Sitting of 19 March 1997

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

  Earth Summit II
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Madam Speaker: Mr. Cynog Dafis.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not wish to delay proceedings this morning, but I should be grateful if you would give me guidance. The day before yesterday, I sent you a written application to launch a brief emergency debate under Standing Order No. 20 about the drastic situation concerning the future of Edgware general hospital. I am not commenting or complaining about the fact that I have not received a reply—I am sure that you are very overloaded with work, Madam Speaker—but I wonder whether I may press that point further by way of a point of order, and raise the matter briefly, either now or at 3.30 this afternoon, at your discretion.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not raise the matter now. I am sure that he has been in the House long enough to know that the Speaker does not respond to applications under Standing Order No. 20 or applications for private notice questions unless the response is positive.
  9.35 am
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allocating time for this important debate. It has been sought by an informal group of Members working together on a cross-party basis, as a way of highlighting Earth summit II and the issues with which it is concerned.
  It is fair to give notice of the fact that, if the members of the informal group are re-elected, which we fully intend to be, we shall continue to be active on the subject after the election—reinforced, I hope, by the increasing number of people, including other Members of Parliament, who see sustainable development as the central issue of our time.
  Nothing could be more important than the cluster of issues brought together under the term "sustainable development"—the maintenance of a healthy environment, which is the basis of all our prosperity and success, as well as of all our cultural and spiritual fulfilment, and the issue of social and global equity regarding the satisfaction of human needs.
  Those two themes convey what sustainable development amounts to, and what Earth summit II—the United Nations General Assembly special session in June,
  796
  which is part of the Rio session—is about. Earth summit II offers us a chance to put new and much-needed urgency and impetus into the process.
  We have been glad to receive assurances both from the Prime Minister and from the man whom I must describe as the likely next Prime Minister to the effect that whichever of them is elected to that office will attend Earth summit II. In his letter to me, the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "I certainly agree with you about the enormous significance of the event",
  and the Prime Minister speaks in similar terms.
  "Enormous significance"—that is strong language, and there is every justification for using it. We should make no mistake about the fact that sustainable development is a radically different way of organising the economy and society. I do not think that enough people have managed even to begin to comprehend that. Mainstream economists, politicians and the public at large have barely begun to understand the concepts underlying sustainable development, much less the means by which they can be given substance.
  Mr. Dykes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it has been noteworthy throughout the argument, all over the world and within the United Nations, that the European Union has played a leading and united role in promoting those good causes? Is not strength through unity another example of the way in which the United Kingdom can play an efficient role within a united European Union?
  Mr. Dafis: That is a useful intervention, and I emphasise the fact that the European Union has a potentially key role to play. It has prepared an enlightened and advanced position paper that stresses the importance of moving now to implementation—actual action—on sustainable development. The Rio process emphasises global and regional activity—that means European activity—as well as national and local activity. All those levels of activity have a role to play. There is an enormous task in providing basic education which has still to be done.
  I can do no better than quote Klaus Topfer, the former chairman of the Commission on Sustainable Development and German Environment Minister, who is one of the great leaders in the global movement for sustainable development. He says:
  "We need a radical ecological structural change in the economy and society and the extension of economic and social systems to include the ecological dimension. We must alter our technologies and we must alter our behaviour. Our guideline in doing this is sustainable development. In a nutshell, this means: preserving our natural capital, preserving the branch we are sitting on. We can no longer afford to go on living beyond our natural means."
  Taking that seriously, and treating the resources of the natural environment as capital, has far-reaching implications.
  What progress has been made since Rio, where the countries of the world signed up to Agenda 21 and to sustainable development? Things have not gone well, and the world is now less sustainable—if anything—than it was in 1992. Poverty is on the increase, except in south-east Asia and the countries of the Pacific rim. Per capita income among 1.5 billion of the world's people has declined during the 1990s. The disparity between the

  797
  wealthiest and the poorest is becoming greater. Indicators of social development show a decline in many countries. Life expectancy is down in 32 countries, and the improvement in Latin America is negligible, as life expectancy there is far too low.
  I wish to refer to the natural environment. Taking soil as an example, according to the Secretary-General of the UN, 10 per cent. of the earth's dedicated surface is at least moderately degraded. Water is emerging as a crucial environmental and resource issue for the next century, and it is projected that, by the year 2025, two thirds of the world's people will be living in countries suffering from water shortages.
  Forest cover is being lost, and we are using non-renewable energy resources, at an alarming rate—that has serious environmental and social effects. There is a massive impact in extraction, transportation, processing and combustion. The use of fossil fuels has a massive effect. Energy consumption—mainly of fossil fuels—is up by 40 per cent. since 1973. The pressure from developing countries to increase energy use is intense: one has only to think of China and the huge implications of that country beginning to use its coal resources. Things are not going well in that sense.
  What about the political process? The creation and implementation of policies to turn this matter around is important, and that is what the Rio process was supposed to achieve. Agenda 21 and the convention signed at Rio were supposed to contribute to this work. It would not be true to say that nothing has been achieved—one might say that the show is still on the road, and that is no mean diplomatic achievement.
  In climate change, it is true that the show is still on the road, but progress has been painfully slow. In its response to the United Kingdom Government's position paper for Earth summit II, the World Wide Fund for Nature agrees that progress has been very poor, and gives examples. There has been no progress in implementing or funding the desertification convention. Neither in the convention on climate change nor in the biodiversity convention have we managed to agree a programme of actions or mobilise sufficient financial resources to implement their aims inside developing countries. The United States has not even ratified the biodiversity convention, to its eternal shame.
  As far as the financial mechanisms are concerned—the global environmental facility is the key one—there is no clear strategic direction, and the GEF has a derisory budget, amounting to less than 0.004 per cent. of OECD GDP per annum. If one compares that with military expenditure worldwide—expenditure intended to ensure global security—one sees that it is absurd and grotesque. The best means of ensuring global security is to ensure sustainable development, and we need to put resources into it.
  What is to be done at this time? First, we need to apply the political will with the greatest urgency to achieve sustainable development. I very much welcome the announcement by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), that he intends to make the environment central to a Labour Government's foreign policy. That is very good. I hope it
  798
  will be central to a Labour Government's economic and social policy as well, but there is precious little indication of that.
  However, to be positive, the statement by the shadow Foreign Secretary is seriously encouraging, and the task force he has put together has an impressive membership. If that kind of spirit informs the UK contribution to Earth summit II as part of a strong and serious EU commitment, that is good news.
  What should we look for this year? The EU has produced an excellent position paper, although I hope that the EU means what it says—that does not necessarily follow. The paper states that Agenda 21 needs to complete the transition to the operational phase. That is an admission in itself, as it suggests that we need to start doing something, rather than talking about the theory.
  What do we need to do? First, we need action in relation to key sectoral issues. Climate change is to be discussed at Kyoto at the end of the year, and a reasonable—or at least adequate—target is a 20 per cent. reduction from 1990 levels in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 2005. Some say that that is unrealistic, but I would ask whether it is realistic to allow the climate to change as it currently is, bearing in mind the effect that that will have.
  On forests, we need effective action linked to climate change and biodiversity. On fresh water—a very important issue—the EU calls for a recognition of the interaction between fresh water and soil erosion, demography and security of food supplies. These are terribly important issues, but there are others, including toxic chemicals, oceans and energy. But these specific sectoral issues will not be addressed unless certain key cross-sectoral themes are seriously tackled. The most important of these has to be finance for sustainable development in third-world countries, where the situation is appalling.
  We have seen a decline in overseas aid from the developed world in GDP terms. There is profound disenchantment about the process in third-world countries, because the developed world has not begun to deliver. Private investment flows are increasing, but they are not geared to the poor countries or to sustainable development.
  The commitment to 0.7 per cent. of GDP for overseas development aid targeted on sustainable development must be fulfilled by 2005—a reasonable target. We must move towards more debt cancellation, and there has to be a firm commitment to the replenishment of the GEF. I hope that we get that commitment this morning. But we also need new financial mechanisms, and an aviation tax on international flights—with the proceeds earmarked for sustainable development—is perhaps the most immediately feasible. The call for an intergovernmental panel on finance is a perfectly reasonable one, which I back.
  The United Kingdom Government should go to New York with an unshakeable commitment at least to financial matters, because, if we do not get that right, we can say goodbye to sustainable development, and the consequences will be disastrous. It is a key foreign policy issue.

  799
  The link between sustainable development and trade must be taken seriously. By all accounts, the World Trade Organisation—the key organisation in this—is not doing so. Earth summit II should tell it that it has to take it seriously.
  Sustainable consumption and production is another underlying cross-sectoral issue. I do not know whether all the other members of the group I have been working with would agree, but I believe that modern consumerism—the very engine that drives our economic system—is ultimately incompatible with sustainability. It is as if it were designed to impose stress on the natural environment that makes it possible.
  Weaning ourselves off consumerism is a daunting task, but we have to begin the process. Two mechanisms are essential, and the first is new indicators of economic success. Progress there has been slow, and we need those quickly. We need a radical revision of our accounting system, and we need not only to develop the indicators but to use them to describe the extent of our economic and social success.
  Secondly, the internalisation of environmental and social costs simply has to be faced. A glaring example where that is not being done, even remotely, is in transport. That requires a change in the basis of the taxation system, which we are beginning to talk about. A commitment about that should come out of the Earth summit. Of course, the constant need to include social equity must be borne in mind in doing so. One cannot internalise environmental costs unless one is concerned about social equity at the same time. Sustainability is about social equity and social inclusion as much as it is about the environment.
  Much has been said about the international institutional structure to drive forward Agenda 21 and the whole agenda. Briefly, we need to renew and strengthen the United Nations Environmental Programme, which is important and has a key role to play. I hope to hear a commitment this morning to ending the suspension of UK funding to UNEP.
  Secondly, the CSD has clearly shown itself to be a useful body. Mr. Topfer, the former chairman, said that we need it to become a sort of environmental security council. There is general agreement that it needs a more focused agenda, and the UN Secretary-General has set out a timetable for it leading up to 2002. I agree with WWF's suggestion about the need for a stronger and better resourced mandate for the CSD.
  I look forward to hearing the response of the spokesmen on the two main Front Benches, as well as that of the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. We do not want to hear complacent self-congratulation from the Government, and I hope that we will not, although I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge the Secretary of State's important achievements in this regard. From Labour, we do not want a lot of electioneering and slagging the Government off. We want to hear clear signals that we regard Earth summit II as an historic opportunity to start a course of radical action globally, regionally and nationally at last to begin the transition to sustainability.
  9.53 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome this debate. It is good to see at least some hon. Members here, wishing to take part. I congratulate the hon. Member for
  800
  Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on his contribution, this morning and throughout this Parliament, on environmental issues. It is essential that some hon. Members are prepared continually to take up such issues, and I pay tribute to him for doing so. The way in which he opened his speech is important. He drew together all the strands of environmental destruction that are taking place, and underlined the importance of the Earth summit that is to take place later this year.
  Frankly, the current rate of exploitation of the world's natural resources is totally unsustainable. The current process of economic planning and growth is leading to increased unsustainability, rather than greater protection for the world's natural resources. We have to change course—not just in this country, but worldwide—or we will be looking at total destruction within the next century.
  Unfortunately, I do not suppose that environmental issues will be the main feature of the coming general election campaign. I wish that they would be, but unfortunately I doubt it. In some parts of the world, environmental issues are a major concern, and they ought to be here. They are a major concern where children are growing up in urban areas and suffering—as in London— from chronic asthma because of the use of fossil fuel-driven vehicles when electric vehicles would be better, or because of toxic waste dumping. They are a major concern for children growing up in west Africa, where toxic waste dumping on the beaches is routine as a way of evading European and north American regulations; or children growing up in shanty towns throughout Latin America and south Asia.
  We have to deal with environmental issues and with the way in which people live, and, above all, the way in which we plan the future of the world. Although the Rio summit had many shortcomings, it at least recognised that there are limits to the growth that one can undertake and to the way in which we can exploit the world's natural resources. In that sense, it was a bringing together of all nations. Agenda 21, which came out of the summit, was extremely important.
  The downside of the summit, however, was the side agenda that was not on the table at Rio. Closing down the UN office on multinational corporations, and the way in which western nations have cajoled third-world nations into supporting the general agreement on tariffs and trade, are leading to increased food dependency, world trade, pollution and environmental destruction for the poorest people in the poorest countries.
  That shows the power of the mega-corporations of Europe and north America to squeeze the poorest people in the poorest countries. Increasingly, those issues will dominate political debate in the next 30 or 40 years, as the lack of natural resources for economic development in the northern countries becomes more apparent, and the dash for everyone else's oil, uranium, copper, gold, tin or whatever in the poorest countries comes to dominate politics.
  There are signs of hope, however. This Parliament has at least signed the Antarctic treaty, which recognises that one cannot continue to exploit every section of the globe for ever. We have achieved the end of mineral exploration in Antarctica, and when all countries have finally got round to ratifying the treaty, we will achieve an environmental secretariat, which I hope will guarantee the

  801
  permanent protection of that important area for scientific research and peaceful exploration rather than the exploitation of its natural resources.
  I mention Antarctica because it acts as a laboratory for the whole planet. By taking ice-core samples there, we can see what we are doing to the world's air quality, what pollution is taking place, the amount of lead being pumped into the atmosphere and the amount of nuclear waste being pumped into the atmosphere as a result of testing. We can see the effects of global warming, as glacier movements speed up and the rise in sea levels begins to become very apparent. Those issues are crucial to our long-term survival.
  In Islington, I am the chair of our local Agenda 21 forum. Such forums have been set up throughout the country in response to the Rio summit, and they are very exciting affairs. Large numbers of people come to take part in serious discussions of how they can try to create a more sustainable environment in a heavily built-up urban area. My constituency is the most urban part of the United Kingdom, yet we have a determined group of people trying to ensure that we have a better environment for everyone in the community to live in, but above all, that we try to play our part in sustainable economic planning. However, that cannot be done on a solely local basis, and we cannot plan the traffic policies of the country as a whole or stop the Government building roads that force more and more cars into London. That has to be done by national economic planning.
  A future Labour Government must support Agenda 21 initiatives, and, above all, bring people together regionally, nationally and internationally to ensure that there is coherent policy making. It is no good our arguing for better public transport within our community if, at the same time, the car and fossil fuel lobby is so successful that more roads get built and there is more pollution and damage to the environment.
  We must consider the serious consequences of the process of rapid economic growth and exploitation of natural resources. Every time that a crisis appears, something is done. The damage done to the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbon emissions became apparent, and something was done, but an awful lot of CFCs were then offloaded on to third-world countries, and are still in use today.
  The refrigeration industry in many parts of the world is still dependent on outdated ozone-damaging technology, partly because of the way in which western countries protected their technological advances during the GATT negotiations to maintain their pre-eminence, showing little concern for environmental damage in other parts of the world.
  Deforestation emphasises the way in which we wantonly and ridiculously use and waste vast quantities of paper without even troubling to recycle it. Much paper ends up in landfill, and much is used to print totally useless advertising material in bulky newspapers. It is all very well to talk about recycling, but we should also talk about not using the paper in the first place. Levels of forest destruction are horrendous, and we will all pay the price.
  Many people do their best to save and increase forests, but, if we tell a third-world country with serious poverty and unemployment that is finding it difficult to feed its
  802
  population that the only way forward is to build an export-led industry and destroy its natural resources to pay a totally unpayable debt to the west, we must accept that our trade and economic system is responsible for those mahogany trees being chopped down and that virgin forest being destroyed, never to be replaced.
  We must also consider the way in which food and food production systems are developing. Many African and south Asian countries had a large degree of food self-sufficiency until 20 or 25 years ago, but GATT insists on a world free market in food, which means that the most powerful grain producers—basically, North America and to some extent Europe—can dominate, which leads to good agricultural land in the poorest countries being taken out of use, making those countries more dependent on what goes on in the west.
  The British Government must play a role in GATT that encourages sustainable economic development. That does not mean an increase in ships passing each other carrying refrigerators one way and refrigerators the other, cars one way and cars the other; it means seriously considering the environmental costs of transporting consumer goods around the world that could be produced much nearer to home, and examining the question of food production, food dependency and the type of food that is being produced.
  The thrust by the culture of the United States, in particular, for everyone to eat beefburgers is a major factor in the destruction of a large amount of forest land. Using agricultural land as pasture for beef cattle is of itself extremely wasteful of resources. We must seriously examine life styles as well as all the other factors.
  I have asked many parliamentary questions of the Department of the Environment over the past year or so about climate change and global warming. If one looks at temperature levels historically, it is obvious that the problem is serious and that there is an accelerator factor: it is a question not of a 0.1 per cent. or a 0.05 per cent. increase over a given period, but of an exponential increase. Ice is melting in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, and sea levels are beginning to rise.
  The implications of global warming are massive: not only rising sea levels and huge climatic changes but the creation of desert areas and the serious loss of food production capability in many areas. The situation is urgent: some Governments are committed to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, but they need to revise their estimates and bring forward the reductions, as well as considering seriously the implications of economic development elsewhere in the world.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North spoke of the problems of the growth of the consumer market in China. If a quarter of the world's population suddenly wants to have motor cars in the same proportion as even the poorest European country, there will be another 300 million cars on the road in a short time, and all the pollution that goes with that.
  We should recognise that the people campaigning for a safer environment, be they opposing unnecessary road building in this country or forest destruction in other parts of the world, are all basically arguing for exactly the same thing.
  Last year, I had the privilege of meeting some visitors from Ecuador, who explained the problems they are having with the destruction of the forest and mangrove

  803
  swamps, the way in which North American and European oil and gas companies wantonly destroy the environment in their mad dash to find more oil and gas to sell cheaply elsewhere, and the way in which the Government of Ecuador is constantly told by outside economic advisers that such exploitation is an economic necessity.
  A briefing document on Ecuador says:
  "On a recent visit to Ecuador a US AID adviser on environment said that 'Ecology is a luxury for Latin America'".
  In other words, Latin America should destroy everything it has as quickly as possible, and hang the consequences.
  However, many people in the poorest areas of the Amazonian region of Ecuador are determined that that should not happen. They want a sustainable life style to continue, and they do not want forests to be destroyed and rivers polluted. They want a sustainable economic system in their country, as many of us do in many other parts of the world, but they cannot achieve that alone, because of the power of market forces from around the world and because of the way in which Ecuador is told that the way out of its economic problems is to export more goods, destroy its natural environment and exploit its natural resources as rapidly as possible.
  I look forward to significant changes in Government policy in this country when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) becomes the responsible Minister, and above all to the ability of ordinary people to say that they want a sustainable world, not one that it is busy destroying itself. It is possible to achieve sustainability, but not if we predicate everything we do on the myth that rapid economic growth and consumerism can solve all the problems. There need to be fundamental changes in attitudes. At least this debate gives us an opportunity to say something about that.
  I only wish that the general election campaign was going to be dominated by crucial environmental issues. If this one is not, future elections will be. It is wrong that our children suffer from asthma throughout urban Britain because of air pollution, that the rivers of Latin America are being destroyed by industrial waste, and that mammals that have existed for far longer than human beings are being destroyed because we cannot be bothered to live with the environment, but instead try to exploit it.
  10.9 am
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: We have been faced with serious challenges since the Rio summit, with continuing global environmental destruction. I do not want explore the full range of issues, which have already been covered by previous speakers. I want to keep my remarks short to allow others to comment.
  Perhaps the greatest and most intractable problem has been the financial resourcing of our commitments to achieving environmental and social sustainability. Finance is likely to be at the centre of debates at the UN General Assembly special session in June, the so-called Earth summit II, and will be fundamental to its success.
  The need of developing countries for external funds is as great as it was in 1992. Since then, forests have continued to be cleared, wetlands have been further destroyed, and the earth's biodiversity has been substantially further eroded. In too many cases, this is not through wilful neglect but because many developing countries lack the resources to pursue more sustainable forms of development.
  804
  I visited Brazil two years ago to see construction on the Amazon. One key problem was the poverty of farmers who cleared land in a desperate attempt to grow the food they needed, which led to the early destruction of that land, for which their agricultural techniques were inappropriate. They have neither the information nor the training to make better use of their resources.
  Another key problem was the inability of the Brazilian Government to fulfil their commitments, not least because they cannot afford the immensely difficult task of policing their policies effectively. Similarly, when the Environment Select Committee visited Thailand and Malaysia, it found the same problems: there were difficulties with tackling illegal logging, let alone getting policies right in the first place. Continued economic pressures hit Governments' ability to tackle the problem.
  The developed countries have not fulfilled their commitments at Rio to provide new, additional resources. Official development assistance fell from a peak of £62 billion in 1992 to around £53 billion in 1995. The £3 billion pledged to the global environmental facility since 1992 has not come close to making up the shortfall, let alone meeting the increased need identified at Rio. If developing countries are to remain committed to the ambitious agenda agreed at Rio, and it is imperative for all our futures that they do, we must demonstrate at Earth summit II that we are prepared to live up to our financial commitments and ensure that adequate financial resources are available.
  The developed world has only 20 per cent. of the world's population, but consumes 80 per cent. of the world's resources. That level of consumption is already leading to the destruction of the global environment. If the developing world follows our path of wasteful consumption, the destruction will accelerate fivefold. As we have been the beneficiaries of the destruction up to now, no one should argue that we should not bear a fair share of the cost of putting it right. That means a majority share, including helping the developing world to avoid the path that we have so destructively followed.
  An incoming Government, of whatever colour, will face two immediate challenges, both of which are opportunities to make their mark on the environmental political scene. On 2 May 1997, negotiations will begin on replenishment of the global environmental facility. We must argue vociferously for an increase in funding from developed nations. That would send a clear signal of co-operation to developing nations before the Earth summit, and will make it far more likely that we can achieve the necessary progress.
  The second challenge is a UK one: to make a commitment to meeting the aid target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product within 10 years. Only the Liberal Democrats of the major parties are costing that into their pledges for the general election. Before the manifestos are launched, I urge that the other parties do so as well. The Government's commitment stands at only 0.28 per cent. of GNP, which has fallen from the 1980–84 average of 0.37 per cent. The cuts must be reversed, or we will share the vastly larger costs of environmental destruction and climate change.
  The cuts are a practical obstacle to solving the developing world's environmental problems, but, even more important, they are a major psychological block to winning co-operation from the developing world in setting

  805
  the necessary targets and strategies at the Earth summit. At the same time, the quality of aid must be improved. Although progress has been made, all too often aid continues to focus on large-scale, technology-intensive projects, rather than small-scale, sensitively planned projects that yield environmental and social benefits to the communities involved and further the aims of the Rio agreements and subsequent conferences.
  Although international private investment has grown dramatically since 1992, the bulk of it goes to a handful of fast developing countries, hardly any of which are among the least developed. Almost three quarters of foreign investment in the developing world goes to only nine countries.
  In any case, we should have no illusions that private finance is a panacea. Private funds are driven by market imperatives, and will not automatically deliver public goods such as environmental sustainability or the elimination of poverty. Because they are driven by an economic priority set largely in the developed world for goods that we continue to waste and with which we destroy the environment, they are even more destructive in countries where they bear little relation to the needs of communities. There will remain a substantial need for public funds, and for private finance to be regulated to ensure that it is consistent with those aims.
  I recognise that public spending in the developed countries is under domestic and international pressure. Conventional development assistance budgets will never be able to provide sufficient funds to meet demand. That is why debates have started at the Commission on Sustainable Development about new ways of generating funds, such as new international taxation. Liberal Democrats want more debate in Britain about how to progress along the route of environmental taxation.
  A charge on aviation fuel on international flights is one currently mooted proposal, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). We should push that up the agenda in our international negotiations. However, it needs international agreement and co-operation to achieve action. We cannot go it alone, but that is all the more reason for the UK to take a leading role in arguing for it.
  The time is ripe to make swift progress on the issue, because the EU is to consider at the end of 1997 the expiry of the exemption of aviation fuel from excise duty. The money raised could be channelled back into the global environment facility to promote the aims of Agenda 21 and other Rio commitments in the developing countries. Much global environmental damage could be avoided and substantial funds raised for environmental protection, and not only in developed countries. That could be done with funds that currently subsidise operations that actively damage the environment.
  The Worldwatch Institute has estimated that Governments worldwide subsidise environmentally damaging activities, such as over-fishing, and excessive road transport and coal production, to the tune of more than $500 billion a year. It is vital that we start working out how to eliminate those subsidies and put them to better long-term sustainable use.
  Non-governmental organisations working in the field suggest that a new forum may be need to facilitate debate and political consensus on new ways of financing
  806
  sustainable development. An intergovernmental panel on finance, situated in the Commission on Sustainable Development, is their preferred option. We should consider that seriously, and I hope that the Minister will say that the British Government will it give their encouragement and consideration. The CSD could also have more formal links with key international financial bodies such as G7 and the World bank. That would help to put sustainability at the heart of the world's most powerful financial and economic centres.
  All funds in all countries need to be not only used in the way intended but seen to be used as such. That will happen only when we have proper accountability of funds and full transparency. Far greater efforts are needed to eliminate corruption and make sure that social and environmental priorities remain paramount. That is a matter in which the British Government, while they may have their faults at home, have considerable expertise, which, as well as practical help, they can offer to countries around the world.
  Much was achieved at Rio five years ago, but an awful lot still needs to be done. Over-consumption in the north and population growth in the south are combining to put huge pressure on the dwindling stock of natural resources and on the earth's ability to absorb pollution. The developed world contributes disproportionately to those problems, so we must disproportionately take on the burden of overcoming them. We must help developing countries to develop in a more sustainable way than we have done, at the same time as we put our own house in order.
  We should never think that developing countries are not concerned about the environment. Polls show that people in countries such as Brazil and Poland are as concerned about the environment as people here. But people in such countries have far fewer resources and far less room in their economy to tackle the problems. That means, at the very least, that Britain must meet our internationally agreed targets for financial support.
  The optimism and consensus of Rio show that the world knows what needs to be done. We must not let it break down in bickering about who does what. Britain must show that we are willing to play our full part, and that, having identified the problems, we will take our role in finding the solutions.
  10.21 am
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I begin with two sets of congratulations. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on obtaining the debate. The issues he raises go far beyond party divisions or the commitments made in any of the party manifestos. They are the biggest challenge to our society and civilisation, and political parties have yet to face up to them.
  On a smaller scale, I ought to pay tribute to the Government. At least they have met one of the obligations on funding for biodiversity. It is new and additional funding. However, we must put it in context and view it on its proper scale. It is like to trying to find enthusiasm about the receipt of a new pair of laces when someone has stolen one's shoes. It is the theft of shoes that I want to talk about.
  The world that confronts us now is poorer than it was in 1992. There are more poor people in the world. The gap between rich and poor is wider. The rate of depletion

  807
  of our fish resources and forests is accelerating faster. It is running away from us. All the small contributions that are being made are dwarfed by movements in the opposite direction. They are cynically dwarfed by the amounts of money that go into the arms trade, but no less cynically by our active part in the accelerating investment in exploitation.
  There is no point in our saying in the House that we want a few more million or perhaps even a billion pounds to go into development aid, when we refuse to close the door on unsustainable trade. That is the heart of the contradiction that the industrial world has to face. It is enshrined in the absurdities of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The recent treaty presented a new deity to the economic world. It suggested that the pursuit of unregulated free trade would be to the general benefit of humanity, whereas in fact it is the greatest threat to humanity.
  Three main proposals have come out of discussions at European level to promote serious alternatives to a deregulated view of the world, which can only accelerate the depletion of our natural resources and pose real threats to the sustainability of not only our life but all life forms on the planet.
  The first proposal is that we have failed to do anything to check accelerating consumption in the industrial world. The nature of that acceleration does not make sense. Almost 60 per cent. of the foodstuffs imported into the United Kingdom are products that we could produce ourselves. There is no costing of externalities in global trade. We import green beans 6,000 miles from Kenya. We import apples from South Africa.
  We are a net importer of parsnips, which travel 11,500 miles from Australia. I have to confess that, when I was a child, there were times when we kids used to pray that my dad would not bring in any more bloody parsnips from the garden. There are only so many parsnips that one can know and love at any one time. For Britain to be a net importer of goods that we can produce ourselves seems the height of folly, and it is all for the sake of getting goods into the supermarkets a week or a month earlier, irrespective of the social and environmental cost.
  I marvel at the fact that we subsidise the over-use of pesticides, fertilisers and growth hormones in agriculture, all of which make their way into the food chain and the water chain, make the land water-hungry, and add to the momentum of increasing water shortages. By 2025, two thirds of the world's population will face water shortages. We also subsidise non-production. Set-aside is Britain's second biggest agricultural industry. The one thing that we will not subsidise is traditional and organic farming— the sustainable methods of farming which have made societies stewards, not owners, of the planet, from one generation to another. We need to consider how to reverse that position.
  Sustainability has to involve not simply aviation fuel taxation but measures to reduce food miles. A recent article explained that the average pot of yoghurt on a supermarket shelf would have travelled 1,000 km before it reached the hand of the purchaser. It seems crazy that so much unnecessary transportation is built into the way in which we over-consume. It would be extremely helpful if we tackled that problem.
  We must re-localise production. That would also allow us to consider how we can deliver food guarantees. When staff in a supermarket are asked what has gone into the
  808
  produce on the shelves, with the best will in the world they do not know. The more we break the link between urban communities and the rural, farming hinterlands, the more food accountability is impossible in our pattern of consumption. The same applies to goods.
  Instead of continuing to go along with the assumptions behind GATT, we need to argue the case for reversing them. In parts of America, states are beginning to say, "Site here to sell here. If you want access to our markets, you must be part of the terms of production which generate jobs. You must have accountable forms of production which we find acceptable." We cannot leave it to the public to achieve this by running their own consumer boycotts. As nation states, and as coalitions of nation states, we should be imposing ethical constraints on the nature of our assumptions about production, distribution and exchange.
  That would allow us to return to the concept of local labour agreements. We used to be able to build those, not only into our domestic economic policies, but into our international aid packages, which included good labour agreements. All that is being stripped away in a regime that is dominated by global giants, whose interest in other people's economies is simply the interest of the locust.
  There has to be an international dimension to this issue, and I want to try to set out a potential framework. We must challenge another part of GATT—the issue of patents and licences, which is almost GATT's sole protectionist element. Global corporations are now even seeking to patent trees in India because of their potential medicinal and curative properties.
  We must reverse that attitude; we need a new gift relationship. I grew up believing that the best example of a gift relationship in this country was the blood transfusion service: we gave blood not on the banking assumption that we would get our own investment back, but so that there would be enough in the common pot to see us right in the event of an unforeseen accident.
  For the next century, we have to have a new gift relationship—a technology gifting relationship, which donates sustainable technologies to the developing countries, so that they are not forced down the path of production processes that deplete resources for themselves and everyone else. If we can address that, we will begin to make life sustainable, not only in other parts of the planet, but in our own countries, for our own people and as stewards of our own environment.
  10.31 am
  Mr. Michael Meacher: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on having obtained this debate, and on the eloquent and reflective way in which he introduced it. It has been a valuable and wide-ranging debate—indeed, it has been one of the most interesting that I have heard for some time.
  The environment will be a central issue for the incoming Government. That is why Labour has set up the green globe task force, which the hon. Gentleman applauded. It is a key issue, not only for the United Nations General Assembly special session in New York in June—the current Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), has made it clear that, if elected, he will attend it as

  809
  Prime Minister—but for the Kyoto meeting on climate change in December and for the British presidency of the European Union in the first half of 1998.
  The original Rio summit in 1992 was a mixed affair. It achieved two important legally binding conventions on climate change and biodiversity that were signed by more than 150 countries. It established a set of principles for the sustainable management of forests worldwide and it launched Agenda 21.
  However, its weaknesses are equally obvious: no targets were set, so there is no measure of progress or backsliding. No one would disagree with the assertion that the action taken since Rio has not been nearly enough. Nevertheless, the key frameworks are in place: just as action on chlorofluorocarbons tightened progressively after the original signing of the Montreal convention in 1987, so it must tighten now on climate change and biodiversity.
  Opinions divide sharply on what now needs to be done. For the wealthy nations in the north, sustainable development means conservation, energy efficiency, recycling and reversing global warming and ozone depletion; but for the poor countries in the south, it means equity, redistribution of wealth, transfer of technology and a fairer trading system. The fact is that both north and south need each other: the north needs the co-operation of the south to cut greenhouse gas emissions caused by mass industrialisation, but the south will not co-operate without a far more extensive programme of redistribution.
  The north is right to be concerned about worsening degradation that seriously threatens the viability of the planet, even though the north is itself often the main perpetrator. Global warming, which will generate hurricanes, droughts, floods and severe crop losses across the world, is primarily driven by rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, which are set to double within the next century compared to pre-industrial times. Therefore, halting and ultimately reversing those excessive CO2, concentrations is a critical goal for global ecology.
  On the key issue of climate change, Labour has set a target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon monoxide in the UK by 2010—[HON. MEMBERS: "Carbon dioxide."] Sorry, I meant to say carbon dioxide.
  Mr. Corbyn: That is the heavyweight.
  Mr. Meacher: Yes.
  It is disappointing that the Secretary of State gave way at the European Union Environment Council a fortnight ago, and offered only a 10 per cent. cut by 2010. On his own boast, Britain has already achieved up to an 8 per cent. cut, largely because the Government have decimated the coal industry and engineered a long recession, so what he is proposing over the next decade is, in effect, a cut of a mere 2 per cent. or so, which is pretty feeble when Germany and Austria have offered cuts of 25 per cent. by 2010. We all know that the Secretary of State will bow out at the election, but his much-vaunted green leadership has fizzled out with a whimper.
  We shall achieve our more ambitious target of a cut of one fifth by 2010.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: How?
  Mr. Meacher: I am coming on to that.
  810
  We shall achieve it through policies that we already have in place. We are committed to an integrated public transport strategy, which is more environmentally friendly, in conjunction with pursuing a public-private partnership to develop a greener car, and a task force to advise on how best to achieve ultra-low emissions.
  We are committed to promoting a big increase in renewable energy, with the objective of one fifth of our electricity being generated in that way by 2025. That will be achieved not least through an increase in the use of wind power: Britain has 40 per cent. of Europe's potential wind power—I must say, it sometimes feels like it—but we currently use less than 1 per cent. We are also committed to stepping up a national programme of energy efficiency measures.
  I should make it clear that we do not support a carbon tax, because that would impact heavily on poor households, just as the VAT increase on fuel has done. It is important to note, although it is not often said, that such a tax would also bring comparatively little environmental benefit, because of the low elasticity of domestic demand. We believe that the same ends, on which we all agree, can be achieved through a more focused policy, via a changed regulatory regime for energy companies, improvements in building regulations, minimum efficiency standards for appliances, and measures to facilitate energy efficiency programmes by local authorities.
  Trade and environment is another key issue that will feature strongly at the coming Earth summit. We believe that protection for the environment should be paramount in the development of a managed sustainable trading system, which means that international environmental treaties should be exempt from any challenge under the GATT/World Trade Organisation rules. That should include the Montreal convention on substances that deplete the ozone layer, the Basel convention on hazardous waste, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, the biodiversity convention, and the climate change convention. They should all be protected.
  We also believe that there is a strong case for extending the range of these paramount conventions—perhaps in the case of forests, certainly in the case of chemicals. About 100,000 chemicals are in commercial use, and their impact on human health and ecological function represents largely unknown risks. Highly toxic hormone-imitating chemicals such as DDT, the polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and alkylphenols have increasingly been leaching into aquifers and rivers worldwide and thence into the food chain, causing serious damage to the endocrine and reproductive tracts of mammals, including humans. Many people think that the dramatically falling sperm count in men is most likely to be due to oestrogen-like chemicals in detergents, plastics and other man-made materials.
  We believe that what is needed at the UN in June is a binding convention that will reduce and eliminate those dangerous chemicals. That should be linked, in our view, to a prior informed consent procedure for international trade in all hazardous chemicals, 51 of which have been identified as hormone disruptors. The banning of those highly toxic chemicals—DDT is already banned—must not be subject to haggles over trade: they are environmental absolutes.

  811
  Action on forests is less advanced. Although we would, in principle, consider a convention on forests, it is doubtful, in the light of experience of the convention on desertification—mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—which has not been a great success, whether that is the most appropriate way to proceed. We might do better pursuing the same goals, which we strongly support, via bilateral agreements and consumer pressure.
  As many of my hon. Friends have powerfully argued, the central problem at New York is likely to be that of reconciling the demands of the north with the huge needs of the south. Already, a fifth of the world's population— more than 1 billion people—lacks access to safe water, and half the world's population does not have safe sanitation. Every year, more than 5 million people die from diseases caused by unsafe drinking water or lack of sanitation.
  Adding 3 billion people to the planet since 1950 has brought huge destruction of forests, devastation of grasslands, soil erosion, crowding, poverty, land hunger and growing water pollution. One can only imagine what will happen if 4.7 billion more people are added by 2050, more than 90 per cent. of them in the third world, as predicted by the UN.
  The result is a growing divide of epic proportions. In the 1890s, the income of the average Indian was about half that of the average European. By the 1940s, the gap had grown to 1:40. It is now 1:70. Not only the poorest have suffered. World grain production, which has actually fallen by about 1 per cent. a year since the mid-1980s, has been falling fastest in the 40 poor countries containing a sixth of the world's population.
  However, using a more realistic and comprehensive system of economic accounting, which takes account of the loss of natural topsoil and forest and productive grasslands, it could be argued that a majority of humanity suffered a decline in living standards in the 1980s. That is the task that confronts us.
  How can the needs of north and south be reconciled? A reduction or write-off of debt for the most severely indebted countries might be linked to a commitment by them to preserve their rain forests and biodiversity. The damage to the environment caused by mass industrialisation in the developing countries would be reduced if the north made available the most advanced technology, especially clean coal technology. A forestry convention might suit the needs of the north, but the south's concerns over finance, which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) eloquently spoke to, and the issues of land ownership and a code of conduct for transnational corporations must be addressed at the same time.
  When a quarter of the world's fisheries are already being exploited at maximum productivity and a third are over-fished, the north must accept that we need an intergovernmental panel on oceans with the same clout as the panel on climate change, to protect the oceans as a vital food source, as a carbon sink and as the home of some of the most diverse species on earth.
  Those will be the central issues at the UN meeting, but other items will feature on the agenda, including tourism, which is fast becoming the world's largest industry. Of course everyone is in favour of it, because travel broadens the mind and people deserve holidays, but we need to make it sustainable and not spoil places that people want
  812
  to visit. Disappointingly, little has been done about that in the European Union, despite the fact that tourism is one of the five priority sectors listed in the "Fifth Environmental Action Plan." That may be another task for the British presidency.
  On biodiversity, the next conference of the parties will take place in May 1998, during the British presidency, but, if I may say so to the Minister, a main priority is to set our own house in order in various ways, such as strengthening protection for sites of special scientific interest and safeguarding our hedgerows. The Department of the Environment has taken 17 years to designate 136 sites as special protection areas for bird conservation under European law; another 130 sites await designation. In response to the UN biodiversity convention, the Department has completed only 116 "action plans" detailing its efforts to conserve declining species; it still has 278 to prepare.
  The UN special session is obviously important as a signal of political commitment, but perhaps we should not become too fixated on it. As others have said, the meeting in Kyoto of the Commission for Sustainable Development may prove more significant in the long run, as may the on-going work in the World Trade Organisation trade and environment committee.
  As preparation for those meetings, there is already an extensive dialogue with non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders. Labour will seek to build on that dialogue in government as we have in opposition. Unlike the present Government, we shall not be hampered by deregulatory dogma in responding to the concerns of NGOs and other stakeholders.
  The Labour party stands ready, as a Government-in-waiting, to make progress on all the measures I have outlined, and to infuse a new sense of leadership and drive, which is much needed for the sake of our world.
  10.46 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on raising this subject and securing the debate, and I agree with him that the subject has central importance and needs the widest public understanding.
  I welcome the opportunity to debate the United Kingdom preparations for and contribution to the UN General Assembly special session, which marks the fifth anniversary of the Earth summit in Rio. It is an important occasion for looking back at the achievements since Rio, and for charting the course for the next period. I shall seek to obey the injunction by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North to look to the future as much as possible.
  We are making every effort to ensure the success of the special session. The Prime Minister was one of the first Heads of Government to announce his intention to attend. At the end of 1996, my Department published a consultation paper, setting out its objectives for the special session and giving its views on the issues that urgently require the attention of the international community.
  Since the Rio summit, sustainable development, in the sense that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North defined it, has been at the heart of the

  813
  Government's environmental economic policy, and we believe that the special session is an opportunity to persuade other countries that sustainable development should be the cornerstone of their policies too.
  Much has been achieved since Rio, and the UK has played a leading role in pushing those successes through. The biodiversity convention has been negotiated, and action put in hand. In the United Kingdom, we have been the pioneers for the idea of national action plans for biodiversity.
  We have been asked during the debate for targets. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and other hon. Members know that we have, through our action plans, set out clear targets and measurable objectives. We have provided a model for others to follow, and many others are interested in the pioneering way in which we have approached biodiversity.
  Another biodiversity success which the Prime Minister announced at Rio was the Darwin initiative, a bilateral aid programme; and last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the 1997 awards, to 32 projects in 26 countries, ranging from the conservation of marine turtles in Egypt to the revision of the Galapagos marine management plan.
  We have heard a good deal today about the UN framework convention on climate change. We fully accept that we in the north have a special responsibility to take action on controlling emissions of greenhouse gases. Unless the richer nations take responsibility for dealing with the pollution that results from our development, we cannot expect other countries that are—rightly—seeking to raise their standards of living to take up their burden as well.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West attributed some importance to this subject, but he might have acknowledged more graciously that we come to the negotiations in Europe, and later in Kyoto, from a background of success in meeting our obligations—unlike many other countries. We are among a minority of industrialised nations in having met our obligations. We also have one of the best records among European Community countries.
  At the discussions in Kyoto and in Europe, we must look ahead to targets that can be achieved by others, too. As the House will know, we have just secured agreement with our European partners to a target reduction of 15 per cent. by the year 2010, with appropriate burden sharing.
  We believe it to be vital that Heads of Government in June send out a clear political signal that effective action is required when the convention parties meet at Kyoto in December. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said that the show is on the road as a result of Rio; we now need to make more progress.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that climate change is important. We have accepted the scientific advice that we have heard on the subject. Scientific opinion differs, but we have taken the side of what we believe to be good advice about the dangers. We look to other countries to follow our lead by reducing their emissions, so that we can ensure that the pace and extent of change are manageable. We will be pressing hard at the special session for new commitments in this area.
  814
  The hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) raised the question of tax on aviation fuel, which we regard as an important subject. The hon. Member for Truro rightly said that it needs to be dealt with at international level. We have been pressing for international action through the international civil aviation organisations convention. We believe that to be the right forum for dealing with aviation fuel tax, but we accept that progress in that forum has been slow. We are also, therefore, pressing for commitments at the Kyoto convention to action on aviation fuel tax.
  There have also been many other institutional developments since Rio: the convention to combat desertification, and agreements on migratory fish stocks, on the protection of the oceans from land-based sources of pollution, and on the sustainable development of small island developing states. The establishment, funding and replenishment of the global environment facility was a great advance.
  I can assure hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Truro, that the Government remain strongly committed to the global environmental facility, and we intend to play a positive role in the replenishment negotiations and to achieve a satisfactory replenishment. We come to the discussions from a background of being one of the major contributors to that facility—we are the fifth largest contributor, having put in £130 million. We are therefore punching our weight. We think that it is an important fund, which must be replenished and which will provide the links needed between the north and south.
  Hon. Members have also mentioned the Commission on Sustainable Development. In its first five years, the commission has looked at the whole of Agenda 21, which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) discussed. In our view, the commission needs to concentrate its efforts on a limited number of issues on which it can make a distinct contribution.
  The commission has already shown that it has a role to play in launching initiatives—for instance, setting up the intergovernmental panel on forests at the 1995 session. At the 1996 session, the decision on oceans showed that it can provide a lead in calling for improvements in the international institutional machinery for dealing with this pressing issue. We also see the Commission on Sustainable Development as a forum for inter-sessional meetings on the subject of finance—
  Mr. Corbyn: What resources is the Department prepared to put into co-ordinating the excellent work done locally by Agenda 21 all over the country? The danger is that energies will be devoted to the local programmes, without co-ordinating them at a wider level.
  Mr. Clappison: We have certainly given a lead; we have also given satisfactory support to local government finance in this respect. The very success of Agenda 21 locally shows that our approach to it has been successful.
  In the United Kingdom, we have made great progress in bringing sustainable development principles into our national governing structures. Our annual reports on progress set out clear targets for action and explain the progress made against them. We have pioneered new ways of drawing together advice on sustainable development. Hon. Members will know of the work of the Round Table on Sustainable Development, and of the many other groups to which we have listened.

  815
  It is important to look ahead to necessary future priorities for UNGASS. Hon. Members mentioned the significant threats to a number of areas—for instance, the threat to fresh water, a most important subject. Deforestation is another problem that must be dealt with by UNGASS.
  The Government certainly agree that action on forests is a priority. The UK has participated fully in the intergovernmental panel on forests, and welcomes its achievement in reaching consensus on a wide range of forest issues. Our task now is to ensure that agreed actions are implemented, and that international dialogue on sustainable forest management continues. At the special session, we will press for negotiations to begin on a forests convention, because we believe that a legal instrument is the best way to ensure comprehensive implementation of the panel's recommendations.
  Hon. Members also mentioned poverty in the context of economic relations between north and south. We believe that the roots of poverty have still to be tackled in many developing countries. The world is still a long way from reaching sustainable production and consumption levels. Inevitably, methods of finance and technology transfer will be key issues for discussion at the special session.
  The Government believe that, in general, financing for the implementation of Agenda 21 should come from a country's own public and private sectors. In this decade, external private sector investment in developing countries has tripled; it is now more than twice as great as development assistance. Aid naturally continues to be important, but it should be concentrated on the poorest countries. Our aid programme is targeted on the poorest countries in Asia and Africa, and is widely recognised to be of high quality.
  We also think that private sector funding has an important role to play in technology transfer. Foreign direct investment offers the best opportunity for transfer of environmentally sound technology, provided that national environmental standards are in place. At UNGASS, we must move the debate forward to ensuring that new financial mechanisms and new opportunities for technology transfer are fully explored. We should not get stuck in debates on aid and technology transfer that bear no relation to changes in the real world.
  816
  In this respect, the development of new markets for trade and investment will be crucial. We regret that the WTO meeting in Singapore last December made such little progress on integrating environmental concerns into trade policy. We will continue to promote greater integration of environmental considerations in developing trade policies.
  Another emerging issue which UNGASS must address is fresh water. In many parts of the world, the decline in the quantity and quality of fresh water is becoming critical. We support the development of a global framework convention on the uses of shared river basins to agree principles of application. Lack of clean water leads to disease and poverty; it also inhibits economic development. Unless we solve fresh water problems, we cannot expect sustainable development to become a reality. We need to take the same approach to ocean management, which we regard as equally important.
  I have had time to mention only some of the subjects to be covered at UNGASS. We hope that world leaders will also deal with energy consumption, urbanisation and tourism—three problems that will have a large impact on development over the next five years.
  I emphasise that we shall go to the Earth Summit later this year from a background of having fulfilled the obligations that we entered into at Rio. We have taken a lead in establishing those obligations and in following them through. The UK has a good record on meeting its obligations with regard to the important conventions on biodiversity and climate change, and on giving a lead to other countries. We have tried to take the approach of putting sustainable development at the centre of Government policy, where we believe it belongs and will continue to belong in the future.
  We also believe in having an open debate on those important subjects, and listening to the views of, for example, the Round Table on Sustainable Development and other important pressure groups. I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West when he said that he wanted to listen to NGOs' views, because there have been some interesting developments in that area. I hope that, in future, his policies in opposition will offer an open door to important pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth.
  We believe that this is an important subject, in which Governments should give a lead. We shall continue to give such a lead.

