idea that the great bulk of asylum seekers are families with children who are, in the word of the noble Baroness, "destitute" is not true.
That is also true of a statement that the noble Baroness made a second time today, which I ignored the first time but I cannot ignore the second time. She conjured up a picture of people flocking into the United Kingdom and within four hours applying for asylum. A few might do that but the great majority apply for asylum in-country a great deal longer than four hours after their arrival. For example, in the first quarter of 1996 there were 15 per cent. within a week; a week to a month, 17 per cent.; one to two months, 9 per cent.; two to six months, 31 per cent.; six to 12 months, 6 per cent.; and over 12 months, 23 per cent. That is the Home Office analysis of the applications that come in from in-country applicants.
There are three pieces of extravagant language that I want to knock on the head at the beginning. The purpose of this clause is to bring child benefit into line with the provisions for people from abroad we intend to apply in the other non-contributory social security benefits and which have operated since February. This amendment would undermine that purpose. It would mean that entitlement to child benefit was no longer in line with the intended entitlement to other non-contributory benefits. It would fix the entitlements for some asylum seekers in primary legislation, whereas for others regulations would continue to be needed to confer entitlement.
The aim of the amendment is to align with the discretionary provision in the Immigration Rules to allow asylum seekers to take work where they have been in the country for six months without a decision on their application. They would then receive child benefit when they begin to work and pay taxes.
Superficially, this sound plausible but there are a number of reasons why the argument is unsound. First, permission to work is not granted automatically and application has to be made. Secondly, although child benefit is financed from general taxation, so are other benefits. There is no direct link between taxes paid and benefits received. Thirdly, the amendment would apply to all asylum seekers, whether working or not. Fourthly, the amendment would create inequity between groups of people from abroad, allowing asylum seekers to receive child benefit and others not.
People granted entry on the basis that they have no recourse to public funds may well be working. Many in this category come here specifically to pursue their profession, and pay income tax here. But we shall not
736
be allowing them entitlement to child benefit and are holding them to their undertaking to be self-supporting. Asylum seekers may or may not be granted the discretionary permission to work and they may or may not obtain a job and pay income tax. This amendment is indiscriminate and allows everyone in the group access to benefit. I submit that there is no justification for paying them child benefit while their application is under consideration when the decision, which may follow within a short time, may refuse them both refugee status and exceptional leave to remain. We should not forget, as I was reminded earlier on this evening, that that applied in 79 per cent. of cases in 1995. So the position is that 79 per cent. of the cases turn out not to be eligible in any shape or form.
We have made clear how we intend to use the powers under Clause 10 and we have given the House details of the groups who will retain entitlement to child benefit. They include all those accepted as genuine refugees and those granted exceptional leave to remain, as well as those people from abroad covered by reciprocal and other EU agreements. It seems to us logical and consistent to have all of the conditions for entitlement to child benefit for people from abroad set down in one place in regulations rather than partly in primary legislation and partly in secondary legislation.
I do not believe that the amendment is justified. Our approach is simple and straightforward. It aligns child benefit with other benefits. It ensures that people from abroad who come here on the firm undertaking that they will not be a burden on the UK taxpayer do not turn up asking for child benefit until and unless they receive permission to stay here as asylum seekers or have exceptional leave to remain. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, the Minister first said that my statements were extravagant and then that the argument "superficially sounds plausible." Which is it to be? I shall stay with my argument superficially sounding plausible—and the best explanation for that is that it is a valid argument. My valid argument is what "superficially sounds plausible" to the Minister. I suppose that that is at least some acknowledgement, however grudging, of the case being made from these Benches.
I asked the Minister some questions which he did not answer although I repeated them. I should appreciate any intervention the noble Lord cares to make. My point is that, unlike every other benefit, child benefit started partly as a tax relief. Had it remained a tax relief, every asylum seeker who was working after six months would be paying a lesser tax bill than another asylum seeker without children. The logic of that is to continue to recognise that child benefit is therefore different from all other benefits because it originated in the tax relief that was abolished and incorporated with family allowances into child benefit. It is no use the Minister saying, "We want to align it with all the other benefits". He cannot align it with all the other benefits when it has traditionally served a different function. That is the point about lateral, horizontal distribution from those without

737
children to those with children even at the same level of income. That is why it is different from all the other means-tested benefits.
I am sure that the Minister in his heart of hearts—or even in his word of words—recognises that that is more than superficially plausible; that is a fact. Child benefit has always been partly a tax relief. The Minister is saying that if you are an asylum seeker, you can pay your taxes but you will not get the tax relief that comes from having children which you would get if you were a British citizen in the same job, earning the same money and with the same number of children. That is unfair by any tax law in any tax regime.
Secondly, if the decision of the Government follows in a short time—the Government have said, "Why bother?"—the expenditure will then be very low. However, the amendment is targeted. It states that child benefit shall continue after the six months, which is when a British citizen would be eligible for it, until a decision is made. If the Government are as efficient as Ministers would no doubt like, that decision will be made within the first six or seven months, so there will be only a few weeks of child benefit. But if the Government are tardy and inefficient and if the destitution of the asylum seeker is because of government delays, the Government then owe some responsibility back to that family and those children. The amendment would help to bridge that.
The third argument is that where destitution occurs because of government tardiness and delay, the cost will fall directly onto social services departments under the Children Act 1989. The Government can either pay child benefit direct to the family or they can pay twice that amount to the local authority social services department to help to support those children. Take your pick. I can tell Ministers which is the cheaper, the more targeted, the more cost effective and the more civilised. It is to pay the money direct to the parents rather than loop it through the local authority which will have to pay for food and clothing.
Finally, although I asked the Minister the question twice he has not answered once. I would accept one answer to two questions. What would happen in the situation of a British child born of foreign national parents? Would that child and therefore the parents be eligible for child benefit? Can the Minister help me?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am happy to try to help the noble Baroness. If she thinks back to her logical position on the tax system, she will appreciate that child benefit is claimable by the person responsible for looking after the child. The child cannot claim on its own behalf. The person caring for the child does not have to be the parent. As the noble Baroness is aware, ordinary child benefit can be claimed by citizens of this country—grandparents and others—with the financial responsibility and care of the child. They can in some circumstances claim child benefit. But that claim is
738
made usually by the parent, although certainly it can be made by the person responsible for looking after the child.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister appears to be saying, heads the Government win, tails the asylum seeker loses. If one sees child benefit as an amalgamation of family allowance, on the one hand, and tax relief, on the other, it cannot be claimed as a tax relief, even though if the child was British it could be claimed because it is a child and therefore the tax relief belongs to the parent. If it is said that it is a tax relief, on my argument the parents should be entitled to it but the Minister says that they will not get it. But if it is family allowance they may not have it because that is a general form of benefit. This will not do. It is a deeply unfair system. However, it is late at night, and I am confident that we will return to this at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 not moved.]
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 98A:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
(".—(1) Section 13 of the 1971 Act shall be amended as follows.

VISITORS
(2) In subsection (3A)(a), after the words "as a visitor," there shall be inserted the words "other than as is provided in subsection (3AD) below,".
(3) After subsection (3A) there shall be inserted—
"(3AD) A person who seeks to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor to visit a family resident in the United Kingdom shall be entitled to appeal against a refusal of an entry clearance to an adjudicator who will consider the appeal together with any representations made by the appellant's representatives on the papers without an oral hearing".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have tabled this amendment in response to evidence of great distress caused by the removal of the right of appeal from visitors to this country in 1993. Noble Lords may remember that at that stage I moved an amendment, accepted by the Government, which led to the appointment of an independent monitor to look at refusals from the entry clearance officers for the purposes of fairness, equity and the proper conduct of that power.
We have received two reports from the independent monitor, Dame Elizabeth Anson. They point to some grave injustices and anxieties on the part of the monitor that perhaps not all is as well as it should be. She looks at only one in 38 cases. She reports,
"that most applications are considered properly under the Immigration Act and the Immigration Rules, but a number have caused me grave concern. Some of these examples are family visit cases where there have been a number of applications and refusals for members of the same family, and as I stated in my last report evidence of the reasons for the refusals should be in the interview notes. When an application is refused and all the reasons in that refusal are answered and evidence accepted by the ECOs then a similar application supported by that extra evidence should satisfy the ECO and an entry clearance be issued".
She further states:
"The ECO must therefore cover all his reasons for refusal in any refusal notice and not bring up new reasons on a second application unless there is new evidence to support them".
My reason for tabling the amendment is that family visits are being hampered. Those most affected are British citizens who have settled here from other countries. They are the ones who have been caused distress. Members of families who want to attend weddings or other special occasions are being denied the right to come by entry clearance officers. There are no means to deal with these matters as there is no right of appeal. The Immigration Advisory Service, which is the largest national charity that undertakes this kind of work, is aware of a very great number of documented cases where matters are not as they should be and the degree of distress caused by these unnecessary refusals.
One of the IS staff members was refused leave to bring his elderly parents into this country because the entry clearance officer said that he had visited them in the country of origin in the past. That seems strange. Many people living here would go back to visit their relatives and families and the country itself. Does that mean that anyone wanting to come here to visit would be refused entry just because their relatives can visit them?
Elderly parents apply for settlement rather than a visit because there is then a right of appeal. It cannot be right that all that money is being spent by the individuals who want to come here and by the administration in this country just because those people know that they are unlikely to obtain permission to visit here.
It is also worth noting that the predecessor of the Immigration Advisory Service (the UK Immigrants Advisory Service) was winning 50 per cent. or more cases on appeal. Since the criteria have not changed, it would appear that 50 per cent. of the people who in the past would have been able to gain entry on appeal as genuine visitors are now being refused entry. The consideration is whether this provision would lead to a great expansion in numbers.
It is not intended that the right of appeal should lead to a full hearing. It should be a limited right which should be dealt with on paper by a single adjudicator sitting in chambers. He should be able to see all the papers, including the representations made. He would then be able to give an independent and impartial view.
Up to 10,000 letters are being received by Members of another place on behalf of their constituents. That number will increase, because when people's close relatives are refused entry, the first person to whom they will go will be their Member of Parliament. A great deal of work will be involved in dealing with all those letters. It is unlikely that this limited right of appeal will cost much more than what happens at the moment.
There is another point which my noble friend the Minister may wish to bring up; namely, the question of a review by the entry clearance manager of his officer's view of the case. It is difficult to imagine that the entry clearance manager would want to go against the decision of one of his officers. That was the very point upon which I was able to base a previous amendment in 1993. There must be someone who is not within the system and part of the system itself. The independent monitor's report points out that some of the reviews are extremely sketchy. She was unable to read some of them
740
because they were written in almost unreadable long hand. Other concerns are expressed in the monitor's report; for instance, the fact that the interviews with the applicants have lasted only 15 minutes.
It is extremely important to people to be able to maintain their family ties. I very much hope that the Minister will look carefully at the issue in order to see whether there is some way of meeting that great need. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, one is given to understand that the present Government protect, defend and uphold the interests of the family as a basic unit of society. The amendment concerns family relationships and on such grounds it seems to be very worthy of support. I do indeed recall the noble Baroness's amendment of 1993 and I congratulate her on bringing forward this amendment today. I hope that it will receive a very sympathetic hearing from the Government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I warmly welcome the amendment. I too remember the noble Baroness's intervention in 1993. Her amendment could not be better designed to illustrate the point that I was making just a few minutes ago; that we no longer exist in a lot of little separate national boxes. We belong to one world and our social circle comes from many different countries.