  Middle East Security
  11 am
  Mr. Matthew Banks: It is an enormous pleasure and privilege to initiate this important debate. It is the third debate that I have initiated on this subject in this Parliament and it is gratifying to see that there is interest across the Floor of the House. I hope that I shall be able to make the remarks that I want to make in a fashion that allows all those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to contribute to do so.
  On my way to the House this morning, I was reminded of some advice given to me by my distinguished right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) some years ago, when he said that, if and when I came to the House, I should think about specialising. I had heard that from other people and, as a result of my membership, with my right hon. Friend, of the Transport Select Committee, people probably thought in my first two or three years that that was my main interest. However, as many people know, I have always had an interest in the middle east. Unlike my distinguished predecessor in Southport of 100 years ago, the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, who, after he was elected to Parliament, went off for two years under his own steam around the world to fact find, I spent my first two years nursing my constituency. I am pleased that I did so, because an election is coming up in a few weeks' time.
  It is a great pleasure, towards the latter part of this Parliament, to raise these important matters, because we cannot have prosperity throughout the world unless we have peace and there is no doubt that a vital piece of the jigsaw in that respect is the middle east region. One immediately thinks of the problems between Israel and Palestine, which have existed for a long time. I have drawn attention to the progress towards peace between Israel and Palestine, but there is still an enormous amount to do. I pay tribute to the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the unique role that it and Britain as a whole have played in trying to bring about peace. Britain gives the largest share of aid to the Palestinians—some 16 per cent. of the European Union contribution. This country has a unique role to play in furthering the cause of peace in the middle east. I do not seek in this debate to oppose a European Union involvement, but I am at least a little suspicious of a Community-wide foreign policy. In the first 100 days of the Netanyahu Government, I expressed concern that, all too often, Mr. Netanyahu was reacting to events rather than trying to set the tone for his period in office. All too often, we heard suggestions that he might have delegated the task of deciding what to do in the first 100 days to other members of his Cabinet. When one journalist tackled a leading Likud moderate on the issue, he said, "I know nothing about being tasked with the first 100 days' planning." In the last Israeli election campaign, we heard too much from senior Israeli politicians who said that they were against the Oslo accord, denounced Mr. Arafat and opposed the Hebron redeployment.
  In office, Mr. Netanyahu in particular has realised that there is no alternative to the Oslo accord, meeting Mr. Arafat or the Hebron redeployment. However, I pay tribute to the Israelis for the 80 per cent. withdrawal and hope that those in the Arab world will give credit to Israel and its Government for that courageous move. I hope that we shall see further progress shortly.
  818
  I referred to the problems of the first 100 days of the Israeli Government, which is often a matter of public perception. The perception—it is my perception, too—is that Mr. Netanyahu may have met Mr. Arafat when he did only because of pressure from President Weizman, which is not necessarily a good thing. During the elections, Mr. Netanyahu took the view that the Oslo accord should be renegotiated but, now that he is Prime Minister of Israel, it is not tenable that Israel should be able to renegotiate while Mr. Arafat should stick to written agreements.
  There must be give and take on both sides, and I have never doubted that land for peace was the way forward. Mr. Netanyahu must hold out further real hope towards the Palestinian people. He must make it clear that, if there is no terrorism, there can be no reason why more and more Palestinian workers should not come to work in Israel. They do not stay there; they often return home overnight, unlike many other migrant workers who stay on a permanent basis and cause difficulties in Tel Aviv.
  Because of the impasse that we have reached, there has been an enormous cooling of relations, particularly with Egypt. I note, too, that Qatar, Tunisia and Oman have, to some extent, gone back on previous pledges on improving diplomatic relations between their countries and Israel. It is incumbent on those of us who are friends of Israel to make it clear that we want the existence of an Israeli state within secure boundaries, defending itself where necessary, internally and externally, from terrorism. However, we are not prepared to turn a blind eye to some sort of neo-imperialism or colonialism that shows contempt for the legal process and a refusal to accept that a Palestinian identity exists and must be recognised.
  I underline the fact that I pay credit to Mr. Netanyahu for the 80 per cent. withdrawal.
  Mr. John Gunnell: Given that those who are friends of Israel take the view, as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) does, that land for peace is a good arrangement, should not they accept the importance of bringing pressure on Israel to accept that taking away land for the Har Homa settlement will not create peace, and may lead to a complete shutdown of the peace process?
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes his own point in his own way and I have some sympathy with it.
  One of the most important friends of Israel is the United States. I referred to US policy in the middle east on previous occasions in this Parliament. In view of the changes of Defence Secretary and Secretary of State in the United States, with Mrs. Madeleine Albright coming into office, it is important that a second Clinton term in Washington does not allow things merely to tick over in the middle east. Given that Congress is rather right-wing, it is important that the British Government do what they can behind the scenes to bring pressure on our American friends to ensure that they play a full and proper part in bringing peace about, using the Oslo accord as a firm foundation. That is the impression that many of us have gained—too much ticking over and not enough action on the part of the United States in recent times.
  I take the opportunity to pay tribute to His Highness King Hussein of Jordan, who, in recent years, has had a remarkably difficult role to play, which I believe he has

  819
  played extremely well. He is a key player in bringing about peace between the various sides, and Britain must continue to give him our full support.
  If time will allow, I should like to expand on other issues, but before I move away from Israel and Palestine, I want to make it clear that—given the interest in the debate and the fact that several other hon. Members want to take part—although I shall not cover in detail the importance of the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, those are inextricably bound up in finding a solution to the problems to which I referred.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: As my hon. Friend may know, I recently had the privilege of visiting Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Will he take it from me that the great majority of the people of all three countries wish only for peace? From time to time atrocities will be committed, such as the recent atrocity against the Jewish children in the Jordan valley, but does my hon. Friend agree that such atrocities committed by madmen or by religious or political extremists should never be allowed to throw the entire peace process off course?
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that is an important point. It is recognised on all sides that the remarks made by people such as King Hussein have underlined the importance of his role.
  I shall touch on two or three other trouble spots in the Middle East, to which other hon. Members might also refer in their contributions. I am particularly concerned about Iran, Iraq and Libya.
  It is not acceptable for Iran to occupy the islands around Abu Musa and the Tunbs and to build serious gun emplacements. I pay tribute to the United Arab Emirates for the way in which they are trying to resolve that dispute, especially in relation to the International Court of Justice. I do not seek to isolate Iran. It is extremely important that she is not isolated, but the issue involving the United Arab Emirates must be addressed quickly.
  With reference to Iraq and the recent difficulties, although we cannot interfere directly in the affairs of a state in the region, as has been wildly suggested by some, I hope that in the not too distant future the Iraqis themselves will replace the present regime, which ignores all its international obligations and brutalises its people.
  Regarding Libya and our trade links, there are those who suggest, understandably, that British companies should no longer be prevented from competing for business. Nevertheless, there are serious issues, such as the gas factory that is being built and the question whether the Americans might bomb it. There are further issues, and I shall highlight just one. If Libya's peaceful intentions are to be recognised as real, we need an explanation of what she is doing. I have no doubt that the gas factory to which I referred will become an issue in the next Parliament.
  Although there are trouble spots, there are a number of shining examples of the ability within the region to solve difficulties by peaceful means. I pay tribute to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for trying to broker an agreement between Bahrain and Qatar. Who would have believed last autumn, when we last debated the subject, that, almost over a cup of tea at a London hotel, some of the difficulties would be resolved? That meeting between the two sides in London went a long way towards resolving the dispute.
  820
  Elections have recently taken place in Kuwait, and the new Government are settling in. Enormous improvements to the Kuwaiti economy are evident. Moving in line with our own democracy, Kuwait has given a greater say to Kuwaitis through elections and the formation of a new Government. There is no doubt that the people have had their say, not always to the liking of the Al-Sabah ruling family, but that is a shining example of the way that things can be done in the middle east, if the right of self-determination in an Arab form is allowed.
  Although that may be appropriate in one country, I recognise that it may not necessarily be so in another. On a recent visit to Bahrain, I was pleased to see the improved and enlarged shura council. Similarly, there are better relations between this House and its counterpart in Riyadh.
  I have a particular concern about those who abuse our hospitality in London—dissidents who overstay their visas, and those who claim political asylum and are granted it by Britain, and then abuse our hospitality by supporting terrorist acts here and abroad. I very much hope that, within the laws of this country, the police will not hesitate to act and bring charges against those found to be overstaying their welcome or breaking our laws. As a specific example, it is not acceptable for demonstrations to take place in London, from whatever quarter, where death threats may be made but no arrests follow. If a British citizen chanted some of the things that have been heard on the streets of London, he would be arrested for at least a breach of the peace.
  In view of the interest in the debate, I draw my remarks to a close, to give other hon. Members an opportunity to contribute. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Foreign Office for recognising over the years the good fortune that I have in my friendships with several ruling families in the middle east. For someone of my age, I have been hugely fortunate. I thank my friends in the middle east for the trust that they have placed in me. That has helped me as a Member of Parliament to understand the difficulties that we in Britain face in supporting our friends in the middle east to bring about further peace and prosperity.
  I pay tribute to those in the Foreign Office not just for their diplomacy at British posts overseas, but for the work that they undertake in batting for Britain in a trade context. The middle east is important not only for world peace, but for British jobs. I know that over the years the Foreign Office and trade representatives overseas have played an extremely active part in helping British companies to win orders. I hope that, in the years ahead, they will continue to do so.
  I have skated over, all too quickly, some extremely important issues. The debate is one of enormous importance, and I have no doubt that we shall return to these subjects fairly soon in the next Parliament.
  11.18 am
  Sir David Steel: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) and thank him for his initiative in raising the debate before we close this Parliament.
  I came into the House exactly 32 years ago this week as the baby of the House, and I am now ready to depart. My maiden speech was all about the problems of the Scottish Borders, which had been the subject of my

  821
  by-election campaign, but as I have—to use a good Scottish word—deeved the Scottish Office on that subject endlessly over recent weeks, I am glad to make my last speech to the House on a different and important topic— the middle east peace process.
  I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman on wider issues in the middle east; otherwise, I should make too long a speech. I want to cast my mind back over events that have taken place in the middle east in which I have been involved, and to say a few words about how I hope policy may evolve in the future.
  Over the past four years, I have not been as regular an attender in this place as previously. As president elect and then president of Liberal International—I totted up recently the number of visits that I made to other countries in those capacities—I visited no fewer than 56 countries, some of them more than once. This announcement will not surprise my hon. Friends, who seemed to think that I was permanently in an aeroplane. I was concerned with promoting democracy, human rights and economic development. Over the past three decades during which I have been a Member of this place, however, nowhere has there been a greater consistent threat to peace than in the middle east.
  In 1967, I was fortunate to be a member of the annual parliamentary delegation to the United Nations when that distinguished representative at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, was largely instrumental in having resolution 242 drafted and passed at the UN. It is my view that that resolution has remained the bedrock of a policy that has been supported by successive British Governments and by the global community in its attitude to the middle east peace process.
  It was not until 1980, when I was the leader of the Liberal party, that I took a delegation to the middle east. On that occasion I spent two weeks in the region. I had the good fortune as a party leader to be received, with my delegation, by the various Heads of Government. It was a fascinating process to meet President Sarkis of Lebanon, President Assad of Syria, who continues to be president of that country, the late President Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein in Jordan, for whom, like the hon. Member for Southport, I have considerable admiration.
  The one Head of Government whom I did not meet was in Israel, and there was a clear reason for that. I had earlier met Chairman Arafat, as he then was, in Syria. Nowadays everyone meets Mr. Arafat, and very happily, on the White House lawn or anywhere else. In 1980, however, it was thought outrageous that a party leader in Britain should shake hands with that unknown person. When I went to Israel I was not received at any high level by the Israeli Government. I met Opposition leaders, however, and I got to know Shimon Peres.
  During my time in Israel—I have been there several times since 1980—I came to understand the geographical fragility of the state of Israel and its need for long-term security. Indeed, I have never doubted that need. The great breakthrough came undeniably during the Government of Mr. Rabin and Mr. Peres with the Oslo accords. It must be a great sadness to us all who have watched events in the middle east over the years to see that peace process running into the sand under the change of Government in Israel.
  822
  One of my friends in the former Israeli Cabinet told me that he regarded Mr. Peres as a great statesman and a hopeless politician. It is usually the other way round, in that we regard people as good politicians and hopeless statesmen. There was some truth in my friend's judgment, however, and it was unfortunate that by his mistiming Mr. Peres lost power. As a result, Mr. Netanyahu, with his rather reactionary views on the peace process, came to power.
  What can we do as part of the outside community? At this stage I must disagree with the hon. Member for Southport that we in the European Union have a responsibility towards the middle east peace process. I believe that my view is shared by the Foreign Secretary. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about a developing common foreign policy in the European Union. I believe that it is a healthy process. We have an opportunity in terms of all-party early-day motion 657, which relates to the Lebanon. Given the present agreement between Israel and the European Union, we have a unique and new position of influence in the middle east, and one which we should use. We should not be dependent all the time on the so-called superior power of the United States in these matters.
  In terms of the current settlement proposal in occupied east Jerusalem, it is a matter of deep regret that the American Administration used its veto in the Security Council. The wrong signal was sent to Israel. I know that the Minister has described that as a disagreement over tactics rather than one of substance. He may be right about that, but that is not how it is perceived in the middle east by those who represent both sides of the argument.
  The United States Administration made a grievous error and I hope that we and other members of the Security Council will constantly remind it of that. We do not want to see any repetition of such an error. The outside world must stand together if we are to ensure that the peace process moves on.
  Over the years, I have come increasingly to the view that security cannot be found through military means alone. Security will not be provided for Israel if the occupation of southern Lebanon continues. It does not provide security for Israel or its Arab neighbours to acquire vast amounts of weaponry from the outside world.
  In 1993, together with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), I went to Uganda to try to ascertain what could be done in arguing for debt relief for that country. I pay full tribute to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the steps that they have taken at the International Monetary Fund to help establish a programme of debt relief for Uganda.
  I noted recently, however, that defence expenditure by Uganda, while debt relief has continued, has increased from 13 per cent. of its budget in 1993 to 20 per cent. now. What is true of Uganda is true, unfortunately, of many other countries, especially those in the middle east. Peoples who are in need of development within their countries see their Governments forced, in the interests of what they believe to be security, to spend an increasing proportion of their budgets on arms.
  Over the three decades that I have spent in the House, there have been many acrimonious and intense debates about the spread of nuclear weaponry and about nuclear disarmament in its various shapes and guises. Yet no one has been killed by nuclear weapons since the end of the

  823
  second world war. Unhappily, in the world today, thousands of people are killed each week by conventional weaponry.
  The arms trade is one of the great evils that the world faces. I am talking about all types of weaponry and not only land mines. Those of us who are interested in real security for human beings must make the conventional arms trade a subject of greater public debate than it has been. There is no greater hypocrisy in the world today than the readiness of the developed nations, east and west, to supply weaponry throughout the world and then wring their hands the moment that weapons are used.
  I came upon an interesting statistic recently that reflected on the first world war. War memorials in this country and in others bear huge lists of names of those who were slaughtered during that war. Ninety per cent. of the casualties in the first world war were members of the armed forces and nowadays 90 per cent. of casualties of conflicts are civilians—women and children. The nature of conflict has changed. We must recognise that the arms trade fuels conflicts. Indeed, conflicts could not take place if it were not for the arms trade.
  I do not suppose that in the coming election the arms trade will be a matter of great moment. It is not a matter of division between the parties. I hope, however, that in the heat or noise of the battle to come we shall not lose sight of some wider issues that are crucial to the future peace of our globe and to the future development of the growing population. I refer especially to the younger generation both in the United Kingdom and in the middle east.
  With those words I shall take my leave of the House.
  11.28 am
  Sir Patrick Cormack: When I glanced at the Order Paper this morning and noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) had secured this debate, I little thought that I would have the great privilege, largely thanks to my hon. Friend's self denial in making a short speech, of taking up the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who represents what I call the border trinity, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).
  The right hon. Gentleman has been a distinguished Member of the House for a very long time—indeed, 32 years. There is no Member of this place who has more justly deserved the title of right hon. Member. It is fitting that a number of his Liberal party colleagues, a party which he led with great distinction, should be in their places this morning to hear his short but wise speech. Although this Chamber will be deprived of his wisdom and counsel in future, I hope that I will not be accused of being too provocative if I express the hope that Parliament will not be so deprived—
  Sir David Steel: Is that an offer?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I can express a hope; I cannot, alas, bestow a gift. I believe that he still has an enormous amount to offer, and although he will want to spend more time enjoying the border solitudes that he so rightly loves, Westminster needs his contributions. I trust that we shall continue to get them even if they are from another place.
  I understand, from his rather frenetic activity, that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is likely to seek to catch your eye in the near future,
  824
  Mr. Deputy Speaker. He, too, is due to make his dowager speech—I suppose that that is the opposite of a maiden speech. I know that the House will look forward to hearing him.
  I did not know who would seek to take part in the debate, but I was anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is fitting, in the closing hours of this Parliament, for the House to turn its attention, in a bi-partisan capacity, towards the middle east. Although all the topics touched on by my hon. Friend in his admirable and lucid speech are important, what is surely uppermost in all our minds today are the events taking place in Jerusalem at the moment.
  I am proud to call myself a friend of Israel, and I wish to see Israel with recognised secure borders, as my hon. Friend said, but if I am a friend to Israel, I am a friend to peace first, and what is happening in Jerusalem at the moment is jeopardising the chances of peace in the middle east. I appeal—carrying, I hope, the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House—to the Prime Minister of Israel to think again. In his high office, Mr. Netanyahu carries with him the hopes and fears of people all over the world.
  I appreciate that it is not easy to hold together an uneasy coalition. Indeed, in recent years some in Israel have paid with their lives for their political courage, in particular Prime Minister Rabin. No price is too high to pay for peace. Mr. Rabin knew that: he paid it. His successor worthily donned his mantle and fought for peace in the middle east, recognising that when one fights for peace it is always necessary to compromise, and when one compromises, no one is wholly satisfied. There is, however, a goal that is above personal satisfaction, and it is crucial that Mr. Netanyahu recognises that.
  What happened at Oslo was of crucial importance. It set in train a series of events that brought, for the first time, true hope of lasting peace to the middle east. That hope is now at risk. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, and the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who speaks for the Opposition, will link themselves with my remarks and will appeal to Mr. Netanyahu to recognise that, if he persists with what he seeks to do, not only will he be unleashing bulldozers on a hill in Jerusalem, but he will be putting a metaphorical bulldozer through the prospects for peace. He has a duty to the country of which he is the Head of Government; he also has a wider duty to everyone in the middle east.
  In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) referred to the yearning for peace. Mr. Netanyahu has a duty to everyone beyond the middle east who sees it as a potential cauldron from which world conflict could still erupt to try to ensure that the peace process is put back on track. Only this week, he was given a lead and an example by His Majesty the King of Jordan who, in the wake of that appalling tragedy, which brought back memories of Dunblane—almost on the anniversary of Dunblane—went and grieved with the grieving and mourned with the mourning. He went not only as a Head of State but as a human being, saying, "These things are more important. Let us, for goodness sake, sit down and work together."
  If Mr. Netanyahu persists with his ambitions for the building project in Jerusalem, he is, whether he intends it or not, spurning the gesture of peace from the King of

  825
  Jordan. If Mr. Netanyahu does that and persists with a narrow nationalism, he will jeopardise the future of his country far more than he will jeopardise the future of his Government by ceasing to appease the more nationalist members of it and those who support it.
  In what I suppose will be my last speech in this Parliament—I trust that I might be able to make one or two in the next—perhaps I might be allowed to say this to Mr. Netanyahu: "The eyes of the world are upon you, and although the British Parliament is moving towards dissolution and begins to focus on a general election, nevertheless we do not neglect our responsibility as British legislators wanting to play our part in creating a true and lasting peace. We appeal to you to make that task possible by backing off from the course on which you have embarked, the end of which can be only disaster for you and your people."
  11.37 am
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) for initiating the debate. I intended to intervene in his speech but could not find anything much with which to disagree. It was the first time that he has spoken in the House and I have agreed with him. I thank him for that, and thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few final words.
  My first words in the House were some 27 years ago, in defence of the rights of the people of Leicester, North-West—which has now become Leicester, West— following my father, who served that seat for 25 years. It is the first hereditary Labour seat in this House, and it will maintain its right to vote to the last breath. I am so sorry that there will be no Janner available for the people of Leicester in the future. I thank them so very much for their kindness to me, for voting for me and for allowing me to serve them for so long.
  This is another subject with which I have been deeply connected, both as a proud Member of the House and as a proud Jewish leader. I am glad to be able to speak immediately after my hon. Friend—he is both honourable and my friend—the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), with whom I have fought many human rights battles. I pay tribute to him for his service in the House.
  When listening to the debate, I wondered just how much people understood of the pressures that are on Mr. Netanyahu. I have spent the past 18 years trying, unsuccessfully, to get rid of the Conservative Government, and I am not very good at getting rid of the Governments of other countries. I did not vote for this lot in here and would not have voted for that lot over there, but we have to understand what Prime Minister Netanyahu has achieved. He went into an election saying, "No land for peace," and he broke his election manifesto promise. Conservative Members should understand that—although he did it for good reasons. He did so at a price: alas, the price is now being paid to members of his unruly Cabinet concerning matters in Jerusalem. I do not disagree with the points that have been made, but we must understand the political balance in a vibrant, vehement and difficult democracy. In that part of the world, it is almost alone in that.
  I have been privileged to visit almost all the Arab countries that are happy to accept a Jewish visitor, and one or two that usually are not, such as Saudi Arabia. I have
  826
  been received with great courtesy, and I hope that I have played some part in the continuing peace process. The greatest moment of this aspect of my life was when I attended Oslo, not for the agreement, but when Prime Minister Rabin, Foreign Minister Peres and President Arafat jointly received the Nobel peace prize. Rabin was my friend, and he was a great man. Shimon Peres is my friend, and I value him and am deeply attached to him, his philosophy and his person. Arafat I have become friends with, and I hope so much that the peace process will continue.
  I am one of only two or three people in the House who speak Arabic. I am the only one who speaks both Hebrew and Arabic, unless the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has been learning to speak them in his long periods away from the House during this Session. What matters to me is that we can converse, communicate and understand each other. I am not sure how much good it does to lecture Prime Ministers of other countries about how they should do their job, when we are so desperately unsuccessful in getting the Prime Minister of own country to do his as we want him to, but it is the privilege of democratic friends to try. It is a privilege that we have exercised to its full.
  It is a privilege to serve in this House. It is a privilege that I shall miss dreadfully. I am grateful to hon. Members, to Ministers and to members of the Foreign Office team, with whom I have often disagreed, but who have done so much for me so courteously. I thank them all, and I bid farewell by saying how deeply appreciative I am of the privilege that I have enjoyed for so very long thanks to the good people of Leicester, West.
  11.42 am
  Mr. Tarn Dalyell: I was greatly moved by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), because if there was ever an issue-cause politician, he is it. I remember his maiden speech and that of my right hon. Friend—I shall call him that—the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) when he was the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. I was moved by what he had to say also.
  I shall be crisp. I have had 10 debates on Libyan sanctions, but the Minister will be relieved to know that I just want to make two new points.
  First, will the Government reflect on what happened in the St. Albans Crown court in the case of Regina v. Rees and Rotheroe? Judge Colston said:
  "In my judgment, the material which has been disclosed today indicates that there was within the Department at the material time concerns about the application of relevant sanctions legislation, and the way that it was being applied by the DTI."
  Why did Judge Colston stop an important case and describe the actions of the Department of Trade and Industry as an "affront to justice"?
  How much did the case of Regina v. Rees and Rotheroe cost the public in preparation and lawyers' fees?
  Lawyers told the Department of Trade and Industry of their massive concerns about inconsistencies in the application of sanctions against Libya. Will the Government disclose the relevant documents to Parliament? Do Ministers agree that there is cause for urgent public concern?

  827
  Does this matter not fly in the face of the rigorous implementation claims? I refer to the answer given to me when I asked
  "the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his discussions with the US Government on Libyan sanctions, and the cases of British nationals who have allegedly transgressed UN sanctions."
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) replied:
  "I have been asked to reply.
  We regularly discuss UN sanctions against Libya with the US Government. Both Governments remain committed to the rigorous implementation of the sanctions until Libya has complied fully with UN Security Council Resolutions 731 and 748.
  Any contravention of the legislation implementing these sanctions in the UK is a matter for the competent prosecuting authorities."— [Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 150.]
  In one sense, it seems like Matrix Churchill revisited, but I come from a different direction on the whole business of Libyan sanctions. The people who really lose are those in British industry, because Libya was one of our traditional markets.
  I do not doubt that Libya did bad things in the early 1980s when it supplied arms to the IRA. It is questionable whether it was responsible for the terrible murder of Yvonne Fletcher, but I am certain, for reasons that I have endlessly outlined to the House, that it was not responsible for Lockerbie, which is the immediate cause of sanctions, which deeply harm one of our traditional markets, where most of the decision makers were educated at British universities and not at American universities. I believe that we make a mistake by following America's lead on Libyan matters.
  Secondly, I want to ask about Iraq. To demonise the leadership, rightly or wrongly, is hardly a mandate to punish the whole population. Unfortunately, that has been the fate of the Iraqi people since the imposition of a draconian sanction in 1990.
  I want to ask about Ambassador Ekeus's mission. The special commission was established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme. Ekeus has since expressed a reluctance to define a programme of completion, and to provide a proper framework of inspection.
  Regrettably, earlier this month, Ekeus was forthright in stating without reservation or remorse that Iraq may be developing or acquiring a long-range missile capability. Paradoxically, Iraq, before and during the Gulf war, was in possession of a sizeable arsenal of chemical weapons, but failed to use them. Incidentally, the technology and materials for those lethal weapons were sold to Iraq by all the countries that are permanent members of the Security Council.
  If Ekeus and his team were diligent in their task, surely they would have come up with more confirmed reports. There is no "maybe" about it. One wonders whether they are aware of the commonly known fact that Iraq's economy is mortgaged for generations to come: its whole infrastructure is in tatters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale visited Iraq with Bishop Tom Butler, the Bishop of Leicester. He is nodding because he knows, as I do, what the terrible situation is on the ground. To embark on such a mammoth advanced technological programme, Iraq must have free access to the necessary financial and technological means.
  828
  Furthermore, the weakness of this statement by Ekeus may lie in his commission team's lavish life style in a ghetto created in Iraq, totally unaffected by the tragedies evolving around them, engulfed in the unrelated pursuit of historical site visits and acquiring antiquities and valuable antiques by the advantage of the strength of the US dollar—the dollar was equal to 1,300 dinar—in other words, stripping whatever is left of Iraqi national heritage.
  One of the saddest experiences in the human tragedy was to go to the famous Iraq museum in Baghdad, and see how the great treasures of Sumeria and the earliest civilisations of the Tigris and the Euphrates had been treated. I believe—I have heard the same from museum personnel who are unconnected with politics—that it is disgraceful that people who are supposedly serving the United Nations are bringing home, either for themselves or for commercial profit, treasures from ancient Iraq.
  It remains the case that the benefactors of this human tragedy are the western arms manufacturers. Democracy, human rights and Arab nationhood are a mirage on occasions, used by politicians to delude public opinion. Many advocate concern about the humanitarian situation in Iraq, but the harsh practicality is totally different. One cannot set aside recent replies by Madeleine Albright—
  "We think the price is worth it"—
  on the sanctions-related death of 500,000 Iraqi children.
  Having visited a children's hospital in Baghdad, I know that, whatever the politics involved, to see those infants expiring in one's presence is a dreadful thing. God knows what that is laying up for future generations. It will affect the attitude of a whole section of the Arab world towards the west. That is a disaster, which ought to be looked into by the incoming Government, whoever that will be.
  11.51 am
  Mr. David Sumberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) for initiating the debate. Having heard so many valedictory speeches today, I should make it clear that, although mine is also a valedictory speech, it is valedictory only in terms of the current Parliament: I intend to strive, might and main, to be in the next.
  In that context, I take considerable heart from the experiences of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. A few months ago, before the Israeli general election, all the pollsters and pundits were forecasting that he had not a hope of victory. I remember watching a television broadcast on the world network on election day, in which the Israeli Labour party proudly proclaimed, as the results were coming in, that it was back in power and that there would be a Labour Government. Indeed, a victory party was already in progress. In the end, of course, Mr. Netanyahu won the election, and he is Prime Minister today. I think that there is a lesson in that for members of all parties in the House.
  Speaking as a Conservative, I am proud to describe the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) as my friend. He is retiring from the House in a few days' time. I have had the privilege of serving with him for part of his long career, and have seen him put up a real fight. Of course, he has fought on behalf of his constituents; that is his primary duty. As a member of the Jewish community in this country, however, and as one whose constituency contains a sizeable section of that community, let me say that the Jewish community has

  829
  been extremely proud of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in good times and, more important, in bad. He has risked unpopularity and criticism, and I dare say he has forfeited benefits in his party as a result of his determination to stand up for the causes in which he believes.
  Those causes have ranged widely: he has spoken up not just for the state of Israel, but for many other causes involving human rights for the Jewish people and others throughout the world. I pay public tribute to that tremendous record of service. Let me echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack): I hope that we shall not miss the hon. and learned Gentleman's voice, views, work and actions in years to come.
  As I said a moment ago, my constituency contains, in Manchester, a sizeable Jewish community. It is a proud community, because the area was the home of modem British Zionism. It is where Weizman came to work at the university, and where he went on to persuade the British Government to grant the first recognition of the possibility of a Jewish home in Israel. I am proud of that connection.
  I must say to some of my colleagues on both sides of the House—who, of course, accept the need for Israel to have security—that the issue is real, and will not go away easily. The state of Israel has lived with the threat of extinction for 50 years, and the people know that, at the end of the day, only they themselves will stand with it. They cannot rely on outside forces to come to their rescue if their freedom and security are threatened. That has been their history for 50 years, and they know it well.
  Prime Minister Menachem Begin, as well as Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Rabin, contributed to the peace process. It should be remembered that he was the first to bring the Egyptians into that process. I remember when he sent Israeli bombers to Iraq to extinguish its nuclear capacity; as a result, many years later, our own forces were free from that threat in the Gulf. There was much criticism of what Begin did from all over the world and all sides of politics, but he did it to preserve Israel's security and, ultimately, ours.
  I remind the House that there will be difficult times in the years to come. We all want peace in the middle east— that is the wish of everyone who lives there, not least those in Israel who have seen their sons and daughters killed and wounded for far too long—but that must be balanced by the knowledge that, whatever happens in the future, Israel is not facing extinction. It does not face a threat to its existence, or the end of what was and always has been a great dream. I hope that that will not be forgotten in the Parliaments of the future, of which I hope to be a part.
  Theodore Hertzl, the founder of modern Zionism, said of the creation of the state of Israel, "If you will it, it is not a dream." I think that, if there are men and women of good will throughout the middle east who will it, peace too should not be a dream.
  11.57 am
  Mr. John Gunnell: It is a privilege to speak in the debate, and to follow so many hon. Members with a distinguished record in the House on, among other things, concern about middle east security. I welcome the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks).
  830
  I taught in a school operated by the United Nations. It was one of the few places where, throughout the 1960s, children of Jewish-American origin, one or two children from Israel and students from a number of Arab countries showed that, if they were not subject to the prejudices that affect many who are much closer to the situation, they could work and learn together in harmony. However, I want to make a couple of observations not because of that experience, but because my limited parliamentary experience has involved two visits to the Lebanon, one of which happened to coincide with the kidnapping of Durani by Israeli forces. That created a period of tension. The second visit was only last April when we saw the start of the attack on Lebanon and witnessed the beginning of shelling in the middle eastern mini-war.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the problem of Lebanon and Israel is a two-way problem? I remember standing on the border between Lebanon and Israel and hearing on the news 10 days later that where I had stood had been the subject of an attack from within Lebanon and that people had died. Some of my friends said that the people had got their timing wrong. Does he accept that, if the kibbutzim are being attacked day after day by mortars and missiles, the Israeli Government have to react?
  Mr. Gunnell: Wherever there is conflict, there are always two sides to the issue. When we talk about the peace process, we are talking about a process in which, although we hope that parties will come together and recognise the larger good that is secured by peace, there are elements of provocation on both sides. Were that not the case, we would not have such difficult conflicts to resolve. I certainly want to follow through the views of hon. Members who have expressed the wish that the peace process continues in a firm way, and of those who recognise that the Har Homa settlement development is a block in the peace process. I certainly join those hon. Members who have said to Mr. Netanyahu in the debate that they wish that he would feel able to call a halt to that settlement, because we see it doing lasting damage to the peace process. Indeed, we think that it will prove very difficult to get the momentum back into the peace process if the development goes ahead.
  I am perhaps more influenced by my role as an observer in a European Union team that witnessed the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Assembly. Through being present at the elections, one got the sense, particularly perhaps because I was in the rural area of Qalqilya, of the joy of the ordinary people who were taking part in the election—the joy that they were free to vote. I met very elderly people who explained to me that it was the first time that they had had the opportunity to vote and who gave me some sense of what that meant to them.
  Four generations of one family were all able to vote for the first time. It was clearly an occasion that gave them not a sense of bitterness about the experiences of their life, but the same sense of hope and forward-looking attitude as we have seen in other areas where elections have been held, almost unexpectedly in terms of the slow progress in the development of moves towards peace.
  It is important that we get the peace process back on track. Those people took the election seriously, but, above all, they wanted recognition of a Palestinian state. They looked forward to that, because they seemed to be in

  831
  a period of promise. The area in which I was observing the election was very rural, so there were no hotels in which, it was thought, members of an EU observation team could stay. Therefore, we stayed in a settlement. I think that we were the only observation team to do so.
  It was interesting to talk to people at the settlement and to see the different attitudes. One of our two election teams, a team of Swedes, had gone out perhaps 200 or 300 yards on election morning before the flat tyre on their vehicle became evident. The British consulate made it clear that it believed that that flat tyre was no coincidence. Indeed, an object had obviously been knocked into the tyre because some people did not wish the process to go ahead at that stage. That demonstrated that there were those who violently opposed the agreement.
  The turn of events has shown that those people have had considerable influence since. We understand the pressures on Mr. Netanyahu. We think that it is important to focus on the problem of Jerusalem. We know that this Government have recognised the importance of east Jerusalem, but the ringing round of Jerusalem by settlements, which is more or less completed by the Har Homa development, has been accompanied by pressures on Arabs living in east Jerusalem to leave it. Although we could not, as yet, describe that process as anything like ethnic cleansing, it has some features of that: the mood is that people who are Arabs are not welcome in east Jerusalem. That meant that the experience of election day for Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem was very different from the experience that I witnessed in rural areas.
  I am anxious to join other hon. Members in hoping that the peace process is not stalled and that, whatever the result of our election, the United Kingdom Government will continue to take a stand on issues involving Jerusalem and to support United Nations resolutions. I recognise that we would have supported the recent UN resolution that was vetoed by the United States. I hope that, in continuing discussions within the Euro-Med agreement, we can ensure that pressures for the recognition of human rights are sustained. To that end, I join other hon. Members in wishing that middle east security can be underpinned by a recognition of the human rights of all the people who live there.
  12.7 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on securing this debate. It is an extremely important debate in terms of its timing, but it is also an occasion that, over the next few weeks, many of us who have been able to participate will well remember, because it has shown that the House of Commons is rational and that we can conduct debate in a sensible way. Perhaps there will not be much of that atmosphere in the country in the next few weeks. Therefore, we should enjoy it and perhaps luxuriate in it this morning.
  It has also been a great pleasure to be here for the valedictory speeches of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). My path crossed that of my hon. and learned Friend before I became a Member. I was the unsuccessful Labour candidate for Bosworth in 1979. My great achievement was to turn what was then a marginal Conservative seat into a safe Conservative seat.
  832
  My successor as Labour candidate was my hon. and learned Friend's son and he did worse than I did, so our paths crossed at that point. I am sorry that his son has not followed in his footsteps—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The son of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has joined us now.
  Mr. Fatchett: I understand what has happened in the family, but, if my hon. and learned Friend's son had come into the House, he would have had to follow the extremely fine example that had been set by his father. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West has been a great servant of the people of Leicester; I know that from my own involvement with Leicestershire over the years. He has also been a great servant to his own community, and on the issues that we are discussing.
  It was a great pleasure to hear the final speech by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) to the House. I am sure that, when the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that we hoped that that would not be the right hon. Gentleman's final speech in the Houses of Parliament, his wishes were echoed on both sides of the House.
  We do not have any nominating powers, so I cannot make any suggestion or offer to the right hon. Gentleman in that direction, but I am sure that I have the support of every hon. Member when I say that the right hon. Gentleman's period as a Member of the House of Commons will be well respected and fondly remembered. I am sure, too, that his contribution as leader of his party will go down in history as one that saw the party rebuilt in a modern way that gave it a very significant voice in British politics.
  I agree whole-heartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the arms trade. It is one of the big moral, economic and political challenges that faces us as we move into the next millennium. It is a travesty when extremely poor countries spend disproportionate amounts of their budgets on arms. There is no need or moral justification for that. We all realise that difficult decisions will be involved in reversing the process, but the task for all of us is to see what contribution we can make towards that end.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) rightly broadened the scope of the debate beyond the middle east peace process. I hope that they will accept my apologies for concentrating, in the few minutes left to me, on the peace process alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised, as always, some important moral and political issues that will not go away, which will have to be confronted in the next Parliament.
  The mood of the House in the debate has been clear: we all want the peace process to continue. That is not surprising, because that process brings to those in the region opportunities for justice, security and prosperity, and to the rest of the world security in a sensitive region and the opportunity for expanded trade and economic development. The price of failure is great; the prize for success is immense. Therefore the peace process is important to each and every one of us.
  All the contributions to the debate have made, with justification, the same point—that the peace process is at a crossroads. That is right, although we must remind

  833
  ourselves that significant progress has been made over the past few years. The contributions of many people, as statesmen, have already been mentioned. The decision on the Hebron agreement was crucial for the Likud Government, because it endorsed the peace process and they are now part of that process. That is not to say—and nobody is saying—that the process will continue to move easily towards a final settlement. That is not how things will be, and we know about all the difficulties.
  May I draw to the attention of the House, if I need to do so, the dreadful events of last Thursday, when Israeli schoolgirls were killed. We in the House find it easy to understand the grief, because of the events in Dunblane almost exactly a year ago.
  Out of those tragic events of last Thursday, some important developments arose. The fact that King Hussein of Jordan felt able to visit Israel and join the grieving family is in itself a tremendously significant statement and act. We all congratulate him on the role that he has played in trying to maintain the peace process.
  Naturally, hon. Members have mentioned the Har Homa settlement, and on that subject there is no difference between the two sides of the House. In our view the settlement is contrary to the United Nations resolutions and is an impediment to peace. We ask Prime Minister Netanyahu to think again.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire talked about the need for statesmanship, and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale drew attention to the difference between politics and statesmanship. An act of statesmanship is desperately required from all the parties to the middle east peace process—an act inspired not by immediate political gain, but by the need to ensure that the long-term interests of the people of the region and of the countries directly affected are recognised and put first.
  The message arising from the debate is clear. We wish to see that act of statesmanship by the key players. We want them to follow the example that King Hussein has so clearly set.
  The way in which this country can make a contribution to the middle east peace process has already been described. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale talked about the role of the European Union, and it is important that that body speaks with a consistent co-ordinated voice on questions affecting the peace process. The role already played by envoy Moratinos has been especially important. The hon. Member for Southport need not worry about any embryonic European foreign policy here; what he needs to think about, in a common-sense way, is how we can co-ordinate things and make a contribution to the long-term objective that we all share.
  That does not mean going around the region pitting one country against another; it means using the expertise, knowledge and experience that we have, and the friendships that Britain, almost uniquely, has on both the Israeli and the Arab side. Let us build on those to play a constructive role, not in competition with the United States but in support—with the need, occasionally, to be a candid friend to the United States and to say that things are not being done in the right way, and that we have some advice and experience to offer.
  834
  That is an important role for this country and for the European Union. There is something on which we in this country can pride ourselves. I shall even give the Government some credit for it, although that may be the last time that I say that over the next few weeks. We can give the Government credit for the contribution that this country has made towards EU aid for the Palestinians.
  It is clear enough that there must be a real financial benefit for the Palestinians from the Oslo process. Since the Oslo agreement, their standard of living has fallen by 20 per cent. There must be a relationship in which people can see not only peace and justice but economic prosperity too.
  I shall finish on the thought that although we shall be divided over the next few weeks, one thing will unite the House when it returns after the election, and will unite whatever party is in government. That is our wish to make a continuing commitment to peace in the middle east—a peace to bring security to the people of Israel and justice for the long term for all the people within the region. If we can make a contribution to that, we shall have made a significant contribution to a better world.
  12.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I had intended to make a longer speech at this point, because the title of the debate covers such a wide area, and so many important matters have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members. However, unfortunately I have been left with even less time than I would usually have in a normal half-hour Adjournment debate.
  I wanted to heap fulsome praise on the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who is a good friend, and has worked closely with me on foreign affairs for nearly two years. I also wanted to pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is also a good friend. However, I know that they will both allow me to express on another occasion my feelings about their contributions to the House.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on his choice of debate. Because the contributions to the debate have been long, my comments must be short. I hope that the House will accept that my brevity is a sign not of rudeness, but of the fact that I must now get down to business.
  I know that many hon. Members share my concern about the situation that has developed in Israel and the occupied territories. Sadly, events since January have largely dissipated the good will generated by the Hebron agreement. The start of the construction of the settlement of Har Homa in one of the few gaps in the ring of Israeli settlements around the Arab area of East Jerusalem can do nothing but harm to the peace process, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out yesterday. The international community agrees that this settlement, like all settlements, is illegal. It also goes against the spirit of the Oslo agreement.
  It is very disappointing that the Israeli Government have decided to go ahead, against all the advice of the international community. The fact that they have done so damages the peace process and, I believe, damages Israel too—not only in her relations with other states, but in the prospects for the peace and security desired by the vast

  835
  majority of Israelis. Regrettably, the tension caused by this issue has caused mistrust in other aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.
  We welcomed the fact that the first stage of Israeli redeployment on the west bank was announced on time, but we are aware that its extent caused disappointment among the Palestinians. We must remember that the Palestinian track remains central to the peace process, and indeed to the whole question of security in the middle east. Since the start of the process, when there were positive moves on that track, there has been greater optimism and stability across the region. When there have been difficulties between Israel and the Palestinians, dangerous tensions have arisen.
  Events since the start of the year have demonstrated that contrast starkly. The signature of the Hebron agreement showed that the Government of Mr. Netanyahu regarded themselves as bound by the Oslo process, which had made such gains under the previous Israeli administration. Indeed, the strong majority in the Knesset for the Hebron agreement was an encouraging signal for further progress on the Palestinian track. The first subsequent stage of Israeli redeployment on the west bank was set for early March, and the start of final status talks for mid-March. As I have said, Hebron lifted our hearts somewhat.
  Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have been meeting this week to see if they can find a way to return to the process that had resumed after Hebron. We hope they will succeed. One casualty of the current inflamed situation has been the scheduled start of the final status talks. These talks are to determine the shape of an overall settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, and we have urged both sides not to allow the timetable to slip further. If final status talks are to succeed, an atmosphere of confidence will need to be restored—above all, there must be an end to unilateral moves that create mistrust and the risk of violent reaction.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear repeatedly our views on settlements and related issues. I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), as I have done so often on this matter, that there is solidarity in the House. There is a need for both sides to do all that they can to reduce the tension that has arisen. We took a firm line in the UN Security Council debate, and at the General Assembly. We have played a leading role in the efforts of the EU— particularly through its special envoy Miguel Moratinos, to whom we give our full support and co-operation. He is doing an excellent job, and we hope that he can restore the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating relationship.
  We have heard this morning about the EU-Israel association agreement, which was debated at length in Committee a month ago today. The agreement is part of the Union's efforts to support the stable and prosperous development of the region. A parallel agreement with the Palestinians was signed by the General Affairs Council last month. The final decision to adopt the EU-Israel agreement will need to be taken by Ministers in the General Affairs Council after all member states have ratified it. While the peace process continues to make progress, there is no good argument for holding this up. But if progress is halted, EU-Israel relations generally could not fail to be affected. I therefore cannot say whether this will be a succesful negotiation.
  836
  As for the Syrian-Lebanese tracks, we must understand there can be no comprehensive peace in the region without peace between Israel and Syria, and we very much hope that negotiations broken off last year can be restarted on the basis of land for peace. Progress on that track could lead to movement on the Lebanese track, and an end to the tragic on-going fighting in southern Lebanon which has claimed so many lives on both sides, including in the Lebanese civilian population. The people of Israel want to see no more of their young men and women dying in south Lebanon. It is up to Israel to make progress.
  On aid to the Palestinians, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central for his comment. The UK will disburse some £28 million in aid to the Palestinians this financial year and we are giving the EU a great deal of support, which is included in that figure.
  I shall put the question of middle east security in the context of our prime interests in the Gulf. In the past 15 years, the stability of the region, and thus the economic well-being of the Gulf states, has twice been threatened by aggression. With two thirds of the world's proven reserves of oil in the Gulf—in a world increasingly dependent on oil—the western nations, including Britain, have a paramount interest in secure access to the Gulf. It is now over six years since the end of the Gulf war, and our Gulf friends know that, as we demonstrated in 1994, they can count on our help. Our long-standing association with the Gulf and a wide range of shared interests mean that the UK in particular has a strong interest in securing and underpinning peace and stability in the Gulf, and containing any threats.
  A key strand of our policy in that region is our enthusiastic support for the Gulf Co-operation Council— to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport referred—which we have supported since its inception in 1981. We are committed to helping the GCC states establish co-ordinated defence forces, which are essential for their assured future. Those arrangements need to be matched by greater political co-ordination and co-operation. I am happy to give credit where credit is due, and I heartily welcome the recent agreement between Bahrain and Qatar—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport also referred, in his excellent speech—to improve their bilateral relations and to appoint ambassadors. We hope that that process of consultation and consolidation will continue. We shall also continue to take the lead in promoting constructive dialogue between the EU and the GCC.
  We are also concerned by the continuing dispute between the UAE and Iran over Abu Musa and the Tunbs islands. We have urged both parties to seek a peaceful resolution and are happy to support the UAE proposal to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice. I urge the Iranians to enter into serious negotiations to resolve that dispute.
  Britain makes an extensive military contribution to Gulf security. We contribute to operations Northern and Southern Watch over Iraq. We have maintained a naval presence in the Gulf since 1980, through the Armilla patrol. We also work closely with the Gulf states to see how we can best help support them in their defence needs. These are a few examples of Gulf security, but we stand ready to offer any additional help that might be needed with training or in supplying defence equipment.