Recently my wife's uncle was dying. That was hardly an unexpected circumstance as he was in his middle 90s. His daughter in Australia wished to visit him before he died. I can imagine the shock and outrage all around the family if after flying all the way from Australia she had been refused entry clearance.
That is exactly what happens from time to time and it is the problem to which the noble Baroness wishes to call attention. We see in the papers a great many such cases which arise under the habitual residence test. I shall not enter into that debate now but it illustrates, particularly in families which are divided between here and India or Pakistan, the very real difficulty and the gross hardship which can arise from the casual refusal of entry clearance.
What the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said about the effect on families is entirely to the point. The extended family is very important. It is a support system which the Department of Social Security ought to welcome. Indeed, it relies on it often enough in unexpected and often mistaken places. But, where that system wishes to operate, to restrain it from doing so in the name of a concern for bureaucratic tidiness or a respect for a kind of national privacy which in this world no longer exists is perverse.
My only misgiving about the amendment is the words "without an oral hearing". I see why the noble Baroness included them. In this context one might possibly forgive them if they were never to get out of it. I fear that they might but I am glad that the noble Baroness tabled the amendment. It makes a very important point which I hope will receive a hearing.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I too support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. In my

741
experience, which I believe is general, the people who are hurt by refusals are already in this country. Perhaps they have become British subjects or have settled here permanently and wish to be visited by relatives from abroad; sometimes aunts and more often elderly parents. It causes enormous hurt and pain when the visits of such people, who may wish to have a holiday, often with their children, are refused. Of course, we have to rely a great deal on our officials abroad. But from time to time they make mistakes. I am not saying that they act in bad faith, but they do make mistakes. The only safeguard against such a mistake is the right of appeal. That is what is at issue here.
I too have reservations about not having a full hearing, but I accept that by having a hearing other than an oral hearing a great deal of time and money are saved. Therefore, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, that may be acceptable in this instance. However, I should be very upset if that were extended to asylum applications where the substance of the case could only be put at a full hearing. But in this case that may just be acceptable. However, I repeat that this amendment seeks to safeguard against the pain and anguish caused by refusing entry to people who wish to be visited by close members of their family.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, a very strong case has been made in support of this amendment which seeks to provide a right of appeal. This is a very modest amendment indeed. The right of appeal is limited by excluding oral hearings.
I wish to put before the House one other factor which is important. We have a substantial number of families living in this country whose parents were born or originated in other parts of the Commonwealth. It is vital that those communities are made to feel fully part of our citizenship and are treated on an equal basis with all other citizens. Indeed, during our debates today the Minister has said repeatedly that she is strongly in favour of good race relations.
Apart from hurt to families, to which reference has already been made, there is the important issue of race relations. Rightly or wrong, people from ethnic minorities in this country feel that they are treated differently from those who come from other sections of society in respect of visits by their relatives to this country. There are a number of cases where people have come here for a wedding or in some cases for a funeral and have been refused entry clearance, often on somewhat thin arguments. I hope that the Government will consider allowing a right of appeal in those cases so that there can be second thoughts about whether or not refusal of entry clearance is soundly based.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the intention behind this amendment is to re-establish a limited right of appeal for those refused entry clearances to visit their family members who are resident in the United Kingdom. That is the intention but the wording is deficient. I will return to the deficiency in the wording in a moment, but first I will deal with the general principle of whether there is an
742
argument for making a special case for those seeking entry clearances to visit their family members who are resident here.
Noble Lords will remember that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 withdrew a number of rights of appeal which had previously existed under the Immigration Act 1971. One of these was the right of appeal available to those refused entry clearances as visitors. The rationale behind this decision was clear. Only limited resources are available to fund the immigration control and the related appeals system, and it is essential to concentrate resources on those cases which vitally affect a person's long-term future.
The Government welcome genuine visitors to the United Kingdom and do not underestimate the importance of family visits. However, it must be clear that family visits do not have the same long-term impact on a person's future as, for example, an application for entry for settlement following marriage or as a dependant.
There has never been any intention to restrict the number of people visiting the United Kingdom. The criteria under which applications for visit entry clearances are considered have not changed. A number of measures have been introduced to ensure that would-be visitors are not disadvantaged. The refusal notice is more detailed, providing clear reasons for the decision. Information leaflets have been revised and expanded, and sponsors and applicants can provide fresh evidence and secure much earlier reconsideration. Perhaps more importantly, decisions to refuse applications for visit visas are reviewed within 24 hours by a senior officer. The post of independent monitor, as mentioned by my noble friend, was also established to review a random sample of entry clearance decisions and to present an annual report to Parliament.
I turn now to the question of restoring limited appeal rights for those refused entry clearances for family visits. This amendment proposes adding a new tier to the already hard pressed appellate system with adjudicators determining cases on a papers-only basis. On the face of it, that would simplify the process and reduce the additional burden on the system. But, if I have understood this measure correctly, the intention behind introducing papers-only determinations is to ensure a quick decision. That would mean that a person originally refused an entry clearance to attend, say, a family wedding in the United Kingdom, would still be able to attend the wedding if the appeal was allowed.
We cannot accept the justification for according that level of priority which, however simplified papers-only determinations may be, must involve diverting resources away from the determination of appeals on matters of such lasting importance as asylum and marriage. There are only so many adjudicators.
I referred earlier to deficiencies in the wording of the amendment. In that respect, it should be noted that it gives no indication of what constitutes "family" for the purposes of establishing an entitlement to a right of appeal. However, there is a more fundamental flaw. If accepted, the amendment would provide a limited right of appeal to anyone refused an entry clearance,
"as a visitor to visit a family resident in the United Kingdom".

743
The wording of the proposed new clause makes no mention of a family connection or relationship between the entry clearance applicant and the family resident in the United Kingdom. Unless I have misdirected myself, and I do not believe that I have, acceptance of the amendment would provide a limited right of appeal for anyone refused an entry clearance to visit a family resident in the United Kingdom whether or not there is a family relationship between the applicant and the family.
My noble friend referred to yet another friend of mine, Dame Elizabeth Anson, who is the monitor and who has now made two detailed reports on the entry clearance operation. She has visited posts overseas and has looked at samples of cases. Many of the points are being followed up in some detail by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Given what has been said about the amendment, one would think that, somehow or other, the Government are not concerned about family ties. During the course of today, I thought that I had said enough to prove that the Government do indeed regard family ties as being very important in so many ways. They certainly take them seriously.
I believe that the proof lies in the figures relating to this particular issue. The figures for 1995 show that 1,167,000 applications were received and that 1,042,000 were acceded to; that is, 93.5 per cent. of those who applied for entry clearance did in fact receive it. That means that only 6.5 per cent. of those who applied were refused. The noble Earl is not at present in his place, but he referred to the case of an Australian who, on entry here, was disappointed. However, we are really talking about applications that are made in country. It is the entry clearance officers in country who receive the requests for entry clearance papers to visit relatives in this country. As I said, well over 1 million applications are received and still over 1 million are accepted.
I believe that our case is a good one. Nevertheless, the 72,000—the 6.5 per cent.—who are rejected would require in the case of my noble friend's amendment being accepted, in addition to the 24-hour review and the monitoring exercise, another paper exercise review to see if those decisions could be reversed. Again, it is a matter of priorities. We believe that the other part of the system dealing with applications for asylum and other means of entry into this country should be given priority.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am a little disappointed with the response of my noble friend, particularly as she points to the defects in the amendment. In my six years' experience in this House it has been rare indeed to find no defects in the amendments tabled by those on the Back Benches. I accept that there may be enormous defects, but it is the matter of principle that I wish to emphasise. I clearly stated that principle. I am not impressed by the fact that the measure does not define the family, or that—in a legalistic way—one can say that any person visiting any family (regardless of whether it is their family or not) would be covered by this amendment.
If the amendment had any chance of winning any support, I should be perfectly happy to word it differently to avoid the defects. It appears that resources
744
are limited. Resources are always limited. We are now trying to work out who is more important, whose needs are more important and why one person's needs should be more important than another's or should be given priority. The main point of my amendment is that the measure hurts most the people settled in this country. It is not necessarily the people who come to visit who will be most affected by the measure; it is the British citizens who live in this country who are most deeply affected by not being able to have family reunions. As regards the percentage of people who are refused entry, it is worrying to note the reasons given for that refusal. There is an enormous number of documented cases which show a cavalier attitude towards people who want to come for a short visit. There is no obvious explanation for that.
If my noble friend feels that there is no way in which there can be a limited right of review—it is almost a review by an adjudicator rather than an appeal—surely there has to be some other method of dealing with the situation. As I have said already, the independent monitor is not satisfied with the review taking place within 24 hours. I am worried that there has not been a definite response to the first report. She has now issued a second report which deals with all these deficiencies. As far as I know, there has been no public response to it by the Government and no promise that anything will be dealt with.
I shall not press the amendment to a Division but I urge my noble friend to take this matter away and reconsider it. Perhaps she could try to place herself in the following situation, and try to imagine how one feels when one is a citizen of a country but one cannot have one's parents, brothers or sisters to visit. Obviously the measure would be limited to close family members only. That can easily be defined in consultation; it is not a problem. I hope that there will be further consideration of this issue. If there is to be no right of appeal, perhaps there is some other way to deal with this situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 8, line 35, leave out (" "immigrant" ") and insert (" "person subject to immigration control" ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 76. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 101 to 103A not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Amendments of the 1971 Act and the Immigration Act 1988]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 10, line 16, at end insert ("but paragraph (c)(i) shall cease to apply where a person, who was subject to the condition in that paragraph and was employed as a domestic worker in the United Kingdom, is certified by a police officer, doctor or solicitor to have suffered substantial physical abuse or deprivation or serious economic exploitation, in the course of that employment."").

745
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the same time as moving this amendment, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 67 which was put down in mid-May. It has been in print since that time, and I might have expected the courtesy of the information that the Government's Amendment No. 64 would pre-empt my amendment by one line of text. The original amendment was withdrawn in Committee. It and its twin have been modified by me to meet criticisms made by the Minister and I have explained the intention and general thrust of the new amendments by letter to her.
The two amendments are designed to protect both the employer and the worker when a tied domestic worker takes a second job. The protection is tightly circumscribed by the requirement that the original employer must have abused or exploited the worker. That fact must be certified by a reliable professional person. It does not open, in the words of the noble Baroness, a "very real loophole" in immigration control. It merely helps to remedy an intolerable injustice. The amendment is far more restrictive than the pre-1988 work permit system. I am advised that the penultimate word in Amendment No. 67—that is "bonded"—may be incorrect in that in international law it refers to persons working in lieu of debt interest. No doubt the Home Office will be able to suggest better wording.