  837
  Gulf trade has increased dramatically. Combined exports to the six GCC countries in 1996 totalled almost £5.25 billion—an increase of 26.8 per cent. over 1995. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were, respectively, our 13th and 24th largest export markets. Saudi Arabia is our foremost non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development market, and our exports there rose by 51 per cent. last year. I was pleased to attend the inaugural meeting of the UK-Dubai joint trade committee on board Britannia. The enormous strides made by the UAE on the economic front in recent years provide good opportunities for the UK and Europe. Our fundamental interests in the Gulf are almost identical with those of the GCC countries, and our perception of the threat is also identical.
  As for Iraq, Saddam Hussein poses a serious threat to middle east security. As recently as October 1994, he threatened to invade Kuwait once again, and only the swift and robust response of the international community stopped him. He is a danger to his own people, and I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) supports him. Only last year, Saddam Hussein used his considerable military machine to attack civilians in Irbil—a clear flouting of Security Council resolution 688. I say yet again to the hon. Member for Linlithgow that food and medicines have never been subject to sanctions. If there are starving children in Iraq, it is the fault of Saddam Hussein, who builds glorified palaces to his name and his honour when people are starving. Blame him, do not blame this House, Sir.
  Following the Gulf war, we established a special commission to oversee the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We provide strong support to that commission. I must again tell the hon. Gentleman that members of the United Nations special commission in Iraq carry out vital work. They are trying to spot weapons of mass destruction, which it is said could kill the world's population six times over. All the hon. Gentleman wants to do is to make cheap criticism of their work and their accommodation. I should have thought that they should be congratulated on their achievements instead of subjected to unjustified criticism.
  We now have United Nations Security Council resolution 986. There is a greater amount of money—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must move on to the next subject.

  East Ayrshire Community Hospital
  12.30 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: First, I must say how pleased I am to see the Minister of State for the Scottish Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) here to answer the debate. I must take this opportunity to thank him for his unfailing personal courtesy to me and, I believe, to other Scottish Members, during his term of office. We have been grateful for that.
  I regret to say, however, that the story of the proposed East Ayrshire hospital is a saga of Government delay and ineptitude, and of the Conservatives putting political dogma ahead of health care. As far back as 1993, which is four years ago, the South Ayrshire Hospitals national health service trust had planned to replace the Ballochmyle hospital at Mauchlin with a new purpose-built community hospital for East Ayrshire on the same site at Ballochmyle. That meant that the land was in NHS ownership, ready for the building to go ahead.
  The Government had earmarked £13 million in the capital budget. If construction of the hospital had started as planned and been funded as originally intended, it would be open now, and the urgent needs of the people of East Ayrshire would be being provided for at this minute. Instead, we have had a catalogue of dithering, delay, political interference and, I am afraid to say, chicanery.
  First, the then Health Minister, Lord Fraser, threw a spanner in the works when he announced that, rather than proceed as planned, two NHS trusts would have to compete for the right to build and run the hospital. That is a prime example of the way in which unnecessary competition and rivalry have replaced planned provision in the NHS, setting trust against trust.
  Instead of providing immediately for the health needs of the area, there was a long and often acrimonious debate about which trust should run the hospital, and whether it should be at Ballochmyle, as originally planned by the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust, or on a new site at Cumnock, where the Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare trust preferred it to be.
  That long-drawn-out consultation eventually finished in June 1995, but, regrettably, the dithering of the Ayrshire and Arran health board added further to the delay, when it failed to decide at its board meeting in July as it had planned to do. The board left the decision until the end of September and opted for the community trust—not the trust that had originally intended to build the hospital— and for building the hospital on the Cumnock site. Incidentally, that site is not in NHS ownership, so the decision added planning and acquisition problems.
  I regret to say that that was not the end of the catalogue of delay and interference. Ministers intervened again to insist that the option of a private finance initiative should be considered alongside that of public funding, which had been the original intention and for which the money had been earmarked. The public funding option had not been questioned, either by the board or the trust, until the Government interfered. That political interference was unnecessary, as public funding had been earmarked for the hospital, and it has been the cause of even more unnecessary and unwelcome delay.
  Nearly 18 months after the health board's decision, not a brick has been laid. There is not even an agreed contract, unless the Minister tells me otherwise today—but I doubt

  839
  it, for reasons that I will come to. On 17 November 1995, however, the chairman of the health board, Jim Donaldson, wrote to me giving the timetable, promising that the first patients would be treated in the day hospital by November 1996. That date has passed, and not a brick has been laid or a contract signed. He also promised that the out-patients and general practitioner unit would be operating in October 1997, and the continuing care facilities by April 1998. There is no hope of any of that now.
  In his letter, Mr. Donaldson said:
  "The Board and the Community Trust have made a clear public commitment to delivering the new Community Hospital within the time scale outlined above … It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that the timetable is achieved."
  It is evident that it has failed in that responsibility; and who are the losers? None other than the people of East Ayrshire, who are waiting for much-needed, long-overdue healthcare facilities.
  Although the Ayrshire and Arran health board has manifestly failed, I argue that the Government are the principle cause of that failure. The board is responsible to the Minister—it is appointed by him and under his direction. It reports to the management executive, to Mr. Geoff Scaife and, through him, to the Minister regularly. It is the dithering, the interference and, frankly, the dubious practices of Scottish Office Ministers that have caused the delay.
  First, the Government's insistence on the PFI option meant a delay while the preferred bidder was chosen. We had to go through all the procedure of considering potential bidders and choosing one. Ultimately, the community trust chose G. A. Construction Ltd.—formerly Gilbert Ash Ltd., I think.
  The first delay was in coming to a decision about the preferred bidder, but eventually, on 2 September last year, the trust submitted the PFI bid, together with the public funding option as an alternative. That option is still there. That is the benchmark for considering whether the hospital should be constructed through the PFI.
  I presume that the benchmark must be at or near—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—the £8 million that was the original figure with which the community trust won the competition with the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust bid was about £11.5 million.
  What happened? I understand that this is happening not merely in East Ayrshire but in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It would appear that the PFI bid was not merely much more expensive than the £8 million benchmark—in other words, PFIs are much more expensive than funding by the traditional public method— but it is rumoured that it was even higher than the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust figure. It might even have been as high as £12 million.
  What happened then? This is the interesting thing, as Ministers received the details of the PFI bid and the benchmark figure, but then told the community trust that they would give the preferred bidder time "to revise the bid". The Minister used that phrase in a parliamentary answer to me.
  That was very fishy: why was extra time given to revise the bid? What fiddling of the figures was needed behind the scenes? Were the specifications reduced in an attempt
  840
  to get the PFI bid down to the benchmark figure or below? The Minister has so far refused all the opportunities that I have given him to answer those questions. I hope that he will take the opportunity to answer today, to the House and to me, but above all to the people of East Ayrshire.
  I regret to say that there is more to the story: 1 November passed and there was still no announcement, and on 4 November I tabled another parliamentary question, to be told by the Minister that he would announce the decision "shortly"; but still there is no decision. I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) agrees that that is stretching the English language a little too far. It is stretching the patience of the long-suffering people of East Ayrshire even further, particularly as the closure of wards in Ballochmyle continues relentlessly. Health care in East Ayrshire is deteriorating rather than improving as was intended.
  The suspicion that something fishy was going on behind the scenes was increased with the revelation that a second revised PFI bid had to be submitted two weeks ago today. I understand that it is still on the Minister's desk, being considered. Why was that further revision necessary? I hope that the Minister will answer that question today. Have there been further changes in the specification? Are corners being cut? Will we get a second-rate hospital because the Minister and the management executive are insisting that the trust should try to find reductions in the PFI bid?
  Over the past few months, I have asked question after question in the House and in the Scottish Grand Committee, and still delays continue as Ministers try to get the answer they want rather than the best answer for the national health service and for the people of East Ayrshire.
  I hope that the Minister will confirm today that the facilities to be provided in the East Ayrshire hospital have not been cut back, that they are still as outlined in his written answer to me of 6 February, and that there is still money in the capital pool to fund the hospital publicly. I believe that that is the better option.
  Will the Minister say whether the report in yesterday'sFinancial Times is correct, which said that banks will not support PFI schemes for hospitals, because any trust signing a deal with a private consortium would be acting ultra vires under current legislation? Will he stop trying to fiddle the figures to favour the PFI option? Why does not he give the go-ahead for the long overdue and much-needed hospital, funded with public money?
  I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), and I can assure the Minister in this changeover period that my hon. Friend would support the course of action that I advocate. Parliament is to be prorogued on Friday, and the Minister has the opportunity to finish his ministerial career with one act of sense and courage; I urge him to do so.
  12.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on securing a debate on this important subject. I should like to say straight away that there have certainly been no cuts in specification for the new hospital.

  841
  I am extremely encouraged by the recent good progress towards securing the new facility, and I am delighted that more locally based, responsive health services will in the future be available for the people of East Ayrshire. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's description of his concerns and those of his constituents, and I hope that he will be reassured that we are well on the way to delivering this important new facility.
  I shall turn to the details of the development in its local context in a moment, but it is important to place the new East Ayrshire community hospital in a national context. The scheme that has been developed for East Ayrshire is an excellent practical example of the projects that we are encouraging and that will be supported by the initiatives in the White Paper "Ready for the Future".
  The White Paper's main themes are an emphasis on prevention; better information for the public and access to services; greater responsiveness to patients' needs; effective continuity of care; and excellence in clinical and management practice. The positive features of the new East Ayrshire community hospital will translate each of those into action.
  Most obviously, the convenient siting of the hospital at Cumnock will provide the easiest access for the greatest numbers of the people whom it will serve. Transportation links to the site were a key consideration for the trust. For both in-patient and out-patient treatment, as well as for longer-term continuing care, the hospital meets head on the challenge to ensure that patients have access to care locally wherever possible, and can avoid travelling to facilities many miles further from home.
  The improved services and facilities will meet patients' needs better, tackle the particular health problems prevalent in the area, provide effective continuity of care and foster clinical excellence. The location of the new facility in Cumnock will offer new opportunities to develop new and effective strategies to improve the health service's action in preventing disease.
  The development provides a first-class example of a primary care-led NHS. There will be accessible and locally provided services, and patient care will be properly planned and well co-ordinated between the primary and secondary care sectors. A broader range of services will be available locally, with access to a network of specialist support services.
  Ayrshire and Arran health board has had very clear criteria about the objectives of the East Ayrshire community hospital project since its inception. It wanted high-quality, innovative, cost-effective services delivered locally for the people of East Ayrshire. I am delighted that we are getting closer to delivering exactly that
  Mr. Foulkes: When?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall say in the course of my remarks.
  The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be the first to recognise the particular importance of the project. East Ayrshire contains areas of considerable socio-economic deprivation and unemployment, and relatively poor health. All the parties involved with the project have recognised from the outset that the development of health
  842
  services in the area must take proper account of that. Health care must target resources on the areas of local need. The new community hospital will therefore be sited at Cumnock in order to provide the easiest possible access to the largest possible proportion of the area's population.
  The proposals are built on the concept of locally provided, patient-centred care, in terms of both service delivery and building design. It will be a primary care-focused service, offering integrated care for the locality. The hospital will include a 24-bed general practice unit—doubling the current complement in the area—24 day hospital places, out-patient services, and 50 continuing care and respite care places.
  People will be able to receive the care that they need as close to their homes as possible. That is a model for future NHS services: local people deciding how best to meet local needs, and working in partnership—both public and private—to produce innovative and imaginative schemes. I therefore welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have played a part in bringing this project so close to fruition.
  Mr. Foulkes: When will that be?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am just coming to that.
  As I have said, good progress has been made. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the autumn of 1995, the health board selected Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust to take forward its proposals for the new community hospital. Having advertised for bidders, narrowed down a shortlist, and examined the resulting tenders, the trust selected a private partner with whom to explore funding the project under PFI in June 1996.
  The hon. Gentleman has made clear his concern that the process of exploring PFI has taken longer than it should. He will be aware that several months of delay were caused by the refusal of the then Cumnock and Doon Valley district council to grant planning permission for the new facility. Although that problem was eventually resolved, the resulting delay of more than four months was frustrating for those keen to make progress. It was in no measure the fault of the trust, the health board, or the PFI process.
  Since then, much progress has been made. A full business case was received in the autumn of 1996, and subsequent negotiations between the trust and the bidder have been extremely fruitful in making the PFI option even more attractive. As with many PFI projects, a great deal of negotiation has been necessary to ensure that the project is affordable and that the taxpayer gets the new hospital at the best possible price.
  I am glad to say that those issues are now largely concluded in the case of East Ayrshire, and I would expect negotiations to be concluded very shortly. However, I am bound by election rules since the declaration of the Prime Minister. I would not expect the trust to sign the contract until after the general election, in the light of advice from the Treasury and the Cabinet Office that no further decisions should be made or actions taken that are of a continuously binding or long-term character. However, I expect negotiations to be concluded this month.
  The new East Ayrshire community hospital is not the only development to benefit from the private finance initiative. Some 18 health projects, with a capital value of

  843
  nearly £56 million, have already been completed. They include: Ferryfield house, a 60-bed nursing home in Edinburgh that is now up and running; hospital information support systems at the Law hospital, Perth and Kinross Healthcare and Yorkhill NHS trusts; and a new £3.8 million community hospital in Stonehaven.
  Thirteen more projects, with a total value of nearly £600 million, are beyond the point of being advertised as PFI schemes; a further nine projects, with a value of £250 million, are preparing to advertise in the near future. Projects are coming to fruition rapidly.
  In the past few weeks, Lanarkshire health board has given formal approval for the building of two new district general hospitals under the PFI to replace Law and Hairmyres hospitals. Lothian health board has approved a scheme for the new royal infirmary. A promising design has been proposed for the redevelopment of the Western general hospital in Edinburgh. All the trusts concerned will be working with the consortia on the final stages of contract negotiations before submitting final proposals to the Scottish Office.
  This huge investment programme could not be funded from the public capital programme. Demand far outstrips the availability of public capital. However, the PFI brings many other tangible benefits. The evidence so far is that it gives very good value for money, and only projects that offer value for money are allowed to proceed. It provides an ideal opportunity for the private sector to offer innovative solutions, while enabling projects to go ahead well in advance of the time scale that would apply if public capital alone were used.
  PFI contracts also give the private sector an incentive to deliver on time and maintain services to a high standard. Quality of service is a recurring theme. The PFI is about delivering services rather than assets, and payments for the services are based on results. Capital and management skills are provided by the private sector, while the service remains under public control. Finally, risks previously borne by the public sector are transferred to the private sector through PFI deals. In particular, the risks of technical obsolescence, upgrading and residual value of equipment are borne by the supplier.
  Those points are well documented, and I suspect that most Opposition Members would accept them, despite their initial reluctance wholly to embrace the PFI. It is worth remembering that these are all benefits that will improve health care services provided to people, including now those in East Ayrshire. I know that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will welcome that.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am conscious of what the Minister said about Treasury rules and the Cabinet Office instruction about not making decisions until after the general election, which is right and understandable. However, that would suggest that no decision can be taken until well into May, which means further delay for East Ayrshire hospital. If the Government decided to go ahead with the traditional public funding method using public capital, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) concurred, would it not be possible to make a decision now?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are virtually at the stage at which a PFI project can go ahead. If the hon. Gentleman favoured that—I see that he does not, so I cannot make him an offer, given the election rules.
  844
  The PFI will greatly benefit the national health service, because it will ensure that public sector funds go much further. The PFI is new territory for the NHS and the private sector, and both have much to learn about each other. The deals are long-term partnerships of 20 to 25 years, involving millions of pounds of capital and significant revenue streams into the future. Partnerships— I deliberately use the word "partnership" because this is a partnership between the public and private sectors— involve provision of health care environments, and as such are not the sort of schemes that should be hurried into agreements. The NHS is too important for that. We have to get the details right.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about trust vires. We have clear advice that NHS trusts have the power to sign PFI contracts. Some banks have expressed concern about that. The issue has been discussed with them, but the calling of the general election has prevented any conclusion from being reached.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister in his reply to my earlier intervention seemed to be about to make an offer. Although I was wincing a little, I was not shaking my head. It may be that what he was about to say would have been acceptable. That could be explored with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who is present. If there were a way forward to ensure that there was no further delay, I should be grateful if it could be explored.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are close to the possible signing of a contract, but under general election rules we are not in a position to do that. If the hon. Gentleman spoke to the shadow Secretary of State and received his support, and believed it to be in the public interest that the project should go ahead, I would certainly raise it with the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, both Government and Opposition are bound by the Cabinet rules. I shall endeavour to ensure that he has all the available information. It will be a few days before we are in a position to do that. If he wants to come back to me, he is welcome to do so.
  Ayrshire and Arran health board has consistently received higher than average resources per head in recognition of its population profile, and an increasing share of the national total. For 1997–98, it will receive an extra 5.4 per cent. over the 1996–97 figure. We believe strongly that the development will mark yet further progress in health care facilities for Ayrshire and Arran. Just as the new hospital will be geared to meet the health needs of East Ayrshire, so has the Scottish Office made sure that the same principle holds true for the people of the whole of Ayrshire and Arran by ensuring that they receive funding much higher than inflation, and above the national average.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. On 18 December 1996, he asked me in the House why the proposals have been delayed by the PFI, and why public funding was not being made available immediately. I told him that the trusts were confident that, with further negotiations, the hospital could be provided under the PFI. That remains the case, with the PFI looking increasingly likely to provide the fastest solution.
  Contrary to speculation, the scheme has a far better chance of getting up and running quickly under the PFI than it would if it joined the queue for the limited public

  845
  capital resources available. If negotiations are concluded soon, I expect building to be completed by the end of 1998, which is probably faster than could be achieved by any other route. The sooner we can deliver the hospital, the better.
  The East Ayrshire hospital project has been able to learn the lessons of other PFI schemes, such as the most effective period over which to let a contract, the need for flexible output specifications, and the need to ensure the right balance between debt funding from banks and equity input from investors. For many reasons, the PFI looks like the best mechanism to deliver the desired improved quality of services to those who need them.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. If he wishes to come back to me, he is welcome to do so: I would look into the matter speedily and effectively. He has served a valuable purpose by raising the subject.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with the debate, and for his offer. I shall talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith, who also has an interest in the matter, has been present for the debate today. I am grateful for the Minister's offer of further discussions. I do not want dogma to decide the matter—I want the health needs of the people of east Ayrshire to decide it. As the Minister rightly said, they have particular health needs, because they are disadvantaged. I am grateful to the Minister for that help.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the half minute that remains, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is here, I repeat that I have made it clear that PFI projects would not be pursued unless clinicians and local management wanted them. In relation to the question that the hon. Gentleman asked some time ago—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We now move to the next debate.

  Education (Vale of Glamorgan)
  1 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I am grateful for the opportunity to inform the House about the difficulties that are being caused to all schools in Vale of Glamorgan by the incompetence of the Labour-controlled Vale of Glamorgan council.
  At the end of last month, schools were told that the council was about to impose budget cuts of £3.13 million on education. The effect on schools would be catastrophic. Some schools would face cuts of as much as 15 per cent. It was not surprising that about 200 worried parents, teachers, governors and pupils appeared at my advice surgery in Llantwit Major on Friday 28 February expressing their demand that the savage proposed cuts be reversed by the council and seeking my help to achieve that end. Since then, I have visited various schools and have had discussions with head teachers, staff, parents and governors.
  I was appalled to find that there seemed to have been little or no consultation with any of those people about the necessity for such a high level of cuts or about the way in which savings could be effected in administration or elsewhere in the council's budget. On 4 March 1997, I faxed a letter to the chief executive of Vale of Glamorgan council, the director of education and the leader of the council, Councillor Shaun Stringer. I suggested that, before the budget was fixed, a series of consultative meetings should be held throughout the vale so that everyone could have a say on how best to protect their children's future.
  I also requested sight of the council's budget to enable me to work constructively with the council to identify potential savings which could be used to relieve the heavy burden of cuts on schools. Unfortunately, the reply from Councillor Stringer was less than helpful. He stated:
  "I have no intention of disclosing or, indeed, discussing the Council's budget with you at any time, as I consider you to be part of the problem and in no way part of the solution."
  I am appalled at the unwillingness of the leader of the council to co-operate with the local Member of Parliament in the best interests of all the people, of whatever party, whom I and the vale councillors represent. Councillor Stringer's negative attitude contrasts unfavourably with that of council leaders in the former Vale of Glamorgan borough council, including Councillor Stringer, who showed a more positive attitude in those days to working with their Member of Parliament for the benefit of the community, even if that Member of Parliament was of a different political persuasion.
  Mr. Rod Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware of a similar scandal in my constituency? Conwy county borough council has told deliberate lies to the schools in my constituency in order to cover up the reason for cutting school budgets. It has calculated the expenditure required for schools and deducted from it the income that schools expect to receive from nursery vouchers. Where in any accounting practice does one deduct income from expenditure and use the net figure to calculate the budgets, which will inevitably show a cut that they should not show?
  Mr. Sweeney: I was not aware of that circumstance, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to the

  847
  attention of the House. I am sure that everyone will be interested to learn about that further example of duplicity and incompetence on the part of a Labour-controlled authority.
  Perhaps I should not have been too surprised at Councillor Stringer's petulance, as he appears to have been equally unhelpful to the head teachers in the vale, who were given a similar brush-off. I understand from them that, at meetings on Monday 3 and Tuesday 4 March, they were told that the proposed cuts were all the fault of the Government and that not an extra penny could be found for school budgets. If that is the way in which the leader of the council treats top professionals when they are seriously worried about education standards for children in their care, it should come as no surprise to me that he puts party politics before the interests of children.
  Within 24 hours, Councillor Stringer was singing a different tune. I presume that he was overwhelmed by the strength of public opposition to his proposals. First, it was announced that the council would put back into the schools budget approximately £2 million. It was planned to raise half that figure by confiscating the reserves of schools and redistributing them. The effect would have been catastrophic for thrifty schools which had created reserves. Some of them were planning to spend their reserves in order to keep on teachers or other staff who would otherwise have been made redundant as a result of the cuts. The effect of the revised proposals would have been to punish thrifty schools—a typically "old Labour" idea. Unfortunately for Councillor Stringer, but fortunately for the schools, it was pointed out to him that the proposals were illegal. The proposed budget cut, which had been reduced by about £2 million, was immediately increased again by about £1 million.
  It has been impossible for me to establish precisely by how much school budgets are now to suffer. There is an atmosphere of confusion. Councillor Stringer appears to be making policy on the hoof. My telephone inquiries this morning have revealed that the best estimate of the final level of cuts is about £1.7 million. I have no doubt that head teachers throughout Vale of Glamorgan have spent many anxious evenings poring over their school budgets, deciding who will have to be sacked in order to balance the books.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I have listened with some interest to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying about this complex situation. Will he answer one or two questions in the course of his remarks? Is it true that in this year's financial settlement Vale of Glamorgan council will receive less money than it did last year? Is it true that the council, the heads and all the teaching unions—the National Union of Teachers, the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, UCAC—the Welsh teachers' association—the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the Secondary Heads Association— have agreed a concordat under which no teacher will be made compulsorily redundant and no class size will be increased? That is the result of consultation between the vale and all its teachers. The head teacher who represents all the head teachers has written to the Western Mail
  848
  saying that reports of things such as the hon. Gentleman is now saying are a load of rubbish and that they are disconcerting the teachers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions should be less than a minute.
  Mr. Sweeney: I will not say that I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. Vale of Glamorgan council has known, or at least the Labour leadership has known, for several months that the council was running over budget in education. It should have taken some pre-emptive action as long ago as last November to deal with the overspend, instead of confronting schools at the last minute before the budget is due to be fixed, with the appalling prospect of ghastly cuts. If a deal has been stitched together which will ensure that no teacher losses will occur, that is wonderful news for the people of the vale, but until it is confirmed by the council, I remain extremely sceptical about it.
  Indeed, if the cuts are not to be made, why is it that, as recently as 5 March, we were faced with a proposal to sack about 45 teachers? I can only speculate that what has happened is that the Labour leadership has experienced such a barrage of criticism and abuse from the public, who are rightly extremely upset about this politically motivated punishment of their innocent children, that the message has got across that such behaviour is unacceptable. Why is the council's Labour leadership so blind to the realities of life and the importance of children and education that it has only just woken up to the strength of public concern?
  My school visits have revealed the widespread anxiety about the increased class sizes that will result if teachers are sacked. One head of department at a secondary school pointed out that it is often not possible to sack the weakest member of staff, because there may be a shortage of teachers in his or her specialist subject area; thus, excellent teachers may be lost. Some school buildings are very poor, with cramped portakabin classrooms which will be physically overcrowded if four or five extra children have to be crammed into a class.
  I am furious that Councillor Stringer is attempting to shift the blame for the incompetence of his own council in arranging its budget on to the Welsh Office. I have read Councillor Stringer's "Budget Update 1997—Council Tax News", in which he falsely claims that the council is faced with "massive budget cuts". That brings me to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). My inquiries at the Welsh Office have revealed that the standard spending assessment for Vale of Glamorgan council has been increased by 1.8 per cent. to £95,846,000. Under provisional capping principles, the council can increase its 1996–97 budget by 4 per cent. to £97,404,000.I understand that Vale of Glamorgan council does intend to spend up to its capping limit. It is therefore a fraud on the electorate for Councillor Stringer to claim that the council is faced with massive budget cuts and to imply that the Welsh Office is to blame.
  Even allowing for inflation, there is only a tiny reduction in Welsh Office funding, which is entirely consistent with the Government's policies of expecting the public sector to achieve efficiency savings. Everyone in the private sector has to do that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgend continues to speak from a

  849
  sedentary position, but a tiny reduction in the budget is hardly the massive reduction claimed by Councillor Stringer. It is the height of irresponsibility and incompetence for Vale of Glamorgan council, which is totally dominated by Labour councillors, to produce a budget that will hurt all the children in Vale of Glamorgan by damaging their education prospects while, at the same time, trying to blame the Government.
  If the hon. Member for Bridgend is correct to say that, now, none of the damage in terms of teacher losses is to take place, why have the parents, teachers, governors and children of Vale of Glamorgan been frightened witless by misleading information?
  Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sweeney: No, we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman—he was wrong on both the points he raised, and I must press on with my speech.
  I am well aware that Councillor Stringer claims to have received a rough deal on the disaggregation that followed the abolition of South Glamorgan county council. Perhaps, instead of bleating about that a whole year after South Glamorgan council was abolished, he should address his remarks to his Labour colleague Councillor Russell Goodway, who appears—if Councillor Stringer is to be believed—to have negotiated a better deal for the people of Cardiff than Councillor Stringer managed for Vale of Glamorgan.
  I fought long and hard for the abolition of South Glamorgan county council, because it did not give to Vale of Glamorgan the priority that it deserved. It was a remote authority, excessively top-heavy in bureaucracy, which deprived the people in the vale in order to spend money on the pet schemes of the majority Labour group in Cardiff. That was why I wanted to get rid of that council and have our own unitary authority in Vale of Glamorgan and, of course, I welcome the fact that that has happened.
  What worries me now is that Vale of Glamorgan council seems to be making mistakes similar to those made by South Glamorgan county council. We all recall that South Glamorgan council was near the top of the league for receipts for education spending, but near the bottom of the league for the amount actually spent on education. When the figures are published, I shall be interested to see how much Vale of Glamorgan council is spending on administration and what proportion of the education budget is actually getting through to the children who matter most.
  Another excuse offered by Labour councillors in the vale is that the formula whereby central Government resources are distributed to local authorities is unfair to Vale of Glamorgan. I point out that the distribution formula for 1997–98 was ratified by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. I assume that that body is even more heavily dominated by Labour supporters than Vale of Glamorgan council, so I can only speculate as to why Councillor Stringer, as a Labour council leader who also happens to be the agent for the Labour candidate for the Vale of Glamorgan constituency in the forthcoming general election, has been so ineffectual in persuading the consultative council that Vale of Glamorgan is hard done by.
  850
  My hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware that we have some excellent schools in Vale of Glamorgan, with good teachers, parents and pupils. We also have some good and conscientious governors, although it is a source of great regret to me that, due to the policy of Vale of Glamorgan council, Tory governors have been largely excluded. It is also a matter of regret that most of the governing bodies have not supported the principle of grant-maintained education, which could have done so much to help all the schools in my constituency.
  My hon. Friend will also be aware that schools in Vale of Glamorgan are performing better than the Wales average, with 46 per cent. achieving five or more GCSE grades A to C, compared with 42 per cent. in Wales as a whole. The average A-level and AS-level point score is 17, compared with 16 in Wales as a whole. The performance of 11-year-olds has put the vale among the top three authorities in Wales, with 52.5 per cent. achieving the key stage 2 performance indicator, compared with 45 per cent. in Wales as a whole. I pay tribute to the parents, teachers and pupils in my schools.
  Mr. Griffiths: And the local authority.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Sweeney: Unfortunately, I do not feel inclined to pay equal tribute to Vale of Glamorgan council, as that high level of achievement is unlikely to be maintained and improved unless the council spends more of its budget on education and finds ways of cutting administrative costs so that individual schools will receive more money.
  It is appropriate for me to draw the attention of the House to some examples of profligate spending by Vale of Glamorgan council. It bleats about savage, but non-existent, cuts in its budget by the Welsh Office, when in reality it is spending money like water. I learned only today that the council is contemplating spending more than £1 million on refurbishing four leisure centres in the vale, at a time when, according to my information—I hope that I will be corrected—45 teachers face redundancy. The council has spent about £100,000 on a new foyer; it has built a new hospitality suite for councillors; and the new group room for Labour councillors has displaced officers, which has led to new office accommodation having to be rented. The council is spending about £60,000 on Barry Town football club. What makes me unhappy about that is that free tickets are distributed by the club to some privileged councillors.
  Pagers, fax machines and mobile phones have been freely distributed. The leader of the Labour council receives a pager, a fax machine and a mobile phone. The deputy leader receives a fax machine and a mobile phone. The chief whip receives—
  Mr. Griffiths: Do you have a fax?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a Back-Bench debate for half an hour. Sedentary comments from any part of the House are not acceptable.
  Mr. Sweeney: The deputy leader of the council receives a fax and a mobile phone. The chief whip receives a pager, a fax and a mobile phone. The leaders of the minority groups get a fax and a mobile phone.

  851
  All chairmen of committees receive a pager, a fax and a mobile phone. If the council is so hard up, how can it be spending money on things like that? Where do its priorities lie? Of course we want better leisure facilities and so on, but can anyone seriously doubt that we could make some savings in those budgets to help the children of the Vale, who represent our future?
  I appreciate the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister to the principle of allowing local authorities to take their own decisions. Naturally, in a democracy, that is important. However, I recall too well that the Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council and the neighbouring authorities failed to fund the police adequately. In the end, to combat rising crime, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, supported by the Welsh Office, took the dramatic decision to ring-fence police funding to ensure that the police received all the money that they desperately needed. The result has been 30 extra police officers in Vale of Glamorgan and a considerable drop in recorded crime during the past two years.
  I have reluctantly reached the conclusion, as a result of the appalling mismanagement by Vale of Glamorgan council, that the only way in which we can ensure that our children receive the best possible education is to hypothecate education spending in the standard spending assessment and to conduct an urgent audit of authorities such as Vale of Glamorgan, to find out why they are failing dismally to run their affairs in a way calculated to protect our children's future.
  The public in Vale of Glamorgan should know how much we pay our chief officers compared with the much larger South Glamorgan county council, which has been abolished, how top-heavy staffing levels are, what proportion of the education budget is spent on administration, what proportion gets through to the schools, and what proportion of the total budget is spent on education in comparison with other matters. I would welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on that.
  In conclusion, I make no apology for making a political point. If that is the way in which Councillor Stringer and his new Labour colleagues treat parents, teachers, governors and children, it illustrates very well why new Labour should not be trusted in local government, or at Westminster.
  1.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has performed a valuable service by drawing the attention of the House to the budget plans of Vale of Glamorgan council. As the debate unfolded, he illustrated the need for much greater accountability on the part of local government.
  There has been use in our press of the word "cuts". In today's Western Mail, at least two articles referring specifically to budget items in Wales use that word. In neither of those instances is it explained that the cuts are not cuts in spending but cuts in the aspirations of local
  852
  authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan said, the budget of Vale of Glamorgan district council has been increased.
  Mr. Griffiths indicated dissent.
  Mr. Evans: It has indeed. In fact, the money available to the council to spend in the current financial year will increase to about £97,404,000.
  Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend will be aware of the scandalous way in which Conwy county borough council has deceived parents in my constituency. The council claims that there have been cuts in its budget. Will my hon. Friend nail that lie once and for all? Will he tell the House, the country and my constituents how much more cash Conwy county borough council will have to spend in the forthcoming financial year than it is spending this year?
  Mr. Evans: I can tell my hon. Friend that his authority is the one for whom the capping principles have worked out best. It is allowed the biggest percentage increase in expenditure in Wales—an increase of more than £4 million.
  If there is to be accountability, there must be a clear assessment of the way in which the funding made available to each authority is used. It is for local authorities to decide how much money to make available for spending on categories such as education. Performance tables of local authorities have been published, and the Audit Commission issued a report on their performance in 1995–96.
  Authorities in Wales have undergone wide-scale reform, with the creation of the new unitary authorities. An interesting aspect of the accountability of the old county council was that South Glamorgan county council was one of the best-provided authorities in Wales, and the United Kingdom, but spent on its secondary school pupils the fourth lowest sum of any United Kingdom county council.
  That is what accountability should be about. Newspapers should analyse the spending plans of councils instead of unquestioningly accepting press statements issued by authorities, talking about cuts, and echoing them in headlines.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan said that he wanted sight of the budget of Vale of Glamorgan council. It appears that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has had sight of much more information than has been made available by the council to its elected representative. That is also a matter of accountability, to which our press might like to pay attention.
  Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Evans: Just a moment. I want to draw attention to some figures first.
  In the last financial year, Vale of Glamorgan council gave a far lower priority to education in its spending than did very many authorities in Wales. Parents of nursery and primary school children in Vale of Glamorgan might like to note that last year, on average, nursery and primary schools in Vale of Glamorgan received £85 per capita less

  853
  than the Welsh average. Parents of secondary school pupils in Vale of Glamorgan might like to note that, per capita, £159 less was spent on secondary school pupils in Vale of Glamorgan than the Welsh average.
  Mr. Griffiths: Those figures have been available from the council and in the Western Mail to be read by anyone. As early as 7 March 1997, the head teachers issued a joint statement with the council, saying that there would be no compulsory redundancies and no increase in class sizes. That has been in the papers too, and I cannot see how the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) did not know about that.
  Mr. Evans: I refer merely to the two stories in the Western Mail today. Both talk about cuts; neither talks about the increased budget for expenditure for each of those councils. The day that I see journalists putting the full story before the electorate in Wales will be the day that I withdraw the remark.
  I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bridgend got to his feet, because I have figures on the expenditure of Bridgend unitary council. He is the education spokesman for the Labour party in Wales, and he said today that parents in Vale of Glamorgan had nothing to worry about. Although spending in Vale of Glamorgan is significantly below the Welsh average, to observe the worst performance in investment in education per capita in Wales one need look no further than the hon. Gentleman's constituency. His friends and supporters provide the nursery and primary schools in his area with £233 per head less than the Welsh average. As if that were not bad enough, when those pupils get into secondary schools, the Labour-controlled council provides £339 per head less than the Welsh average.
  From all this, it is clear that, when Labour councils are allowed to choose how much priority to give to education in their areas, they are all words and no action. Their action is confined to putting out press releases, organising marches and protests and talking about education underfunding. The only underfunding going on is the underfunding of schools by the Labour party, which controls so much of education in Wales.
  As far as I am aware, the Labour party is offering only one pledge on education at this election. It is a pledge to skew resources from the parts of Wales where there are smaller classes to the parts where there are larger classes. It is no surprise to discover that the areas with the biggest classes are Labour authority areas, and the areas with the best investment in primary and secondary education are those not controlled by the Labour party. Those are the areas which, if Labour ever came to office, would be starved of resources: just as Labour has starved its own areas of resources.

  MRSA
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: My debate today is on the subject of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, to which I shall refer from here on as MRSA.
  MRSA is a bacterium that is resistant to treatment by the usual range of antibiotics. Although it is not necessarily more virulent than other infections, the range of treatment options is more limited because of patients' resistance to the more commonly used antibiotics.
  Many of us harbour MRSA without its causing us any harm, but carriers can pass it on to vulnerable patients with serious, sometimes fatal, consequences. MRSA contributes to the deaths of thousands of people in hospitals, yet it goes unrecorded and even unrecognised by the Department of Health.
  The Government's failure to take measures to control MRSA is causing serious infections that are difficult to treat. That in turn leads to an increase in the drugs bill and in other treatment costs, and it can lead also to the need to close down wards and special units, thereby disrupting the running of hospitals. That will continue until and unless the Minister or his successor recognises that we face a problem of epidemic proportions.
  The seriousness of the problem was demonstrated in May 1994 when a military hospital in Cambridge had to be closed for a week. Screening showed that there was a problem at the hospital, and the Ministry of Defence took rigorous preventive measures, including the application of antibiotics. It would be much more difficult to do the same in a national health service hospital; but the incident underscored how seriously the Ministry of Defence took the matter in a hospital for which it was responsible.
  I became aware of MRSA after listening, in November of last year, to a moving speech in the other place by my good friend Lord Fitt of Belfast, whose wife, a lifelong sufferer from asthma, went into hospital to be treated for that condition but fell victim to MRSA and subsequently died. He drew the attention of the other place to the scale of the problem and to the hazards that it posed for people with respiratory complaints, people suffering from septicaemia, and in general the weak and the elderly.
  More recently, one of my constituents also fell victim to MRSA. On 24 January he was admitted to Basildon hospital with a bad chest infection, later diagnosed as pneumonia. On 5 February his daughter was told that he had MRSA. Being of an inquiring mind and deeply concerned about her father's condition, she found out what MRSA was: that it is a life-threatening condition. She complained that the hospital had not been completely frank with her or explained the seriousness of the problem.
  My constituent's daughter also asked whether anyone else had been infected. It was confirmed that a lady had recently been transferred to another hospital in the trust group where screening is performed, even though I understand that it is not done at Basildon hospital. Orsett hospital is in Thurrock; incidentally, the trust has tried in the past to close it down. It is still under threat—just another example, I suppose, of "what we have, quite rightly, we wish to hold".
  On 6 February my constituent's daughter was told that her father had been given an antibiotic. She challenged that because the hospital had told her earlier that antibiotics

  855
  were not available to treat the condition. That caused some consternation at the other end of the telephone line. She was then told that her father was not actually being given an antibiotic to combat MRSA. Further inquiries elicited the information that Basildon hospital did not test for MRSA, as that was considered too expensive.
  Unfortunately, my constituent died on 8 February. The death certificate mentioned pneumonia; it did not say that MRSA had made a big contribution to the death.
  I did a bit of ferreting around in the Library and discovered that 15 hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is with me this morning, had already probed the Department about this tremendous scandal, but their efforts had hitherto not been fully co-ordinated; neither had the Government been arraigned for their dilatory stewardship. Furthermore, five Lords besides Lord Fitt, I discovered, had raised the matter in another place.
  I then tabled my own questions, the answers to which revealed widespread ignorance on the part of the Minister and the Department of Health about which hospitals screen for MRSA. They had no knowledge of the incidence of the infection in the UK because of the lack of screening; they did not know which hospitals kept antibiotics to combat MRSA; and they clearly did not know the number of deaths in which it has been a contributory factor. I asked the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland parallel questions. Their replies, too, showed the same widespread ignorance of the scale of this epidemic—and breathtaking indifference to it.
  The Minister was able to reveal, from the voluntary reporting undertaken by some hospitals, that 177 English hospitals had more than 19,000 patients affected by MRSA last year—up from 2,200 in 1992. But the total incidence of this virulent bacterium was unknown.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Has my hon. Friend made any international comparisons? One of the frightening things that I have learnt is that some other countries appear to have used antibiotics much more carelessly than we have, and are suffering from an epidemic of MRSA as a result. Cannot we learn from the mistakes that they have made?
  Mr. Mackinlay: Certainly, but my charge this morning is that the Department of Health is doing very little in any direction and is indifferent to the size of the epidemic.
  My replies from the Minister showed some confusion as well. He said that some new treatment was still at an early stage of development, but he also told me in a separate answer that two antibiotics are effective against all strains of MRSA—yet many hospitals, including Basildon, do not stock them. It appears to be the luck of the draw; someone may be taken to a hospital that has the drug, whereas someone else may not. My constituent's daughter was told that the antibiotics were not available. I suspect that the truth is that there were cost implications. That is the most worrying aspect of all.
  From the limited answers that I was able to obtain, it became increasingly clear that while the contagion remained static between 1989 and 1991, it had increased by 8.1 per cent. by 1994. However, by the first half of 1995, it had increased by 13.5 per cent.
  I also asked what was recorded on death certificates. My constituent's death certificate did not mention MRSA, and I understand that Lady Fitt's death certificate did not state
  856
  that MRSA had contributed to her death. Ironically—my question shows how these matters are treated in this country—the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to answer the question on death certificates. I cannot help feeling that that shows that the matter has budgetary implications.
  It is clear that, in many of our hospitals, doctors are not fulfilling the conditions and instructions that they are given on completing death certificates. They are charged with giving the primary cause of death, but in the second part of the form they are supposed to say what else contributed to the death. Doctors are not mentioning MRSA, either through ignorance or because they are being leaned on to cover up and keep quiet the fact that the disease contributes to so many deaths. If doctors do not fulfil those requirements, they are not behaving professionally and are vulnerable to litigation. They must be much more frank with the loved ones of people to whose deaths MRSA has contributed.
  What is the Minister doing to prevent and contain the spread of MRSA outside hospitals? His Department seems breathtakingly complacent. We know that the disease presents a problem in nursing homes; to pretend otherwise is irresponsible. I understand that the brief that the Minister will read to us in a few moments says that he has issued a leaflet to nursing homes. That is as effective as banging on a door with a wet sponge. It does not underline the seriousness of the problem.
  The Department of Health is reluctant to do anything about the problem, because it has budgetary implications for the nursing home service. Moreover, hospitals do not want to recognise the problem because of its budgetary implications. In short, there is a conspiracy of silence. There is wilful ignorance, on the part both of the NHS establishment in Whitehall and of hospitals and other agencies, which do not want to recognise the scale of the problem. Consequently, good people are being put in jeopardy and deaths caused unnecessarily.
  When I was ferreting around in the Library, I came across a document that I believe the Department of Health placed there inadvertently. It is a working party report that gives guidelines for the control of epidemic MRSA. It was prepared by Mr. G. Duckworth, secretary to the working party on hospital infection, and it was published in August 1990. I believe that the Department did not mean the document to be in the Library, but meant some other document to be there. Under the heading, "Cost implications of EMRSA", the document says:
  "Infection control costs are always difficult to assess, but there is general agreement that the costs of ignoring strains of EMRSA are higher than those of controlling them, particularly when the costs of potential legal action are included. Litigation by an infected patient is a growing hazard of MRSA outbreaks in hospitals and it is therefore important to demonstrate that well-documented and effective control measures are implemented."
  No such effective control measures are being implemented by the NHS. It is an extremely patchy map, and the document goes on to give some of the costs involved.
  The document also says that great care needs to be taken in ambulances. The information that I have from going round the ambulance service is that the recommended procedure is not being applied by the ambulance service. People will be infected in our ambulances because the Government refuse to recognise the cost implications and the scale of the scandal. It is sometimes hazardous to be in an ambulance where the proper control procedures have not been applied.

  857
  The document also refers to the fact that agency staff in hospitals may be MRSA carriers. I return to the point that I made at the beginning: there is inadequate screening in hospitals of patients and staff. In hospitals with a high staff turnover—agency staff go from one hospital where they might be screened to another where they are not—the danger of increasing infection is enormous. I hope that people who read our deliberations will demand to see a copy of the document to which I referred. Has the Minister read it? I want to be charitable to him and say that the Department has probably not told him the naked truth about the scale of the problem, and he may not have seen the document until I pursued the matter with his private office.
  The real problem is cost. The noble Baroness Cumberlege alluded to that in the debate in another place to which I referred earlier. I implore the Minister to be bold and to understand that failure to recognise the problem and deal with it immediately means that a bigger burden on the NHS is looming. It will be dealt with by another Minister, because the Government will lose the election. I do not wish to speak in a party political manner today; I am simply frustrated at the Government's failure to recognise the big additional burden on the NHS budget. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will hear about MRSA time and again, whether or not I am in the House after the election, because the problem will not go away. Whoever occupies the Treasury Bench will have to deal with it.
  I cannot help but recall that this Government refused to recognise the problems of E. coli, Gulf war syndrome and, until late in the day and at enormous cost, mad cow disease. MRSA is a problem of similar proportions. It beggars belief that the Department of Health has not addressed it with greater skill, determination and resolve before now.
  Hospitals have also tried to keep the problem under drapes and have displayed wilful ignorance. If the debate achieves nothing else, it will flag up to hospital trusts the fact that the possibility of litigation is enormous. The Department of Health, too, will be vulnerable to litigation, because the debate is making it clear on the Floor of the House that this is a large-scale problem. Even if the Department of Health and the hospital trusts do not listen, their insurers will. They must know that there is a significant possibility of substantial damage claims by the loved ones of people who have died as a consequence of the indifference to and lack of planning on combating MRSA. Doctors will be vulnerable to the charge of not behaving professionally if they do not complete death certificates in a full and comprehensive manner, as is their duty.
  Local newspaper editors throughout the country must ask their hospitals whether they screen for MRSA and, if not, why not. They must ask whether they follow the isolation procedures set down in documents to be found in corners of the House of Commons Library, rather than being flagged up as instructions to hospital trusts, and, if not, why not. They must ask whether ambulances follow the procedures laid down and, if not, why not. They must ask whether the hospitals stock the appropriate antibiotics and, if not, why not. They must also ask whether the hospital knows in how many instances MRSA has contributed to death and, if not, why not.
  What support is the Department of Health giving to Professor Brian Austen of Heriot-Watt university, in developing a new drug to combat MRSA? Has the
  858
  Department considered new products that I understand are being developed—basically paints and cleaners—that kill all known microbes and, if used within hygiene management programmes, minimise some of the super-bugs such as MRSA?
  I am sorry if I have spoken in rather trenchant terms, but in the five years that I have been in the House, I have rarely felt so strongly about what I consider to be an NHS establishment cover-up. I do not charge any one individual, but believe that, nationally and locally, the national health service has recognised the problem, but has been afraid that it will throw its budgets out of proportion and that Ministers and incoming Ministers will be embarrassed. The problem has therefore been swept under the carpet, which is why I called this wilful ignorance.
  I appeal to the Minister in his remaining period in office to give forthright instructions to everyone concerned to address the problem. I hope that he will ensure that his successor picks that up after the general election.
  1.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), even though he has left me only 11 minutes to do so. He made an extremely concerned speech, on which I congratulate him. The issue causes concern not only to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), but to many people outside the House, and rightly so.
  It is important to get the matter in perspective. We should acknowledge the problem, but it has existed for many years—indeed, decades. The hon. Member for Thurrock was ill advised to introduce party politics and matters such as E. coli. The problem has existed under both parties in government. It has not arisen overnight—it has been there for decades. I want the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, and I am glad that he is nodding to that effect.
  The problem is containable, and the United Kingdom has an excellent record in containing it. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a failure to control the MRSA problem on the part of hospitals and the Department. That is not the case. Infection control is strong in the UK. We are a world leader in the control of MRSA and other infections.
  Health authorities require all hospitals to have adequate infection control systems in place, and control teams must coverall facilities. Of course, from time to time, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out in connection with a Ministry of Defence hospital, fairly extreme isolation measures must be taken. They are taken when necessary, and our infection control methods are world leaders.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield spoke about international comparisons. One of the reasons why we are a world leader in the field is that we issue antibiotics only on prescription. Some other countries do not do that. That is one reason why they have epidemics, which we manage to avoid. We keep control at that level as well, not only through what we rightly demand of our hospitals, through the contracts that we impose on them, through health authorities and by other means. The charge of failure to control is ill founded. Hospitals take considerable measures to control the problem and are world leaders in that respect.

  859
  The matter has been debated before, as the hon. Member for Thurrock knows. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised it in an Adjournment debate in December 1995, and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) raised it as part of another Adjournment debate a year later. The issue has therefore been discussed in Parliament. I insist that there is no indifference, ignorance or conspiracy of silence on the Government's part. I am glad to have the matter discussed in the House.
  As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, MRSA is a relatively antibiotic-resistant form of the bacterium staph. aureus, which is one of the commonest and most ubiquitous of all the bacteria with which we are surrounded. As many as one in three of us are carrying it—on our skin or in our nose or throat—and normally it does us no harm. It does, however, have the ability to cause infection, which is most likely to occur if the skin is cut or if resistance to infection is lost or compromised for any other reason.
  Mostly, the type of infection will be trivial, but for patients who are in hospital, it can sometimes be serious, as the hon. Gentleman noted. Many hospital patients have catheters and drips of various sorts going into their body, which provide an easy route for bacteria such as staph. aureus. Many patients have had operations, so they have a wound that can become infected. Some have poor resistance to infection because of their illness or their treatment, and are vulnerable to serious infection such as septicaemia or pneumonia. Staph. aureus can cause all those problems—a range of infections from the trivial to the life-threatening.
  MRSA acts in exactly the same way as staph. aureus and causes the same range of infections. It is no worse than staph. aureus; it is simply a particular kind of staph. aureus. Eight out of 10 people who carry MRSA come to no harm at all. If it does cause an infection, the range of problems is just the same. The infections are no worse than those caused by the ordinary bacterium.
  The reason why MRSA is seen as more of a problem is that, if an infection develops, it is more difficult to treat because many of the commonly used antibiotics are no longer effective against it. However, I repeat that the infection is treatable. As I said to the hon. Member for Thurrock, and as he confirmed in his remarks, at least two antibiotics are effective against MRSA.
  Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister comment on the point that my hon. Friend eloquently highlighted: do we know how many people are dying from such an infection, and how many hospitals have a good record or a bad record? There must be public recognition of the extent of the problem. The Minister is playing it down. May we have some facts and figures, and some visibility?
  Mr. Horam: I am about to come to that. First, I should like to say, in response to the hon. Member for Thurrock, that all hospitals will have stocks of the antibiotics necessary to treat MRSA. Whether those antibiotics are used is a clinical decision. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  On the extent of the problem, to which both hon. Gentlemen referred, I repeat that it is not new. The media have only recently taken an interest in it, but it has existed for a long time. Official figures from the Public Health Laboratory Service show that the peak of the problem occurred in 1986. I have figures from 1983 to 1996. The
  860
  problem fluctuates as various strains come and go, as various antibiotics deal with the various strains and as new ones develop. We may be at a higher point than previously, but not as high as a decade ago. The problem is not worse than it has ever been in this country.
  To add to the information from the Public Health Laboratory Service, two big surveys were conducted, in 1980 and 1992–93. They show a constant proportion of MRSA in the system. It was no worse in 1992–93 than in 1980.
  Let us also get in perspective the number of patients affected. I stated in a reply to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions that there were 2,107 incidents last year in the entire health service. In any one year, 8.4 million people go into the hospital service.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister does not know that, does he? That figure represents only what has been voluntarily reported to him. My complaint is that his Department does not know, because it does not require screening in all hospitals and reporting by all hospitals.
  Mr. Horam: Those figures come from the Public Health Laboratory Service, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a well-established service that serves the needs of hospitals and which they have an obvious self-interest in developing and complying with. There is trust and confidence in the service, which provides us with a reasonable feel for what is happening on the ground floor.
  It is not right to say that there is no information. I have given quite a lot of information to the hon. Gentleman. There is a plethora of information, because the PHLS makes weekly and monthly reports on infections such as MRSA. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that there is any kind of cover-up. A wealth of information is available from a tried and trusted system.
  The hon. Gentleman accuses the Department of not doing enough about the problem. We are improving our information. We are piloting a new system of national surveillance, and 40 hospitals in total have taken part. From next month or shortly afterwards, bloodstream infections will be reported. In July, wound infections will be reported. In addition to the extensive information already available, that new information will become available.
  There are differing expert opinions on the validity, practicality and worth of large-scale screening. The practical problems are plain. Screening for MRSA requires swabs from different parts of the body on different days. It takes at least a fortnight to go through the testing procedures. If someone is going into hospital for an emergency operation, we cannot tell him to wait for a fortnight while we find out whether he has MRSA. There are practical problems, which the hon. Gentleman should understand.
  Where there are vulnerable people in vulnerable wards, screening takes place. That is a good example of a practical approach to deal with the worst of problems. A new national surveillance scheme is to be introduced—
  It being Two o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  IMPERIAL COLLEGE BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].
  KINGS COLLEGE LONDON BILL[Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 25 March.

  PRIVATE BILLS (SUSPENSION)
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  That—
  (1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session;
  (2) the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than five o'clock on Thursday of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon, or, if the Bill, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session: provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that day be paid;
  (3) a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended, shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;
  (4) every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;
  (5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session;
  (6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;
  (7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension) to have been read a second time and—
  (i) if such Bill has been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the present Session, it shall stand so referred;
  (ii) if such Bill has been referred to a Committee during the present Session and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall be committed and—
  (a) all Petitions against the Bill which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and
  (b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  (iii) if such Bill has been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it has been reported with Amendments in the present Session and has not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  (iv) if such Bill has been read the third time before its suspension, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;
  (8) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the next Session and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House in the present Session;
  (9) when any Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—
  (i) unless the Examiner has reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;
  (ii) if the Examiner has so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it has been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but
  (iii) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the present Session it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as have been made thereto by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  (10) where a Bill has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and the period prescribed by paragraph (1) of Standing Order 171A relating to Private Business (Petitions against private bills) has not elapsed before Friday, any Petition presented during the present Session in pursuance of that Standing Order shall be void, and the period of time prescribed by that Standing Order shall apply to any Bill brought from the Lords in the next Session in pursuance of this Order;
  (11) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
  (12) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (7) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn or have been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session;
  (13) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
  (14) where any Standing Orders have been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the present Session or in the last Session, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;
  (15) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session;
  (16) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the present Session.
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Speaker: No day named.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Privatised Utilities
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to modify the powers of the regulators of the privatised utilities. [19426]
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding reform of the regulatory system for the privatised utilities. [19444]
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding reform of the regulatory system for the privatised utilities. [19450]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Government receive representations on the regulation of the privatised utilities from time to time and have recently received a copy of the report of the independent Commission on the Regulation of Privatised Utilities.
    Mr. Williams: When the privatised utilities make profits of over £10 billion a year with a rate of return of 20, 15 and even over 40 per cent., is it not clear, as the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has said, that the initial price controls unduly favoured shareholders over consumers? As a former energy Minister has said, we need a radical overhaul of utility regulation. Would not that provide the best tax cuts of all that would benefit most people on the lowest incomes?
    Mr. Taylor: The Labour party never seems to have any word of approval for success. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry report, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, stated:
    "Customers get over 70 per cent. of efficiency improvements while shareholders get under 30 per cent."
    If the Labour party would like to take its last chance to come clean on a windfall tax, I can assure it that consumers, customers, small shareholders and pension fund beneficiaries would like to know its position.
    Mr. Michie: Bearing in mind that 10 regional electricity companies have already been taken over and that there is another takeover in the pipeline—quite a few takeovers have involved United States companies, including Yorkshire Electricity—does not the Minister agree that we must toughen the regulations and give more power to the regulator so that company accounts are more transparent and there is greater defence of the consumer? If the Government do not adopt that approach, the new regulator will be nothing more than a paper tiger.
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's homework will lead him to the conclusion that mergers are for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and, likewise, matters of fair trading are for the Office of Fair Trading. Meanwhile, I do not think that anyone could say that the
    864
    regulators lack powers or accountability. They are answerable to consumers, the MMC, Select Committees, the National Audit Office and judicial review. That is a great deal of accountability.
    Mr. Loyden: Can the Minister really claim that the regulators have been forceful enough in making those companies—which are near-monopolies—respond to their first responsibility: to provide a good service to consumers? Most of the so-called efficiency in those industries is gained by scrapping jobs. That is one reason why the employment figures in this nation are so high.
    Mr. Taylor: The fact of the matter is that the new arrangements—to which Labour did not, of course, subscribe, and which it has hindered all the way—have brought very considerable benefits to consumers, in increased standards of service and lower prices. The price of domestic gas is down by 20 per cent. and British Telecom charges are down by 40 per cent. in real terms. Those are significant benefits to consumers.
    Dr. Hampson: As a member of the Select Committee, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to two points? The Committee pointed out that, in the early stages, the gains to shareholders could not have been accurately assessed because no one knew how far they could be quantified. Moreover, the evidence of Professor Littlechild, printed by the Committee, is that he "dealt"—that is the word— with the windfall in the early stages by transforming the price reviews thereafter to the point at which this country now has the cheapest electricity and gas for industrial users of any country in Europe.
    Mr. Taylor: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the attention of the House. Those privatisations have been remarkable achievements. They were all original. They were entirely new in terms of system and method, but the results are outstanding.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ask the chairmen of the public utility companies to calculate and publish their estimates of what the increase in costs might be if any Government saw fit to introduce a windfall tax, so that the consumer can know now what the increase in the cost of gas, electricity and telephone calls would be?
    Mr. Taylor: The challenge for my right hon. Friend is very important, and I think that I am allowed to say on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade that the answer is yes, we will seek those costings. The electorate will want to know what they are, as will consumers, small shareholders and pension fund beneficiaries.
    Mr. Dover: Does the Minister accept that all my constituents think that the regulators have done a marvellous job in keeping prices down? Will he pay tribute to the privatised utilities, which have made enormous efficiency savings and gains, to the benefit of everyone across the country?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There have been great efficiency savings and reductions in prices, but Opposition Members do not seem to be interested in anything that is good for consumers. However, I remind them that we are.
    Mr. Harvey: In the light of the obvious need to review the powers of regulators, and in the light of the growth of competition, which is welcome, is not it time to consider the creation of an office for the regulation of all the utilities together? It could share expertise and experience, ensure consistency of approach and avoid duplication and would be a really powerful regulator across all these industries.
    Mr. Taylor: I have heard arguments and quite constructive debate along those lines, but it would be wiser to have a little more experience of the good operation of the present system, whereupon it would be quite proper to return to the consideration that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the late 1970s, the then nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £500 million a year in subsidy? Will he confirm that, for the past seven years, the privatised industries have contributed on average nearly £9 billion each year? Does not that demonstrate that Labour's hostility to privatisation would have caused much damage to this country and its industry in the 1980s and 1990s, just as the windfall tax would do if they were ever in a position to put it in place?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. He is also right to return to the warnings about a windfall tax. The turnaround that he described has indeed been spectacular, and the main beneficiary has been the consumer.
    Mr. Battle: Are not the Government's claims of energy price cuts proving to be another great Tory myth? Is the Minister aware that, as he spelled out in his written reply to me on 25 February, Britain is 11th out of 15 in the European league tables showing reductions in prices to residential electricity consumers since 1990, which is after privatisation? Is he aware that even Greece has cut prices by more than a quarter during that period?
    The truth is that prices in Britain have risen in real terms. The Minister admitted as such, so will he now accept that as the truth at the Dispatch Box? The Tories' record shows that current domestic prices are well up on 1990 prices. Labour will address regulatory reform to put the consumer first for a change. Consumers have been short-changed under this Government, and they will be better off under Labour.
    Mr. Taylor: That was a diatribe, not a question. But if it was a question, the answer is no.

    Ceramics Industry
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the ceramics industry. [19441]
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Greg Knight): The United Kingdom ceramics industry has a distinguished history of achievement both at home and overseas, and is widely recognised as a worldwide centre of excellence for materials and technology.
    However, a changing world environment and intensified competition pose new challenges that must be overcome if the UK is to improve and maintain its performance. To that end, the Government are working in partnership with the industry, not least through the tableware strategy group,
    866
    to help it to achieve its objectives, and to address the specific issues that are crucial to maintaining and building on the success of the industry.
    Mrs. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance to the national economy of the ceramics industry, and in particular to my constituency of Congleton, which borders the potteries? Is he aware that the interests of the industry are threatened by cheap imports from China, which, because of its state-controlled economy, is able to dump products on the European market at prices that bear little relation to costs? Will he endorse the European Commission's position and support the existing quota restrictions on Chinese imports of tableware to maintain the present position, and to maintain and perhaps enhance investment and employment in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of the ceramics industry. In Britain, it employs about 25,000 people, so it is extremely important. My hon. Friend made a good point about the need to ensure that other countries do not dump ceramic ware on the market, thereby destroying jobs in this country. A quota system is in force to protect the industry from imports from China, and is subject to annual review. The Commission submitted a report to the Council on 31 January 1997, but it has yet to submit to the Council any formal proposals for amending the current regime. We shall consider carefully any suggested amendments, and I shall bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.
    My hon. Friend is a widely respected Member of the House, and if she is aware of any particular difficulty affecting any company in or near her constituency, I would be prepared to meet her to discuss the matter further.

    Petroleum Coke
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prevent the use of petroleum coke for the purpose of electricity generation. [19442]
    The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): Any proposal to use a fuel at a power station must satisfy the appropriate regulatory requirements.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister deny that petroleum coke is a particularly dirty fuel? The licence that is currently being processed will be viewed with bitter disfavour in my region. Does he accept that, if that fuel is burned in Yorkshire, it will serve as evidence of the Government's disdain for our international environment commitments, and will show the critical nature of coal stocks. It will also provide a final commentary on the Government's deplorable handling of the British coal industry.
    Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for coming to the House and asking me my one question for today, rather than withdrawing a question that I was due to answer, as all the other Opposition Members have.
    The Environment Agency has permitted the trial. It will regulate the trial throughout to ensure that it operates within authorisation, and will be able to withdraw authorisation if the trial exceeds any of the limits that have been laid down.

    867
    As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the decision to go ahead is a matter for National Power, not for the Government. We all know the mistakes involved in trying to second-guess industry; we also know the supreme results that are being achieved through privatisation. Domestic electricity prices have fallen by 4.6 per cent. in real terms since privatisation, including VAT, and prices for industry have dropped by 14.8 per cent. I know what that means, and the House knows what it means: it means lower costs, more sales and more jobs.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister talks of not second-guessing industry, but does he not accept that the amount of pollution caused by the various methods of generating electricity is a matter of public concern? Does he not accept that Government have a responsibility to devise a mechanism, whether through tax or by other means, to ensure the maximisation of clean sources of electricity production—whether through hydro, tidal or other sources—and to minimise the amount of electricity that is produced from dirty sources, especially those generating an undue proportion of carbon?
    Mr. Page: Let me say, as Minister in charge of the non-fossil fuel obligation, that only two weeks ago I announced the largest round of the non-fossil fuel obligation programmes. I sincerely hope that much more "green" electricity will be produced in this country. As for what the hon. Gentleman says about this type of fuel, I know that £1 billion has been spent on flue gas desulphurisation in the Drax and Ratcliffe plants, and I am certain that the Environment Agency will not allow generation to proceed if it produces the levels of pollution to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

    Manufactured Exports
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest figures for manufactured exports from the east midlands. [19443]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson):Separate regional figures are not available, but nationally the figure for manufactured exports for 1996 was £139 billion, with east midlands companies making a full contribution. That represents a 9 per cent. increase in both value and volume when compared with manufactured exports for 1995.
    Mr. Garnier: On behalf of manufacturers in my constituency and throughout the east midlands, I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done to promote British exports in his capacity as Minister responsible for export trade. It was with great regret that we learned that he was retiring from the House.
    May I remind my hon. Friend that the economic picture in the east midlands has never been better, and that business confidence has never been brighter? That is evidenced by longer order books, and by the increasing number of jobs that are being created in the manufacturing and exporting sectors in the east midlands. Does my hon. Friend agree—has it been his experience when he has travelled abroad on behalf of the United Kingdom—that all that would be put at risk if we were to invite a Labour
    868
    Government into this country, given all the Labour party's job-destroying activities and its fondness for the social chapter and the minimum wage?
    Mr. Nelson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his generous remarks. It has been a pleasure to keep this Treasury seat warm for him, so that he can take it up in the next Parliament.
    I entirely concur, without reservation, with all that my hon. and learned Friend says. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members will listen, I will tell them that there is even better news for the east midlands. According to the respected body, Business Strategies and Cambridge Econometrics, the east midlands is set to become the fastest growing region in the country. That is largely due to the successful revival of manufacturing industry, which, in turn, is entirely due to the success of the Government's policies.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that, a week after we had that crowded meeting in Chichester and 100 people were turned away because they would not fit into the town hall, he decided to throw in the towel?
    As for the east midlands, is the Minister aware that, following the closure of all the mines in the area, many of the industries that used to supply hydraulic and other equipment to the pits had to close completely because they had lost their home market, and that therefore many potential exports were also lost? There is another story about the east midlands: a story of despair. As many as 50 per cent. are unemployed in some of the former pit villages, and, following the closure of the mines, there is opencast mining all over the counties. The net result is that imports are now coming in to replace the coal that should have been produced by British miners.
    Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman will always be welcome in the constituency that I represent. Labour traditionally loses its deposit in Chichester and, by and large, we try to encourage the Labour candidates there. Anything that he can do to help the Labour candidate at the expense of the Liberal Democrat will be welcome. The hon. Gentleman's visit had nothing to do with my decision. The real test will be at the election and I have no doubt who the worthy constituents of Chichester will return on that day.
    With regard to the east midlands, it is as if Labour Members do not remember the despair a few years ago in some regions, the unemployment, the difficulties and the lack of hope, which have been transformed by the Government's policies. Unemployment has fallen significantly, and production and prosperity have increased. The Labour party is always in favour of regulation, taxation, state spending and state regulation. It is always the impediment to free enterprise and to prosperity. It always has been and it always will be.
    Mr. Tredinnick: May I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in supporting the export drive in the east midlands, thank him personally as my Member of Parliament for many years, and wish him a happy retirement on his last day at the Dispatch Box? Is he aware that the tremendous investment in my constituency at companies such as Triumph, Wace and Deluxe UK Ltd has meant that there is a new export drive based in

    869
    Hinckley? Is he also aware that a recent survey has shown that, if a minimum wage is introduced and a social chapter of the European Union is implemented, at least 1,000 jobs will be lost in Hinckley?
    Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was pleased to come to Hinckley and to see for myself many of the successes to which he refers. It is undoubtedly true that the east midlands has led the way in many of the exports and indeed inward investments that have been so spectacular. No small part of that is the fact that we do not have the overbearing costs associated with the social chapter. It is remarkable that the east midlands is also leading the way in some of our principal new exports. For example, the UK is now the largest exporter in Europe of computers, of televisions and of semi-conductors. That truly remarkable performance is entirely associated with the Government's consistent policies of sound economic and industrial management.
    Mr. Bell: It is also the last Question Time for my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and we should wish him well in his retirement after his many years of service to the House. May I also associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)? It is the last appearance of the Minister for Trade, who has been an eloquent spokesman and defender of our interests. I remember a half-hour speech that he made recently without a note and while suffering from a cold. That was testimony to his perseverance and persistence in our interests.
    In relation to our £139 billion-worth of exports and to the east midlands, as we had some refreshing honesty from a former Minister with responsibility for transport about how defective our road building programme was, can the Minister explain with the same refreshing honesty why we have had a trade deficit since 1983 on our manufactured goods and why our deficit last year was £12.5 billion—£1 billion a month? Can he explain how that has come about in the past 13 years of a Tory Government?
    Mr. Nelson: Yes, but first may I tell the hon. Gentleman how grateful I am for his kind words? He knows that I am leaving the House voluntarily. In case it should prove that in the course of the next few weeks he does so involuntarily, may I, too, say that it has been nice doing business with him?
    As for the size of the deficit, the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use the figures for goods. Our trade in services is of almost the same value as our trade in goods, and if we take the figures for services, and add the third component of the current account—account movements, dividends and incomes from foreign investments—we find that this country is pretty much in the black.
    We have a very small deficit. According to Treasury estimates it looks as if the deficit for the past year, on a turnover of about $1 trillion on our current account, will be about £1 billion or £2 billion. That represents a remarkable performance. It reflects a huge burgeoning of activity on both the manufactured goods and the services front, and the results of huge investments abroad. Remember that those investments have taken place under the liberal policies that the Government have followed since 1979. The deficit is only 1.5 per cent. of GDP, and the deficit under a Labour Government was double that size.

    Aircraft (Launch Aid)
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what launch aid has been provided by his Department towards British industrial participation in each of the main aircraft variants produced by the Airbus consortium. [19445]
    Mr. Greg Knight: Launch aid has supported British participation in two main aircraft produced by the Airbus consortium. A total of £249.3 million was provided for the Airbus A320 and a total of £447.1 million for the Airbus A330/340.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In view of the fact that both the wings and the power plants are produced in the United Kingdom, is not the recent order secured by Airbus Industrie for up to 23 A330 aircraft powered by Rolls-Royce Trent engines, testimony to the competitiveness of British industry, especially in that sector, which has consistently run a balance of payments surplus since 1980, and which should bring to the Department of Trade and Industry royalties on sales of about half a billion pounds over the next five years? That is a true success story, symptomatic of success under the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is right. That is tremendous news. By the time the Emirates take delivery of the order they will have invested about $1 billion in British industry recently. That is good news for the aircraft industry, for Rolls-Royce, for the east midlands and for the United Kingdom as a whole.

    Sanctions (Libya)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report column 905, if he will make it his policy to identify separately those representations from British firms relating to Libya which directly relate to UN sanctions. [19446]
    Mr. Nelson: A good many representations to the Department of Trade and Industry on trade with Libya relate to United Nations sanctions. However, it is not the Government's policy to publicise confidential exchanges that the Department has with individual companies.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the St. Albans Crown court, why did Judge Colston stop an important case—Regina v. Rees and Rotheroe—and describe the Department of Trade and Industry's behaviour as an "affront to justice"? Those were the judge's words, not mine. Is this Matrix Churchill revisited?
    Mr. Nelson: No, it is not. I am the Minister accountable for that part of the Department, and I have looked carefully into the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made. I am satisfied that there has been no deception and no deliberate withholding of documents required for the courts. There are sometimes genuine practical problems in tracing from thousands of files every document that may be needed. I do not deny that there are occasionally mistakes and inadequacies. We attempt to investigate and correct those, and whenever they are apparent we draw them to the attention of the public or

    871
    of Parliament or, in this case, we draw them immediately to the attention of the courts. I therefore do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's allegation is well founded. Of course there are other aspects in which I know that he has taken an interest, and about which he spoke in the House this morning in connection with trade with Libya. I have noted those with care.

    Investment
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the benefits to the United Kingdom of (a) inward and (b) overseas investment. [19447]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang):overseas-owned companies provide a third of all manufactured investment in the UK, nearly a fifth of manufacturing employment, over a fifth of manufacturing output and around two fifths of UK manufactured exports. The United Kingdom is itself the second largest outward investor in the world, receiving substantially more income, interest and dividends from its ownership of companies overseas than is paid out to those overseas who own companies in Britain.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is an extraordinary account of the success of the Conservative Government? There is no question that our inward investment has created an enormous number of jobs, and our outward investment has helped not only with jobs in this country, but resulted in one of the greatest dividend flows into this country since the second world war. We are enormously better off, and pensioners have benefited because a lot of the money that comes back to this country does so in the form of dividends, which go into pension funds.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right, and it is remarkable that this country is the second largest in the world—after the United States—in terms of both outward and inward investment. Our outward investment stock is valued at more than £200 billion, and generated earnings of £24 billion to this country in 1995. We have an exceptional inward investment record, and a large number of companies from around the world are locating in this country because we deliver quality goods at competitive prices. In doing so, we have generated a substantial extension in employment.
    Mr. MacShane: What does the Secretary of State have to say about the decision of Toyota, announced this week, to build its new car plant in France? This follows hard on the heels of Ford switching production and jobs from Liverpool to Germany and Spain. Has not much of our inward investment in recent years been on the basis of Britain being fully in Europe? Is not the message now to the boardrooms of the world that the Tory Cabinet is divided on, and hostile and opposed to, Europe? Until we drain the poison from the "Euroseptics" in the Cabinet and replace them with a Government committed to working and playing a leading role in Europe, more and more companies like Toyota and Ford will turn their backs on the UK.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. Toyota has taken no such decision and,
    872
    along with Nissan, Honda, Ford and others, has reinforced its commitment to this country year after year with massive investment. Toyota is in the process of creating more than 1,000 jobs in Derbyshire as a result of massive investment. We have attracted more than 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe, and that figure will rise—it is running at 56 per cent. in the current year. That is a measure of the strength of the United Kingdom which, under a Conservative Government, is one of the most attractive places in the world to invest.

    Design Industry
    . Dr. Twinn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the contribution the design industry makes to the United Kingdom economy. [19448]
    The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): The design consultancy industry alone contributes more than £3 billion to the UK economy. I have announced the millennium product award to bring forward 2,000 new products to demonstrate the excellence of British design, the best of which will be displayed at the millennium exhibition.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that exciting news for the British design industry. Does he agree that the best way for British industry to contribute to increasing its competitiveness in the world is to invest in British industrial design? In doing so, our industry can take a step forward in the world and become even more competitive.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely accurate. More British companies must realise that design plays a key role at every stage of the manufacturing process, and is not just a bolt-on exercise. The reputation of British design around the world is underpinned by the fact that £350 million a year in consultancy fees is attributable to the British design consultancy industry. That indicates the reputation of British designers abroad, and we must make better use of them in this country.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does not the lack of indigenous investment mean that fewer of our excellent designers are employed here by British companies, making those companies more competitive overseas? We have some of the best designers in the world, but too many of them go abroad to work for foreign companies, and between 80 and 90 per cent. of the work of the top consultancies is for foreign companies. Surely it is a mark of the Government's failure that we cannot keep good designers working for British firms.
    Mr. Taylor: It is an indication of how succesful the Government are in anticipating some of the problems for British industry that we have 53 design consultants in business links around the country, that I have pioneered many of the steps forward for British design in its relationship with government, that we have announced the millennium product award to ensure that British design products are on display at the millennium exhibition, and that the Design Council is going from strength to strength under John Sorrell and Andrew Summers. This is a great tribute to what we are doing, and we are looking for equal enthusiasm from British industry.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much inward investment has come to the United Kingdom in each of the past three years from (a) the United States of America, (b) Japan, (c) Germany and (d) other countries; how many jobs have been created as a result; and if he will make a statement. [19449]
    Mr. Lang: In 1992 to 1994, the last three-year period for which comparable data are available, inward investment from the United States of America amounted to £11 billion, from Japan nearly £200 million, from Germany £2 billion and nearly £12 billion from the rest of the world. Those figures are taken from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook 1996".
    Invest in Britain Bureau records show that about 215,000 jobs have either been created or safeguarded by projects announced over that period.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those are brilliant figures, which are attributable to the success of this Government's policies, in huge contrast to the policies of the predecessor Labour Administration, although that was a long time ago? Is not the Government's attitude to enterprise that which the Governments he mentioned most want? That is why the money comes here. Does he agree that that is in contrast to the policies and thrust of the Labour party, which would decimate those figures within a short time if ever a Labour Government were elected, which they must not be?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those figures represent the world's verdict on the United Kingdom as an attractive location for investment—an enterprise-friendly location with low corporate taxation; good communications and infrastructure; a good, skilled, productive work force; and a commitment to helping to make projects a great success. The threat that hangs over inward investment as a result of the Opposition's policy agenda cannot be exaggerated. The burdens of the social chapter and the European social model would destroy jobs and frighten off inward investment, just as they have in the rest of Europe.
    Dr. Godman: I welcome that investment, but may I remind the Secretary of State that, where American investment is concerned, IBM came to Greenock more than 45 years ago, largely at the prompting of the local Labour Member of Parliament, Hector McNeil? As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, IBM is still a major employer in the west of Scotland. Since then, there have been many other inward investors, but does he agree that not enough of them are setting up research and development facilities? Locate in Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and his Department are failing to persuade investors to set up research and development centres.
    Mr. Lang: I acknowledge the fact that IBM has been here for getting on for half a century. It is one of 4,200 American companies that have located in the UK. I do not agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman's point about research and development activities. The quality of
    874
    investments coming to the United Kingdom has risen substantially in recent years, and a substantial proportion are not only reinvestments and expansions by existing companies, but associated with some research and development. Indeed, the strength of our academic institutions has been one of the other factors that has attracted such investment, but it could easily be frightened away by the policies of an incoming Labour Government if they abandoned the enterprise-friendly, low corporate tax policies of this Government, which have been so successful in encouraging our competitiveness and attracting investment.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the reasons why Isuzu decided to invest in a joint manufacturing operation with Leyland Trucks in my constituency, employing many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), were the reasons that he just enunciated—a low-cost economy that is successful as a direct result of Conservative policies, which must continue if the likes of Isuzu are to come here again?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is right. Japanese investors set demanding targets for productivity and efficiency. They have recognised the strength of the United Kingdom, which is why we are securing in the present year more than half of all the Japanese investment in the European Union.

    Science Base
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from British industry on the organisation of the United Kingdom science base. [19451]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I frequently meet representatives of industry to discuss the science and engineering base, not least in connection with the Year of Engineering Success and the current Science Engineering and Technology Week.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that, according to the Pharmaceutical Industries Council, the infrastructure and equipment in many of our universities are seriously eroded and science graduates no longer have the practical skills that industry needs? Is that not an appalling indictment of 18 years of Tory neglect?
    Mr. Taylor: It might be an appalling indictment if it were true, but as George Poste of SmithKline Beecham, who had dinner with me on Monday evening and is now better briefed, will admit, the problem in our universities, particularly for the pharmaceutical industry, is that students have to deal with such rapid technological change that not only the universities, but the companies that those students will eventually enter, have difficulty keeping up.
    I have suggested virtual centres of excellence and much more work in companies for some of our finest undergraduates and postgraduates. That collaborative spirit will underpin the excellence of the scholarship in our universities and our research. We are in it together, and must look for solutions together.
    Sir John Cope: Will my hon. Friend confirm that much scientific research and development of the best

    875
    quality is also done in industry? Contrary to what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, some of it is done by firms that have invested in this country: for example, the Hewlett-Packard laboratories on the edge of my constituency are the only laboratories that that world-class firm has outside the United States.
    Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hewlett-Packard is at the forefront of research and development in this country, and my namesake there, John Taylor—
    Mr. John M. Taylor: My namesake.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend can take the credit if he so wishes. Our namesake—to be scientifically accurate— has done a remarkable job in chairing our information technology foresight panel. There are many other examples: Motorola in Scotland has done research in this country that was not done originally in the United States; Nortel has done work here that is original and has not been done in Canada; and Ericsson and many others have done likewise—the list is too long for me to go through.
    We are sending an appropriate signal to those foreign companies, in the Year of Engineering Success, when the excellence of what is going on in our industries as well as our universities needs to be signalled. In Science Engineering and Technology Week we are paying especial tribute to engineering; in this week we need skill and vision, and the courage to wear ties such as the one that I am sporting at the moment.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of inward investment into (a) France and (b) the United Kingdom since 1991. [19452]
    Mr. Lang: According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook 1996" and the United Nations world investment report respectively, inward investment flows into the United Kingdom from 1991 to 1994 exceeded £33 billion while France received just under £32 billion. For 1995, inflows of investment into the United Kingdom were nearly £19 billion and into France nearly £13 billion.
    Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State cites the statistics in a way that is helpful to him, but the truth is that the average amount of inward investment going to France in those years was £19 billion, and the average going to Britain £17 billion. Do not those statistics nail the lie, which the Secretary of State has used again twice today, that inward investment is discouraged by the social chapter and the minimum wage, which have obviously not succeeded in stopping inward investment going to France?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman obviously asked the question thinking that he knew the answer. I am sorry if he found my answer disappointing and unhelpful, but the fact is that the United Kingdom has been doing extremely well. I shall give him some more figures: between 1990 and 1994, the stock of inward investment into the United
    876
    Kingdom from outside Europe was 30 per cent; the comparable stock going into France was 10 per cent. I could cite many more figures.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the social chapter. That, of course, would skew the figures against Britain if we ever had to face the burden that it, or indeed the working time directive, would impose. I quote what the American chamber of commerce said to the Irish about that directive:
    "It is no exaggeration to say that the lack of flexibility in this Bill could represent the single most negative change in Ireland's flexibility to win US direct foreign investment that has happened in the past 20 years".
    That is one of the reasons why we are so opposed to the working time directive that the Labour party wants to impose on us.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the flow of inward investment to the Scottish electronics industry has been a story of success? Does he further agree that the industry depends on the movement of components and products, and that that could be helped if fifth freedom rights were granted to Prestwick airport? Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport?
    Mr. Lang: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's opening points. I know how hard he has worked to help encourage inward investment to Scotland and to encourage the prospects for Prestwick airport in his constituency. I take careful note of his comments and will give the matter close attention from my DTI office after the general election.
    Mr. Beggs: I congratulate the Government on their policies, which continue to attract inward investment from overseas. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we in Northern Ireland have benefited month on month from falling unemployment, as have other regions of the United Kingdom? Will he give an assurance that, although Northern Ireland is a peripheral area, the excellence of our education system and the high achievement and excellent output of both Ulster university and Queen's university will be brought to the attention of potential investors so that they can take up highly qualified people?
    Mr. Lang: I am glad to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of that point. Conservative Members believe in maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. No one knows better than I do the importance of the links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; my constituency has a substantial interest in the maintenance and development of transport links between Stranraer and his constituency.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the United Kingdom's success on inward investment depends partly on the image of our country, which is symbolised by our national flag, the Union Jack? Will he join me in deploring the conduct of the Scottish Liberal party in seeking to drop the use of the Union flag?
    Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nothing could be more damaging to the prospects of maintaining our economic success than the internal constitutional upheaval that would flow from the proposals of the Labour and

    877
    Liberal parties and of the two nationalist parties. I was as horrified and appalled as my hon. Friend by the proposals of senior Liberal Members to abolish the Union Jack and the national anthem. That shows where the Liberal party stands. It believes in the break-up of the United Kingdom and turning this country into a set of regions run from Brussels.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Secretary of State deny that the latest international figures show that France, with the social chapter, gets more inward investment than Britain, that British companies invest in the rest of Europe—with the social chapter—more than twice as much as European countries invest in Britain, that Ford is sourcing its new Escort in Spain and Germany, and that despite his earlier remarks, Toyota is considering a huge new investment in France that was described yesterday as a potential major coup? Does not the real damage to British investment and jobs come from the Government's divisions over Europe, their dishonesty and the danger of a fifth Tory term to the 3.5 million people whose jobs depend on Europe?
    Mr. Lang: I welcome the right hon. Lady to our question and answer session, even if she is wrong on almost every point. I hope that she accepts my invitation to debate such matters during the coming general election campaign. We can then let the country judge who is right on trade and industry policies. On the United Kingdom's record in comparison with France, France claimed last year to have created 23,000 jobs from inward investment, the United Kingdom 62,000. In 1995, according to the United Nations, the United Kingdom received nearly 50 per cent. more inward investment than France, accounting for 9 per cent. of world stock compared with 6 per cent. for France. Between 1990 and 1994, the United Kingdom's stock of non-EU inward investment amounted to 30 per cent., compared with France's 10 per cent.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to promote the wider use of information technology. [19454]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The information society initiative promotes the beneficial use of information and communications technologies across all areas of life, and includes the £35 million programme for business, and information technology for all, which aims to help all sections of the community get hands-on experience of the technology for the information society.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the keys to spreading information technology throughout our communities is to build up our telecommunications utilities network? Was he as surprised as I was yesterday that the shadow Chancellor threatened not only to take that investment money away from British Telecom as a utility but said that all companies which were regulated and licensed, but not necessarily privatised, without discrimination, would come under the windfall tax? We can see that the biggest threat to increasing information technology and telecommunications is a vote for Labour.
    Mr. Taylor: Nothing surprises me about the way in which the shadow Chancellor tries to find money for his
    878
    spending pledges—even from people who thought that they had cuddled up to him and done deals with him. It seems absurd that, at the very moment when we have had a breakthrough in the World Trade Organisation which will liberalise world telecommunications—we in the United Kingdom led that change by liberalising early in the 1980s—the shadow Chancellor believes it right to place an imposition on BT and worsen its competitive position.
    Mr. Hoon: It has been said that the difference between government and opposition is that Governments do things and Oppositions talk about doing things. Is it not clear from the Government's information technology policy, which seems to consist mostly of press releases, consultation documents and Green Papers—largely talking about doing things—just how much the Conservative Government are preparing for opposition?
    Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that it is good to talk. The Government's programme for the information society initiative is the best managed anywhere in the world. We liberalised our telecommunications well before anyone else. We announced that we were liberalising even international telecommunications last summer. Before I gave away the licences at the end of December, British Telecom had reduced its international prices three times. Our success in telecommunications is often quoted as one of the top three reasons why inward investors want to come to Britain. Our content industries have been let loose to communicate with each other electronically and we have led the basis for the digital television revolution. That is not bad. There is more to do. I look forward to continuing these arguments and applying the policies after the election.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of promoting information technology is through the market? Does he agree that the privatisation of such companies as British Telecom and AEA Technology has brought outstanding success in promoting information technology? Does he agree that they have promoted that technology and brought it to the benefit of the ordinary consumer, for example by installing fibre-optics throughout the land?
    Mr. Taylor: British Telecom is, this year alone, investing more than £2 billion in upgrading its infrastructure at the kerbside simply to meet the competitive challenge the cable industry has brought about in what is called the local loop. That is the market working. The Government do not have to instruct companies to do those things. We do not have to do cosy deals at party conferences. If the Government regulate and let the market act, the consumer benefits. Schools are being linked up to the networks by the force of the market. The cable industry and BT have offered fixed-price ISDN packages to schools to allow them to make more use of the super-highways. Conservative policy is delivering in every corner of the country every aspect of the information society. More and more people realise how important that is and why it is attached to the continuance of Conservative government.

    Regional Support
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to review the level of his Department's financial support available to each region of the United Kingdom. [19455]
    Mr. Greg Knight: Every element of the Department's expenditure is kept under regular review as part of the public expenditure survey process.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does not the experience of my constituency since 1979 encapsulate the problem for constituencies throughout the north of England? In the 1960s and 1970s, under Labour Governments and successful regional policies, 3,500 jobs were created in my constituency; in the 1980s and 1990s, under conservatism, 3,500 jobs were lost. Is it not clear that the Government have been involved in what can only be described as an act of industrial sabotage? May I ask the Minister not to give me a series of fabricated unemployment statistics in reply to my question?
    Mr. Knight: Where has the hon. Gentleman been? We have had a severe world recession, and that is what caused difficulties, not only to his constituency, but to many others. That recession is now over and we are targeting the aid that is available in areas where the need is greatest. If the hon. Gentleman looks to Cumbria and the north-west region, he will see what is available: £30 million in European Union funding to help people get back to work; £20.7 million of regional selective assistance grants to help people get back to work; and, in Cumbria, £15 million of the single regeneration budget. That is what he should be welcoming. If there is any disappointment among his constituents about the recent past, it is because they have not had a Conservative Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Booth: Regional policy is not a matter of spurious figures dictated by overmanning that has been cut out, or even by a world recession. Is not regional policy about ensuring that regions have freedom through lower taxation, lower inflation, lower interest rates and lower regulation—all policies that we are putting through?
    Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right but, in fairness, structural funds have a role to play and we want those funds to be targeted more effectively. On the broader picture, however, he is right to say that what matters to business and to the job creators is a stable macro-economic climate—low inflation and low taxes. That can be delivered only under a Conservative Government.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Minister agree that one of the most important determinants of the economic health of regions and national regions is the transportation infrastructure? Is he aware of the huge bills facing local authorities in Wales, Scotland and rural areas of England in particular as a result of their having to strengthen road bridges to accommodate the rise in maximum lorry weight from 38 to 40 tonnes? What are the Government going to do to get money from Europe to allow those hard-pressed authorities strengthen those bridges? After all, it is a European directive.
    Mr. Knight: The hon. Gentleman is aware that discussions are currently taking place across Europe on
    880
    the administration of structural funds. Specific applications are primarily matters for monitoring committees and, as I understand it, the issue to which he refers is capable of being looked at under the structural funds regulations. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport and the local monitoring committees will wish to address the matter after 2 May.