I should explain some of the other terms used in my amendment. "Substantial physical abuse" means, for example, beating, assault, threatened, attempted or actual sexual abuse or imprisonment on the employer's premises. "Serious economic exploitation" means, for example, non-payment of wages, payment of derisory wages, no holidays or time off or in general excessive hours. "Deprivation" in my amendment includes such things as no bed to sleep on, no individual bedroom and minimal provision of food.
During the period from 1992 to 1996 there have been many hundreds of cases of such abuse, exploitation and deprivation. An analysis of them has been made by one voluntary organisation which showed that 40 per cent. of its cases had been physically abused; two-thirds had had their passport confiscated; and on average those people were being paid £4 a day for 17 hours of work. That works out at a rate of £24 or £28 per week. It is not surprising, therefore, that a significant number of such workers continue to run away from their employers each year because of the serious abuse they suffer.
The situation has continued since 1981. I very much regret to say that it has not, as yet, been overcome by the leaflets provided by the Government or by their system of interviews at the point at which the incoming worker leaves another country, or even by a model code for a contract of employment.
In response to an earlier amendment, the Minister seemed to be expressing some tenderness and sympathy for people employed in the very seasonal occupations of fruit-picking and catering. I merely throw out the hope that she will show rather more sympathy this time round than she previously did to such domestic workers in their plight of being tied hand and foot to a single
746
employer. Perhaps she will go so far as to offer me an interdepartmental committee to look at this matter and to report. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, under the Mansfield Judgment, slavery is illegal on English soil. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the abstemiousness with which he moved this amendment. There are many cases, which I am sure he has at his fingertips, where the exploitation to which the amendment refers has stretched to a point where it could very well be classified as slavery. The cruelties can be quite unimaginable. I shall not repeat the case I quoted in Committee. I am sure the noble Baroness remembers it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, pointed out when we discussed this matter in Committee that the type of behaviour to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, draws attention is already illegal. But the parallel with slavery is genuine in that the main reason why people do not escape is that they cannot get any freedom when they do. What deters them from complaining about this sort of treatment is their inability to earn a living legally when they have done so. The effect of this amendment would be to except these victims from employment controls under Clause 8. I refer to Amendment No. 67. If that is not done, the power of the exploiter cannot effectively be checked. It is only if they can honestly earn a living in some other employment that the people concerned can be capable of escaping. If that is not done, all expressions of sympathy and compassion, and all repetitions that the conduct complained of is illegal, will be of no use. If you do not open the escape hatch when the ship goes down, it does not matter how sympathetic you are.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I hope that the Government will consider very seriously what might be done about this issue. It is a serious matter and one that in some ways shows signs of growing. At the United Nations Women's Conference in Beijing last year, Her Majesty's Government were among those governments who expressed themselves as being very concerned about child prostitution and the spread of issues concerning domestic violence. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for once again persisting in raising this issue.
As the House will know, there are a number of countries whose ambassadors and consuls general have expressed particular concern on this kind of matter. One country that springs to mind is the Philippines, which has suffered very badly over the employment of young women as maids and au pair girls in different countries of Europe. They find out when they arrive here that they are being used for very different purposes and are exploited by their employers, sometimes for sexual reasons.
I hope that the Minister will think hard about this issue. It is not one that profoundly affects numbers. But, as my noble friend said, it profoundly affects the civil liberties of a relatively small number of extremely vulnerable people, many of them young women. I hope that she will look at this matter very closely. She will be aware that there are some cases sometimes of people

747
living in this country who themselves come from other countries where the habit of what one might describe as forced indentured labour is not unknown. It would be a great shame if that kind of treatment became embodied and rooted in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton is absolutely right in saying that this amendment will go at least some way toward protecting people against that kind of exploitation.
1 a.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Baroness, the people under the scheme about whom we are talking are people who have come to this country with their own employer, whom they know. They have worked for them and are part of the family staff when they arrive in this country. It is not as though they come to an employer in this country whom they do not know and who exploits them. They are the same people for whom they have been working. It also has to be said that they come here on that precise condition: they come with that employer and the condition of entry is that they remain with that employer. Any idea that it suddenly becomes a licence for the individual to be able to work anywhere and for anybody and for any employer for whom such a person works to be exempt from offences under Clause 8 is wrong.
Amendment No. 104 provides that the power to attach an employment restriction to a person's leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom will be nullified once a police officer, doctor or solicitor certifies, in the manner described in the amendment that was not allowed—it was pre-empted this afternoon—that a domestic worker has been abused or exploited.
In practice, this would probably mean that these people would be able to stay here for good, because it would be very difficult to refuse them an extension of their stay once they had found another job, even if they had been here for only a short period. They would thus become part of the resident workforce, free to take employment of any kind, and neither they nor their future employers would be committing an offence.
I appreciate the sentiment behind these amendments. No one can possibly condone the abuse or exploitation of employees, no matter where and how it takes place. That is why we have criminal and employment laws to deal with such abhorrent behaviour. Overseas domestic workers have the same rights and the same protection under those laws as every other worker in the United Kingdom. That is made clear to them, and to their employers, before they even leave the country of origin.
But the effect of these amendments would be to confer on these people a privileged immigration status. They would be able to change jobs without hindrance, a right afforded to no other overseas national who comes to work here, including those with work permits. It would not, however, stop the abuse in the first place; nor would it stop the second or subsequent employers from behaving in just as wicked a manner.
It is for these reasons that the Government have sought to minimise the risk of abuse and exploitation of domestic workers by taking steps designed to ensure that
748
only those who are willing to come here with their employers are allowed to do so. This is the very reason why we insist on entry clearances so that checks can be made before the visit. The entry clearance officer must be satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made for the domestic worker's accommodation and maintenance; that he or she understands his or her rights when in the United Kingdom; and that the employer is equally aware of all these. All this is contained in a leaflet which is given to the employee and which explains where to go for advice or help. A copy also goes to the employer with a note making it abundantly clear that domestic workers have full rights under our criminal and employment laws.
Under no circumstances do we allow domestic workers to be recruited from overseas by employers already here. They must have been employed by the person they are accompanying for at least one year, and for two years if anything more than a short visit is intended.
I am of course conscious that these arrangements, though designed to minimise risks, cannot eliminate them altogether. But the concession also means that domestic workers do not lose their jobs just because their employers wish to come to the United Kingdom. In the vast majority of cases the system works smoothly and uneventfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to an inter-departmental committee. We see no need for that. We keep in close touch with colleagues in other departments, mainly of course the Department for Education and Employment and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We will continue to keep the entry clearance arrangements under review. There is a constant liaison between the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and of course, for employment purposes, work permits and other such related matters, we are constantly in touch with our colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I regret that nothing the Minister has said tonight makes one feel that the Government appreciate the gravity of the offences committed by the employers, which have been going on for many years.
The noble Baroness said that pre-entry checks are applied. Experience shows that they are simply not sufficient; they do not achieve the purpose for which they are intended. She went on to say that domestic workers coming in with these restrictions on them enjoy the benefit of the protection of British law. That is fine in theory; again in practice it simply does not work out, particularly when the domestic worker is confined to his or her employer's premises. I could speak at length giving examples of where the worker has a limited knowledge of the English language and other practical difficulties which exclude such a person from normal legal protection.
In relation to the scale of the problem, one single voluntary organisation working in central London is still, in this year and last year, receiving 15 to 40 new cases per month—it varies from month to month.

749
I should have thought that that was enough to arouse serious concern. This is undoubtedly a matter to which I shall have to return at Third Reading and, if there is no further help from the Government, then at all possible subsequent opportunities. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("approvals to work") and insert ("equivalent documents").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment to Section 14(2A)(c) of the 1971 Act contained in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 to this Bill is a minor, technical amendment. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 removed the right of appeal for certain categories of mandatory refusal. Examples of the type of case where the right of appeal was removed include where a visitor seeks to remain beyond the six-month permitted maximum, where a person does not meet the requirement as to age set out in the immigration rules, for example, as an au pair or working holiday maker, or where a mandatory entry clearance has not been obtained prior to arrival. The right of appeal was also removed in cases where the applicant does not hold a relevant document required by the immigration rules. Relevant documents are listed in Section 14(2B) of the 1971 Act, as amended by the 1993 Act, and work permits are included in the list of relevant documents. It was originally believed that the phrase "work permits" would include both the permits required to be presented on entry to the United Kingdom and also approvals of particular employment issued by the Department for Education and Employment where the applicant is already in the United Kingdom.
Subsequently, it was held that a work permit is solely an on-entry document. That produced an inconsistency between the appeal rights available to those seeking to take employment for the first time and those refused further approval or a change of employment by the Department for Education and Employment.
The current print of the Bill includes the phrase,
"approvals to work issued after entry".
To resolve that inconsistency, however, further consideration has suggested that that phrase does not fully meet the needs of the situation. The approval provided by the Department for Education and Employment is approval of particular employment. It is the Home Office who provide permission to work.
The amendment would replace
"work permits, or approvals to work issued after entry"
with
"work permits or equivalent documents".
This construction more accurately meets the needs of the situation and I am satisfied it will provide the effect we are seeking. I commend this essentially minor, but complicated technical amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 106:
750
Page 11, line 40, at end insert—
("Recovery of expenses incurred in detaining persons refused leave to enter
In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act (recovery of expenses incurred in detaining persons refused leave to enter), for the words "at any time" there shall be substituted the words "for any period (not exceeding 14 days)".
Recovery of expenses incurred in detaining illegal entrants
.—(1) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 20 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act (recovery of expenses incurred in detaining illegal entrants), for the words "at any time" there shall be substituted the words "for any period (not exceeding 14 days)".
(2) After that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply to expenses in respect of an illegal entrant if he obtained leave to enter by deception and the leave has not been cancelled under paragraph 6(2) above.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the first part of the amendment will restrict the liability of a carrier to pay detention costs to a period of no more than 14 days. The second will exclude from a carrier's liability for detention costs those cases where a passenger obtained leave to enter by deception and the leave has not otherwise been cancelled.
In Committee the House showed considerable sympathy for the concerns of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain about the open-ended commitment on carriers for liability to detention costs. I undertook to bring forward an amendment limiting liability. Ministers have confirmed that they are now content with the proposition that the carriers' liability for detention costs should be confined to 14 days in total and not be an open-ended commitment for the airlines. This is a substantial concession but one which should not result in the loss of too much revenue. In addition, it will tighten up administrative practices enabling the Immigration Service to recover debts more effectively.
The Government cannot accept a proposal which would shift the burden of these costs so fundamentally from carriers to the taxpayer, leaving the Home Office to find the shortfall from existing provision. If carriers were to be exempted from detention costs for passengers carrying valid documents, there would be no financial risk and no disincentive for unscrupulous operators to bring dubious visitors to the United Kingdom on cheaper charter flights.
My noble friend knows that we must start from the premise that the costs associated with the detention and removal of people who are not to be admitted to the UK should be met by carriers unless such people arrive with a certificate of entitlement, entry clearance or a work permit.
Carriers profit from bringing passengers to the UK, and the taxpayer has only limited control over who is brought here. Therefore, it is right that carriers should bear some responsibility for the costs where their customers do not qualify to enter this country. The Act already limits liability to some extent. Carriers do not have to meet detention costs while an appeal under the Act is in progress; for example, a concession extends this principle to cases where judicial review has been sought.