    Privatised Utilities
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to alter the structure of utility regulation. [19456]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Government's immediate priority is to enable the electricity and gas regulators to continue to drive forward the opening of these markets to full competition in 1998, for the benefit of consumers.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the indicator of the regulators' success has been lower prices for consumers of gas and electricity and substantial infrastructure development and investment by the water industry? Would not all that be put at risk by the Labour party's so-called windfall tax? When water quality is particularly important to my constituents, who have experienced problems—fortunately now over—with Three Valleys Water, is not the election message to them that Labour's windfall tax would mean higher gas and electricity prices, but lower quality drinking water, less money for sewerage schemes and, what is more, no money for flood relief schemes? All those are vital to my constituents, and all would be put at risk by a so-called windfall tax.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is correct to lay out that litany of the dangers of electing Labour. Not only do we know nothing about the windfall tax; we do not know the basis on which the consumer would be charged. We have a policy called RPI minus x, which means less than inflation pricing policy. The Opposition Front Bench are divided on that; we have had one signal from Leeds, West and another from Pontypridd. Will Labour Members tell us about the windfall tax and their pricing policy? We are getting two messages at the moment—both bad.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister address his own responsibilities for a change and tell us why, if those companies are so efficient, they have not considered abolishing standing charges, and why so many of their elderly pensioner customers are deeply disturbed, not by the excellence of the service that they receive, but by its expense?
    Mr. Taylor: Charging policy is a matter for the industry. The hon. Lady should listen to the answer. In any computation of a fair return on capital, which is a matter of interest to the shareholders, one must consider the historic cost of installing the equipment, for which standing charges are a form of rental. It is an equitable policy.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Shareholders' interests always seem to come first.
    Mr. Taylor: Shareholders have an interest, as do consumers. Consumers have benefited to the tune of 70 per cent. of efficiency gains; shareholders have benefited to the extent of 30 per cent. of efficiency gains.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Madam Speaker: Point of order— Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a loud point of order, Madam Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Short, we hope."] Following the Prime Minister's answer yesterday to the question about the Commissioner for Standards, and knowing that you have said from the Chair in this Parliament that you were very keen that all Members' interests and reputations and that of the House in general be protected, may I ask your advice as to whether there is any way in which, by your direct or indirect authority, if the Commissioner for Standards indicates that he can complete his report before Parliament is dissolved, the House, in the proper way, can have the opportunity to consider it; and, more important, whether there is any way in which the interests of Members, whether or not they are featured in the report, can be protected?
Mr. Tony Benn rose—
Madam Speaker: I think this is a similar point of order.
Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—I am sorry that I have not been able to give you notice—I have been giving consideration to the point that has just been raised, on this basis. The prorogation of Parliament is entirely for the Crown and the Prime Minister, and does not relate in any way to your responsibilities; but the House continues to sit, as a House of Parliament, until 8 April.
During that period, Sir Gordon Downey, along with the Clerk of the House and the Editor of Hansard, remains an Officer of the House, and you, I put it to you, have the authority to instruct an Officer of the House to make available information that he has gathered at the request of the House, even though the House is prorogued and not able to meet.
Madam Speaker, you did make a great statement, in my opinion, about the standing of Parliament and the relationship of this matter to the standing of Parliament in the public mind. As we approach an election, that question will undoubtedly be a factor in the public mind, so I would ask you to consider very carefully whether you do have the authority, as I believe you may have and do have—and would be ready to exercise that authority—to allow the wishes of this Parliament to be fulfilled: namely, that Sir Gordon Downey's intentions be acted on, inasmuch as his report be published even though the House and the Committee were not able to consider it.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
Madam Speaker: Does it relate?
Mr. Jenkin: It does, Madam Speaker. I put it to you, contrary to the view that has just been expressed, that we are dealing here with the livelihoods of hon. Members. What we want is a dispassionate and fair appraisal of the facts of the case. Can that really be achieved by the Opposition parties forcing the issue now for their own political purposes?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It will be within your recollection
882
that, during business questions and at other times, some very specific, rather narrow questions have been asked, particularly about Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed. Does the Committee, or do you, have the power to order the publication of an interim report on those narrow questions, as opposed to the wider issue that may be absorbing most of the time and energies of the Committee? Are you entitled to require the publication of interim reports?
Mr. David Shaw rose—
Madam Speaker: Does it relate?
Mr. Shaw: It relates indirectly—
Madam Speaker: No.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask all hon. Members to resume their seats. I am not asking for points of order on this matter, but if Members have genuine points of order for me, I want to hear them. I do not want to hear any false ones; this is a very serious matter. I am almost ready now to respond, but I will hear any further genuine points of order that hon. Members may have.
Mr. Shaw: My point of order, Madam Speaker, relates to the Standards and Privileges Committee and to its work on this report. The real issue is that that report is holding up other reports on at least three Labour Members. There are allegations that filibustering has been going on during preparation of the report in question, so that the reports on the three Labour Members cannot be considered.
As I understand it, new complaints cannot be considered by the Committee, but on today's Order Paper there is an early-day motion signed by 47 Labour Members who are benefiting to the tune of £1 million in sponsorship and support from the Co-operative Movement. I should like to refer that to the Standards and Privileges Committee, but I do not believe I can, because the Committee is no longer scheduled to meet.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can deal with that point of order immediately. If the hon. Gentleman has any such complaints they should go to the Commissioner for Standards—right away.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I cannot go on with these points of order, as I am now ready to respond. Does anyone have a new point of order? I see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) trying to catch my eye; he is a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The comments of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) are a fabrication.
Madam Speaker: I have already dealt with those comments. If the hon. Member for Dover has any evidence, he knows how to proceed.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. On 14 October last year,

883
you made a statement to the House in which you called these allegations "very serious", and said that they had undoubtedly worried the public as well as the House itself. You went on:
"I would not be doing my duty as Speaker if I allowed this situation to pass without saying that I believe very strongly indeed that these matters must be resolved as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 463.]
I put it to you that the issue does not simply concern the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who incidentally has stated that he wants the report to be published as quickly as possible. The House has been affected by continual allegations of sleaze, and it is important for the reputation of the House, not for the benefit of any single Member, that, before Parliament comes to an end, the report should be duly published. Are we to go into a general election campaign with this matter hanging over us?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am now ready to respond to these points of order; I shall take others later.
The House itself established the Standards and Privileges Committee, and required it to undertake an inquiry into the allegations of Mr. Al-Fayed. Only the Committee can be the judge of whether it can produce a report on those matters. Hon. Members may regret that it has been unable to do so, but I know that it is not for want of trying, and I pay my own tribute to the Commissioner for Standards, the Chairman and members of that Committee for the hard work they have put into their consideration of this and other matters.
As to the suggestion that the Committee should continue its work after prorogation, I have to tell the House that, constitutionally, it is simply not possible. Although the Committee has the power to sit during a normal recess, the effect of prorogation is to terminate all the current business of Parliament, including the work of Committees. I refer hon. Members to page 60 of "Erskine May", which says:
"The effect of a prorogation is at once to terminate all the current business of Parliament."
There is nothing that I can do as Speaker to alter that.
In answer to a direct question, I have no authority, either, to instruct the Commissioner to publish his report. That report must be given to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. I was wondering whether you could give me guidance on whether you have received any messages from Ministers at the Department of Health about the possibility of holding an urgent debate on the dire situation at Edgware general hospital, given that the position there is rendered more perilous by the delays of Barnet hospital's new developments and the problems at Northwick Park hospital. As you know, I have been trying to raise the matter in the past few days in some form, including an Adjournment debate. I should be grateful for your guidance.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised that point of order with me twice today. I have not been informed that a Minister seeks to make a statement on the matter.
Dr. Keith Hampson: I seek your ruling, Madam Speaker. It is not a matter for the Commissioner for Standards. Is it not correct that, if hon. Members table an early-day motion, they should declare their interest? Having been sitting here, I have been unable to check with the hon. Members concerned, but I believe that the early-day motion was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), who has interests with the Co-operative Movement. Early-day motion 682 calls for the Government to protect the Co-operative Movement. None of the Labour Members who tabled it, most of whom have a direct interest with the Co-operative Movement, have declared their interest on the Order Paper.
Madam Speaker: It is normal to put an "R" at the side of an early-day motion and, if there are interests to declare, those should be declared.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to the earlier point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not take further points of order once I have given a ruling, and I have made a clear ruling, which was very carefully worded.
Mr. Faulds: This is another aspect, Madam Speaker. Would you inquire whether it is at all feasible for the House of Commons itself to decide to postpone prorogation?
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Colleagues have referred to the Register of Members' Interests and standards, and have pointed out that, in declaring Members' interests, we should name those who have provided funds for us. A number of hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, stated that they had a blind trust in which they were receiving money—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with all those matters—[Interruption.] No, I am not going to allow the hon. Gentleman to go on. If he has anything to complain about, it should go through our procedures to the Commissioner for Standards.

BILL PRESENTED
  ABOLITION OF PHARMACEUTICAL MONOPOLIES IN RURAL AREAS
  Mr. William Cash presented a Bill to remedy an ambiguity in the law relating to the dispensing of medicines in rural areas and to abolish the monopoly for the dispensing of medicines within one mile of any pharmacy in rural areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 143].

  Age Discrimination
  3.43 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of age discrimination.
  The Bill would make it an offence to discriminate against adults on the ground of age in matters of employment, promotion, redundancy and access to public facilities, including training and education, and in matters of health care and medical services.
  I am by temperament and conviction a deregulator, and I am proud to be vice-chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench deregulation committee. I take it as axiomatic that any hon. Member introducing any legislative proposal bears a substantial burden of proof that the only effective way of addressing an ill and bringing about a necessary improvement is by increasing the corpus of legislation on our statute book. I fear that, in this instance, that test is met. It seems clear that legislation is necessary to deal with the problems we face.
  Hon. Members may have noticed in The Daily Telegraph yesterday an advertisement placed by the Association of Retired and Persons Over 50 which set out some interesting facts resulting from a survey by the Institute of Management. That survey showed that 60 per cent. of job advertisements set some age limits beyond which candidates would not be considered, and that one third of all employers have a policy of not hiring people aged more than 45, whatever their experience or qualifications may be, and without examining the individual case.
  It is not difficult to conceive of the enormous heartbreak and the destruction of people's hopes and aspirations that such discrimination must inevitably bring about. However, it is a public matter that should concern us all, not just those of us who know, are related to or have as constituents the many direct victims of such discrimination.
  It is extremely bad for society and the economy for us to deprive ourselves of the talents and energies of so many people, the wealth and output that might be created by allowing them to practise their trades and professions, and the tax revenue that would be generated if they were in the labour market.
  As recently as 1972, some 80 per cent. of men between the ages of 60 and 64 were in employment. Now that figure is down to 50 per cent. No doubt many of those men have voluntarily retired and are happy to be doing little or engaging in non-remunerated activities. It must be in the public interest, however, to encourage people in their 50s, 60s and 70s, and who are willing and able to go back to work, to do so. It is in the interests of us all that they should do that. It must therefore be in our interest to remove artificial obstructions to their re-entering the labour market.
  Another aspect of my Bill concerns an even more significant and urgent issue—discrimination on age grounds in the health service. That is entirely contrary to the principles set out in the Act—and the 1944 White Paper produced by the coalition Government—on which the NHS was founded in 1948. It is also entirely contrary to explicit Government policy. Only the other day,
  886
  my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a ringing declaration that age discrimination would be contrary to every principle of Government policy in the health service.
  Nevertheless, I fear that such discrimination occurs. I should like to read an extract from an article in the British Medical Journal last week by Professor Grimley Evans, professor of clinical gerontology at the Radcliffe infirmary and the Oxford medical school. He writes:
  "Older people are discriminated against in the NHS. This is best documented in sub-standard treatment of acute myocardial infarction and other forms of heart disease, where it tends to premature deaths and unnecessary disability. The care for older people with cancer is also poorer than that provided for younger patients. Age discrimination in the NHS occurs despite explicit statements from the Government that withholding treatment on the basis of age is not acceptable. Ageism is mostly instigated by clinicians, but condoned by some managers."
  Age Concern has brought together considerable documentation on anecdotal cases demonstrating that this is no theoretical problem. I am sure that only a small minority of clinicians or national health service managers would stoop to the practice that I have described, but the practice exists. I believe that there is no other way of uprooting it than by legislating to do so.
  There has been a slightly surprising development over the past few days. One would suppose that such a nefarious form of discrimination would be practised covertly, shamefully and in silence by those who engage in it. Indeed, that has generally been the case. In yesterday's Daily Mail, however, which some Members may have read, there appeared an article written by a Mr. Williams, who is not a doctor but apparently a health economist. Mr. Williams attempted to justify discrimination in health matters on the ground of age. That is a sinister development.
  I believe that any right hon. or hon. Member who reads the article by Mr. Williams will agree with me that only one of two conclusions can be drawn. Either it is involuntarily muddled in its thinking or it is deliberately disingenuous. I shall give one example. Mr. Williams makes fun of the idea of providing a hip replacement for a 90-year-old with a terminal cancer. No responsible doctor would dream of imposing the gratuitous trauma of an orthopaedic operation on any terminal patient of any age. Mr. Williams makes my point. Clinical decisions should be made on clinical grounds. They should be made in the light of the specific physiological condition of the individual patient.
  If the protections of the National Health Service Act, repeated Government statements and the Hippocratic oath—I have always believed that that oath places an absolute responsibility on all doctors to have prime regard to the interests of their individual patients and not to be guided by extraneous considerations—are not enough to eliminate the practice of age discrimination, we clearly need some explicit change to the law.
  A generation ago, the House passed sex discrimination and race discrimination legislation, which has had widespread acceptance. The great effect of those measures was to create a change in attitude, a change in behaviour patterns and a change in culture. These pieces of legislation have been enormously beneficial to those groups which might otherwise have been subject to entirely invidious discrimination. It is time that the

  887
  sections of our population of older ages—we all hope to join their ranks in due time—should be equally protected from unjustified discrimination.
  I commend my Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Batiste, Mr. Forman, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Sir David Hunt, Mr. Mans, Mr. Rowe, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. Temple-Morris, Mr. Waller and Mr. Yeo.

  AGE DISCRIMINATION
  Mr. Quentin Davies accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of age discrimination: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 March, and to be printed [Bill 144].

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall have effect—
  (1) At the sittings this day and tomorrow the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords have been received.
  (2) At this day's sitting, in respect of the motion relating to ministerial accountability the Speaker shall forthwith put the questions on the motion and on any amendment which may have been selected and moved; and the questions may be decided, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.
  (3) At this day's sitting—
  (a) the Speaker shall, at Ten o'clock, put the question on any motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown relating to estimates, and
  (b) any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the Day, and Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.
  (4) At the sitting tomorrow, in respect of any motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown which relates to tax simplification or a report from a Select Committee, the Speaker shall forthwith put the questions on the motion and on any amendment which may have been selected and moved.
  (5) If any Lords Amendment to the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill is received at the sitting this day or tomorrow—
  (a) it shall be considered forthwith,
  (b) the Speaker shall forthwith put the question on any motion which may then be made relating to it, and
  (c) the question may be decided, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.
  (6) Notwithstanding Standing Orders Nos. 11 and 11A (Fridays) and the Order of 30th October 1996, the House shall sit on Friday 21st March, at Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

  Orders of the Day

    Police Bill [Lords]
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Madam Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I have to tell the House that, in addition to the amendments that I selected earlier today, I have received three manuscript amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Those have been distributed. I have selected the first of those amendments, which seeks to leave out lines 27 and 28 on page 56 of the Bill. The amendment will, of course, be taken in its appropriate place, after amendment No. 4.

    Police Bill [Lords]
      Clause 2

        GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE NCIS SERVICE AUTHORITY AND NCIS
        3.55 pm
        Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 42, at end insert
        'and
        (e) the system of justice operating in any country with which it is proposed to offer intelligence or support under subsection (3)(d), and the extent to which it can be assumed that such intelligence or support will be used in accordance with conditions similar to those to which NCIS is subject.'.
        The amendment refers to a clause that I have strongly supported—I was among a number of people who argued that it should be introduced. The clause puts the national criminal intelligence service and the national crime squad on a statutory footing, and it sets out the powers and responsibilities of NCIS.
        The amendment was tabled because the provisions on co-operating with the intelligence and security services and police forces of other countries are extremely broadly described on the face of the Bill. The Bill refers to NCIS dealing with
        "any other person engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the NCIS Service Authority, NCIS, a police authority, a police force, the NCS Service Authority or the National Crime Squad." I am strongly in support of international co-operation between law enforcement organisations, which is absolutely essential in the fight against international drug trafficking. Indeed, our drug liaison officers who operate, for example, in Holland, work closely with their counterparts in other countries. When they do, however, in Holland or other countries—even in very friendly countries and countries with a similar background—they have to be very careful about how they exchange intelligence, for a number of reasons. That is even more the case, given some of the regimes to which one might imagine the power would extend.
        The wording could open the door to co-operation with the most oppressive regimes in the world—those with the most authoritarian and uncontrolled police forces, or with forces that are subject to the control of some element in a deeply divided form of government. It could open the way to intelligence being shared with very insecure

        889
        organisations, whose acquisition of the knowledge from that intelligence could damage our own security and the sources from which the intelligence had come. It could also lead to threats to individuals who are in this country but in whom other Governments have an interest, perhaps because they are fugitives from the politics of that country and might have vulnerable families living there.
        All those considerations are familiar to the security organisations, because they have to make judgments about those matters in their existing work and co-operation, but I was worried to find on the face of the Bill a power so broad without any reference to NCIS having an obligation to have regard to international human rights obligations; to the security of the information that it might pass on; or to any other relevant factors.
        The amendment follows on from a broader amendment tabled in Committee, but it is much narrower and requires reference to the system of justice in operation
        "and the extent to which it can be assumed that such intelligence or support will be used in accordance with conditions similar to those to which NCIS is subject."
        There are a number of international arrangements under which that provision can be met. The Interpol constitution refers to keeping
        "within the spirit of the universal declaration of human rights."
        Article 3 of the constitution forbids intervention in the affairs of a member country of a
        "political, military, religious or racial character."
        There are other provisions in the Europol arrangements that may help.
        It is important that the Minister takes the opportunity to clarify and put on record how we shall ensure that we do not share intelligence in a way that could compromise our security and which would damage the human rights of individuals; that we do not share intelligence with regimes whose use of that intelligence would be oppressive; and that we have regard to all the wider human rights obligations to which I referred. I hope that the Minister will be able to do that.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I fully understand the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The amendment would require the NCIS service authority to have regard to the systems of justice in any country with which NCIS may exchange intelligence and provide support. The service authority would also be required to consider how that intelligence might be used, and to judge that against the controls in place for NCIS.
        Those are operational matters, and it would be wholly inappropriate for the service authority to undertake such functions. However, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman's concern is to ensure that intelligence exchange between NCIS and non-UK law enforcement agencies is subject to appropriate controls. I assure him that that is already the case.
        As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I wrote to members of the Standing Committee on 10 March setting out the various controls that already exist for the exchange of information by NCIS. That letter is in the Library.
        890
        I stress that most exchanges of information between law enforcement agencies are through Interpol. The Interpol constitution states that its aims are to
        "promote and facilitate the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and within the spirit of the universal declaration of human rights."
        In addition, the constitution forbids any intervention in the affairs of a member country of a
        "political, military, religious or racial character."
        I also referred in my letter to the exchange of intelligence between NCIS and the countries that host NCIS and Customs and Excise liaison officers. Any such exchanges are in accordance with Foreign and Commonwealth Office guidance on the individual country, and at the discretion of individual liaison officers with detailed knowledge of the country involved. Furthermore, any requests received direct from individual law enforcement agencies that give cause for concern are checked as far as is practicable before a response is given. Some requests have been refused, and I outlined some examples in my letter to the Standing Committee.
        I cannot go into specific details for operational reasons, but, for example, NCIS has refused to exchange information about individuals who have claimed political asylum. Some countries can prosecute individuals for committing an offence in another country, and allegedly bringing discredit to their sovereign country. NCIS does not pass on information in such circumstances, nor does it pass on information when that may lead to a United Kingdom national facing capital punishment.
        I cannot agree to the amendment, because it would require the service authority to become involved, as I said, in operational matters, and it would blur the lines of responsibility between the service authority and the director general. That said, I do of course agree about the need for exchange of information to be subject to some control. However, as I said, that is already the case in NCIS, and it will continue to be so.
        Mr. Beith: Does the Minister expect the service authority to discuss with the director general the principles on which it deals with requests for information, so that the director general can say what guidelines he is working to, just as Home Office Ministers discuss with security authorities, without going into operational detail, the basis on which they deal with such requests?
        Mr. Kirkhope: There is no reason why such discussions should not take place, and I expect them to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman inferred, the service authority is not expected to be involved in operational matters and operational control.
        Mr. Alun Michael: The Minister made it clear that NCIS will make decisions on operational matters. Advice on the systems of law in other countries would come from the Foreign Office and from the Home Secretary, as part of his responsibilities under the Bill. Judgments about the quality of justice in other countries should surely not be left to the operational

        891
        authority. Departments of State have the capacity to make such judgments through their international knowledge and contacts.
        Mr. Kirkhope: I thought that I had made it clear how responsibility would be divided. The Departments concerned would certainly be responsible for intelligence and assessment of the situation.
        I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman to some extent, and that, on that basis, he will withdraw his amendment.
        Mr. Michael: Everyone would want the system of justice operating in any country engaged in relations and activities involving NCIS to be one in which people in this country could be confident. My concern about the amendment is that it seems to place an obligation on NCIS to make judgments about such matters. The Minister's reply to me seemed to confirm a different view: that such judgments must be made by Government rather than by an agency. The agency will be responsible for operational decision making, but to ask a police authority—a service authority—to make decisions about the criminal justice systems of other countries is hardly something with which we would be happy if it operated in reverse.
        I think that we all agree with the sentiment that we should be certain that the operations of NCIS involve co-operation, joint activities and support where there are systems of justice in which we can have confidence, and that, where there are reservations, great care should be exercised. To place a responsibility for making such judgments on the service authority would, however, constitute an abrogation of the responsibility of Government. Therefore, while I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I think that the effect of his amendment would be far removed from the responsibility that he sought to include in the Bill.
        Mr. Beith: I think that we have made progress in this short debate.
        As I see it, the head of NCIS—the chief constable— will need to have regard to advice from various directions before deciding how to use his powers under this clause, and, indeed, whether to use them at all to offer intelligence or support or to exchange intelligence. He will need to have regard to Foreign and Commonwealth Office guidance about the situation in the countries concerned, and, perhaps, to the Home Secretary's view of relevant matters. He must have regard to international obligations involving human rights, including treaties to which we are a signatory. He will also need to discuss the general framework within which he works with the service authority. It would be wrong for that authority to have no knowledge of such matters, because it does some of the job that the Home Secretary does in dealing with the comparable position of the Security Service. It is natural that the service authority should be involved in discussing the broad guidelines on the basis of which he works.
        Given what the Minister has now helpfully put on record, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 23

        AID BY AND FOR NCIS
        Amendments made: No. 7, in page 11, line 34, after 'subsection (1)' insert 'or (2)'.
        No. 8, in page 11, line 36, after 'direct' insert
        'the Director General of NCIS,'.
        No. 9, in page 11, line 38, after 'Constabulary' insert 'or'.
        No. 10, in page 11, line 39, leave out
        or the Director General of NCIS'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

      Clause 95
        AUTHORISATIONS: FORM AND DURATION ETC.
        Amendment made: No. 6, in page 38, leave out lines 26 to 28.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Clause 97

        AUTHORISATIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL
        Amendment made: No. 11, in page 39, line 31, after 'applies' insert 'to the authorisation'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
        Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 40, line 9, at end insert—
        '"urgency" means circumstances in which it is not reasonably practicable to apply for an authorisation because to do so would cause such delay as would be likely seriously to prejudice the effectiveness of the operation.'.
        We now come to what has been the most publicly controversial part of the Bill—the part that deals with intrusive surveillance, or bugging.
        It has been a long and complex story. From the start, Liberal Democrats have believed that there should be a prior authority for intrusive surveillance in places that people might legitimately regard as private, such as private houses or hotel rooms. That does not apply to lock-up garages or cars being tracked: those are dealt with in another part of the Bill. We felt that that authority should come from a judge, and proposed that it should come from a circuit judge.
        To cut a long story short, in another place, not only our amendment, but, thanks to a change of heart by the Labour party—which had initially been satisfied with a post hoc authority—another amendment was carried, which gave the job to a commissioner or one of a body of commissioners who held or had held high judicial office—a judge or former judge, but acting through a body of commissioners. I do not want to go back over that ground. We have our own preference as between the sorts of prior judicial authority, but, at least at this stage of the Bill, an application must be made to a judge who is a commissioner, to gain authority to undertake the intrusive surveillance to which I referred.
        Mr. Michael: In view of the debates on the issue, does the right hon. Gentleman now accept that the option that he preferred—that of an application to a circuit judge— was a weaker way of protecting civil liberties than the prior application to a commissioner, which was the Labour party's proposal?
        Mr. Beith: No. The hon. Gentleman's original position and that of the Labour party—that no prior authority was

        893
        required—was as weak as dishwater. It was disgraceful that the Labour party should have contemplated the Bill going on to the statute book in that form. I welcome its conversion—
        "Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth".
        Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly restrain his capacity for exaggeration, which seems to have been brought on by the imminence of an election? The Labour party welcomes the commissioner operation, because we believe that it is the right way of achieving a proper balance in relation to authority for surveillance and the protection of civil liberties. We said from the beginning that we felt that there should be scrutiny and a strengthening of the protection in the legislation as it passed through both Houses. We have fulfilled our part with honour and distinction.
        Mr. Beith: I am tempted to say, "Come on. The other one's got bells on it." The hon. Gentleman must consider what his colleague the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said during the Bill's earlier stages, when he was satisfied that we did not need a system of prior authorisation. There has been agreement throughout that a body that reviewed the whole process—the commissioners—would be an element in the system. The change has been that that body has also been entrusted with giving prior approval to intrusive surveillance, a change that was not originally supported by the Labour party and that it supported later. I have welcomed that, and the hon. Gentleman should accept those kind words with good grace, but it took quite an effort.
        I am glad to say that many Labour Members voted with us in favour of our circuit judge amendment, as they did on other aspects of this Bill and the Crime (Sentences) Bill, even when advised not to do so by Labour Front Benchers. Thankfully, some people in that party in another place are strongly committed to civil liberties.
        We are dealing now with the circumstances in which prior approval would have to be given by the commissioners. The crux of the issue is urgency; that is what the amendment is about. There is a fear that, because, in urgent cases, prior authority or approval will not be necessary—it will be sufficient to notify the commissioner at the time or as soon as possible thereafter of the intrusive surveillance operation—that creates too wide and open a measure in the Bill. I shall not go as far as the Home Secretary, who said about another aspect of another Bill that it was driving a coach and horses through it, but there is a potentially wide loophole that might be too extensively used. In Committee and again today, I seek to define "urgency" more clearly.
        In discussions, we have refined the position between the Government and ourselves. I recognise that, so far as they have been expressed to me, certainly in private, the Government's intentions seem to be what I would want them to be—that those urgent provisions should be used only in circumstances where it was not reasonably practicable to apply for an authorisation, because to do so would cause such delay as seriously to prejudice the effectiveness of the operation. Unless there is some such understanding, there is a slight danger that people working in that sphere will say, "All operations are urgent. In the nature of things, when your opportunity comes, you have to act quickly."
        894
        For the comparable activities of the Security Service, it is not felt necessary to have any urgent provisions at all. The same is true of police applications to tap telephones. What happens? The Home Secretary must be consulted and give his authorisation, his warrant. If the Home Secretary has to be got out of bed for the purpose, that is what happens. If he has to be tracked down on his holidays for the purpose, that is what happens. If he is out of the country, another Secretary of State is got out of bed—or found, wherever he may be.
        That procedure is efficient enough to work rapidly in cases of urgency. We must also remember that no such action takes place without a formalised procedure within the police force. The chief constable is involved. Papers are brought to him, and the process takes some time. It is not a case of someone making a snap decision on the spot, after which something happens immediately.
        4.15 pm
        In any event, because of the nature of what is being done, such arrangements take a bit of preparation and planning. One cannot decide on such a course of action on the spur of the moment. It would be wrong to exaggerate the number of cases in which special urgency procedures are used.
        The provision is there now and our job, as we revise the Bill on Report, is to ensure that it is adequate. I hope that the Minister will tell us that urgency really means urgency, and that the provision will not be used lightly. If possible, the code of practice could be improved to stipulate that.
        What is said in the House will help to reinforce the fact that the procedures should not be used unless it is not possible to go through the formal procedures, because to do so would prevent the police from doing the important job that they have in hand.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: I support the amendment. Perhaps the most grievous thing about the Bill—it is at the heart of the reason why I oppose it root, branch and in every way that I can—is the concept of moving from traditional, constitutional and historical values.
        No one should enter our homes without the authority of a warrant, and such a warrant should not be self-issuing. The extraordinary thing about the Bill is that although we have insisted that warrants be granted to the security and intelligence services only through the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary, who are accountable on the Floor of the House, the Home Office now countenances the idea that chief constables or their deputies should be able to authorise themselves in any circumstances.
        It was extraordinary to see the House of Lords reissue the language of this country, for this is a land of liberty. We believe in things, and one of the most important of those things is that a warrant must be issued to permit entry into people's homes.
        Under the revised provisions, the Home Secretary still countenances the idea that circumstances could exist—he described them as extraordinary—in which it would be necessary to allow a police officer to be in effect self-warranting. That is wholly inappropriate.
        Why does our language describe us as a land of liberty? Why have we had all those protections? Why have many people come here as refugees to escape what has been

        895
        happening abroad? Because we were people attentive to due process of law. That is why I support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Why, even in extraordinary circumstances, should a chief constable be able to authorise the bugging and burgling of premises? As we were reminded by the speeches made in another place, that is unlawful, although it has been practised by the Home Office and by police forces for many years.
        People will understand our sensitivity, especially in the west midlands, where it was necessary to disband our serious crime squad. Policemen themselves had come to conclusions about free citizens and ensured that they were brought to trial and found guilty. Subsequently the convictions had to be overturned, because the police had invented evidence or circumstances.
        That is the danger with self-authorisation. People can become so intent on the cause that they are pursuing, the crime that they "know" someone else has committed, that they search out and find evidence, whether it is there or not. Now, for reasons of administrative convenience, the Home Office has introduced a measure that contradicts a fundamental principle—that the agencies of the Executive should not themselves be able to do these things. On Second Reading, I asked the shadow Home Secretary what the exceptional circumstances were. I noticed that, in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
        "I can give no better example than the one that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) provided on Second Reading. He mentioned a kidnapping during which the police follow a vehicle to the place where the kidnap victim is being held but do not know the location until moments before the kidnappers arrive. I agreed with the hon. Member that it would be absurd to expect the police to seek the prior approval of a commissioner in such a case."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 March 1997; c. 134.]
        Remember—my right hon. Friend said:
        "I can give no better example".
        I have always understood that kidnapping is a crime, so the police are in pursuit of someone in the commission of a crime. The law of the land is on their side as they reach and pluck out those criminals. Why is it therefore necessary to construct an extraordinary warrant for the few seconds in which my right hon. Friend says that the police may have to be able to bug and burgle premises, of which they were not aware until a few seconds before? If one disentangles the logic of the proposal, it does not stand up.
        I see that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is frowning, but he will be aware of the indignation of many of us in the House at the Labour party, which stood aside on this matter until the House of Lords brought it to book. It was prepared to accept the wholesale non-use of warrants to achieve those administrative purposes for the police.
        Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should not make up the position of the Labour party, which I shall explain in due course. Could he explain what he has just said, as my frown was one of puzzlement? In the circumstances that he has just described, what would be the authority for the intrusion on to property to bug, with which he apparently has no problem?
        Mr. Shepherd: I am referring to a kidnap in progress, when, for some reason, the police are required
        896
        to bug or burgle premises. If one tests the proposition, one must ask why any of these provisions are necessary. The police know their duty, and are supported by the law and by the public. There is no need to bug premises. I am trying to suggest that we have constructed the most artificial and curious circumstances in which it is necessary for the police to intervene. I am trying to reiterate a principle that is profound to the nature of our constitution—that no authority, or part of the civil authority of the Executive, may of itself issue warrants to reach into our homes during the investigation of what amounts to 0.00001 per cent. of all possible cases at issue. Yet this law will apply to all 55 million people in the United Kingdom.
        In pursuit of administrative convenience, we are prepared to throw away the reason why this was a land of liberty. I just wish that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth could give his attention to reading the original Hansard debates from the House of Lords.
        Mr. Michael: Come on.
        Mr. Shepherd: There is no point in trying to brush this aside, because it is a matter of indignation for some of us.
        Mr. Michael: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not be absurd. Of course I have read the Hansard reports from the House of Lords—they were extremely important debates. I was involved in debating those issues long before they reached the House of Lords, because of the importance of balancing the authorisation of surveillance to protect the public with civil liberties. Let the hon. Gentleman make his point without trying to misrepresent the position of others.
        Mr. Shepherd: The conclusion that the hon. Gentleman came to was that we did not need warrants. That was the position put and argued in the House of Lords, so he should not get indignant with me about reading the report of the House of Lords debate, because it is on the record. We know full well where the hon. Gentleman started from. The House of Lords converted him because of the power of the arguments. The Labour party changed its position and that is fine—it is a triumph for the debating process in both Houses, and I salute that with pride.
        We must return to the extraordinary circumstances elicited by the Home Office, which stated that it was trying to make lawful that which was unlawful and which had been a practice—through its memoranda or guidance notes—in our system of which I, through ignorance, was unaware. I suspect that large numbers of other people were unaware. Do we know whether our house is being burgled or bugged? Usually, we do not.
        My nightmare is that a burglary or bugging will take place at the home of an elderly couple who are leaving from Birmingham airport and who find that they have forgotten their passports. They might come back and be confronted with intruders in their house. I can see circumstances arising from this issue that would give rise to public concern about the functions and actions of the police.

        897
        We have made it necessary for the security and intelligence services to effect such activities, but with a warrant in all circumstances. We had some great debates in the House on that subject. Yet the police, in a tiny fraction of cases, of which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said
        "I can give no better example".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 March 1997; c. 134.]
        will not be required to have such a warrant.
        I am terribly worried about that matter and I cannot support the Bill on that basis. We trust our police and we want to maintain such a relationship with them, but they must never be the instrument of a central authority. Secondly, our constitution is about checks and balances. We have all too few of them and they are precious. Almost the last check and balance is the courts themselves, which now engage in judicial review on a scale unimaginable a generation ago. Why? Because they are almost the only check and balance that we have left. We do not perform the task well enough.
        To produce such profound legislation under the avalanche of a general election means that the reflection and consideration necessary to such an important principle have not been given in this Chamber or this House, so I support the amendment.
        Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am particularly concerned about this aspect of the Bill, especially as I have had conflicting answers from the Home Secretary about cordless telephones and who is responsible for giving the police or any other authority permission to tap such telephones. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told me that he held no central information on the number of times that he had given permission for cordless telephones to be tapped. He then suggested that they were covered by the Interception of Telecommunications Act 1985.
        In Committee, I understand that the Minister gave conflicting answers. I hope that he will clarify to our satisfaction whether cordless telephones are covered by the 1985 Act, who gives authorisation for the tapping of those telephones and who holds records of the number of times that authorisations are given. That is an important matter. A large number of people now own cordless telephones, and they will all be concerned about this grey area in the Bill.
        The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I hope that, in my usual way, I can assist the House and pour some oil on troubled waters this afternoon. First, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), there is no doubt about the matter, and there was no conflicting view in Committee. It is clear. Any organ of the state or anyone wanting to intercept any telephone communication, whether on a land line or a mobile phone—cordless telephones as she describes them—must have an intercept warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That requires the authorisation of the Home Secretary and has done so since IOCA was passed.
        Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Maclean: Yes, but the matter is not relevant to the amendment, and I do not want to stray too far from the terms of the debate.
        4.30 pm
        Mrs. Clwyd: Surveillance is part of the debate. What the Minister says conflicts with what the Home Secretary said. If he can assure us that the matter is dealt with in the Interception of Communications Act 1985, why did the Home Secretary tell us that the information was not held centrally and that it was a matter for police authorities? Surely, if he has to give his permission, he must know on how many occasions he has been asked for it.
        Mr. Maclean: I cannot add anything to what I have already said. It is quite clear that the Interception of Communications Act 1985 applies to the interception of telecommunications or telephone calls, whether on mobile phones or on land lines. The hon. Lady was confusing two issues. In her original question, she was confusing information on interception of communications and the quite distinct and totally different matter of whether the police can approach a telephone operator and ask for information that may be held at the exchange or on computer records about what phone calls were made from certain phones, whether mobile or land line.
        Mr. Michael: I believe that the Minister is trying to help the House, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has been trying to tease out the explanation of the curious lack of reply from the Home Secretary on the interception of mobile phone calls. Is the Minister saying that interceptions of mobile phone calls would be included in the overall number of interceptions and cannot be distinguished, or that they are not recorded? Surely my hon. Friend's point is right: if the Home Secretary has to authorise such interceptions, they would appear in the numbers somewhere, although perhaps not in a separate category.
        Mr. Maclean: I do not know whether they are separated out for statistical purposes. I can give the House the principal assurance that there is no difference in law and no avoidance of IOCA simply because the intercept relates to a mobile telephone call. At some point or other, mobile phones are plugged into the public telephone network, and if any state agency or police authority wants to intercept a public telephone, whether it is made exclusively on land lines, or between mobiles and land lines, or in any other combination, the Interception of Communications Act 1985 applies. That is exactly what I said in Committee, and I believe that that is the correct position.
        I take extremely seriously the points that have been made. They were debated seriously in Committee. I know that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) expressed his concern in Committee regarding the cases in which surveillance operations in the sensitive categories may go ahead without the prior approval of the commissioner.
        I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has had a noble record, since long before I came to the House, of defending absolutely the privacy and the rights of individuals. At times, the Government may have considered his interventions slightly awkward to handle, but I none the less welcome his resolute defence of those rights, and it is important that hon. Members make

        899
        those points. I do not say that he is misguided today: perhaps I have not made clear to him all the safeguards that already exist in the Bill.
        We are all agreed that the procedure should be used only in cases of genuine urgency, and I believe that that point is satisfactorily covered in the Bill as drafted. I do not believe that any further definition along the lines of the amendment is necessary. The amendment would not get round my hon. Friend's main point of principle. Even if I were to accept the amendment, it would not address his worries of principle. I also believe that those worries are unnecessary.
        The Bill already requires that, where an authorising officer uses the urgent procedure in cases that require prior approval, he must, when notifying the commissioner, give his reasons for believing that the case was urgent. That is the crucial point. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said repeatedly that the procedure is self-authorising, and that organs of the state should not use a self-authorising procedure. I agree entirely; this is not a self-authorising procedure that no one can challenge or examine. It is not the case that chief constables can make a decision that is never re-examined.
        We have built it into the Bill that, in cases where a chief officer, or those designated, believe that something is genuinely urgent, they can use the procedure. However, they must then notify the commissioner, who will be able to quash an authorisation immediately if he is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the case was urgent. I draw that to his attention because I know that he has read the Bill and the Committee proceedings.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: The amended Bill.
        Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has read the amended Bill in detail. I ask him to look at the procedure that we now have: the authorisation by the chief officer; the review by the commissioner to check whether the chief officer's decision was reasonable; the appellate procedure built in for the chief commissioner. In all fairness, there is no way in which my hon. Friend could describe this as an organ of the state having a self-authorising procedure.
        Mr. Shepherd: That the judgment may be reviewed subsequently does not alter the fact that the initial phase is self-authorising.
        Mr. Maclean: Of course the initial phase is self-authorising, but then there are the procedures involving the commissioner and, on appeal, the chief commissioner. There is another safeguard. As my hon. Friend knows, chief constables will not abuse the procedures, because of the safeguards that are built in. I am not asking the House to trust me and to trust all the chief constables. We are not simply leaving it to that. The system will not be abused because of the procedures built in—the report that the chief commissioner will make to the Prime Minister and the safeguards that are in the Bill. The chief commissioner will consider in his annual report how the urgency procedure has been used. He will not be backward in coming forward if he believes that there has been misuse of the genuine urgency procedure.
        We have had a short but crucial debate. I reiterate that I do not believe that it is necessary to define "urgency" in the Bill. I have listened carefully to the points that were
        900
        made. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has made a case for defining in one sentence the meaning of "urgency". That could be limiting in some cases, which could be dangerous—and not because it would be administratively inconvenient. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that this has been done not for administrative convenience but because both Government and Opposition, in the main, appreciate that there will be some circumstances in which lives could be at risk or a terrible crime is being, or is about to be, committed. The procedure could solve the crime or prevent it from happening; it could save lives. That is not a matter of administrative convenience but an important safeguard for the rest of our 55 million citizens.
        Mr. Michael: I am worried that the amendment would not only provide a definition that may not be necessary but that it might get in the way of operations and lead to dangers to the public. I shall come to that in a moment. I am stimulated to intervene not least by the fact that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was at his sanctimonious best. Labour will not take lessons from the Liberal Democrats on the importance of civil liberties.
        Last year, the Security Service Bill was improved in Committee by sensible debate. In that debate, we pressed the Government and received assurances from the Minister that, at the earliest possible date, two things would happen. First, there would be a service authority to introduce accountability for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the proposed National Crime Squad. In the event, there are to be two service authorities with overlapping membership. Secondly, it was promised that intrusive surveillance, which was dealt with in respect of the Security Service in that Bill, would be made subject to legislation. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed took much interest in that important step at the time.
        That step was extremely important, and so are the measures before us today. The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in thinking that the protection of an application to circuit judges, which would introduce the delay and bureaucracy entailed in an application to a court, would provide as strong a protection of civil liberties. It would delay decision making and bring it into disrepute. It would increase the use of the urgency provisions and provide inadequate protection of civil liberties. That is why the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the House of Lords were mistaken in preferring that option, and why the amendments moved by the Labour spokesman in the House of Lords were the right approach.
        The change that has happened is right. It was a sensible development. There was a debate. The outcome was a triumph for intelligent debate, which had been going on long before the press and public became interested. The change that happened means that we now have protections in the form of prior authorisation by a commissioner on sensitive matters relating to property and, for example, legal privilege. There were some worrying discussions about interference with legal privilege in areas not covered by the scope of the Bill. I think that the Minister sought to respond to that matter in a short debate at the end of the Committee proceedings yesterday. The matter will need to be returned to because there is a great deal of concern about the way in which it is being interpreted.

        901
        The speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was a mixture of high principle and absurdity. He was rightly sensitive to the idea that intrusive surveillance should not take place gratuitously or to meet the administrative convenience, whether of organisations of individuals or the state as a whole. That is right. I respect his passion in raising that point, as all hon. Members would, but we need a balance. Action sometimes needs to take place urgently when it is necessary to catch criminals or protect the public. The balance in the Bill now is a good deal better than before, but to swing in the opposite direction would undermine the operations about which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed expresses concern through the wording of his amendment.
        The question is what operations require urgency. Are the operations the only things that would define urgency? The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to the case of a kidnap victim. He has misunderstood the nature of the authorisation that would be needed in those circumstances. He said that it was obvious that everything should be done to protect someone who had been kidnapped, where there was danger to life. Clearly, that is the case, but it is not always possible to predict the movements of the kidnappers or what premises they will go to. Intelligence that a kidnap victim will be taken to particular premises might require surveillance of those premises at short notice in the interests of the protection of the victim and the effective conclusion of the operation. That is surely a sensible priority to allow for. The hon. Gentleman suggested that, in those circumstances, it would be so obvious that the victim needed to be protected that self-authorisation would be allowed.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: All I am saying is that provisions in the criminal law give the police authority to arrest people for kidnapping or whatever. That is why I have difficulty in understanding why we need to set down the principle that everyone should be authorised by a warrant from a separate institution such as the magistrates court.
        Mr. Michael: I see that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the example that was given, which was that of the need to undertake intrusive surveillance of premises to which a kidnap victim might be taken in order to undertake the operation of safely rescuing that victim. There are examples that go precisely to the point of the authorisations in the Bill and to the sort of circumstances in which urgency might arise.
        My concern is that, if the amendment were to be passed, it would allow the urgency procedure to be used only where delay would be likely seriously to prejudice the effectiveness of the operation. Other matters might be urgent, such as the protection of the public or the avoidance of danger to the public or to police officers. The amendment would prevent the urgency provision being used in those circumstances, and that would be a grave mistake. I certainly understand the reasons why the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed wants to define urgency more closely, but his amendment would introduce a danger that the use of the urgency provisions would be so constrained that police officers and members of the public were put at risk. That would be a dangerous mistake to make.
        4.45 pm
        Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his usual stalwart contribution on civil liberties matters, as I have been grateful for his support in earlier stages of the Bill. I am also grateful for the closing words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I shall not dwell on his earlier remarks, except to say that he is an upholder of the longer and rather unhappy political tradition of never admitting that one was wrong, even when one has had the sense to change one's mind. That attitude is all too common in British politics, but I see no merit or advantage in it.
        The Minister's remarks were echoed to some extent by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth in saying that we must have an urgent procedure because lives may be at risk. I simply emphasise that the existing procedure, with no urgency provision, has to be operated when terrorism is being fought by the Security Service. If that service is aware that a surveillance operation is necessary because of the prospect of a major bomb outrage occurring, it gets to the Home Secretary quickly, and gets the authorisation in an efficient manner.
        What I do not want is a cumbersome and slow system of approvals for the police when dealing with serious crime that necessitates frequent recourse to an urgent procedure in which they do not have to get approval in advance. The Minister has said, and has referred to parts of the code of practice that say, that urgency has to be genuine. He has underlined that the urgent application will not merely be reviewed as to whether it was a good idea, but will be open to being quashed. That quashing might not have any effect if the operation has already been completed, but one quashing of an urgent application at a relatively early stage might serve to concentrate minds wonderfully from then on. I hope that that does not prove necessary, but the Minister has today helped to make clear it that the procedures should be used only in an extremely limited and closely defined set of circumstances.
        There may be dangers in narrow definitions, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth illustrated some of the dangers of broad definitions by using phrases such as "where there is danger to the public". There is danger to the public in all these matters—there is danger to the public in most serious crime and all terrorism. However, we have to have procedures that ensure that rapid action can be taken where that is needed and that the civil liberties of the vast majority of citizens, who are not engaged in any of those activities, are also protected.
        The Minister has helped to put that firmly on the record, and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 104

        APPEALS BY AUTHORISING OFFICERS
        Amendments made: No. 12, in page 44, line 13, leave out from 'complainant' to end of line 14 and insert 'under Schedule 7'.
        No. 13, in page 44, line 45, leave out 'remain' and insert 'be'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

      Clause 106

        APPEALS BY COMPLAINANTS
        Amendments made: No. 14, in page 45, line 31, leave out 'Subject to subsection (4)'.
        No. 15, in page 45, line 34, after 'Commissioner' insert 'appointed under section 91(l)(b)'.
        No. 16, in page 45, line 36, after 'complainant' insert
        'by virtue of paragraph (a)'—[Mr. Maclean.]

      Clause 108

        INTERPRETATION OF PART III
        Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 47, line 5, leave out from 'writing,' to end of line and insert
        'the notice may be transmitted by electronic means'.— [Mr. Maclean.]
        Mr. Beith: I was slightly concerned when the amendment was tabled and even more concerned when I saw the Government's explanation for it. The amendment would allow documents used in the process of obtaining authorisation to be sent by e-mail. The Government's explanation is that that could be used only if the police, customs and the commissioners are satisfied that the communication will be secure. That is obviously a fundamental point: communication must be secure, because the matter is highly delicate. If information became known to those being surveilled, the operation would be defeated and, in addition, other kinds of confidential information about operations would emerge.
        However, e-mail is a threat to the security, not only of the communication, but of the systems at each end. Use of electronic mail involves access to the computer system from which it goes and the computer system into which it goes, so the condition that the Government have kindly included in their notes on clauses—that e-mail will be used only if they are satisfied that the communication will be secure—will not do. E-mail is a real danger to the security of the body of material that will be stored by the secretariat of the commissioners, and to the computer system of the police force sending that information.
        Mr. Maclean indicated dissent.
        Mr. Beith: The Minister shakes his head. If he seeks to deny that, I shall draw his attention to various places in various documents to which his Department has access which make it clear. I hope that the Government will now take that into account.
        Mr. Michael: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has drawn attention to a proper concern, which the Minister sought to allay, in Committee and subsequently, by saying that he would want to be satisfied of the safety and security of communications. Under this part of the Bill, communications can be made in a variety of ways, including in writing, and writing can be extremely insecure if the wrong means are used, so I have no objection to the inclusion of electronic communications.
        I should be grateful if the Minister would satisfy us that requirements will be placed on those using such systems so that there is some oversight to avoid the dangers. There are secure and insecure facsimile transmissions. Can the
        904
        Minister assure us that secure fax, not insecure fax, will be used? The same thing applies to all communications where there may be risk, not only to operations, but to individuals' safety.
        Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to give the House the maximum assurance that I can on that. There is e-mail and there is e-mail. This will not be a loose Internet system. The police already have a secure system for communicating throughout the country and we have a national communication strategy, which aims to connect up the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts in future, mainly to speed up the processing of criminal cases. I envisage part of that system being used and the commissioners being linked to it.
        I do not understand the technicalities, but I know that, although the Home Office is connected to the Cab-E-Net system, it is impossible for a person in another Government Department—even on our network—to tap into all the files in the Home Office, or for us to tap into anyone else's files. Codes, passwords and electronic gizmos must be used and one can obtain access only to the part of the system to which one is entitled to gain access.
        I do not understand the bells and whistles that make these things operate. I do not suppose that these computers have valves any more, but I am absolutely certain that, when the right valves are installed, the police will have access only to the files to which the commissioners want them to have access, and the commissioners will be able to correspond only with those parts of the police network that the police wish them to correspond with. That is achievable.
        Of course there are security risks—someone may get it wrong, and there may be leakage in the system—but I know that, with the best computer brains applied to the matter, the secure systems that already exist in this country can be replicated for that system.
        One of the advantages of e-mail is the speed that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed urged on us a moment ago. He does not want a slow, bureaucratic, burdensome system, which requires the commissioners to wait for a few days before taking decisions; nor do we. If we want an urgency procedure to work PDQ, the chief constable and his staff should be able to e-mail the commissioners, saying, "We have just used the urgency procedure; this is why," and the commissioners should be able to e-mail them back securely as soon as reasonably practicable, to approve or quash action.
        Use of electronic mail is the best way to implement the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, the Opposition and myself that such things be dealt with speedily. The technical experts tell me, and I know from my own amateur knowledge of computers, that it is possible to have a secure network. Security is vital, and I shall endeavour to make the system as secure as is humanly possible.
        Mr. Beith: The Minister has demonstrated that he knows even less about the technicalities than I do—and I make no claim to be an expert. He has also revealed, I fear, that he may not be up to speed on the dangers to systems that may be generated by the interface between them. I counsel him to read some of the documents available in the Home Office and circulated by the appropriate authorities, or at least to ensure that someone else reads them.