The fact that a passenger is properly documented does not mean that he is necessarily admissible. A large proportion of the 19,000 people refused entry and removed at the ports in the last 12 months were indeed properly documented. The decision to refuse them leave to enter is based not on documentation but on their intention or undesirability.
But although the principle that carriers should meet their liabilities is a sound one, we accept that the present system contains some elements which can seem unfair. That is why I undertook in Committee to review the scope for limiting carriers' liability in this area. We now, as I have already said, propose to amend the Bill to limit liability for detention costs to a period of 14 days in total. We believe that this is equitable. It gives carriers a clear and unambiguous statement of where their liabilities lie without putting at risk an important area of government policy and without an open-ended commitment.
But this was not my noble friend's only concern. She raised the point that carriers should be exempted from detention costs where the passenger arrives with adequate documentation. Once again, her intentions are laudable, but the Government cannot accept an amendment of this kind. The reasons are very important. Many nationalities do not require visas to come here. All they need to travel is a valid passport. As I said a few moments ago, that does not make them admissible. A number of national airlines take their responsibilities in this area very seriously. They work with the Immigration Service to provide proper advice and training to their staff and play no small part in reducing the number of inadmissible passengers who arrive at our ports. But not all carriers exercise their responsibilities as conscientiously as the best.
Some carriers have been persuaded to bring to the UK large numbers, particularly of non-visa nationals who are proved to be inadmissible. If we agreed to exempt detention costs for passengers carrying valid documents, there would be no financial risk and no disincentive for unscrupulous operators to bring dubious visitors to the UK on cheap charter flights. If there is no disincentive for carriers to bring non-admissible non-visa nationals, there would be a greater pressure to introduce more visa regimes around the world. I do not believe that this is what the carriers would want since it would make the burdens on them even greater.
But I recognise that if a passenger has already been granted leave to enter by an immigration officer, it might seem unfair to expect carriers to foot the bill if the person is subsequently found to have obtained that leave to enter by deception and is detained. The Government therefore propose an amendment in the Bill to make clear to carriers that they will be exempted from any liability whatsoever for detention costs where leave to enter has been granted on the subject's last arrival in the UK and has not been withdrawn within the 24 hours permitted under the Act. We believe that this will address the main grievance which carriers feel about current arrangements. We believe that the proposed measures will in some cases significantly reduce the liability of carriers for detention costs.
Taken overall, we believe that these measures will clarify for carriers where their liabilities lie and reduce the uncertainties and perceived unfairness which my noble friend mentioned in moving her amendments at Committee stage. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
1.15 a.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it will come as no surprise that I am grateful for this amendment which addresses the issue at the core of the amendments which I moved at an earlier stage and which drew such widespread support in the House. I am sure that noble Lords will recall me saying previously that my awareness of this situation was heightened by my joining the board of British Airways. I therefore declare my interest once more.
My noble friend has been most generous both in the time that she has set aside to discuss with me the principles underlying the amendments which I proposed in Committee and in the sympathy that she has exhibited over the iniquities of the existing legislation. But perhaps I may gently chide her because it was not merely a "perceived unfairness"; it was an unfairness. However, I have been greatly heartened by my noble friend's grasp of the situation and her willingness to seek a practical and meaningful way forward.
The climate which has evolved in the past two decades has resulted from the vast increase in international travel which has conspired to create a situation where the staff of airlines and, indeed, of shipping companies have found themselves in the front line of the UK's defence against illegal immigration, with ever-increasing burdens put on them to detect fraudulent travellers. Today not only are carriers fined for failing to spot forged or expired documents, which is not as easy a task as it might sound when one considers the many international permutations, but they are also expected to pay the detention costs indefinitely of anyone detained by UK immigration, irrespective of whether that person has faulty or entirely proper documents. It seems to me—and to many people—that UK immigration has hit upon a marvellous way of policing that activity without it costing it a penny. As a taxpayer, I have thought about applauding that, but I cannot say, hand on heart, that I feel comfortable with it. It is a deep injustice, rooted in the 1971 Act, which was not created to deal with the mass travel which we now experience.
I return to my noble friend's generosity because I am extremely grateful—I am sure that other noble Lords will feel the same when they read Hansard—that an important point of principle has been conceded in this amendment. By accepting that UK immigration should share the cost of, and therefore accept responsibility for, detaining illegal immigrants, my noble friend has admitted that the existing legislation is flawed, that it has been iniquitous and that the burden has until now fallen on the carriers' shoulders.
The fight for recognition of this principle has gone on for many years. I am the last in a long line of those who have been pursuing it. It is good that some progress has

753
been made in this respect. I think that it would be dishonest of me, and disloyal to those noble Lords who have fought so stalwartly in the past for this unfair legislation to be amended, to express complete satisfaction with what my noble friend has proposed. I am disappointed that it fails to address the issue of carriers being expected to pay potential costs in respect of correctly documented passengers detained for some unforeseeable reason, such as an immigrant officer's sixth sense.
I continue to believe that this is a deep injustice and hope that my noble friend may be open to further meaningful discussions on the point, especially in respect of those carriers who take their responsibilities very seriously. I note what my noble friend has said about some being much more responsible than others. One always finds cowboys in any type of organisation or business. I believe that this particular sector has had its fair share of cowboys. But those who take their responsibilities seriously will wish to continue to discuss these matters.