        905
        I believe that this short debate will have drawn enough people's attention to the problem to ensure that some careful consideration is applied before the procedure is used.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 18, in page 47, line 5, at end insert—

        '() For the purposes of this Part, an authorisation (or renewal) given—

        (a) by the designated deputy of an authorising officer, or

        (b) by a person on whom an authorising officer's powers are conferred by section 94,

        shall be treated as an authorisation (or renewal) given in the absence of the authorising officer concerned; and references to the authorising officer in whose absence an authorisation (or renewal) was given shall be constmed accordingly.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

      Clause 112

        CRIMINAL CONVICTION CERTIFICATES
        Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 48, line 33, at end insert—
        '(5) Any day appointed by an order made under section 135 below for the coming into force of this section shall not be earlier than two years after the coming into force of sections 113 to 127 below.
        (6) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an evaluation of the effect of sections 113 to 127 below and his assessment of that evaluation.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 135, page 59, line 11, after '(1)', insert
        'subject to section 112 above,'.
        Mr. Beith: We now come to a completely different part of the Bill, but one of fundamental importance, which has not been widely enough discussed. It concerns the power under which every employer in the land, for any job of any kind, can require an applicant to produce a criminal conviction certificate. That certificate will be the means of showing whether the person concerned has any unspent convictions.
        There are clearly some sorts of work for which it is vital to obtain this sort of information; indeed, it can be vital to obtain even more information, and other provisions in the Bill allow for enhanced certificates to provide information that may be relevant to considering whether a person can be trusted to work with children or the elderly. But that is not what we are talking about here; we are discussing the general provision for criminal conviction certificates.
        The amendment would delay the introduction of such general certificates until we had some experience of the working of the enhanced and other higher level certificates.
        Outside this House and the Committee that considered the Bill, it has not perhaps been sufficiently appreciated how fundamental a change in our society will be brought about by this measure. Employers, because they have a duty to shareholders or to the organisations that appoint them, may increasingly feel a responsibility to see that no
        906
        one is admitted to their firms if something on their record might have offered a clue to any subsequent misbehaviour.
        Hitherto it has not been the practice in this country to make this requirement. Certainly, some employers have used the existing data protection legislation to get people to bring along the information. That has been one of the reasons for introducing the new provisions, but it could be dealt with in other ways—the Government are still considering the problem of enforced subject access. But the rehabilitation of offenders will be made extremely difficult if everyone with an unspent criminal offence on his record has to produce this certificate.
        Many people will give up applying for jobs because they cannot produce a clean certificate. Some will give up because their certificate includes an offence that is irrelevant to their job application. It may be something as minor as a driving offence conviction, even though the job for which they are applying carries with it no responsibility for a motor car.
        Another example might be someone who had committed a sexual offence involving consenting males which is no longer a criminal offence but was when it was committed, because it involved someone between the ages of 18 and 21. The Minister has already confirmed that possibility. I drew his attention to the example of someone with such an offence on his record who has completely changed his life style. He might go for a job only to be told that he has to get a certificate. He would then tell his wife and family that he could not get the job because he needed to produce a certificate. "Well, you have never done anything wrong, have you?" say his family. He then has to disclose to them that there is something in his past, not part of his current life at all, which he has put behind him. It may be a matter of quite legitimate privacy, no longer constituting a criminal offence.
        Those examples may relate to only a small number of people, but a far larger number will be affected by past mistakes of other kinds. One third of all males under the age of 40, I think, have a criminal offence on their record—a terrifying number—but most of them go straight thereafter and have nothing more to do with crime. We do not want them to apply for jobs with labels around their necks.
        The amendment would delay the widespread use of general criminal conviction certificates until we have some experience of using enhanced certificates in posts for which it is clearly necessary to have such information. If we do not do that, we may have a Child Support Agency situation on our hands, with a huge body charged with an enormous task—there may be a huge take-up of those certificates because employers insist on them—with which it cannot cope. It may then start to make mistakes. We all know that the Child Support Agency has mistaken the identity of parents and caused terrible family distress. We do not want that to happen in this case, so let us deal with the urgent problem and see how we get on.
        5 pm
        General conviction certificates will be a problem in another kind of case, which the Minister has not explained properly. It is the case of an informer who has committed criminal offences but who assists in the prosecution and conviction of people guilty of serious offences and is then

        907
        given a new identity, and encouraged and enabled to settle in some other part of the country. The practice occurs mostly in Northern Ireland, but it also occurs in Great Britain, and resettlement from Northern Ireland to Great Britain is common.
        When that person goes even for his first job, let alone his second, in the new life that the state has determined it is in the public interest to allow him to undertake, he will have to produce a criminal conviction certificate. He has a string of convictions, which, it has been decided, can now be overlooked because of the amount of assistance he has given in putting behind bars people who would pose a real threat to public security in the future. How will that be dealt with, given that there is no provision in the Act?
        The obvious and sensible way to sort out those problems is at least to take some time over doing so. Many people who deal with the rehabilitation of offenders are extremely concerned about the provision's total effect. John Monks of the Trades Union Congress wrote to Committee members pointing out that the provision could
        "create a class of permanently unemployable people, many of whom have only offended once, and would be highly unlikely to do so again, particularly if they have steady employment."
        Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): When I worked in the criminal justice division of the Scottish Office, some 67 per cent. of all first offenders never offended again. I do not know whether the figure has changed, but it is something of that order.
        Mr. Beith: I, too, recall that figure. I have no other figure to hand. Everybody agrees that getting employment may be the biggest single factor in somebody subsequently going straight, so we must make it easier for people to get employment, not put a barrier in the way. We should confine the barrier to cases where there is a proven need. The Bill contains clauses that do that, particularly in relation to the worrying area of people with paedophile offences working in children's homes. We all realise how urgent it is to take action to resolve a problem that should not have been allowed to build up as it did.
        Let us get that system under way before looking at general criminal conviction certificates, and give the body that will introduce those certificates time to prove its effectiveness and competence in the area where urgent need exists. Following the Government's unwillingness to accept my view about criminal conviction certificates generally, the amendment is a constructive suggestion about how we could proceed. We could then make progress in the most urgent area and see how that works before introducing into our society something that will worsen our crime problems, cause great personal hardship and distress, and achieve little value in the process. We may be able to judge the matter more effectively once we have seen how the enhanced certificates work.
        Mr, Michael: I have some concerns about the amendment and shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. Some of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are sensible in terms both of rehabilitation of offenders and of what should be the priorities, but I am not sure that they lead to the delay suggested in the amendment.
        The priorities should be clear. The top priority must be the protection of children and vulnerable adults. I hope that the Minister would agree. The provisions of the Bill
        908
        must be co-ordinated with the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and the work of child protection at local level. Careful thought must be given to the way in which we should use the various pieces of legislation, each of which takes us a step further forward.
        That is not the only issue that would be addressed by the checks for which the measure provides. A further element is honesty and integrity, which may be important not just to the employer, but to the public. The third element is the situation in the private security industry, which has been a matter of great concern over a considerable period.
        We must ensure that employees in the private security industry do not have long criminal records. In Committee I gave an example of employers with a criminal record. A police superintendent told me about a partnership between someone with a record for grievous bodily harm and someone with a record for financial offences. In a business sense they may make a fine team, but in terms of the public interest, they are a dangerous team to run a private security firm. There must be protection against such employers, and in fairness, the industry wants regulation to protect the good name of firms that are doing a good job.
        The private security industry is a case where information about a past record, not necessarily involving financial irregularities, is important and should be available as quickly as possible in the form of ordinary certificates, not necessarily the enhanced information that the Bill would make available.
        We want the protection of children and vulnerable adults treated as the first priority. Thereafter, there may be a good deal of sense in implementing the Bill progressively, rather than adopting a big bang approach. There are examples of several Government agencies and initiatives where trying to do everything at once led to mistakes in details, which might have been discovered at an early stage but which brought down the entire system. The Minister would be wise to ponder that, and consider the timing of the introduction of the measure.
        Part of the suggestion made in the amendment therefore has some attraction, but I am not happy that it specifies a period of two years after the full implementation of one part of the measure. That would narrow down and potentially delay the introduction of provisions in the Bill, with no clear justification. It might be more sensible to reconsider the time scale for implementation. We were not given much detail about that in Committee. Perhaps the matter has not been thought through to the extent that would allow a detailed time scale to be set out for the implementation of this part of the Bill.
        For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will reassure us about the way in which the Bill is to be implemented and the amount of thought that has been given to that, without going so far as to accept the specific constraints for which the amendment provides.
        Many people are anxious that we should achieve the right balance between the rehabilitation of offenders and ensuring that those with a criminal record who are likely to reoffend do not get into positions where they can prey on the public generally, and on children and vulnerable adults in particular. I have worked with young people who have been involved in offending, and I have had people working with me as a result of good work by the probation service on rehabilitating people after offending.

        909
        Individuals with that background can become valued members of society if they are given the opportunity to change their ways and to earn the respect and rehabilitation that should be open to anyone. The task is to get the balance right.
        The Bill's implementation could achieve the right balance or it could introduce dangers. I hope that the Minister will say that, like me, he wants to ensure that in building in protections rehabilitation will be achieved, and that the proper balance lies within the thinking through of how we implement the Bill, which is intended to protect and assist the public.
        Mr. Kirkhope: I hope that I have been fair to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in responding to the amendments. The amendments would delay the introduction of criminal conviction certificates and it might be suggested that they have been tabled because the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues— this is the impression that they have given—greatly distrust the certificates. The issue has been much debated during the Bill's passage through both Houses.
        I wish to assure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed again that CCCs will not be as intrusive and unwelcome as he suggests. The certificates will be issued only to the individual who makes the application. They will contain only details of unspent convictions, which is entirely consistent with our commitment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The certificates will enable employers to confirm that the information that they have been given by an applicant is full and accurate.
        I would be amazed if employers taking on an employee did not want to be provided with full information about the prospective employee. The nature of the relationship between employer and employee is one of trust. Nothing could be worse than a situation in which an employer was not fully aware of the background of the person he is about to employ.
        The introduction of the certificates is likely to be phased in after the introduction of the other two types of certificate. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked me to ponder about the timing of the introduction, and I have been pondering for some time. It is clear that the fledgling agency should not be flooded with applicants from the outset. I agree that it must be able initially to concentrate on issuing the more important and probably less numerous criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates.
        However, the eventual introduction of CCCs is an administrative matter concerned with workload and timing, and not as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It will be done when it is considered that the agency will be able to manage the extra work. In all likelihood, it will be phased in at a slightly later time than the other certificates.
        Mr. Rowe: I hope that my hon. Friend will take into account the real need for educating employers about the value of the information in the certificates. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said, the rehabilitation of young men, particularly,
        910
        often takes place as a consequence of obtaining employment. Many employers have experience of taking on people with one conviction and finding that there is nothing wrong with them. I hope that we shall consider carefully preparing employers for the information that they will be seeking.
        Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It is necessary for employers to take an intelligent approach towards these matters. They do so in the vast majority of cases now with information that they have requested and received. I hope that that attitude will continue when the certificates are available.
        I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said but I do not accept that it is necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an evaluation of the initial success of criminal record and enhanced record certificates before any CCCs can be issued. The introduction of CCCs is not dependent upon the perceived success of the other certificates. These will be different types of checks that will be carried out for very different purposes, and it is unlikely that the effects of criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates will tell us much about how CCCs will be used.
        During the Bill's passage the purpose and nature of all three types of certificate have received full parliamentary scrutiny. We shall, of course, keep the operations of the agency and the extent to which criminal record certificates meet the purposes for which they have been created under review. But by delaying the introduction of CCCs by at least two years, which is the right hon. Gentleman's intent by means of the amendments, we may be delaying the implementation of a new criminal record system that, we believe, will be coherent, cost-effective, transparent and, above all, fair. For these reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press the amendments.
        5.15 pm
        Mr. Beith: The Minister might have come close to persuading me to withdraw the amendment. He revealed that one of its effects would not be very far from what will in fact happen. He revealed that it is the Government's intention that the enhanced certificates— those dealing with the urgent cases in respect of paedophiles and those who will be employed in residential homes and have access to the vulnerable— must be given priority and that the agency must get on in dealing with them. The introduction of the general conviction certificate is likely to be some time after the enhanced certificates have been dealt with. The two years that is stated in the amendment, which the Minister considers to be a long delay, might well turn out to be reality.
        It became clear that I had to press the amendment when the Minister said that there will be an administrative decision. It is not an administrative matter. We are talking of a fundamental change in our society. That will be the position when a prospective employee cannot get a job anywhere without producing a piece of paper showing whether or not he has a criminal conviction. In that way, we have changed our society beyond recognition, and in the process, I believe, we shall greatly impair the rehabilitation of offenders, and especially of young people whose only offence may have been to get into a fight

        911
        outside a pub at a time when they were less responsible than they have since become. However, they will still have to produce a piece of paper.
        We are talking about a profound change and one on which Parliament should decide. We should reflect on the experience of using new and better certificates to deal with the special cases of people whose work is with the vulnerable or who work in the security industry. Let us then decide whether the proposals before us remain particular to certain types of employment or to every person applying for whatever job throughout the country. There is nothing in the Bill that will affect so many people as the provisions that we are now considering. Parliament should return to the issue. I shall therefore press the amendment.
        The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 271.

        Division No. 97]

        [5.17 pm

        AYES

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Rendel, David

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Harvey, Nick

        Thurnham, Peter

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Tyler, Paul

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Wallace, James

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Wigley, Dafydd

        McGrady, Eddie

        Maclennan, Robert

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Mallon, Seamus

        Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mrs. Diana Maddock.

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Burt, Alistair

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Butcher, John

        Alexander, Richard

        Butler, Peter

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Butterfill, John

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Carlisle, John (Luton N)

        Amess, David

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Carttiss, Michael

        Arbuthnot, James

        Cash, William

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Ashby, David

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Clappison, James

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

        Baldry, Tony

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Coe, Sebastian

        Bates, Michael

        Colvin, Michael

        Bellingham, Henry

        Congdon, David

        Bendall, Vivian

        Conway, Derek

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Booth, Hartley

        Couchman, James

        Boswell, Tim

        Cran, James

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

        Bowis, John

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Day, Stephen

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Brazier, Julian

        Devlin, Tim

        Bright, Sir Graham

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Dover, Den

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Duncan, Alan

        Burns, Simon

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        912

        Dunn, Bob

        Knapman, Roger

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

        Dykes, Hugh

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

        Knox, Sir David

        Elletson, Harold

        Kynoch, George

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

        Legg, Barry

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Leigh, Edward

        Evennett, David

        Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

        Faber, David

        Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

        Fabricant, Michael

        Lidington, David

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lord, Michael

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Luff, Peter

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Forman, Nigel

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

        MacKay, Andrew

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Madel, Sir David

        Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Malone, Gerald

        French, Douglas

        Mans, Keith

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Marland, Paul

        Gale, Roger

        Marlow, Tony

        Gallie, Phil

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Garnier, Edward

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Gill, Christopher

        Mates, Michael

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Merchant, Piers

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Moss, Malcolm

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Hannam, Sir John

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Norris, Steve

        Harris, David

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Haselhurst, Sir Alan

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hawkins, Nick

        Ottaway, Richard

        Hawksley, Warren

        Page, Richard

        Hayes, Jerry

        Paice, James

        Heald, Oliver

        Patnick, Sir Irvine

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Hendry, Charles

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Pawsey, James

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

        Pickles, Eric

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

        Porter, David

        Horam, John

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Rathbone, Tim

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Richards, Rod

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Riddick, Graham

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Robathan, Andrew

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Hunter, Andrew

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

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Rowe, Andrew

        Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Jessel, Toby

        Sackville, Tom

        Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

        Key, Robert

        Shersby, Sir Michael

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Sims, Sir Roger

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        913

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

        Trend, Michael

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Trotter, Neville

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Spring, Richard

        Walden, George

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Steen, Anthony

        Waller, Gary

        Stephen, Michael

        Ward, John

        Stern, Michael

        Watts, John

        Stewart, Allan

        Wells, Bowen

        Streeter, Gary

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Sumberg, David

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Sweeney, Walter

        Whittingdale, John

        Sykes, John

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)

        Wilkinson, John

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Willetts, David

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Wilshire, David

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

        Thomason, Roy

        Yeo, Tim

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Thornton, Sir Malcolm

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

        Mr. Matthew Carrington

        Tracey, Richard

        and

        Tredinnick, David

        Mr. Timothy Wood.

        Question accordingly negatived.

        Clause 125

          REGULATIONS
          5.30 pm
          Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 55, line 2, leave out 'section 115 (4) and insert
          'section 112(1), 113 (1) or 115 (1) or (4)'.
          The amendment will be of interest to hon. Members who care about charities, scout organisations, the Boys Brigade and the variety of organisations that will be affected by the cost of the charges for conviction certificates, especially for enhanced criminal conviction certificates.
          A clear benefit of the arrangements proposed in the Bill, and one that we support, is that organisations dealing with young people and the elderly will be encouraged and enabled to obtain information about those who want to work with such groups, about criminal convictions and cautions and other relevant information. The need for such information to be available is vividly shown by the Dunblane experience and the case of Thomas Hamilton. The information known about Thomas Hamilton would have appeared on the enhanced criminal conviction certificate.
          All the organisations in the charity sector are extremely concerned about the cost of these certificates. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure—[Interruption.]
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are having conversations in the doorway please converse outside.
          Mr. Beith: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
          This issue is important for many charity organisations, a number of which have made representations to us about the level of cost. The Scout Association estimates that the
          914
          cost of checks on their volunteers will be about £500,000 a year. Think of the number of scout money-raising events that will be required to raise that amount. The Guide Association estimates costs of £450,000. We should bear it in mind that those organisations demand much of their volunteers, and to expect them to pay this cost on top of everything else is too much. The Scripture Union, which runs summer camps for young people, estimates that the costs of checking would add an extra £30,000 merely to the costs of summer camps. The Boys Brigade has produced its cost figures, and other organisations, such as the Wing Fellowship and the Abbeyfield Society, which is involved in residential care for the elderly and has volunteers who back up the work of professional staff, are deeply concerned.
          In the report of his inquiry, Lord Cullen noted that doing what he proposed involved costs. He wanted to ensure that checks are made on people working as volunteers with young people. Those costs should be kept within the limits of what organisations can afford. It is the view of almost every organisation that the likely costs are beyond the limits of what they can afford.
          Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Lord Cullen went further and said that, if necessary, the fees should be subsidised. Is that not correct?
          Mr. Beith: Yes, that is precisely what Lord Cullen said, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for pointing that out. In my youth, I was a scout in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I do not like to think of the amount of money that would have to be raised by local organisations to meet those costs. Lord Cullen said that, if necessary, they should be subsidised.
          Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, the Government have said that, despite the efforts of our former Speaker, Lord Weatherill, in the other place, they are not prepared to commit Government expenditure, and that they want the scheme to be self-financing. If help is given to charities, it will have to be at the expense of private individuals who apply for general certificates. That cannot be right, and it is not in the spirit of the Government's acceptance of most of the recommendations in Lord Cullen's report.
          Now that the Government have rejected the view of the vast majority of their Lordships under the leadership of our former Speaker, and have overturned that good amendment to the Bill, we must ensure that the cost issue comes back to this House. The effect of the amendment would be that the House would have to approve, by affirmative order, the scale of charges to be imposed. We would then know precisely how much was involved, and the charities would know how much it would cost them.
          We could put those figures in front of the Government, and if we were not satisfied with the scale of charges, we could defeat the proposals and force the Government, whoever was in power, to make proper and satisfactory provision for charities. I invite hon. Members to ensure that this matter comes before Parliament—it will be the next Parliament, after the general election—and that the real concerns of charities about the costs involved will be brought to bear.
          If organisations were not doing the jobs they do, the Government would have to find other ways in which to do them. Those organisations keep youngsters out of

          915
          trouble, and care for the elderly. The cost savings to public funds that they create are enormous. We owe it to them to ensure that they do not have to foot an unreasonable and unaffordable bill, so that the people in their care are looked after by people who are fit to do so. It is important that they should make those checks, but they need help to do so.
          Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the amendment. The Government recently refused to accept a report that recommended a self-funded social services council, whereas they propose to impose further charges on a limited number of people who voluntarily give of their services, and on charities which, in many other ways, have subsidised public expenditure. When the number of volunteers has fallen, it is wrong to impose further charges on organisations.
          I speak from years of experience in the Boys Brigade movement and the Scripture Union. I recognise that, in our churches, where a fair bit of the charity support comes from, fewer people are doing voluntary work. If we think that their work benefits all the nation, then all the nation should support it. We should not leave it to a coterie of volunteers. I support the amendment, which would allow the matter to come back to the House for further consideration.
          Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I share much of the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who told the House that he was a scout in Macclesfield. I commend him on that, because I am involved in the scout movement. I am a member of the Macclesfield and Congleton district scout council, and I am a vice-president of the Cheshire county scout association, but I am not speaking only on their behalf.
          There are 150,000 non-profit-making sports clubs in this country, with a total membership of 6.5 million people. Each of those clubs is run predominantly by coaches and staff, all of whom freely put time and effort into promoting sport in their locality for the benefit of all. Many, if not all, of those clubs rely on the hard work and commitment of their volunteers to stay afloat. I know that for a fact through my involvement with clubs in Macclesfield. They have not the additional money with which to pay even a £10 fee for each volunteer.
          The charging of volunteers for criminal checks sits uneasily with the determination of the Government, and our Prime Minister, to promote volunteering and grass-roots support throughout the country. At the beginning of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage delivered the Government's youth pledge—that all young people who wanted to volunteer would have an opportunity to do so by the end of 1997. I understand that £3 million was allotted for the purpose.
          This Conservative Government also recently launched a new policy document entitled "Young People Make a Difference", the aim of which was further to encourage youth volunteering. The document outlines an ambitious programme to increase young people's opportunities to volunteer, and reflects part of a much wider agenda throughout government to support volunteering and youth development.
          Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the subsidy should come from central Government?
          Mr. Winterton: I shall answer that question directly in a moment.
          I put it to the House that charging volunteers—many of whom have no income, and many of whom may be on income support and other benefits—is hardly likely to encourage more people to volunteer.
          Given my earlier intervention on the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I must say that, if there are to be charges—for good reasons, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will explain when he winds up the debate—I think that they should be subsidised from the centre. I know that that would inevitably involve additional Government expenditure, but I believe that it would benefit the country financially. I think that it would be wrong for us to provide any sort of disincentive to young volunteers, especially when both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for National Heritage have said that the Government want to see much more volunteering, and are giving it considerable support.
          I rest my case. I am worried—as, I am sure, are other Conservative Members—about the impact that charges will have on many charitable organisations, such as youth groups and non-profit-making sports clubs. I think that we have given too little support, and that our former Speaker, Lord Weatherill, reflected widespread public concern when he successfully moved amendments in another place.
          Mr. Rowe: I declare an interest. Among other things, I am a trustee of Community Service Volunteers, the organisation that places the largest number of long-term young volunteers in the country. Our organisation clearly has a vested interest in the debate, but there is more to it than that: as many hon. Members will know by now, I believe passionately in volunteering.
          I enthusiastically support the "Young People Make a Difference" initiative, and wish that it had gone further. I believe that there is a huge untapped pool of volunteers out there, in a society in which increasing numbers may retire in their fifties with a life expectancy of 86 years or more. Many of those people will have retired on exiguous pensions; many will have very little income from any source other than benefit. Those are the people who volunteer least, but they are the very people we wish to encourage.
          Someone aged 54, who has retired prematurely, may be anxious to contribute. That person may come along and say, "I have a skill. I would quite like to coach the under-11s"—or whatever it may be. What do we find? The first thing that that person is told is, "We are so pleased that you have volunteered. Of course, you will have to pay £10 or more as your first contribution." No voluntary organisation can expect that, and the organisation will therefore pay the money itself. As several hon. Members have pointed out, that means a massive contribution, which voluntary organisations can ill afford.
          5.45 pm
          I understand the Government's point that the certificates are intended to be personal certificates for personal use, and that there is therefore a risk that a number of people who received their certificates free, as volunteers, would use them for other purposes. There must clearly be a mechanism whereby organisations can

          917
          be reimbursed for the cost of volunteers who can be shown to have made a contribution, and are not simply cheating in order to obtain free certificates. In principle, however, we cannot expect volunteers to multiply— especially among the lower paid and those with no income—if we are going to strap them for cash by imposing this financial disadvantage.
          I do not very much care whether we have an affirmative resolution, or a negative resolution against which we can pray, I am certain that we should debate the matter in the new Parliament. I believe that the Secretary of State, whoever that may be—I am sure that it will be one of us—will be expected to find money to make reimbursement possible, and I firmly believe that the Government must take into account the real apprehension among a large number of organisations that their bills will be forced up for no other reason than their enthusiastic embracing of the Government's own policy of increasing the number of voluntary helpers.
          Sir Michael Grylls: Important points have been raised. As others have said, the voluntary movement is a hugely important part of our national life.
          I should like to say a little about the Prince's Trust, which has done much to help people start their own businesses—especially disadvantaged people who do not receive much help from other sources, and do not have much capital. The trust does a wonderful job encouraging people from disadvantaged homes to set up businesses: I believe that it helps tens of thousands every year. It would be sad if there were any deterrent to that wonderful, constructive work.
          Interestingly, this has become—in a sense—an all-party debate. We have heard important contributions from hon. Members representing Northumberland, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Northern Ireland and other, obviously English, constituencies. The House seems to be saying that we should consider the charges carefully, and do our best to ensure that they do not deter volunteers. Organisations such as the Prince's Trust are providing the future lifeblood of our country by encouraging people—who may not have a family history of entrepreneurism—to become entrepreneurs. I hope that that will indeed be looked at carefully, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of what is being said.
          I think that the idea of the Bill is very good, but I hope that we will examine this part of it.
          Mr. Michael: I welcome the debate, and the concern for the voluntary sector that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I, too, was involved with the Prince's Trust in its early days, and chaired its Wales committee: I know something about the work involved in getting money to, in particular, the youngsters on street corners whom other trusts—and, indeed, the public sector—have sometimes found it difficult to help. Such work is extremely important.
          Opposition Members will also know of my personal interest in the voluntary sector and of the Labour party's commitment to volunteering in particular and to the voluntary sector generally. This week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition launched a policy document that offers new encouragement and a new
          918
          relationship of partnership between government and the voluntary sector. We will be determined to implement that document in government.
          The policy document makes clear our commitment to nurturing the voluntary sector and to encouraging volunteering as an essential act of citizenship for people of all ages and from all sections of society, and it follows from a concern that the relationship between government and the voluntary sector had increasingly been one of government taking for granted the work of volunteers, charities and voluntary organisations. We have sought to put that right through a period of consultation and discussion in every part of England, in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and we will seek to address the matter in government.
          I share the concern of hon. Members that there are dangers of a disincentive to volunteering if the Bill were introduced without sensitivity and without the greatest care. As was said in the discussion on an earlier amendment, the priority must be the protection of children, young people and vulnerable adults. That must be addressed in the way in which the Bill is implemented. The amendment has stimulated a useful debate, but it would be cynical of the Liberal Democrats to push it to a Division, because it appears to support voluntary organisations without actually delivering anything.
          I have spent my life involved with volunteers. As a Queen's scout and a former scouter, I referred in Committee to the concerns of the scout movement. I understand it because I have been involved and have seen it at first hand. I was subsequently involved in other forms of voluntary youth work. For some 16 years, I worked as a youth and community worker involved in the recruitment, training and support of volunteers in all aspects of voluntary work. For that reason, I understand the importance of providing support to those organisations.
          Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am listening with bated breath to understand how this Parliament can justify the Scout Association, Barnardo's and other organisations, or their volunteers, being charged. I am still waiting to hear the justification for that. It is indefensible. As for making declarations, I was leader of the Rams patrol and, in this place, I am vice-chairman the all-party Scout Association group, for which I am proud to speak on this occasion.
          Mr. Michael: I make no comment on the name of the patrol that any particular hon. Member might have represented. My hon. Friend has misunderstood the nature of the amendment and of the debate. The debate is important, but I was coming precisely to the point about how the issue has been addressed during our debates. In bringing forward their plans and in planning the establishment of the agency, the Government failed to think through the impact that the Bill might have on volunteering and voluntary organisations, but they have gone some way to meet our concerns, and amendments were agreed in Committee that addressed that precisely.
          The Government originally intended to delete the amendment proposed by Lord Weatherill and agreed in another place, but, instead of simply deleting it and returning the Bill to its original form, the Minister agreed in Committee to introduce an element of flexibility, which

          919
          allows discussion with the voluntary sector, proper consideration of the issues that have been raised by hon. Members during the debate and, therefore, arrangements to be made that take those points into account. That is precisely the point.
          That was a victory for common sense, and the change in the Bill is extremely important. Certainly we would be committed to meeting voluntary organisations and, in particular, volunteering organisations to discuss their concerns and to ensure that things are thought through before the flexibility that has been achieved by the amendments that were agreed in Committee lead to the Bill's implementation. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support that approach. It came as a result of amendments in another place, followed by discussion in Committee.
          As I said to the Minister in Committee, I welcome the greater flexibility that results from the amendments that were agreed in Committee, and I hope that he agrees that we need to be very careful about how the charging system is developed and implemented to protect, wherever possible, the interests of volunteers and volunteering organisations.
          Mr. Kirkhope: I am well aware of the fact that hon. Members do not like the idea of fees for groups such as volunteers. I suppose that none of us does ideally, but we have already agreed, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, to provide for the possibility of introducing free checks for certain groups if it is considered appropriate in future. As he said, that was accepted in Committee when the amendments inserted in another place to provide free checks for volunteers were overturned.
          Mr. Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
          Mr. Kirkhope: I have only just started.
          Mr. Mackinlay: It is very important and it is on that point.
          Mr. Kirkhope: I must give way to a leader of scouts.
          Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister said that free checks might be introduced if they were deemed appropriate. His colleague said in parliamentary replies that that would happen as and when resources permit. Frankly, hell will freeze over before that happens. If this goes on the statute book, this Government, if they are returned to office, or another Government, will find it difficult to find the money. We have to establish the point now that there should be free checks for these very important voluntary organisations.
          Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman is being pretty fierce for a patrol leader, but I am coming to the points that he has raised.
          Let me stress that we recognise the enormous amount of good work done by volunteers. Over the years, I have been involved in quite a number of voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Northwest Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) referred to the Prince's Trust, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I am very keen on it as well. It is an excellent organisation.
          920
          Our opposition to Lord Weatherill's amendments does not undermine the Government's long-standing commitment to volunteering, which was encapsulated in 1995 in the "Young People Make a Difference" initiative. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, that document made it clear that the Government encourage preferential treatment for volunteers in relation to, for instance, youth work development grants, the Millennium Commission giving priority to programmes for bursaries and grants to help young people to volunteer, and employers allowing employees to be involved in volunteering without cost or expense.
          The Government have done many things to encourage volunteering. I assure the House that, before introducing the Bill, we carefully considered whether voluntary organisations should be afforded free checks but, as I explained to the Committee yesterday, responsible Governments have to make tough choices. We rejected the idea on the grounds of equity, practicality and—for the benefit of Opposition Members—cost.
          The Criminal Record Agency, which will issue the certificates, has been planned on the basis that it will be self-financing. At the moment, therefore, there are simply no funds available to pay for free checks for volunteers. I do not want to become embroiled in an argument about numbers, but it is necessary to do so to give an idea of the financial effects of Lord Weatherill's amendments.
          Between 8 million and 20 million people act as volunteers—I cannot give a more accurate assessment, and I do not believe any other hon. Member can—so it is difficult to estimate precisely what the cost of free checks would be.
          Assuming that checks were restricted to new volunteers, and that only those eligible for the higher level of checks—enhanced criminal record certificates—were included, the minimum sum likely to be needed would be about £10 million a year. However, that could increase considerably if demand for checks was stimulated, as it could be, if they were free and were sought in a blanket way, rather than after careful consideration of whether they were really necessary for each organisation.
          If there were a requirement that existing volunteers be checked, as was suggested in another place, the sums involved would be between £40 million and £200 million in the first year. We do not believe that it would be right to commit ourselves to providing a blank cheque when we are trying to hold down public expenditure.
          6 pm
          Mr. Rowe: Those figures are notional indeed. Surely it would not be beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby voluntary organisations would be able to claim money back only if a volunteer were shown to be in the category for which checks were required.
          Mr. Kirkhope: Yes, but I was about to say that there is also the question of practicality—the very point that has just been raised. If we had accepted the amendments passed in another place, not only would provision have had to be made for the costs of the checks themselves, it would also have been necessary to put in place complex administrative arrangements to filter out particular types of check.
          There would have to be a list of all organisations that might be likely to appoint volunteers, and each application would need to be screened to ensure that

          921
          the statement waiving the fee was from a bona fide voluntary organisation. The type of post being applied for would also require close scrutiny—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has already suggested that we might differentiate between various posts—so that the agency could satisfy itself that the applicant would not be receiving any remuneration other than expenses.
          Those procedures would be time consuming and require the agency to take on additional staff. That would all add to the costs to be met either from the public purse or by increasing considerably the charges levied on other users of the Criminal Records Agency.
          That brings me to equity. As the agency was envisaged as being self-financing, and as there are no funds in existing budgets for free checks, the money to pay for them could be found only by diverting funds from elsewhere or by charging non-volunteer applicants more for their checks. We do not think that that would be fair, especially as if we redistributed the costs in that way it is likely that the charges incurred by other users could double.
          Many of those eligible for the more detailed and costly checks are in relatively low-paid jobs associated with the caring professions, while many of those who would require criminal conviction certificates could be the unemployed who were seeking work. Hon. Members have already said that such categories of people may be deterred from volunteering, but what about those seeking certificates for the purposes of finding work?
          It cannot be right to expect people on low incomes to subsidise all volunteers, as many of the volunteers may be much better off than they are. If fees were waived for volunteers, the Government would come under considerable pressure to waive the fees for low-income groups and the unemployed, increasing further the amount that would have to be taken from public funds.
          The fairest way of meeting the costs therefore continues to be to spread them across all those using the agency. Such an approach means that the fees charged can be kept as low as possible. As I am sure the House is aware, the cost envisaged for a criminal conviction certificate or criminal record certificate is about £5 or £6.
          Sir Donald Thompson: When all that is finished, who will own the licence, the agency or the individual?
          Mr. Kirkhope: The certificate to be applied for, certainly at the basic level—the CCC—will belong to the individual, who can therefore prove his status to those who might need to know it.
          As I have said, the costs are low—£5 or £6 for a basic certificate, and for an enhanced certificate between £8 and £10. In our view, that should not prove burdensome for most volunteers, and it should not discourage them from continuing to make their valuable contribution to the community through their voluntary work.
          We recognise, however, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has been fair enough to say, that there is a need for flexibility. We do not want to
          922
          rule out the possibility of providing free checks for deserving groups at some point in the future. That is why we tabled an amendment in Committee to provide a power to allow certain groups, such as volunteers, to be exempted from paying fees for criminal record checks.
          The measures in part V put in place a long-awaited improved system of access to criminal record checks that will undoubtedly offer better protection to vulnerable groups such as children, and will provide reassurance to those who appoint people to positions of trust. Voluntary organisations working with children and other vulnerable people have been among those who have most particularly sought access to checks. It was in direct response to them that we included the provisions in the Bill, and it would be a great pity if speedy implementation of the necessary measures were delayed because money is not available to cover the costs of free checks for volunteers.
          The amendment would require the regulations in which the fees and forms for criminal record certificates are prescribed to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative procedure, as is provided in the Bill.
          As with all regulations that deal with fees or the form of applications, it is necessary to provide for routine changes that are always necessary—to take account of inflation, for example. It is not possible to justify the use of the affirmative procedure for that purpose. We would be setting an undesirable precedent if regulations specifying the modest sums of money involved in the fees, or the form applications must take, had to occupy the time of both Houses every time a small adjustment was needed. That process is not necessary, because we are already making the regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure, thus providing the opportunity for scrutiny by Parliament.
          I believe that the present provisions are sufficient to meet the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members, and I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.
          Mr. Beith: The Minister has enumerated many reasons why he believes the Government will not assist charities with the costs of the checks that they will have to carry out. The existence of a power in the Bill to do so appears to be no more than a nominal concession. Because of the concern among charities and the sums of money involved, I ask hon. Members to ensure that the House must debate the scale of charges when it is introduced. At that point we shall be able to bring to bear again the concerns of the charities. We should give the next Parliament the opportunity to ensure that charities are not faced with a cost that they cannot bear, and which could destroy the enormously valuable work that they do. I shall therefore press the amendment to a Division.
          Question put, That the amendment be made:—
          The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 267.

          Division No. 98]

          [6.6 pm

          AYES

          Alton, David

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

          Beggs, Roy

          Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

          Beith, Rt Hon A J

          Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

          923

          Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

          Paisley, Rev Ian

          Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

          Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

          Foster, Don (Bath)

          Ross, William (E Londy)

          Godman, Dr Norman A

          Skinner, Dennis

          Harvey, Nick

          Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

          Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

          Kirkwood, Archy

          Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)

          Llwyd, Elfyn

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          McCrea, Rev William

          Thumham, Peter

          McGrady, Eddie

          Tyler, Paul

          Mackinlay, Andrew

          Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

          Maclennan, Robert

          Wallace, James

          McNamara, Kevin

          Wigley, Dafydd

          Mallon, Seamus

          Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

          Mrs. Diana Maddock and Ms Liz Lynne.

          Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

          NOES

          Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

          Couchman, James

          Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

          Cran, James

          Alexander, Richard

          Curry, Rt Hon David

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

          Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

          Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

          Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

          Amess, David

          Day, Stephen

          Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

          Deva, Nirj Joseph

          Arbuthnot, James

          Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Ashby, David

          Dover, Den

          Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

          Duncan, Alan

          Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

          Duncan Smith, Iain

          Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

          Dunn, Bob

          Banks, Matthew (Southport)

          Durant, Sir Anthony

          Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

          Dykes, Hugh

          Bates, Michael

          Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

          Bellingham, Henry

          Elletson, Harold

          Bendall, Vivian

          Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

          Biffen, Rt Hon John

          Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

          Body, Sir Richard

          Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

          Booth, Hartley

          Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

          Boswell, Tim

          Evennett, David

          Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

          Faber, David

          Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

          Fabricant, Michael

          Bowis, John

          Fenner, Dame Peggy

          Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

          Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

          Brandreth, Gyles

          Fishbum, Dudley

          Brazier, Julian

          Forman, Nigel

          Bright, Sir Graham

          Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

          Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

          Forth, Rt Hon Eric

          Browning, Mrs Angela

          Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

          Budgen, Nicholas

          Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

          Burns, Simon

          Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

          Burt, Alistair

          Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

          Butcher, John

          French, Douglas

          Butler, Peter

          Fry, Sir Peter

          Butterfill, John

          Gale, Roger

          Carlisle, John (Luton N)

          Gallie, Phil

          Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

          Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

          Carrington, Matthew

          Garnier, Edward

          Carttiss, Michael

          Gill, Christopher

          Cash, William

          Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

          Channon, Rt Hon Paul

          Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

          Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

          Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Clappison, James

          Gorst, Sir John

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

          Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

          Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushdiffe)

          Greenway, John (Ryedale)

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Coe, Sebastian

          Grylls, Sir Michael

          Colvin, Michael

          Gummer, Rt Hon John

          Congdon, David

          Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

          Conway, Derek

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

          Hampson, Dr Keith

          Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

          Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

          Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

          Hannam, Sir John

          924

          Hargreaves, Andrew

          Ottaway, Richard

          Harris, David

          Page, Richard

          Haselhurst, Sir Alan

          Paice, James

          Hawkins, Nick

          Patnick, Sir Irvine

          Hawksley, Warren

          Patten, Rt Hon John

          Hayes, Jerry

          Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Heald, Oliver

          Pawsey, James

          Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

          Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

          Hendry, Charles

          Pickles, Eric

          Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

          Porter, David

          Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

          Powell, William (Corby)

          Horam, John

          Rathbone, Tim

          Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

          Redwood, Rt Hon John

          Howard, Rt Hon Michael

          Renton, Rt Hon Tim

          Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

          Richards, Rod

          Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

          Riddick, Graham

          Hunter, Andrew

          Robathan, Andrew

          Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

          Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

          Jack, Rt Hon Michael

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

          Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

          Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

          Jessel, Toby

          Roe, Mrs Marion

          Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Rowe, Andrew

          Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

          Sackville, Tom

          Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

          Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

          Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

          Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

          Key, Robert

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          King, Rt Hon Tom

          Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

          Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

          Shersby, Sir Michael

          Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

          Sims, Sir Roger

          Knox, Sir David

          Skeet, Sir Trevor

          Kynoch, George

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

          Lait, Mrs Jacqui

          Speed, Sir Keith

          Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

          Spencer, Sir Derek

          Lang, Rt Hon Ian

          Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

          Lawrence, Sir Ivan

          Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

          Legg, Barry

          Spink, Dr Robert

          Leigh, Edward

          Spring, Richard

          Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

          Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

          Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

          Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

          Lidington, David

          Steen, Anthony

          Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

          Stephen, Michael

          Lord, Michael

          Stem, Michael

          Luff, Peter

          Stewart, Allan

          Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

          Streeter, Gary

          MacGregor, Rt Hon John

          Sumberg, David

          MacKay, Andrew

          Sweeney, Walter

          Maclean, Rt Hon David

          Sykes, John

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          Madel, Sir David

          Taylor, John M (Solihull)

          Maitland, Lady Olga

          Taylor, Sir Teddy

          Malone, Gerald

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Mans, Keith

          Thomason, Roy

          Marland, Paul

          Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

          Marlow, Tony

          Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

          Marshall, John (Hendon S)

          Thomton, Sir Malcolm

          Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

          Mates, Michael

          Tracey, Richard

          Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

          Tredinnick, David

          Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

          Trend, Michael

          Merchant, Piers

          Trotter, Neville

          Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

          Vaughan, Sir Gerard

          Moate, Sir Roger

          Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

          Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

          Walden, George

          Montgomery, Sir Fergus

          Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

          Moss, Malcolm

          Waller, Gary

          Nelson, Anthony

          Watts, John

          Neubert, Sir Michael

          Wells, Bowen

          Newton, Rt Hon Tony

          Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

          Nicholson, David (Taunton)

          Whittingdale, John

          Norris, Steve

          Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

          Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

          Wiggin, Sir Jerry

          Oppenheim, Phillip

          Wilkinson, John

          925

          Willetts, David

          Young, Rt Hon Sir George

          Wilshire, David

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Wolfson, Mark

          Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Roger Knapman.

          Yeo, Tim

          Question accordingly negatived.

        Clause 129

          CHANGE OF NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN POLICE AREAS
          6.18 pm
          Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move, a manuscript amendment: in page 56, leave out lines 27 and 28.
          I would like to express my gratitude to the Speaker for selecting the amendment which—as a manuscript amendment—is unusual at this stage. But when I explain the circumstances in which I asked the Speaker to accept the amendment, hon. Members will understand why I thought it important to give the House an opportunity to debate an issue that will affect the people in my constituency—and every constituency covered by Humberside police—because of the impact of a change that took place yesterday in Committee.
          In some ways, I am sorry to speak against the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who moved that amendment in Committee. On many occasions, he, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I have worked together to represent the interests of north and north-east Lincolnshire, but on this occasion I cannot support him, and I shall explain why.
          Hon. Members from all parties should support my amendment, which would delete the amendment agreed to in Committee yesterday to change the name of Humberside police to Humber police. Hon. Members might ask themselves what is so important about changing the name and that is a good question. Humber police is not a great name, is it? We do not call the Metropolitan police the Thames police, or the Merseyside police, the Mersey police. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes sounds as if he wants the police to concentrate on police boats going up and down the river Humber checking shipping. The name is not sensible.
          Mr. Michael Brown: It is a rare occasion when the hon. Gentleman and I are on opposite sides on behalf of local interests. In our 10 years as next-door neighbours, we have usually worked together on local issues, and I will not fall out with him because of today's debate. I remind him that when the county of Humberside was abolished, the Government's regional office in Leeds changed the name of Yorkshire and Humberside to Yorkshire and the Humber—the Humber has become an accepted term for the region.
          Mr. Morley: That is true, but in that case the name had to be changed because it referred to the county of Humberside, which no longer exists, so there was no choice. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we still have the Humberside fire brigade and that that name will not be changed by his amendment. We also still have the Humberside ambulance service, but for some reason we are to have the Humber police. It does not make sense.
          Dr. Godman: In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), when the Government got rid of Strathclyde regional council even they retained the Strathclyde police force.
          Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

          927
          During the consultation period on local government reorganisation, the police authority and all the local authorities were consulted about the name, and wanted unanimously to keep the name Humberside police. The force's operational area is still within the county boundary of the old county of Humberside.
          Hon. Members should oppose the amendment agreed in Committee for three reasons. First, on consultation, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has his own view of the name Humberside. It is an anathema to him. He has criticised Radio Humberside, saying he did not like it because of its name. Disliking a name is not sufficient reason to change it. The change could cost up to £1 million. It is outrageous that a decision was taken in Committee that will have far-reaching implications in terms of cost to Humberside police, when there was no consultation with local people, the police authority, the chief constable and Members of Parliament representing the Humberside police area, nor any consultation with local parish and town councils. No one had any say in the change. It has been sprung on us with no consultation.
          If there were a groundswell for change, we would listen. I did not object to the name of North Lincolnshire for my new unitary authority because I knew that there was a groundswell of opinion for it. There is no groundswell in the former Humberside area for a name change of this kind.
          Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not object to the fact that the local authority changed its name to North Lincolnshire. Would he accept changing the name of the police authority to the North Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire police authority, which is precisely what it is?
          Mr. Morley: The same points apply. People should be asked for their view of the change. If there is to be any change, local opinions and views should be sought. There was no attempt to do so before the amendment was agreed to in Committee, and that is why I object to the change. There has been no consultation. I have seen no groundswell of opinion, I have not had a single letter on the subject and not one person has mentioned to me that the name of the Humberside police force should be changed.
          When people in the old Humberside area realise that the change could cost up to £1 million, which will come out of the police authority's budget, they will wonder why the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—a Member representing Lincolnshire—is so concerned about changing the name. The authority will not cover his area.
          The cost is the third point. The Minister should think carefully. Will he consider accepting my amendment rather than making me force it to a vote? If he does not accept my amendment, he is telling the people of Humberside and the four councils in the area that they will have to find nearly £1 million—according to the chief constable with whom I have been in touch today—out of the existing police budget simply to make that change. How many police officers will be affected by that? Does not the Minister think that fighting crime, dealing with criminals and ensuring that there are police officers on the streets are far more important than changing the name on a cap badge or the side of a police car? That is what the Minister should think about, and it is what every hon. Member thinks about.
          928
          If the Minister will not accept my amendment, he and those hon. Members who go into the Lobby to support the Bill as it stands should realise that people in my area will think that they and the Conservative party care so little about fighting crime and about effective police resources that they are prepared to take £1 million from a police authority budget simply to drop the "side" out of Humberside. That is unacceptable. There has been no consultation. The views of local people have not been taken into account and a good police force might be crippled by having to find that £1 million.
          I read in the Hansard report of proceedings in Committee that the name change could be phased in over a number of years and introduced as it can be afforded, which is a ludicrous idea. One cannot have one police car going out with Humberside police on it and another with Humber police, or half the police force with one cap badge and half with another. It does not make sense and would be a bureaucratic nightmare. That is why we Labour Members are saying that our priority is fighting crime. Our priority is law and order and we do not want to waste money changing four letters in the name of a police force. We want to ensure that the money that the local police authority has is used to greatest effect and that means by fighting crime and not messing around with a name in this way.
          Dropping the "side" in Humberside will not only let down the side referred to in the name, but will let down the side as regards representing the people of the area and ensuring that the money is used to fight crime.
          Mr. Michael Brown: As I said in my intervention, it is a rare occasion when the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and I disagree on a local issue. We have been good neighbours, and normally we are on the same side.
          The hon. Gentleman speaks of lack of consultation. The position is simple: I served in Committee on the Bill, and I saw that it was within the long title to table my amendment, which has been on the amendment paper and known to the hon. Gentleman since 25 February. Any Member of Parliament who studies the Vote bundle can see any amendment that is tabled and take appropriate action.
          If he had been watching the proceedings of the House, the hon. Gentleman would have known that my amendment was selected for debate by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on 11 March, so there was no attempt to slide it through; every hon. Member knew that I was on the Standing Committee and that I had tabled the amendment that first appeared on the amendment paper on 25 February.
          6.30 pm
          Yesterday, when my amendment was debated in Committee, it was open to any member of the Committee to vote it down. My right hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the Government were neutral, and said that he and his Front-Bench colleagues would not participate in a Division. It was possible, therefore, for the Opposition to call a Division and defeat my amendment, but I am delighted to report that it was made without a Division, after a good debate that covered several issues.
          The most important point for me to stress is that the county of Humberside no longer exists. I spent 16 years, from the day on which I first entered the House, trying

          929
          unsuccessfully to persuade successive Ministers in the Department of the Environment that the hated county of Humberside should be abolished. Eventually, in February 1995, the House passed a statutory instrument enabling the county to be abolished and the new unitary authorities to be set up.
          The Government recognised that, with the abolition of Humberside, some names would need to be changed. The Government regional office of Yorkshire and Humberside was renamed Yorkshire and the Humber. The Post Office acknowledges that to write Lincolnshire on a letter is an accepted form of address.
          The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe says that he has had no complaints about the name of Humberside constabulary, but that is not my experience. Whenever the name Humberside arises in a water, electricity or gas bill or in reference to the fire service I get a large number of letters from constituents who say, "You have abolished the county of Humberside, Mr. Brown, so why do we still have Humberside police and Humberside ambulance service?"
          From October this year, the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine will be served not by the Humberside ambulance service but by the Lincolnshire ambulance service.
          Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right, but that change will be the result not of any popular movement but of the daft internal market and the tendering procedure, in which Lincolnshire ambulance trust happened to win.
          Mr. Brown: I suspect that, if I pursued that avenue too far, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order. However, I will say that, with the Lincolnshire ambulance trust taking over the responsibility for the ambulance service in the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman, myself and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I bet that the name Humberside ambulance service, which will cover only east Yorkshire, will not remain.
          I bet that, when the name is changed, there will be no suggestion that £1 million will have to be spent on changing the names on the ambulances. In October, when the present Humberside ambulance trust becomes responsible only for Hull and East Yorkshire, it will call itself not Humberside but East Riding. It will not spend £1 million painting out names on ambulances immediately and change all its notepaper. It will have to continue on existing budgets, because that is the structure of its cost basis.
          Mr. Beith: I have listened with great interest, but is it not the case that all the people who object to having Humberside on their bills and letters really want Lincolnshire on them?
          Mr. Brown: That is correct. I have been waging a campaign, of which I gave notice when we passed the Order in Council giving effect to the setting up of the current structure of unitary local government—it is in my speech in Hansard—that I would do everything possible to expunge the word Humberside from the English
          930
          language. Yesterday's opportunity that was presented to me in Committee was simply a part of that continuing campaign.
          I have successfully persuaded Anglian Water, Yorkshire Electricity, British Gas and BT to recognise that the name Lincolnshire must appear on their bills. There has been a cost to those companies, but the bills have not increased.
          The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe touched on cost, but I believe that that is a red herring. He was right to remind the House that the chief constable is concerned about the cost implications, but I dispute the chief constable's figure of £1 million. If the change were to be made overnight, I believe that the cost would be about £250,000.
          I have received the same list as the hon. Gentleman from the chief constable, who says that to effect the change he will have to get new uniforms for 3,000 people, including regulars, specials and support staff; he will not have to get new uniforms unless he is terribly profligate. All that has to be done, eventually, over some time, is to change the name tag on the shoulder pads. He does not have to get new headgear, as all he has to do is change the badge.
          The chief constable says that he will require funds for marketing the new name; he does not need to spend a halfpenny doing that. He says that he has to write off existing stock of all headed notepaper and official literature, including legal documents, summonses and warrants; that is not so: my constituency association is changing its name from Brigg and Cleethorpes to Cleethorpes, and we do not have the money to go to the printing presses tomorrow to change everything, so we shall continue to use the old notepaper until the last sheet has gone. That is therefore a red herring.
          The chief constable speaks of vehicle livery for the whole fleet; but, when new police vehicles are purchased, they can have Humber on the side, while existing vehicles continue to have Humberside on the side, just as, when later this year the name of the Humberside ambulance trust changes, that will have to be done by a gradual process.
          Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is playing down some of the difficulties. Some of the uniforms have the name woven in; one cannot simply tear them off and sew on a stripe. Taking off the names on police helmets is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman would like to believe.
          When my three local councils were brought together, they did not want the expense of a change, but realised that it would be too complicated if they did not act at once, so they went for a stick-over logo; even that was quite expensive. Even people who argue for local government change complain about the costs that go with it: the new signs and headings and the office administration. Should not people be given a choice as to whether they want to pay £1 million to change a name?
          Mr. Brown: I do not support police uniforms being scrapped until they need replacing. In Committee yesterday, I said:
          "I understand that the chief constable may be concerned about the cost implications. If the Committee approves my amendment, we should do everything possible to ensure that the name change takes place only as and when resources allow the chief constable to

          931
          replace motor vehicles and uniforms. I know that he is anxious about costs and it is essential to recognise that the last thing we expect the chief constable to do is to reorder new uniforms, police cars, equipment, and so on."
          The Minister made a similar point. I intervened on him and said that I accepted his warning that he did not expect the chief constable to engage in additional expenditure to effect the change. I asked:
          "If the Committee agreed to the amendment, would it be acceptable for my right hon. Friend's Department to send some sort of guideline to the chief constable acknowledging that it would not expect him to incur expenditure overnight on changing badges and logos, and that it fully understands that it could take several years for the proposal to come into effect?"
          My right hon. Friend replied that he would draw our remarks to the force's attention, but:
          "The Home Office has no constitutional right to send a guideline to that effect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 March 1997; c. 279–282.]
          He accepted that his neutrality was based on the clear understanding that there would be no immediate requirement to spend money on effecting the change.
          It is important to recognise that the name Humberside is still synonymous with the hated county of Humberside. I simply took the opportunity presented by the Police Bill. I would never have dreamed of introducing such legislation on its own. It is rare that the House gets an opportunity to table amendments that affect a locality. If I had not taken advantage of this opportunity, I might have had to wait another five or 10 years. The chief constable does not want to change the name, because he is concerned about the growing demand in the old South Humberside area for our area to be policed by the Lincolnshire force.
          The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that the consultation showed no demand for our constituencies to be taken over by the Lincolnshire force. Let me remind him that there is a growing demand in the old south Humberside area for the Lincolnshire police to take over policing because Humberside appears low down the crime ranking order relative to Lincolnshire. We often have undue problems with the Humber bridge, which is the single link between the two halves of the police area. If the majority of my constituents had their way, they would be policed by the Lincolnshire police. The chief constable is worried that the Home Secretary of the day may decide to ensure that the police authority and local government areas are more closely matched. That is why he overstates the case on cost grounds.
          There is a case to be made, and it is the responsibility of Parliament—not the chief constable, the local authorities or the parish councils—to take legislative decisions about such matters and to test them in the Lobbies, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to press his amendment. It is rare for us to disagree on local issues. We have had, and I am sure that we will continue to have, a very good working relationship. I am sorry that it has temporarily broken down.
          Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have been in the House for a long time but I have never known an occasion when, on a matter affecting the title of a county or area that he or she represented with another hon. Member, the Member who had the bright idea of changing a name did not inform colleagues directly—
          Mr. Brown: It was on the Order Paper.
          Mr. McNamara: Not through the Order Paper.
          932
          Secondly, I am surprised that a matter that affects the whole area was not referred to the local authorities, the parish councils or even to the police authority. The action of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was discourteous to his colleagues. We can live with that, because we are used to such things. More important is the cavalier way in which he has treated the people who he claims to represent in Humberside.
          Fortunately, at the general election, the Labour candidate in his seat will to be able to say that the hon. Gentleman is the man who would profligately spend £1 million on changing a name—£250,000 a letter. That is the equivalent of 20 policemen. He is prepared to watch the money go, just like that. That says much for his concern for the safety and security of his constituents. Fortunately, he will not have that responsibility in future.
          The hon. Gentleman is prepared to play with their physical safety and that of their homes and of the roads by being prepared to spend £1 million to satisfy a childish phobia about a name. He says, "I hate the name, I want it expunged." What sort of stupid arrogant attitude is that? What a waste of public money.
          6.45 pm
          The Government say that they are neutral, but they are prepared to allow £1 million to be wasted. The same Government could not give me £300,000 under the safer city initiative to protect the safety and security of people who live in high-rise flats in my constituency. They could not give me that, but they can give £1 million for the foolish idea of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.
          Mr. Brown: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally a mild, meek and gentlemanly character, has got so carried away. I want to give him a breather. I challenge the hon. Gentleman about the figure of £1 million. The chief constable would be profligate to spend £1 million overnight to effect the name change, but he has no need. My exchanges with the Minister showed that only out of petty mindedness could the chief constable be profligate enough to do that. I would not expect him to spend £1 million.
          Mr. McNamara: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but that is not what he means. He is really saying that he is prepared to spend that money over several years. He is prepared to allow the money to be spent, whether at once or over a period, on a foolish scheme. He says that I am usually mild, courteous, gentle and kind, that I kiss my wife and do not kick the dog. That is all true, but I get angry when something concerns the physical safety of my constituents, and the security of their homes is put at risk by hare-brained schemes.
          The one thing that makes me even angrier is the Government's attitude. Time and time again we have applied for schemes to protect my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in Hull and had them turned down. Then Ministers turn round and say, "Here, take £1 million—£250,000 a letter—to get rid of the 'side' out of 'Humberside'." We shall be left with the Humber police force. What a glorious idea that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has shown.

          933
          The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes says that he wants his part of Lincolnshire to be policed by Lincolnshire police authority. I understand his wanting to go into Lincolnshire. As far as I am concerned, Lincolnshire is more than welcome to the hon. Gentleman. Yet both banks of the Humber have common interests, in terms of effective policing, as we have had on such things as drug smuggling and so many other issues. Humberside police force has expertise on such matters as drug smuggling because of the maritime nature of the area and the nature of the ports on both sides of the Humber, down the Trent and up the Ouse.
          Humberside police force protects not only our citizens in Humberside but the citizens of the greater part of the country. Some of the greatest attempts to import dangerous drugs occur in Hull and other Humberside ports. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes wants to break up and spoil that expertise when it is just beginning to get on top of drug smuggling. Why? Because he does not like the name "Humberside." He would spend £1 million on changing it. For goodness sake, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that we are supposed to be demob happy, but this is demob lunacy.
          Mr. Edward Leigh: Some people who do not represent my part of the world— you represent Plymouth, Drake with great distinction, Madam Deputy Speaker—may wonder why people are getting so worked up in this debate. The issue is of great importance locally. For those who are not familiar with it, it goes back to 1974 when the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), whom I was delighted to see in the Chamber a moment ago, decided to tear away from the rest of Lincolnshire parts of north Lincolnshire, including Scunthorpe, Grimsby, Glanford and Brigg. That caused enormous ill feeling. Unofficial local referendums were conducted and massively subscribed to because the Government led by my right hon. Friend, whom I now see entering the Chamber, did not allow an official referendum on the issue. The people of Lincolnshire wanted to be one, but they were not consulted.
          After almost 20 years of campaigning by people like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the county of Humberside has finally been abolished and people can once again say with pride, even if they live in Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Brigg, Glanford or wherever, that they live in Lincolnshire. To them it is an important issue.
          This is not simply an unimportant debate about a name. People in Lincolnshire feel strongly about it. That is why, as a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Police Bill, I tabled my own variant of the amendment proposed today by my hon. Friend. I proposed that we should change the name of the Humberside police force to North Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire police force. That is what people want deep in their hearts.
          People who live in Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Hull think of themselves as belonging either to Lincolnshire or to Yorkshire. That is the reality. I was told by my
          934
          hon. Friends and by my right hon. Friend the Minister that it was not possible to proceed that far. It is important to local people.
          Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman chose the names of two unitary authorities and left out the other two. He is as stupid as his hon. Friend.
          Mr. Leigh: That was an unworthy intervention. The hon. Gentleman and I enjoy good relations on other matters. People who live in Hull know perfectly well that they live in east Yorkshire. People who live in Scunthorpe or Grimsby know that they live in Lincolnshire. That is the fact of the case. That was the reason for my amendment, but it was not accepted.
          The campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has met with success. The county of Humberside has been abolished. He is now rightly pressing to have all other public bodies expunge the name from their titles.
          Listening to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), one would think that people do not attach importance to this issue. They do. I constantly received letters from people in the north part of Lincolnshire before the Post Office changed its rules who were angry that, although they lived in Lincolnshire, they had to put "Humberside" in their address. They did not like it. A name is important. People in Lincolnshire want that fact acknowledged.
          My hon. Friend's amendment is important for another reason. I have talked about the symbolic importance of a name, but as my hon. Friend says, this goes further. Last week I had a long conversation with the chief constable of Lincolnshire. I cannot repeat what he said in private, but there is mystification as to why the two police authorities in north Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire have not been amalgamated. It is a serious point.
          I represent villages in the northern part of Lincolnshire just south of the old county boundary between South Humberside and Lincolnshire. I receive complaints from people in places such as Keelby about the long police response time when an incident takes place. I am sure that people on the other side of the old boundary make the same complaint. The nearest headquarters is Gainsborough or perhaps Market Rasen. How much more sensible it would be to have a unified police authority. We should have created a unified police authority from the north Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire forces.
          Lincolnshire police authority has performed superbly in the past 20 years. The chief constable told me that, before reorganisation, about two thirds of the crime in the county was committed in what is now Lincolnshire and one third was committed in South Humberside. The position is now reversed. Two thirds of crime in the county is now recorded in the former South Humberside and one third is committed in south Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire constabulary has a superb record of performing a comprehensive service within its budget.
          Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman digresses from the argument about policing, which was considered and rejected. Humberside has a major drugs problem associated with the Humber ports. It makes sense to have an estuary-wide police force. There is a logical argument for that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people

          935
          should be consulted about changing the name and that the cost should be considered? I have a suspicion that, if people in north Lincolnshire had realised that the local government reorganisation would mean a 28 per cent. increase in their council tax, they might have had second thoughts. People ought to be consulted on whether they want to pay £1 million to change the name of the local police authority.
          Mr. Leigh: We all know that the figure of £1 million is grossly inflated. The letter from the chief constable is absurd. The change will not cost £1 million. As my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes have said, the change could be phased in over a considerable time.
          I can now draw my remarks to a conclusion. This is not simply a little campaign by my hon. Friend in which local people take no interest. He is not simply trying to get a few headlines in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph. It is nothing to do with any of that. It is important. If it was not important, why has my hon. Friend been able to show me a sheaf of letters from organisations such as the Great North Eastern Railway, the Benefits Agency, the Post Office and the Lincolnshire ambulance service, all saying that they are changing their name? Indeed, the Rural Development Commission is actually changing its name to the very name that I suggested in my amendment— North Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire. As far as I know the Rural Development Commission is a serious and well-respected body. It obviously considers the matter important, but it has not said that it will cost it £1 million to change its name. The chief constable is using absurd arguments.
          Local people attach importance to this matter. My hon. Friend's amendment does not go far enough, but I appreciate that mine cannot get through tonight, so I am happy to support my hon. Friend.
          Mr. Maclean: I am pleased to respond to this short and slightly heated debate. From the Government's point of view, there are only two principal issues here. In Committee yesterday, I said that I would not attempt to impose the Government's view of what the area should be called—I did not consider it my duty to do so, nor was it appropriate. I said that I would be happy to take the Committee's opinion on the matter and leave it to a free vote in Committee. That is what happened, and I shall return to that subject in a moment.
          7 pm
          The other point I wish to make relates to cost. If I thought for a single moment that the cost of a change of name from Humberside to Humber, as was decided in Committee yesterday, would cost £1 million—either next year or over ten years—I would have had to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that I was sorry, but the Government could not remain neutral because that was an excessive cost, up with which we would not put.
          Mr. McNamara: Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed this matter and the costings with the police authority or the chief constable?
          Mr. Maclean: The chief constable, as I said yesterday, has said that he does not wish the name to be changed,
          936
          and he has sent a letter making that view clear. Attached to the letter is a document headed, "Areas incurring implementation costs." These areas lead him to conclude that the cost could be £1 million and they include vehicle livery for the whole fleet; writing off existing stock; and marketing the new name.
          I accept that, if the name was changed, whatever it was changed to, the cap badge would have to change in due course—I do not, however, accept that uniforms would have to change—and as official notepaper was replaced, it too would have to change. However, I do not accept for one moment that existing stock bearing any name needs to be written off at all—that would be an appalling waste, and I would not contemplate such action. Nor would I accept that a single penny of taxpayers' money should be spent by any police authority on marketing a new name. I know what marketing costs from when the Home Office has attempted anti-crime drives. It would be easy to spend £1 million on marketing a new name—it is possible to spend £5 million on marketing a new corporate identity without seeing any great benefit from doing so.
          There is only one way in which costs could rise to £1 million and that is if a decision was taken overnight to spend an awful lot of money on a new corporate identity, marketing a new name, writing off all existing stocks and changing overnight. I have said that an authority could do that if it wished, but I would not intend any of the generous increase in funding that we have given Humberside police over the years to be spent on such action. I made that clear in Committee yesterday.
          I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said. We have allocated sufficient extra funds to Humberside and we intend to continue the programme of allocating money for extra bobbies. Humberside, which has increased the number of its officers over the years to 2,042, can now recruit an extra 85 officers because of the extra funding promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Last year, we allowed Humberside police a budget increase of more than 5 per cent.; this year, it could increase by 3.8 per cent. We have put in that funding, and I want all of it to be spent on fighting crime. That is what it is all about.
          I made it clear in Committee that, if the change went through, I would not want any money to be wasted on marketing a new name or corporate identity; and it would be scandalous if the costs of a change of name reached a fraction of £1 million, let alone £1 million.
          Mr. Morley: To balance its budget this year, Humberside police took £750,000 from its reserves in order to solve its funding problems and meet its commitments. The Minister may quibble about the figures, but I have confidence in the chief constable of Humberside. Whatever the real figures are and however much is spent on changing the name, that represents money being diverted from fighting crime and protecting the interests of the people of Humberside. How can the Minister justify that?
          Mr. Maclean: If that is how he feels, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) should have voted against the amendment yesterday in the free vote in Committee.

          937
          Humberside has been generously funded; there can be no quibble about that. If it took money from reserves, that is because the 5 per cent. increase last year allowed it to build up generous balances.
          The crucial and fundamental point is this: yesterday in Committee I made it absolutely clear that the Government were neutral on this issue. I warned my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes that I could not support his amendment and said that I would vote against him; I warned him that he would probably lose. If my hon. Friend had lost in Committee yesterday, the Government would not be coming here today with an amendment to reverse a free vote in Committee—that would be intolerable.
          Similarly, I do not propose to reverse an amendment that yesterday went through on a free vote, with no one voting against it. I am content to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and in the Government that, although we had a free vote on the issue yesterday in which members of the Government abstained, the Government will not try to overturn tonight an amendment that was passed by a free vote. We will support the Bill as it stands.
          Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) demonstrated the foolishness of trying to be too clever with his amendment yesterday, but the Minister has compounded that by making himself look ridiculous today. This is a local issue, and it should be decided by local opinion. Yesterday, I thought the Minister agreed with that point.
          I am surprised that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has not learnt the importance of listening to local people, but in the debate he made clear his absurd obsession with grinding the name of Humberside into oblivion, irrespective of the impact on policing or whether £1 million might be taken out of the police budget. That money should be spent on preventing, fighting and detecting crime in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The hon. Gentleman is not interested in that—he is interested only in the name.
          Mr. Michael Brown: I cannot believe my ears. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee and yesterday had the opportunity to defeat me. If he and all Opposition Members had voted against my amendment, I would have lost. Why did he not vote against me?
          Mr. Michael: It is perfectly clear, and I shall come to that question in a moment. The hon. Gentleman tabled amendments, and in the course of the debate I asked the Minister, who had not referred to any consultations undertaken by his Department, to tell us about any such consultations and about the wishes of the local police authority and others. The Minister did not answer that question—he did not tell us the views of the local police authority. He said, in a low-key manner:
          "The chief constable certainly sees no need for change; nor does Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary recommend that any change is essential.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 March 1997; c. 282.]
          After we emerged from the Committee, I saw a letter that had been sent to the deputy Leader of the Opposition expressing the chief constable's opposition. It was not the
          938
          gentle opposition that the Minister had suggested, but strong and passionate opposition of the sort that has been illustrated by my hon. Friends tonight. The chief constable wrote:
          "Such a change could only have perceived symbolic advantage, particularly when there are other agencies continuing to use 'Humberside' as part of their title … Not only is change unnecessary, but to implement it would cost in the region of a million pounds."
          That is why my hon. Friends have come today to say on behalf of their constituents that they believe that £1 million expenditure would be more beneficial to their constituency if it was spent on crime prevention and on policing in their areas, rather than on a change of name.
          Mr. Maclean: Obviously, the Labour party is in a blind panic tonight. Having agreed with, and not opposed, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes yesterday and said nothing in Committee, letting an amendment go through on the nod, why does the hon. Gentleman oppose it tonight?
          Mr. Michael: Because I am able to answer the question that I asked the Minister, which he was unable to answer in Committee. The Minister abrogated his responsibility by not consulting on the amendment in Committee and maintained his neutrality there but, ridiculously, he says that tonight he will not give the House the choice, but will vote to spend £1 million on a change of name over a period, instead of allowing that £1 million to be spent on policing local communities in Humberside.
          Question put, That the amendment be made:—
          The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 271.

          Division No. 99]

          [7.10 pm

          AYES

          Adams, Mrs Irene

          Fatchett, Derek

          Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

          Faulds, Andrew

          Alton, David

          Flynn, Paul

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          Foster, Don (Bath)

          Austin-Walker, John

          Gerrard, Neil

          Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

          Godman, Dr Norman A

          Barnes, Harry

          Gordon, Ms Mildred

          Beith, Rt Hon A J

          Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

          Bennett, Andrew F

          Grocott, Bruce

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Gunnell, John

          Betts, Clive

          Hardy, Peter

          Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

          Harvey, Nick

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          Hill, Keith (Streatham)

          Callaghan, Jim

          Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

          Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

          Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

          Campbell-Savours, D N

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

          Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

          Chisholm, Malcolm

          Hughes, Simon (Southward)

          Church, Ms Judith

          Hutton, John

          Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

          Janner, Greville

          Clwyd, Mrs Ann

          Jowell, Ms Tessa

          Corbett, Robin

          Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

          Corston, Ms Jean

          Kilfoyle, Peter

          Cousins, Jim

          Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

          Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

          Llwyd, Elfyn

          Davidson, Ian

          Lynne, Ms Liz

          Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

          McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

          Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

          McCrea, Rev William

          Dobson, Frank

          Macdonald, Calum

          Dowd, Jim

          McGrady, Eddie

          Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

          Mackinlay, Andrew

          Eagle, Ms Angela

          Maclennan, Robert

          939

          McWilliam, John

          Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

          Maddock, Mrs Diana

          Rooker, Jeff

          Martlew, Eric

          Ross, William (E Lond'y)

          Michael, Alun

          Sheerman, Barry

          Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

          Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

          Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

          Simpson, Alan

          Milburn, Alan

          Skinner, Dennis

          Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

          Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

          Morgan, Rhodri

          Snape, Peter

          Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

          Spearing, Nigel

          Mudie, George

          Straw, Jack

          Mullin Chris

          Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

          Taylor, Metthew (Truro)

          O'Brien, William (Normanton)

          Touhig, Don

          O'Hara, Edward

          Tyler, Paul

          Olner, Bill

          Wallace, James

          Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

          Winnick, David

          Paisley, Rev Ian

          Wise, Mrs Audrey

          Pickthall, Colin

          Wright, Dr Tony

          Pike, Peter L

          Pope, Greg

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)

          Mr. Kevin McNamara and Mr. Elliot Morley.

          NOES

          Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

          Colvin, Michael

          Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

          Congdon, David

          Alexander, Richard

          Conway, Derek

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

          Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

          Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

          Amess, David

          Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

          Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

          Couchman, James

          Arbuthnot, James

          Curry, Rt Hon David

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

          Ashby, David

          Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

          Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

          Day, Stephen

          Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

          Devlin, Tim

          Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

          Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

          Baldry, Tony

          Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James

          Banks, Matthew (Southport)

          Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

          Dover, Den

          Bates, Michael

          Duncan, Alan

          Beggs, Roy

          Duncan Smith, Iain

          Bellingham, Henry

          Dunn, Bob

          Bendall, Vivian

          Durant, Sir Anthony

          Biffen, Rt Hon John

          Dykes, Hugh

          Body, Sir Richard

          Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Elletson, Harold

          Booth, Hartley

          Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

          Boswell, Tim

          Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

          Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

          Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

          Bowis, John

          Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

          Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

          Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

          Brandreth, Gyles

          Fabricant, Michael

          Brazier, Julian

          Fenner, Dame Peggy

          Bright, Sir Graham

          Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

          Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

          Fishburn, Dudley

          Browning, Mrs Angela

          Forman, Nigel

          Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

          Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

          Budgen, Nicholas

          Forth, Rt Hon Eric

          Burns, Simon

          Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

          Burt, Alistair

          Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

          Butcher, John

          Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

          Butler, Peter

          Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

          Butterfill, John

          French, Douglas

          Carlisle, John (Luton N)

          Fry, Sir Peter

          Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

          Gale, Roger

          Carrington, Matthew

          Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

          Carttiss, Michael

          Garnier, Edward

          Cash, William

          Gill, Christopher

          Channon, Rt Hon Paul

          Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

          Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

          Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

          Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

          Clappison, James

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

          Gorst, Sir John

          Coe, Sebastian

          Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

          940

          Greenway, John (Ryedale)

          Moss, Malcolm

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Needham, Rt Hon Richard

          Grylls, Sir Michael

          Nelson, Anthony

          Gummer, Rt Hon John

          Neubert, Sir Michael

          Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

          Newton, Rt Hon Tony

          Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

          Nicholson, David (Taunton)

          Hannam, Sir John

          Norris, Steve

          Hargreaves, Andrew

          Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

          Harris, David

          Oppenheim, Phillip

          Haselhurst, Sir Alan

          Page, Richard

          Hawkins, Nick

          Paice, James

          Hawksley, Warren

          Patnick, Sir Irvine

          Hayes, Jerry

          Patten, Rt Hon John

          Heald, Oliver

          Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

          Pawsey, James

          Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

          Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

          Hendry, Charles

          Pickles, Eric

          Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

          Porter, David

          Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

          Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

          Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

          Powell, William (Corby)

          Horam, John

          Rathbone, Tim

          Howard, Rt Hon Michael

          Redwood, Rt Hon John

          Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

          Renton, Rt Hon Tim

          Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

          Richards, Rod

          Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

          Riddick, Graham

          Hunter, Andrew

          Robathan, Andrew

          Jack, Rt Hon Michael

          Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

          Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

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

          Jessel, Toby

          Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

          Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Roe, Mrs Marion

          Rowe, Andrew

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

          Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

          Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

          Sackville, Tom

          Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

          Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

          Key, Robert

          Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          Knapman, Roger

          Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

          Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

          Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

          Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

          Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

          Knox, Sir David

          Shersby, Sir Michael

          Kynoch, George

          Sims, Sir Roger

          Lait, Mrs Jacqui

          Skeet, Sir Trevor

          Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

          Lang, Rt Hon Ian

          Speed, Sir Keith

          Lawrence, Sir Ivan

          Spencer, Sir Derek

          Legg, Barry

          Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

          Leigh, Edward

          Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

          Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

          Spink, Dr Robert

          Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

          Spring, Richard

          Lidington, David

          Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

          Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

          Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

          Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

          Steen, Anthony

          Lord, Michael

          Stephen, Michael

          Luff, Peter

          Stem, Michael

          Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

          Stewart, Allan

          MacGregor, Rt Hon John

          Streeter, Gary

          MacKay, Andrew

          Sumberg, David

          Maclean, Rt Hon David

          Sweeney, Walter

          Maitland, Lady Olga

          Sykes, John

          Major, Rt Hon John

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          Malone, Gerald

          Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)

          Mans, Keith

          Taylor, John M (Solihull)

          Marland, Paul

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Marlow, Tony

          Thomason, Roy

          Marshall, John (Hendon S)

          Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

          Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

          Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Mates, Michael

          Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

          Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

          Tracey, Richard

          Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

          Trend, Michael

          Merchant, Piers

          Trotter, Neville

          Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

          Vaughan, Sir Gerard

          Moate, Sir Roger

          Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

          Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

          Walden, George

          Montgomery, Sir Fergus

          Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

          941

          Waller, Gary

          Willetts, David

          Ward, John

          Wilshire, David

          Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

          Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

          Waterson, Nigel

          Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

          Watts, John

          Wolfson, Mark

          Wells, Bowen

          Wood, Timothy

          Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

          Yeo, Tim

          Whitney, Sir Raymond

          Young, Rt Hon Sir George

          Whittingdale, John

          Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Wiggin, Sir Jerry

          Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

          Wilkinson, John

          Question accordingly negatived.

        Schedule 6

          APPLICATION TO NCS SERVICE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENACTMENTS
          Amendments made: No. 19, in page 75, line 7, leave out 'and'.
          No. 20, in page 75, line 9, at end insert
          ', and
          (c) the word "not" shall be omitted.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

        Schedule 10

          REPEALS
          Amendment made: No. 21, in page 99, column 3, line 30, at beginning insert—
          'In section 146A(1A), the word "not".'
          —[Mr. Maclean.]
          Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

        POLICE AND FIREMEN'S PENSIONS BILL
        Considered in Committee.

        Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

        Bill reported, without amendment.

        Bill read the Third time, and passed.

        ROYAL ASSENT
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

        Consolidated Fund Act 1997

        Finance Act 1997

        Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Act 1997

        Policyholders Protection Act 1997

        Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Act 1997

        British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997

        Knives Act 1997

        Architects Act 1997

        Lieutenancies Act 1997

        Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997

        Justices of the Peace Act 1997

        Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act 1997

        Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997

        Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997

        Local Government and Rating Act 1997

        Police (Property) Act 1997

        PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT BILL
        Lords amendments considered.
        Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 5 agreed to.

        Business of the House
        7.26 pm
        The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the order of business later today and the business to be taken tomorrow.
        It is intended that the House will consider Lords amendments to the Crime (Sentences) Bill immediately following motion 6 relating to Northern Ireland business, and that the House will consider Lords amendments that are expected to be received to the Education Bill immediately after the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. The business for tomorrow will be:

        Money resolution on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.

        Motion on the Hedgerows Regulations.

        Motion on the legislative procedure for tax simplification Bills.

        Motion relating to the First Report from the Administration

        Committee (Session 1995–96) on all-party and parliamentary groups.

        Motion relating to the First Report from the Procedure

        Committee on Standing Orders revision.

        The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

        Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. I am not sure that it deals with the main item of outstanding business in this Parliament that has been on Members' minds today, but I cannot comment on that; nor perhaps can the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is still sitting.
        The right hon. Gentleman has said that we shall take Lords amendments to the Crime (Sentences) Bill and the Education Bill this evening. I wonder whether that is the best way to proceed, given the weight of other business this evening and the fact that Members interested in those Bills may not have enough notice of when they are coming on for discussion. We have no wish to delay either Bill, but would it not be wiser to consider the Lords amendments to them tomorrow, when there is far less business than this evening?
        This is the fourth business statement that we have had in little more than 48 hours. Will it be the last?
        Mr. Newton: I certainly hope that this will be the last business statement and I have every expectation that it will be, but in an uncertain world I had better not go further than that. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her acknowledgement in relation to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. On the other points, we concluded—I hope that it will not cause too much difficulty for her—that, given the extent of the agreement reached on the two Bills to which I referred, it would be sensible to proceed with them this evening.
        Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend informed the House that there will be a motion to deal
        944
        with revision of the Standing Orders, but an amendment to the motion on the Order Paper has been tabled by the majority of members of the Procedure Committee, urging that the second annexe be included. It is a simple annexe that modernises the names of Committees in the House, so that a Public Bill Committee will be known as a Public Bill Committee, not by some other rather subfusc name. I hope that that matter can be raised and that, if anybody is thinking of voting against the amendment, my right hon. Friend will use his powers to persuade him or her that the Government have always been in favour of modernisation.
        Mr. Newton: I do not think—[Interruption.] I do not need to be reminded by the Opposition Chief Whip intervening from a sedentary position. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have studied carefully the case that my right hon. Friend made in his report for the amendment to which he refers. I hope and expect that they will have an opportunity to make that decision if they wish.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Assuming that this is the last business statement that the Leader of the House will make, how much Government business will not be taken before the Prorogation of Parliament? In his capacity either as Leader of the House or as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, can he give us a report on how far that Committee has gone in its deliberations and in dealing with the report being prepared by the Commissioner? If the hon. Members, some of whom are on record as saying that they want the report published, give their assent, can the report be published before the general election?
        Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) rightly acknowledged the difficulty for me of speculating, as it would be at the moment, about a meeting of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which would be proceeding now but for the fact that I am making this statement to the House. I cannot, therefore, do that. On the earlier point, the Government have effectively carried the business that they intended to carry at the beginning of the Session, although some of the Bills are not quite in the form that was originally intended. However, the bulk, even of those Bills, has been passed and they contain many important proposals. Apart from that, I can think only of a number of not particularly urgent regulations that were among the remaining orders, which have not been tabled in order not to take up the time of the House.
        Dame Jill Knight: Without wishing to trespass in any way on the deliberations of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, would not the normal procedure for that Committee ensure that any report by the Commissioner could not possibly be published until the Committee had been given an opportunity to discuss and consider the points that the Commissioner had made?
        Hon. Members: It has.
        Mr. Newton: That is certainly the case.
        Mr. Peter Shore: The whole House is greatly encouraged by what the Leader of

        945
        the House said about the proceedings of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. In resuming his discussions on that matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how monstrously unjust it would be, both for hon. Members affected by the inquiry and for their constituents, to have the matter hanging over them without the proper publication of the report of Sir Gordon Downey? I am sure that he is aware of how much the reputation of Parliament is involved in the completion of that inquiry, given that nearly three years have passed since the great offence of cash for questions was first brought into the public domain.
        Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman, to whom I pay respect, particularly at the end of his distinguished parliamentary career, has revealed the difficulty of my making any comment at all on that matter. I judge from the early part of his remarks that he may have been reading more than I intended into what I said. This can be judged only once the Committee has finished its proceedings tonight. Given that several Committee members are in the Chamber, I am sure that they will bear in mind the points that he made.
        Sir Michael Spicer: Given that my right hon. Friend has just announced that the Administration Committee's report will be presented tomorrow, will he confirm that a gap of two months will be allowed during which Committees such as the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee will be allowed to re-register?
        Mr. Newton: Yes.
        Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that the necessity for his statement now, and the events of the past two days, have been occasioned by the decision to prorogue Parliament on Friday, not on Thursday week, which would have been possible? Is he aware that page 33 of "Erskine May" makes it clear that since 1974 it has been the practice at general elections to prorogue and dissolve Parliament on the same day? Why not have Dissolution and Prorogation on 8 April to allow the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to continue its work, as it has done in previous periods? If he will not do that, he is not being
        "as open as possible with Parliament",
        as paragraph (3) of motion 10 on the Order Paper says he should be, and which he will invite the House to approve later this evening.
        Mr. Newton: I simply do not agree with anything that the hon. Gentleman said.
        Mr. Tim Devlin: Have not all the Select Committees been working extremely hard to get their reports out in time for the Prorogation of Parliament? Many Select Committees that have not published their reports will publish them tomorrow. Since everybody has been aware for some time of the need to complete those reports so that they can be published before Parliament dissolves, why has not the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges done its work on time like every other?
        Mr. Newton: Again, my hon. Friend seeks to draw me into matters beyond that which I should properly discuss
        946
        on the Floor of the House. It is, however, absolutely clear that the Committee's work depends on receipt of a report from the Commissioner, who has been examining literally thousands of documents and much other material. When that report is received, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said, the Committee will have to consider it, and provide any hon. Members who are criticised with an opportunity to make representations and for them to be considered.
        Mr. Andrew Faulds: May I express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not manage to muster the same encomium for my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) as he did for my distinguished colleague here, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)? I hope that he will not repeat the same error when I have finished. Am I not correct—as I usually am in the House—in presuming that changing the date of Prorogation would in no way affect the functioning of this House or the other place, or the general election timetable?
        Mr. Newton: I am happy to rectify what the hon. Gentleman saw as an omission in respect of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for whom I have formed a high regard during his years in the House, and I am happy to say so. I say the same of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), although his many qualities are not entirely the same as those of his right hon. and hon. Friends alongside him.
        As for the rest of the question, it has always been the practice, as far as I am aware, to bring proceedings in the House to an end at the earliest practicable time, once an election has been declared. The reasons for that are obvious.
        Mr. David Shaw: Why cannot my right hon. Friend find time tomorrow for a debate on the £2 million of blind funds that are financing the Leader of the Opposition and Labour Front Benchers? There have been allegations in The Sunday Times that money laundering went on through an Oxford university account, and that possibly a foreign donor—it has been suggested that George Soros may be that foreign donor—has donated funds through a laundered bank account. One business man, Mr. Robinson—
        Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Leader of the House to find time tomorrow for a particular debate. Will the Leader of the House respond as to whether there is time or not?
        Mr. Newton: That interrelates with the point that I have now made several times, that it is not appropriate for me to discuss matters before the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges as I have been invited to do.
        Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity of saying farewell to his hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who will not be with us much longer?
        May I ask the Leader of the House a simple question that goes to the heart of the problem that he has faced this week, which has resulted in a succession of chaotic business statements? As this has been the longest

        947
        peacetime Parliament this century, there can be no conceivable reason why the Government should be in a chaotic state in managing business at the end of the Session. They have known for a long time when the date would come. The sole reason why they have made a succession of business statements this week and why Select Committees cannot complete their work is that the Government have decided to prorogue Parliament on Friday. Can the right hon. Gentleman please give the House and the country a simple explanation of why it was imperative that the House should be prorogued on Friday, and not next Thursday?
        Mr. Newton: There are two points there. I have already touched on the first: it has always been the practice to bring proceedings in the House to an end at the earliest practicable moment, once an election has been declared. I would add, as part of the hon. Gentleman's question echoed that of the hon. Member for Newham, South, that the process of negotiation that always occurs at the end of a Parliament and which, on this occasion, has been rather complicated by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, particularly in another place, will always lead to a great deal of uncertainty at the time when the business before the House is being cleared up for the end of the Parliament.
        Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Leader of the House agree that, bearing in mind the fact that we have time until about 8 April for the House to sit if need be, some consideration should be given to the comment made by the Prime Minister on "The Frost Programme", that the whole mess should be cleared up before the general election? Can the right hon. Gentleman now arrange Government business in such a way that at least the Prime Minister's expectation in that regard can be met?
        Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend, if I recall rightly, made it clear that it was his wish and hope that these matters should be resolved before the end of the Parliament. It is absolutely clear that those matters are, in the first instance, for the Commissioner to produce the report, then for the Committee to consider that report. It has not been possible for the Commissioner to complete the report.
        Mr. Tony Marlow: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's point that, now that it has been decided to go for an election, it is necessary to have an early Prorogation of the House, but, for academic purposes, would he consider the possibilities if Prorogation were delayed by a week? If that happened, how, in terms of natural justice, would it be possible for the Committee to complete all the reviews, take all the evidence, summon before it those who are implicated in the report and get that out of the way? How do we know that that could be done within a week? What we do know is that as soon as the report came before the Committee, some hon. Member from the Labour party would leak it to the press.
        Mr. Newton: Once again, I am invited to make comments that it would not be proper for me as Chairman of the Committee to make. I have said on two or three occasions that it would be necessary for the Committee to
        948
        consider the report, although I cannot be sure at this moment exactly what that would entail. It might well entail quite an extensive process.
        Ms Angela Eagle: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if no changes are made to the business statement that he has made today, the report will be locked in a cupboard during the general election? That would not be satisfactory for the hon. Members who have been implicated, as they would have no chance to clear their name before they faced the electorate. The prospect of the report remaining in a cabinet until the new Parliament assembles and a new Committee is appointed—at the beginning of this Parliament, that took six months—is intolerable, when the reputation of Parliament is at stake in such a serious and important matter.
        Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to add to what I said earlier or to what you, Madam Speaker, said in your statement this afternoon. As I have said several times, members of the Committee are present and will have noted what the hon. Lady said.
        Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Leader of the House, recognising his own difficulty in dealing with the situation, recognise also that on "The Frost Programme" the Prime Minister said that he did not want the report "kicked into the long grass"? Surely what has happened will make people feel that the report has been or is being kicked into the long grass, because of many pieces of legislation that the Government have striven to get through. Will the right hon. Gentleman take any responsibility for the arrangement of business, or will he say that the Prime Minister said one thing, but acted in such a way as to suggest that he wanted something quite different to happen?
        Mr. Newton: I am certain that that is not the case, if, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is making an allegation against my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to feed that allegation, that is a matter for him. I cannot add to what I said. I do not regard what has occurred in a long, complex and difficult inquiry as constituting kicking this "into the long grass", as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
        Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise at the chorus of calls from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches for an extension of the life of this Parliament, when for months the Leader of the Opposition has been calling for an early Dissolution of Parliament? Does he agree that that is a desperate attempt to conceal the good news about the British economy from the British people by a process of smear and innuendo, which the House should hold in total contempt?
        Mr. Newton: I understand why my hon. Friend says that, and I suspect that many people will share his feelings. Again, as Chairman of the Committee, I think that it would be right for me to restrain myself.
        Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Leader of the House will be aware of the Prime Minister's wish that the report should be published before the election. He will be aware

        949
        of the view of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) that the report should be published before the election. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is a Committee of the House and works according to the decisions of the House. There is no reason why the House could not pass a resolution that Sir Gordon's report be published now and that the Committee consider it after the election. Will the Leader of the House make time for us to consider such a resolution, so that the report can be published?
        Mr. Newton: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present for your response, Madam Speaker, to points of order earlier this afternoon. You made it clear that publication in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests was not an option.
        Mr. Tim Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend considered one possible advantage of delaying Prorogation, which would allow time for debates on the fact that the crime figures showed a fall on Monday, the public sector borrowing requirement came in lower than expected on Tuesday and the unemployment figures have shown a vast improvement today? Such debates would allow the House a chance to expose the fact that the policies recommended by the Labour party would jeopardise improvement on all three fronts.
        Mr. Newton: I entirely agree that it would be nice to provide further opportunities for such debate, but at present I have no proposals to make such time available.
        Mr. Harry Barnes: It is peace in our time on electoral registration figures. I hold a piece of paper on which is set out the global totals of people who are on electoral registers. The problem is that there is only tomorrow for names to be added to the lists, tomorrow being the last day for supplementary lists. The global totals show that there are still 3 million to 4 million people missing from electoral registers. Before we prorogue, should we not have an opportunity tomorrow, or even on Friday, to discuss the state of electoral registration? We are moving into a general election that will be based on the arrangements that I have described.
        Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to provide such an opportunity. However, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the fact that his persistence seems to have achieved even more than the undertaking that I understand he was given yesterday, when he was told that he would get the figures tomorrow. He seems to have received them a day earlier even than had been hoped.
        Several hon. Members rose—
        Madam Speaker: Thank you; that is the end.

        Northern Ireland Business
        7.50 pm
        The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
        That—

        (1) Standing Order No. 99 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders No. 99A to 99H below shall have effect;

        (2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, by inserting 'or a motion in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 99A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business))' after the words relating to the Welsh Grand Committee which were inserted on 11th March 1996;

        (3) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) shall be amended, in line 21, at the end, by inserting 'or to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee'; and

        (4) Other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.

        99 A. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)

        (1) There shall be a standing committee called the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, together with not more than twenty-five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.

        (2) The quorum of the committee shall be ten, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).

        (3) the business of the committee shall include—

        (a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 B (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));

        (b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 C (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates));

        (c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order No. 99 D (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (ministerial statements));

        (d) bills referred to it for consideration or further consideration in relation to their principle, in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 E (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle));

        (e) such legislative proposals and other specified matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 F (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland));

        (f) instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 G (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)); and

        (g) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).

        (4) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.

        99 B. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)

        (1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee by Northern Ireland Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

        951

        (2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.

        (3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for Bach day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.

        (4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.

        (5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired, save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments):

        Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.

        99 C. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates)

        (1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

        (2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Northern Ireland.

        (3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.

        (4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.

        (5) (a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.

        (b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.

        (c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.

        (6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:

        Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.

        99 D. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (ministerial statements).

        (1) The chairman of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Northern Ireland, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.

        (2) Ministerial statements may be made—

        (a) at the commencement of a sitting; or

        (b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or

        (c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.

        952

        (3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.

        (4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.