I had hoped to have a more generous cut-off point than 14 days after which carriers cease to be responsible for paying detention costs. My noble friend will recall that my original amendment proposed a 72-hour cut-off point. That was the point at which the transportation industry in the UK in general felt it would be fair for UK immigration to take over. I then proposed seven days. It almost became a matter of bargaining. That was the period of time that my noble friend had herself referred to in Committee. The significance of seven days' detention was that that was the point at which any detainee could apply for bail. I felt that that provided some kind of link. I was disabused of that idea when I went to see my noble friend in her office early one morning. It seemed to me to be an entirely logical point at which UK immigration should take over the cost of further detention. I am surprised that my noble friend and I cannot agree as to that. However, I am very encouraged that the Government have conceded the point of principle. It gives me cause to hope that at some future date there may be an opportunity to revisit the issue and re-examine the justification for further refinement. I am pleased to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 12, line 16, after ("released") insert—
("(i) into the care or supervision of a voluntary organisation, or (ii)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No.107 and speak also to Amendment No. 109, which is closely connected with it. I speak also to Amendment No. 108, which provides an alternative method of diminishing the practice of detaining mainly asylum seekers but no doubt also some immigrants. The amendments are all the more necessary since the Government voted down Amendment No. 1 at Report Stage which would have provided an independent review of detention after a person had spent seven days locked up. One route is the use of reputable voluntary
754
organisations. Another route is by not setting bail which is excessive, not only to the person who applies but to those who may provide sureties on his or her behalf.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when we considered this Bill in Committee we discussed Amendments Nos. 138 to 140, which were framed in exactly the same way as this group of amendments. We had an interesting and useful debate at that time. I apologise if I cover the same ground this evening. It is difficult not to do so because the arguments remain the same.
The clear intention behind this group of amendments is to alter the way in which people are released from detention. Instead of being released on bail, a person who is detained can be released without preconditions into the care of a voluntary organisation specified by the Secretary of State for that purpose. It is not clear how those who would be released into the care of these organisations would be separated out from those who would continue to rely on the bail system for their release. Neither is it clear how these organisations would take on this supervisory role, nor how it would be funded. There is no mention of a sanction being applied if the person who has been released fails to return from the care of the voluntary organisation at the appointed time. The financial penalties in the bail system are aimed at compliance, but there is no equivalent encouragement to compliance in the system now proposed.
A further measure is proposed which would require an applicant's personal means and circumstances to be taken into account when fixing the financial levels for any recognisance or bail bonds. That appears to be a superfluous addition because subparagraph (2) of paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 already allows adjudicators very wide freedom when setting the conditions of a recognisance or bail bond, including whether or not to require sureties.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, when introducing Amendment No. 138 and the related amendments in Committee, stated that he had four principal objections to the practice of detaining immigrants. These were the cost of detention, the waste involved in requiring advisers who specialise in immigration cases and their interpreters to travel to distant detention centres in order to provide advice, the distress caused by detention, particularly to those who come here fleeing persecution in their own country, and finally that detention tends to criminalise immigrants, helping to establish a perception in the minds of the general public that all immigrants are illegal and outside the law. The noble Lord went on to explain that the proposed amendments would help to minimise the practice of detaining immigrants by encouraging the voluntary sector to take on responsibility for supervision.
I was taken to task during the earlier debate in Committee for repeating a phrase which he suggested had become the mantra of successive immigration Ministers, "detention is used only sparingly and as a last resort". I make no apologies for repeating it again now because it is true. The numbers of people detained under powers in the 1971 Act at any time are minuscule when considered against the numbers arriving as a whole.

755
I hope that I have explained why I regard the alternative system proposed by these amendments as unsatisfactory. The bail system generally works well and the major criticism levelled against it has always been that certain people are excluded from applying for bail because of the stage their particular application has reached. We have included measures in this Bill to extend the right to apply for bail to all of those who are detained, irrespective of the status of their case. The system proposed by these amendments would serve merely to confuse the picture, posing questions which I have outlined but without providing any answers. I would like to make clear that in expressing my objection to these measures I intend no criticism of the voluntary sector, for which I have nothing but the highest regard. I was its particular Minister for a very long time, and I regard it with great affection and have enormous respect for the work that it does. I urge the House not to accept the amendments.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I regret the fact that the Minister continues to offer a dead bat to every amendment proposed on the Bill. One might have thought that she would welcome something which
756
would help to reduce the number of persons detained each year. If the Government feel that some kind of pre-condition might be necessary before individuals are released into the care or under the supervision of a voluntary organisation, why do they not have discussions with the voluntary sector as to what those pre-conditions should be. One might also have thought that the Government would welcome a possible reduction in cost, which is considerable at present. Nevertheless, at this time of night I do not intend to press this matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 110:
Line 3, leave out ("immigrants and the employment of immigrants") and insert ("persons subject to immigration control and the employment of such persons").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 76. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at half past one o'clock.

  Sharm el-Sheikh Declaration
  Sharm el-Sheikh Declaration
  Kazakhstan: Dismantling of Nuclear Test Site
  Kazakhstan: Dismantling of Nuclear Test Site
  AEA: Detection of Clandestine Nuclear Activities
  AEA: Detection of Clandestine Nuclear Activities
  Lebanon: Withdrawal of Foreign Forces
  Lebanon: Withdrawal of Foreign Forces
  Lebanon: Reconstruction Assistance
  Lebanon: Reconstruction Assistance
  Culture Council, 11th June
  Culture Council, 11th June
  Sports Council: Services to Angling
  Sports Council: Services to Angling
  Sports Council: Resource Allocations
  Sports Council: Resource Allocations
  DSS: Male/Female Staff Ratio
  DSS: Male/Female Staff Ratio
  Class 92 Locomotives: Track Work Funding
  Class 92 Locomotives: Track Work Funding
  BSE: Cost of Eradication Measures
  BSE: Cost of Eradication Measures
  Animal Feed: Monitoring and Enforcement of Controls
  Animal Feed: Monitoring and Enforcement of Controls