        99 E. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)

        (1) On the order being read for the second reading of a public bill relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee', and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

        Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.

        (2) A bill so referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle', and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of two and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:

        Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

        (3) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (2) above shall be ordered to be read a second time on a future day.

        (4) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a bill to which paragraph (3) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

        (5) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (2) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown (or in the case of a private Member's bill by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the Bill be referred again to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee', and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

        Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.

        (6) A bill so referred again to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle', and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:

        Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

        (7) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (6) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.

        (8) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (7) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

        99 F. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)

        953

        (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a legislative proposal or other specified matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

        (2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the legislative proposal or matter referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said legislative proposal or matter.

        (3) In this order and in Standing Orders No. 99 A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)) and No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) 'a legislative proposal' means a proposal for a draft Order in Council relating exclusively to Northern Ireland.

        99 G. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)

        (1) Where—

        (a) a Member has given notice of a motion for a humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or of a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or

        (b) a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved,

        a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown, 'That the instrument be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee'; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

        (2) The Committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the motion, if not previously disposed of, not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; and shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put:

        Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the instrument' is made, make without notice a motion to extend to three hours the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

        (3) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraph 1(a) or 1(b) of this order, in relation to any instrument in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (2) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon; which may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

        99 H. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)

        (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee—

        (a) to sit on not more than two specified days in Northern Ireland (at places to be named by the Member appointed chairman), the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;

        (b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at such hours as shall be specified;

        (c) to take questions under Standing Order No. 99 B (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above;

        (d) to hold short debates under Standing Order No. 99 C (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;

        954

        (e) to consider specified bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 E (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) on certain of the days so specified;

        (f) to consider legislative proposals and other specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 F (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)) on certain of the days so specified;

        (g) to consider specified instruments (whether or not in draft) which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 G (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) on certain of the days so specified; and

        (h) to consider motions for the adjournment of the committee made under paragraph (5) below on certain of the days so specified;

        and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

        Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Northern Ireland, nor from considering at a sitting in Northern Ireland business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.

        (2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.

        (3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).

        (4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.

        (5) On a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) above, after the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.

        My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has asked me to convey his apologies to the House for his absence, which is due to other pressing business which he cannot postpone. The House will know the nature of it.
        Ever since the onset of direct rule in 1972, successive Governments have been aware of the democratic deficit in the arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland. That is why we place so much importance on the multi-party talks that have been going on in Belfast over the past nine months. The future well-being of Northern Ireland requires that, as part of a comprehensive settlement based upon consent, progress is made in restoring democratic accountability in the Province.
        We do not, however, have to wait for what we all hope will be a successful outcome to the talks process before anything can be done. The present arrangements in Parliament for scrutinising the affairs of Northern Ireland can be improved at once. Over the years, a number of such improvements have already been made. For example,

        955
        we established the Northern Ireland Committee in 1975. Since 1976, we have published Northern Ireland Orders in Council in draft. The purpose has been to give right hon. and hon. Members, as well as other interested persons and bodies, the opportunity to comment on the legislation and to propose changes before the House is asked to approve the order.
        Then, in 1994, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was established so as to secure proper scrutiny by the House of the departments for which I am responsible. I am sure that all agree that it has since proved itself well, producing a number of valuable reports. It was at that time that the Northern Ireland Committee was renamed the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
        It was with the same motivation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last October his intention to introduce the changes detailed in the motion. As he explained in that speech, Scottish and Welsh Members had recently been given greater ability to question Ministers, and my right hon. Friend wished to extend that same facility to Northern Ireland.
        In October 1996, I wrote to the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties represented at Westminster, and to the Opposition parties, explaining how this might be done, and seeking views. There is still some diversity of view on our proposals, but the Government believe that we should now move forward with changes that will bring an immediate benefit to the governance of Northern Ireland.
        I shall outline the principal changes briefly. Northern Ireland Office Ministers would in future make the public expenditure survey statement for Northern Ireland to the Grand Committee, in place of the current briefing arrangements. Northern Ireland Office Ministers, including any Minister in another place, would make statements and take questions in Committee on a regular basis. Cabinet and other departmental Ministers whose responsibilities extend to Northern Ireland would be able to make statements before the Grand Committee, and be questioned on them. It is intended, subject to a suitable venue or venues being identified, that some Grand Committee meetings should be held in a Northern Ireland venue.
        Greater use would be made of the existing power to hold debates, both general in character and to consider specific proposals for draft Orders in Council. Those meetings which are held under the existing Standing Orders always prove valuable. It should also be possible on a Government motion for draft Northern Ireland orders and Orders in Council to be referred to the Grand Committee, instead of to a Standing Committee, or be taken on the Floor of the House, as at present.
        The Northern Ireland Grand Committee would be able, on a Government motion, to consider certain Bills relating exclusively to Northern Ireland. In effect, this would be in the form of Second and Third Reading debates. There would finally also be provision for half-hour Adjournment debates at the end of Grand Committee meetings. Those changes would bring the Northern Ireland Grand Committee broadly into line with the Scottish and Welsh equivalents.
        I shall not be recommending any changes to the membership of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which will remain as now—that is, all Northern Ireland Members, plus up to 25 others. Nor am I proposing a set number of meetings. I shall, however, be recommending
        956
        that the quorum be reduced from 14 to 10. That last point is to bring the Northern Ireland Grand Committee more into line with the Welsh and Scottish equivalents.
        The changes that we are proposing are entirely without prejudice to any developments that there may be in the multi-party negotiations or to the future relationship between any new political institutions in Northern Ireland and the Westminster Parliament. Of course, in the event of future devolution of functions to local representatives, there will be a corresponding diminution in the role of the Grand Committee.
        The changes will self-evidently enable the Grand Committee to examine Government policy in greater detail. That is a good thing. They will valuably allow members of the Committee to bring to bear their own detailed and local knowledge of Northern Ireland matters. The measures will significantly improve the accountability of government under the circumstances of direct rule. They will provide new opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to undertake detailed scrutiny of the Government's policy and performance in Northern Ireland. I commend the motion to the House.
        7.55 pm
        Ms Marjorie Mowlam: The Northern Ireland Grand Committee, as it is now known, was set up in 1975 following the establishment of direct rule and the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The Secretary of State has outlined the Committee's history since then.
        Direct rule is without doubt an imperfect and unsatisfactory situation. Legislation for Northern Ireland is largely enacted by Orders in Council, which cannot be amended and are not subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. There was a 50 per cent. increase in the number of such orders between 1994 and 1996. The system of direct rule is the status quo. On basic principles of democracy and accountability, that is not acceptable.
        As I have said many times, change is necessary. There are two basic routes for change—one is by direct Government action and the other is by local consent and agreement. Achieving local consent and agreement is the task of the two Governments and the parties in the talks. Those talks are designed to address relationships within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and between Britain and Ireland.
        Progress since last June has been slow and immensely frustrating at times, but we should not underestimate what has been achieved by agreement on independent international chairs, on rules of procedure and on the agenda for the talks. There is something to build on when talks resume.
        In our view, a way forward on decommissioning has to be found on the basis of the Mitchell report. We hope that all parties will use the time between now and 3 June to develop their thinking on this and offer ways forward out of the current blockage. If we are elected, we shall immediately invite the parties at the talks to discuss the matter with us on a bilateral basis. We want to see a fully inclusive talks process, but if the talks are to succeed, everyone must be fully committed to the democratic process and to peaceful methods. Sinn Fein and the IRA can demonstrate that commitment by calling an unequivocal ceasefire and showing by their actions that they mean it. They should do so immediately. If they do not, we shall go forward in the talks without them.

        957
        In government, we shall put all our energies into the process that I have outlined—both within and outside the talks—in working to build confidence between the communities to create fertile ground for compromise and agreement. Trust and confidence between the parties and the communities that they represent must grow to enable real progress to be made.
        Direct government action to improve accountability and transparency in Northern Ireland should be sets within the context of greater confidence building. We want to find the best ways to help include local people in debating issues, in holding government to account and in taking part in the decision-making process. The lack of local input into decision making in Northern Ireland is a problem for both communities.
        We understand the desire for changes to the Grand Committee. We welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that they are proposed without prejudice to developments in the talks. We would also welcome his assurance that, while he is proposing to enable the Grand Committee to debate legislation on a Government order, the decision making—any votes on that legislation—will continue to be taken on the Floor of the House. Extending the use of the Grand Committee would create more opportunities for debate, as has the establishment of the Northern Ireland forum.
        If Labour is successful in the forthcoming election, we shall immediately begin to examine how those mechanisms work alongside others in improving openness and democratic accountability across the board in Northern Ireland. Although we shall ensure that this legislation passes through the House today, we reserve the right to look again at the proposals after the election in that broader context. We understand why there is support for the measure, but the proposals have been drawn up in haste in the dying days of a Parliament, and, given the importance of this issue to both communities in Northern Ireland, it would be irresponsible of us not to give a commitment to look at them afresh when a new Parliament begins.
        8 pm
        Mr. Peter Robinson: I agree with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), the Opposition spokesperson, that direct rule is totally unsatisfactory. Those of us who have been in the House for many years will agree that it is unsatisfactory to Northern Ireland Members that we are able to table amendments to proposed legislation for England, Scotland and Wales but are unable to table amendments to measures that relate to our constituencies in Northern Ireland. It is unsatisfactory that we have only an hour and a half—tonight's timetable is not unique to Northern Ireland Members—to deal with the most complicated and heavy orders.
        A few months ago, a licensing order came before the House. Indeed, two orders were brought before the House on the same night. Hundreds of pages of detailed legislation were pushed through in an hour and a half. That is a totally unsatisfactory way to conduct business. Therefore, the ability of a Grand Committee to consider detailed and weighty matters and for us to have the opportunity at least to make our arguments to the Government about legislation must be welcomed.
        958
        Anything that makes a Government more accountable for their actions is an improvement, but I would not like to leave the House with the impression that a Grand Committee will be a panacea in terms of the restoration of democracy in Northern Ireland. It is right that Northern Ireland should have such a Committee, not just because Scotland and Wales do, but because we have a better case than Scotland and Wales because of the deficit in local government democracy in Northern Ireland and the few powers that exist for local authorities there.
        The hon. Lady referred to the Labour party's manifesto position on Northern Ireland. That requires a response. According to Labour, the issue of decommissioning is holding back the talks process. In a sense that is true, but there is something much more fundamentally flawed about the present talks process, because it is designed to bring into the democratic process those who have not yet accepted the principles of the democratic process; those who would bypass the principles of democracy, even those enshrined in the international report. The issue of decommissioning is central to that, because it is the desire of some parties—the Social Democratic and Labour party being one—that people should have entrance to the talks process and still hold on to their weapons while they sit around the negotiating table.
        My party has made its position clear. We accept the Mitchell principles but we do not accept the Mitchell report. The Labour party says that it does. It should reconsider, because the report is based upon a faulty premise. The Mitchell team felt and believed—no doubt those in it were convinced by the Government and others—that there was a permanent cessation of violence on the part of the Provisional IRA. In the belief that there was a permanent cessation of violence, the Mitchell team made the proposals that are contained in the report.
        We all know—some of us knew at the time, but others will understand by now—that it was a phoney cessation of violence, a tactical cessation, a manoeuvre by the Provisional IRA in an attempt to extract concessions. Therefore, it would be very dangerous if any Government attempted to accept principles enshrined in an international body's report which made a judgment based on proven false principles. The Labour party would do well to go back to the drawing board before it simply picks up an international body's report that was based on an incorrect judgment of what the IRA's position was.
        I hope that it was not a slip of the tongue by the Labour spokesperson, but I noted that she said that Labour would require an unequivocal ceasefire before the IRA could enter the talks process. I am looking to see whether I get a shake or nod of the head from her, but Hansard will show that that was the terminology that she used. I am delighted at that. That, of course, is different from the present Government's position. The Government's position and the position in the ground rules document is that they require an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994.
        There is a clear distinction between those two positions. The Government want an unequivocal restoration of a failed, phoney ceasefire. I am glad that the Government who we may have after 1 May are now saying that we want not an unequivocal restoration of a failed ceasefire but an unequivocal ceasefire, a permanent ceasefire, a complete ceasefire, a universal ceasefire, one that is totally unequivocal. I hope that the Labour party will see the distinction between those two statements. It will, of

        959
        course, require from the hon. Lady a change in legislation, because the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 refers to command 3232 which enshrines the principle of an unequivocal restoration—
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I assumed that he was making a broad introduction to the subject, but we are debating the Grand Committee. I rather think that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to a later order.
        Mr. Robinson: No; I was speaking in response to the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson. I had assumed that, as she was considered to be in order, I would be in order to respond to her. If she has led me astray, I will come back to the straight and narrow path.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I try to be tolerant if something is mentioned briefly in passing, but it is less easy to be tolerant when it is expanded on at some length.
        Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the message has been left with the Labour party. I trust that we shall see the necessary legislative change for the entry conditions of parties to the talks process.
        In relation to the Grand Committee, I am somewhat concerned that the Labour party suggests that the motion will not close the issue, that Labour will revisit it. It almost sounded as though it would be part of some negotiation after the election, and that Labour would then suggest that the proposals would change unless various principles that Labour may lay down were accepted by the parties. I hope that, at the end of the debate, we shall have a clearer statement from the Labour party that it will accept the judgment of the House tonight in relation to the Grand Committee and that it will not seek to change the decision of the House if Labour is elected in May.
        I have no argument with the Secretary of State about the various functions that he gives the Grand Committee, save that, in his communication of 27 February to party leaders, he said that, in addition to the initial functions that he considered for the Grand Committee, he was to include the power that it should be possible on a Government motion for a draft Northern Ireland Order or for an Order in Council itself to be referred to the Grand Committee instead of going to a Standing Committee or being taken on the Floor of the House.
        I am concerned that that could allow a Government to put all Northern Ireland orders into a Grand Committee and that they would never be considered on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an assurance that that is not the position, but his communication of 27 February certainly makes it clear that consideration in a Grand Committee would be instead of consideration on the Floor of the House. It would not be helpful to Northern Ireland for the business of Northern Ireland to be shunted into a siding. We should have time to raise on the Floor of the House matters of importance to the people of Northern Ireland.
        It is sad that members of the Grand Committee for Northern Ireland who represent Northern Ireland will be a minority. That is not the position on the Scottish Grand Committee. If one wanders into that Committee, one will not see a majority of Englishmen and women—the same
        960
        applies to the Welsh Grand Committee—but the poor Ulster people will be in the minority on the Grand Committee for Northern Ireland. The Government have deliberately designed it so that the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are in a minority on the Grand Committee. That is a mistake, and shows that the Government are not prepared to leave the field open for the views of the people of Northern Ireland to be expressed.
        I noticed that, in the debate on the Scottish Grand Committee and the proposals for constitutional change in Scotland, the Labour party's view was that the Committee would be much like a travelling circus, a toothless talking shop and a platform for Ministers, who would use it to launch various proposals up and down the country.
        Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is precisely how the Secretary of State for Scotland has exploited the Scottish Grand Committee for his own purposes. It was a travelling press show for him and his fellow Ministers.
        Mr. Robinson: The great difficulty is that it would be hard, even for the Labour party if it were in the same position as the Secretary of State for Scotland, to resist the temptation to use the Grand Committee as a platform. If a Grand Committee is to mean anything, it is to get the views of Back Benchers as well as the Government on various issues. If allocations of time allow it to be hogged by the Secretary of State and his Ministers instead of allowing the views of representatives of the area to be heard, it will not assist us one bit.
        I was disappointed that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did not advocate a Grand Committee for Northern Ireland using the same arguments as were advanced for Scotland. In the document containing proposals on a Scottish Grand Committee, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
        "The Government stand four-square behind the Union".
        I did not hear the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland using such terminology. He went on to say:
        "What the people of Scotland want is Government close to them, Government listening to them, and above all, Government accountable to them."
        The Secretary of State cannot say that, because the Government are totally unaccountable in Northern Ireland. There is no representation in Northern Ireland by the Conservative party, nor will there be any by the Labour party.
        The Secretary of State has let down the people of Northern Ireland. He could have said that this proposal was to strengthen the Union, but he chose not to say that. He did not follow the line of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Perhaps the people of Scotland are more loved by the Government than the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps we are children of a lesser god in the eyes of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He does not use the same arguments in relation to the Province.
        I am sure that we all wish the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland well in his new life as he leaves the House and parts from us. He had this opportunity, which is probably the last time that he will deal with Northern Ireland business, to set out clearly his views, and the views of the Government, on maintaining the Union with Northern Ireland, and to say that he saw a Grand

        961
        Committee as part of that scheme. Unlike the Secretary of State for Scotland, he chose not to do that. I wonder whether the Government do not believe the argument that they advanced for Scotland, or whether they do not want the Union to be maintained in Northern Ireland.
        8.14 pm
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the legislation. I shall try to stick closely to the terms of the order, because I began to wonder whether some folk had been given the wrong speech, as they were dealing with later orders. I welcome the proposal, because it has taken a long time coming. The process began when Lord Glenamara was responsible for these matters in the House. It is fascinating to discover that it has taken all these years to come to fruition.
        I thought that there was perhaps a problem of gestation and that we were trying to outdo the elephant, which is the land mammal with the longest gestation period. I was advised today that the blue whale is the water mammal with the longest gestation period, so perhaps we have been at sea for a long time about Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom.
        The Secretary of State spoke about diversity when he referred to the Grand Committee. In a sense, British politics is all about diversity, as we come together to argue, debate, try to understand and reach conclusions. I welcome the fact that we have travelled along this road, as the Secretary of State outlined in his introduction. It has taken many years to reach this stage.
        The Secretary of State apologised for the absence of the Leader of the House. I want to express my thanks to the Leader of the House, who, in the past few months, has been assiduous in seeking to make progress towards this hour. He has been considerate and helpful. We now discover that others have begun to recognise that the Grand Committee has a role to play in making up part of the democratic deficit.
        I say bluntly that the Grand Committee should not be viewed merely as a means of making up the democratic deficit or plugging a gap until an understanding is reached whereby the people of Northern Ireland will have a greater say in matters affecting their everyday lives. In my judgment, there will always be a time when a Grand Committee for Northern Ireland is needed to deal with issues that will never be devolved to Northern Ireland.
        I am convinced that a large number of the problems that arose in 1968 would never have arisen if more people in the House had been aware of the overall situation there. We should bear it in mind that the Foreign Office represents Northern Ireland abroad, as it does the rest of the United Kingdom. Defence issues will not be devolved to a Northern Ireland Assembly. There may be moments when it will be important for the Grand Committee to bring Ministers of the Crown before it to deal with issues relevant to Northern Ireland. So it will not be merely a stop-gap, and I welcome that.
        Some people have opposed the establishment of a Grand Committee for Northern Ireland. Some have argued for parity of esteem in Northern Ireland. We welcome the fact that we have moved in the positive direction of parity of esteem between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
        962
        There is another reason why I believe that such action is necessary. Those who remember the debates on broadcasting that have taken place here will remember my raising the problem of regional broadcasting. We were given to understand then that the regions would report to the regions what Members representing those regions were doing in the House, but that has not been done to any great effect in Northern Ireland. Indeed, many Northern Ireland newspapers concentrate on local disagreements and squabbles, rather than reporting the positive contributions that have been made here for the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. The fact that a Grand Committee can meet in Northern Ireland from time to time is a positive development.
        I was interested to note that the main daily paper in Northern Ireland prefaced a report about the tabling of the legislation with a headline referring to "plans for a mini-Westminster to meet in Northern Ireland". I know that others have debated other issues, but, given that tonight we are debating the main theme of the motion, I welcome it and trust that it will be implemented in the near future.
        8.21 pm
        Mr. Eddie McGrady: When the Secretary of State introduced the motion, he invited us to approve it on a number of grounds. Let me paraphrase what he said. He wished to address the democratic deficit, and he wished to approve the participation of Northern Ireland politicians and representatives in the decision-making process. Those are laudable sentiments, and it is hard to argue against them—except when they are placed against the practicality of what has happened, and is happening.
        It is difficult to conceive of a conversion to the body that we discussing. This is the last gasp of a Government who have exercised a system for more than 18 years, and who have made this move only in the dying moments of what is probably their last Parliament. So much for the concern that they have expressed.
        It was suggested that we should approve the motion because it would involve Northern Ireland politicians much more than heretofore. That is true; but Northern Ireland politicians have been involved in many serious policy matters, and have addressed those matters, not just individually but jointly—and, on almost every occasion, their unanimity has been rejected by the Government. So much for addressing the democratic deficit. We have seen that over the years, and particularly in recent years, when our health and social services system has been attacked by Tory party policy, and when our education system has been attacked. As often as not, when parties throughout the community asked for change, they were ignored. Unfortunately, therefore, I do not accept the Government's deathbed conversion to the principle of addressing the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland.
        Let me digress for a moment. It has been said that the democratic deficit can be observed in local government. Why? Because of the abuse of powers, which, to some extent, is still going on. It is not as bad as it was, because there is much cross-party, cross-community co-operation, based primarily on the principles established by the SDLP—which we called power sharing in 1972, all of 25 years ago. Although that theory of partnership was rejected out of hand as being impractical, it has permeated much of local government—although there are notable exceptions.

        963
        So we have had 18 years during which the democratic deficit could be addressed. Let me speak bluntly. The announcement at the Tory party conference on 11 October that Northern Ireland was to be given a Grand Committee was seen by the nationalist community as just another sop or pay-off to the Ulster Unionists for helping the Government in the House. It was as simple as that, and that perception remains today. It may be argued that the perception is wrong, but it is there.
        The point has been emphasised time and again in connection with other matters over the past 12 months, in particular. That was the perception back in 1994, when the Select Committee was established. Early in 1996, elections were held under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996: they were not really necessary for the negotiations, but were held at the behest of, primarily, the Unionist parties. On each of those occasions, the nationalist community saw its parity being destroyed or, at the minimum, held in much less esteem than that of the Unionists.
        The same theme has continued throughout the present Administration, for many years. One of the main reasons why my party objects to the Grand Committee—in addition to what I have already said—is that it was always acknowledged that the real solution to the problem of Northern Ireland was representatives of the two communities getting together and arriving at a means whereby Northern Ireland could be best administered. Every time a little piece is taken out of that jigsaw, the need to reach such a compromise is weakened.
        Dr. Godman: Is there not an inconsistency in the Government's conduct in regard to the democratic deficit? The Prime Minister promised us in Scotland a stock taking exercise concerning the governance of Scotland— and what have we finished up with? The Scottish Grand Committee.
        Mr. McGrady: No doubt the same will be reflected in the establishment of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, when it is established. We see the Grand Committee as another degradation of the parity of esteem—the esteem in which nationalists were supposed to be held by both Governments.
        I should also like to know whether consultations took place on the international scene under national agreements, on whether the Grand Committee should be part of the administration of Northern Ireland. We see this as anti-nationalist legislation.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that this sovereign Parliament, dealing with one of its regions in setting up a Committee with parity with those of Wales and Scotland, should discuss the matter with the southern Ireland Government, and that that Government's OK should be given before this Government can set up the Committee?
        Mr. McGrady: I am not saying that that Government must be consulted to the point at which their agreement must be obtained. I am saying that, if there is to be agreement between the two Governments, the Dublin Government must be consulted. I do not know whether they were consulted and what their opinion was; perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us whether consultations took place under the international agreement, and what the consequences were if they did.
        964
        As I have said, we see this as a degradation of the vitality that must be preserved in the inter-party talks. If everything is already agreed to, there is no push, no initiative and no drive to reach an arrangement with opposite political numbers. That is what we have been trying to do in the 25 years since the establishment of direct rule. It is for those reasons that my party has been against the formation of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and has consistently stated that that is our position. It remains so tonight.
        Before I sit down, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say to the Secretary of State that, despite what I have said in terms of his propositions, personally, we wish him all the best on his retirement. I have no doubt that his very many talents will be put to good use in some other place. Thank you.
        8.29 pm
        Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in the general thrust of his argument, but I too would like to join him in paying my compliment to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his efforts in Northern Ireland. Certainly he started off with very high hopes and, with the Prime Minister, achieved a great deal in the Downing street declaration and in the framework document. It is sad that those matters have not come to earlier and quicker fruition. We can perhaps argue about the reasons for that on other occasions, but it is right that the Secretary of State's efforts should be acknowledged. He must to a certain degree feel disappointment that so many of those high hopes have not been realised, as he would have hoped.
        One of the reasons for that is the matter that we are debating today. We have seen the last cheque being cashed for keeping a discredited and faltering Government in power in the past two or three years. The votes of the Ulster Unionists have been purchased. We have seen that happening, first, with the Maastricht debate and, immediately after that, with the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. We saw it in the altering of the legislation so that we had fewer orders for Northern Ireland and more British legislation covering the rest of Northern Ireland—that was another demand.
        We saw it in the establishment and acceptance of the Unionist agenda. The price that had to be paid for getting Unionists into talks was the mini-general election in Northern Ireland for the establishment of the forum for the establishment of the talks. That again was their price, and it kept a faltering, staggering Government in operation. However, it achieved on the other side a continuous feeling that its interests were being downgraded. There was no parity of esteem on the Select Committee, on the legislation and on the negotiations for entry into talks. All those things were done against the express wishes of the minority party in Northern Ireland. If that is true, we have to be very suspicious about what has been happening today.
        Sir James Molyneaux: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he would want to include in his condemnation of the present Government, condemnation of the Wilson Government and particularly the then Leader of the House, Ted Short, who took the initial steps in forming the Northern Ireland

        965
        Committee. That progressed to the later stage of the Grand Committee and to the final third stage tonight under another Government. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would want to record, because I know that he is basically a fair man, his condemnation of the Callaghan Government, which he supported, in granting Northern Ireland free and equal representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I think fair dos for all three Governments.
        Mr. McNamara: I am quite happy to say that I did disagree with my then right hon. Friend, Lord Callaghan. The right hon. Gentleman will remember, because he was in the House at the time, that I voted against the extra seats—the price that was demanded of the then Prime Minister Callaghan to keep him in power. I remember that I warned him. I said that, as long as he paid the Danegeld, he would never get rid of the Dane. When hon. Members did not get their gas pipeline, they brought Callaghan down. I remember that that was the majority of their votes, so this is nothing fresh to me. I know where the Ulster Unionists stand and where they are coming from.
        Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
        Mr. McNamara: Sit down for a moment.
        I thought that it was a little disingenuous of the Secretary of State to say that this matter in no way prejudices the three-stranded talks and that those talks will continue onwards. That is completely incorrect. This is a complete alteration of the playing field in relation to strand 1 of the talks, which deal with internal relations in Northern Ireland. It creates a situation where there are no pressures in any way on the majority parties in Northern Ireland to come to any agreement. They were able to spin out the Brooke talks. They spun out the Maple talks and the Mitchell talks. They did it very cleverly from their point of view; I understand that.
        Sir James Molyneaux: We were expert.
        Mr. McNamara: As the right hon. Gentleman says, they were expert, and no one was more expert than him, whether it was the size of the table, where we met, what the agenda would be, or whether we would sit down under the leader of a foreign Government. It went on and on. The talks were spun out, as they have continued to be. When the majority parties got into difficulties, bingo, out of the air, they produced decommissioning, so we understand their tactics and the way in which they have dealt with it. That is why this is a bad idea. The pressures for getting a settlement in Northern Ireland are reduced that much by this proposal.
        Mr. Peter Robinson rose—
        Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
        Mr. McNamara: I will give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and then to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way because I know that he does believe in the
        966
        facts and the element of truth, which is on the record, and that he would not want to mislead the House. Does he agree that, when on their last legs, the Callaghan Government were supported by two Ulster Unionists, who fondly believed that they might have got a gas pipeline, but it was his colleague, the former hon. Member for Belfast, West, now Lord Fitt, and the absentee who came to abstain in person, Frank Maguire, the then hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who brought down the Government?
        Mr. McNamara: If the majority of the Ulster Unionists, who had been so obsequious to Callaghan while they were getting their extra seats and their other stuff, had voted with the Labour Government, they would not have been brought down.
        We also knew how my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had treated Mr. Maguire and Mr. Fitt. We also knew what was going on in Castlereagh and in the Bennett inquiry. We knew how we had used those people, with the Liberals, to maintain the Government. Then, when the Liberals left us, they were discarded like an old pair of gloves in favour of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) and his friends.
        We know exactly what went on then. That is why we are saying that the present development represents a weakening of the position.
        Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is becoming something of a revisionist. May I take him back to his earlier comments, when he said, gesticulating to give greater effect to his words, that the Unionists grasped the issue of decommissioning out of the air. Would he like to reflect on that comment, given the fact that the Unionists were required not simply by necessity but by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Dublin Prime Minister, who said that the issue had to be addressed at the start of the process? Under the instructions of his friend the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, as well as those of our own Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Unionists were required to do that.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the House that we should not get into a debate about decommissioning. We are talking about the Northern Ireland Committee.
        Mr. McNamara: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely point out that when all the discussions were taking place about ceasefires and so on, decommissioning was not raised by anyone—
        The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Oh yes, it was; ask Mr. Spring.
        Mr. McNamara: Oh no, it was not. That was not quite the case.
        I shall finish on the following point. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who will soon be the Secretary of State, was correct to say that all matters involving forums, Grand Committees and so on will have to be considered again. It is absolutely wrong that a great constitutional principle such as we are now establishing should be dealt with on the penultimate day of a

        967
        Parliament, without proper consultation or examination, and without considering all the ramifications of what is being done.
        The Government are paying their debt. I understand that—but one thing is more important. In a few weeks' time the British people will pay their debt to the Government, and we will not see much more of that Government.
        8.40 pm
        Rev. Ian Paisley: We have listened to a most interesting speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In one amazing part of it he said that we were subjecting the Northern Ireland people to British legislation. I happen to be part of the United Kingdom, and this is the United Kingdom Parliament.
        We do not want Irish republican legislation. We do not want anyone interfering in Northern Ireland's internal affairs. We want to be ruled by this Parliament, which is constituted to rule us. It is utter nonsense for any Member of the House to say that it is a sort of disgrace that British legislation techniques are being brought in to rule us. That sort of speech, instead of forwarding good relations, puts them back and back.
        Mr. McNamara: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman wants to be ruled by British legislation; I simply remember how splendidly he performed at the time of the Ulster Workers Council strike.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: All citizens of this kingdom have a right to protest against laws they do not agree with. If they are wrong, the law can take its course. It has taken its course with me on three occasions, when they locked me behind bars, to the hon. Gentleman's delight— [Interruption.] Yes, to his delight and celebration. I remember some of the things he said at the time.
        Let me make it clear to the House that Ulster— Northern Ireland—is part of the United Kingdom, and that this is the United Kingdom Parliament. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made it clear—or perhaps it was his friend across the Gangway, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—that the southern Government should be consulted about what we are doing tonight.
        What are we doing tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I do not want to make you restless, so I emphasise the fact that we are dealing with House business—the business of Committees in the British House of Commons for this United Kingdom of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the concern of no one but the House.
        The House alone can appoint its Committees, and it is outrageous for Members of that House to suggest that a foreign Government should now be able to put their hand into the Chamber and dictate to it whether we should appoint a Committee to look after the business of citizens of the United Kingdom. Would we have liked France telling us that we could not have a Grand Committee for Scotland, because France and Scotland were always very close? Are we saying that Spain should look after Welsh people and should decide whether we have a Welsh Grand Committee? This matter goes to the very heart of our situation. People say that we antagonise one part of the
        968
        population of Northern Ireland if this Parliament does its duty, but this Parliament has not been doing its duty with regard to Northern Ireland for years. Would we be talking about a democratic deficit if we had been doing our duty?
        The people of Northern Ireland have no real authority in local government, planning, education, health and social services and the bread and butter issues. The Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland told us that he was going to abolish the five education boards, but when we all went to see the Prime Minister, he put up his hands and surrendered. He said the Government would not do away with the boards—that is on the record. I said that it was a good thing for a Prime Minister to surrender to a Unionist, while the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said that it was a bad thing. Is that the way Northern Ireland is to be ruled?
        Is it good government when the Minister responsible for education goes against everybody? He thought that because the Social Democratic and Labour party was not in the forum, it would not associate with us on this issue, but there are schools in the areas represented by the SDLP, and it knew what was happening. There was unity. That controversy did damage, and we do not know to this day how much was spent in all the Minister's investigations into trying to introduce a three-board rule, which has something to do with Drumcree, and nothing to do with anything else.
        We have not had good government in Northern Ireland because this House has not been acting in the way it should. We had the same controversy about the number of seats in this House when we had 12 seats. I heard the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) say that we had a fair proportion, but we have nothing of the kind. In proportion to the population and size of Scotland, according to the Library we should have 22 seats, but we received only 17. We were undersold by the British Government, who would not give us our entitlement. Some say that the Government are now paying us off, but it is a poor pay-off.
        Elements of the Committee in Northern Ireland will be entirely different from the Scottish Grand Committee. In a document we presented many years ago to the Prime Minister—some Ulster Unionists rapped us for it—we said that we should have a proper Grand Committee and Select Committee to look after the business of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South Down is making it up, but in the appointment of the members of a Select Committee, how did the nationalist population not receive parity of esteem? It received the same number of members, in proportion, as other parties. It was entitled to only one member of that Committee, and it got one member. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard reports, he will see that he referred to parity of esteem on the Select Committee.
        Let me make clear that anything this House does to give us the government to which we are entitled as part of the United Kingdom will be opposed by nationalists— that can be expected. Everything is considered as some sort of a pay-off. It is a pity that this Parliament did not listen to representatives from Northern Ireland years ago, and set up a Grand Committee and a Select Committee. At least then we would not have had that faux pas over the five boards; at least we would have been getting somewhere with the good government of Northern Ireland.

        969
        The Labour party spokesman briefly mentioned decommissioning. The talks could have covered decommissioning, but by a vote of this Government, the southern Government and the Social Democratic and Labour party, we were not allowed to discuss that matter or vote on it, so do not blame the Unionists for that.
        The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North who used to sit on the Labour Front Bench but has gone backwards and higher, tells us that we stopped the Brooke talks and the second part of the talks. We did nothing of the kind. The Irish Government brought them to a halt by calling an Anglo-Irish meeting, having agreed that there would be no Anglo-Irish conferences during the talks. On two occasions, the Irish Government called such meetings—and now we are blamed in this House for stopping the talks. Why does that man not go to Dublin and blame those who did stop the talks? We will be blamed for everything. The framework document is on the table and is the policy of the two Governments. Their agenda is a united Ireland—at the talks. Are we expected, as Unionists, to go there, bow the knee to them, and say yes?
        I do not know what the policy of the next Government will be. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said that she is looking forward to an unequivocal ceasefire. So am I, because we did not have one. We had a farce. Look at the people who were crucified, who were beaten up, who were shot and who were destroyed, and it is all coming back again. A ceasefire ought to be a ceasefire.
        We do not want the restoration of the unequivocal ceasefire of the past, for it was not unequivocal. We want an unequivocal ceasefire, so that all the belligerence stops and does so in such a way that we know that it has stopped. How does it stop in such a way? When the weapons that can break the peace are surrendered.
        One can have Sinn Fein at the table, and I believe that it will declare a ceasefire—it is coming and I think that the Labour Government will accept it. Perhaps before the end of May, they will say that Sinn Fein will be at the table.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject of the Grand Committee. It would help our procedures if he could get back to the matter in question.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: In closing my remarks on that subject, I simply state that my party will not be at any such talks. Let me make it clear to the House and to the world; we will not be sitting down with those who have guns in their hands and are committing crime in the Province.
        We are going to have this Grand Committee, and I wonder why it is not in the pattern of the other two Grand Committees for other parts of the United Kingdom. I want to know why a majority of Ulster Members cannot be on the Committee. Will the Whips whip their parties to reject what the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the SDLP and other representatives of Northern Ireland agree on together? The Whips will always have the power to destroy any agreement that the Committee arrives at.
        The Grand Committee should be representative. I do not look forward to the Secretary of State presiding in Belfast and making it a press conference, as has happened
        970
        in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said—even if it is the hon. Member for Redcar. It is interesting that the proposed 20-minute rule—20 minutes for the Government and 20 minutes for the other leaders—has been forgotten, so that Government members of the Committee can go on and on and then have their press conference afterwards. [Interruption.]
        This is the last night of debate on Northern Ireland, and at five minutes to 9 the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) wants to shut us up. Is that what he will do when he comes to Northern Ireland? The Northern Ireland people will teach him a lesson. We need to have our say; we sat here all day, and the business did not proceed according to the Order Paper; other hon. Members went on and on, yet when I speak for 10 minutes I am effectively asked to sit down. I will not be put down.
        All I want to say at the end of this debate—we have two others coming—is that it is a pity that the House did not frame the Committee as the other Grand Committees were framed; at least then we would have had a chance to make it work better for the people of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, as it will be a Committee of the House, Northern Ireland Members will do their best to get the best out of it for the people we represent.
        My deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), offered the Secretary of State good wishes for the life that he was going to. I do not know whether he was proposing a life in time or a life in eternity, but I remember an old Scottish minister who never wished his congregation a happy new year, but always a happy eternity. I wish the present Secretary of State a happy eternity.
        8.56 pm
        Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Secretary of State made great play of the word "equivalent" in his opening statement, comparing the Scottish Grand Committee with the proposed rules for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. His equivalence did not stretch to the Tory party conference last year, when the Secretary of State for Scotland had the St. Andrew's flag on the stage and joined hands with the Secretary of State for Wales with the Welsh flag, and a glaring absentee was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so I can see where the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is coming from when he challenges the Secretary of State's Unionism.
        The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made the point, rightly I think, that many people, if not the majority, will regard the Northern Ireland Grand Committee as a good debating forum for people debating issues in Northern Ireland, because we all know that Northern Ireland affairs are not given enough time on the Floor of the House.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the equivalent Scottish Grand Committee. He was absolutely right about how that Committee has been abused. The Secretary of State for Scotland said at the time of that Committee's inception that there would be plenty of time for Back Benchers to have their say, but we have ended up with a situation in which the Secretary of State and other Ministers at the Scottish Office hog the time. We came to an agreement that there would be 20 minutes for the Front Benches,

        971
        but at the most recent meeting the Secretary of State blatantly ignored it, despite my repeated request that he honour the convention.
        Northern Ireland Members should be careful: if by some fluke the Conservatives win the general election, they could use and abuse the Northern Ireland Grand Committee as they have abused the Scottish Grand Committee. If we win the election, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will never be guilty of such an abuse.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that qualification. Does he accept that Northern Ireland Members might not be prepared to accept the Secretary of State behaving like that? They have already shown that they can handle themselves as a minority group in the House.
        Mr. McAvoy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Scottish Members are not exactly the most docile, either. I assure him that it is difficult to follow the rules of the House. The Scottish Grand Committee has had the rolling travelling show of press conferences and stunt spending announcements by the Scottish Office. Those would have happened anyway, but they were packaged for announcement in the Committee. Northern Ireland Members should not expect too much from the changed Northern Ireland Grand Committee. It will have powers not of decision, but only of dealing with Adjournment votes.
        It is disgraceful that, at the tail end of this Parliament, rushed proposals have been put before the House. My hon. Friends the Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked about a Unionist pay-off. I would not use such language, but our Unionist colleagues should take account of the fact that, thanks to the cack-handedness of the Government, there is a perception that deals have been made.
        I support the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who said that Labour will reconsider the proposals. The hon. Member for Belfast, East declared that tonight's decision should be game, set and match and that nothing should be re-examined. I do not agree. It is reasonable to look at Northern Ireland from a fresh Labour Government point of view and see how the Committee would be set in place with other arrangements. There is a place for the Committee, which can be a good debating chamber if it is used properly. If the Conservatives get in again, that will not happen.
        I welcome the proposal to re-examine the workings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. I assure all Northern Ireland Members that the Labour party will approach it with the benefit of our experience in the Scottish Grand Committee. When Northern Ireland Members say that they would not allow it to be abused, I assure them that Scottish Labour Members would not stand for any abuse either. However, I certainly do not expect any abuse from my hon. Friends.
        9.1 pm
        Mr. Harry Barnes: There is one thing about which I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and it may be the only thing: it is wrong to introduce this measure at the end of 18 years of Conservative
        972
        government. However, it is wrong because it should have been introduced long ago. The democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is the big argument for the measure.
        In the last Parliament, we had a three-hour Order in Council debate on the equivalent for Northern Ireland of the Education Reform Act 1988. It had 187 clauses and schedules and had to be debated in 180 minutes. It was not a repeat of the legislation for Britain because education in Northern Ireland differs in some characteristics from education in Britain. In the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, it should have had the fullest possible discussion. That democratic deficit is the reason for a Grand Committee, irrespective of arguments about the details.
        There are bad arguments and bad reasons for establishing such bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North pushed the negative aspects and suggested why it was in some people's interest to put them forward. However, the democratic argument gives good, strong and solid reasons for adopting the measure. Everyone who votes for the measure will not vote for a good and solid reason. People will have their own agenda, their own position and their own interests. However, as democrats we should be concerned to establish the right type of arrangements.
        The Government's failure to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee was rectified only recently. It seems to me that a Select Committee should be attached to each Department of state. It was disgraceful that there was no Select Committee for Northern Ireland. The Select Committee is separate from considerations about talks, the future of Northern Ireland and constitutional change. It deals with the current position and bread-and-butter policy issues for the people of Northern Ireland. All the bodies that have been established in connection with Northern Ireland should operate.
        The Northern Ireland Select Committee deals not with constitutional matters, security or wider matters but with social and economic affairs. Although alterations could be made in its operation, the Northern Ireland Grand Committee should continue to sit. The Northern Ireland forum has passed resolutions that I see as progressive, but to which Ulster Unionists on both sides of the House have not always adhered in debates in the Chamber. The forum has passed grand resolutions on setting up a commission on disability, water privatisation and other matters. I only wish that the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein would involve themselves in discussions in the forum, so that their influence could come out.
        Then there is another body. The British-Irish parliamentary body deals with a host of bread-and-butter issues. It produces reports. It does not interfere with the sovereignty of the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom. The separate Administrations have to decide how to respond to its proposals. It is a valuable body; it allows the sharing of ideas and helps developments to take place. Unfortunately, there are vacancies for Unionists on the parliamentary body. Unionists should be involved in that body, as the nationalist and Republican community should be involved in the Northern Ireland forum.
        The Select Committee, the Grand Committee, the forum and the British-Irish parliamentary body provide valuable cross-fertilisation of ideas. To say that they are just talking shops does not decry their position. What is required is discussion of matters of daily concern in

        973
        people's lives and the sharing of experiences. People find sometimes that they have far more in common than things that come between them.
        I have been impressed in the House by how often, on Northern Ireland issues in the Grand Committee and elsewhere, the divisions on constitutional and security issues just disappear and there is considerable cross-party unity. For example, in the debates on student loans, speeches were made by Northern Ireland Members on both sides of the House which set out a position that could almost have been Labour's position. The same position ran across the political spectrum within Northern Ireland on that issue.
        The opportunity for people to meet and discuss matters and for some to hop from one body to another, carry their own ideas across and influence matters, and to learn from the procedures of those bodies is invaluable. I am not against our looking again at the arrangements, but I am against our destroying the principles of the bodies that have been established unless something entirely different comes out of the talks which could then lead to an adjustment and a different framework.
        9.8 pm
        Ms Mowlam: With the leave of the House, I shall wind up for the Opposition very briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made his usual clear and positive contribution to the debate, and I reinforce his remarks about the British-Irish body, which is something at which we will want to look in future. His comments were constructive and were made in the face of some of this evening's more interesting contributions.
        I also wish to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) about the history of local government in Northern Ireland, which is a terribly important subject. We must never forget the sectarianism that functioned at local government level in the past and that persists in some areas. Equally, it would be helpful to acknowledge those local government bodies that have improved and in which cross-party work takes place. They represent a far more positive experience.
        I also want to throw into the pot the local authority partnerships and the 26 district councils, where, with European money, work of a positive nature is being done across the divide, not only by local politicians, but by community groups, businesses and trade unions. Those experiences should not be lost. I accept the logic of the hon. Gentleman's comment that, if we take part of the jigsaw outside the talks process, we begin to weaken the talks process, but it is important to look at how we can begin to build trust and confidence in areas around the talks process in the hope of moving it forward.
        The contributions from many hon. Members reinforced the view expressed by Labour Members on the need to revisit the issue of improving accountability and transparency across the board in Northern Ireland. We are intent on doing that and I hope that, to some extent, that answers the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)—have reinforced our view that we should look at the history of the Scottish Grand Committee, because there may be positive lessons for a potential Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
        974
        Labour will not divide the House on this motion. We have said many times that it is important that we should let the measure through. However, we shall review it, if we are given the chance in government.
        9.11 pm
        Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must begin a short winding-up speech by thanking those right hon. and hon. Members who have expressed kind wishes for what has been described as my after-life. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) wished me a happy eternity, which good wishes I gratefully acknowledge and reciprocate. Kind suggestions were made as to how I might employ myself; the only plan that I have made is to buy a horse, and now that there is no concern about a by-election, that will cause no anxiety to anybody.
        This has been a valuable debate, and I welcome the Opposition's support for the motion. A number of general points have been made: first, that it is a good idea, but it comes at the wrong time; secondly, that it is a good idea, but the Committee is wrongly constituted; thirdly, that it is a bad idea, primarily because Unionists seem to want it, nevertheless we favour accountability; fourthly, that it is a bad idea because it is a pay-off, the last cashing of a cheque; and, fifthly, that it is a bad idea because it will prejudice the outcome of the talks. I should like briefly to deal with some—although probably not all—of those points.
        In respect of the argument that it is a good idea but the wrong time, I should like to point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the measure back in October. Thereafter, within a few days, I wrote to party leaders asking for their views and saying that it would be nice if we could introduce the measure with the support of everybody. It is enough to say that some were more prompt than others in responding. Nevertheless, here we are, and if it is a good idea then it is never too late to introduce it.
        To the assertion that it is some sort of pay-off, I say, well, big deal—the number of times we have had the Ulster Unionists voting against us does not suggest that we have received good value for money. I hope that the House will look at the proposal on its merits and will see it for what it is intended to be—an enhancement of accountability. The first thing I said when I got to Northern Ireland, nearly five years ago, was that I wanted to get rid of direct rule. The sort of responsibilities and powers I have are absurd—absolutely ridiculous. I want locally elected people to take responsibility for some necessarily rather hard decisions.
        As for the argument that the Grand Committee is a bad idea because Unionists want it, it seems an odd way of forming one's opinion to decide that, if someone else wants something, it must be bad.
        I want to make a serious point about the constitution of the Committee. We have endeavoured to make it a practical Committee. If it was limited to Ulster Members only, it would be a much smaller Committee than either of the other two Grand Committees, and it is of course a part of our belief in the Union in the House that so many hon. and right hon. Members who are not Ulster Members take a close interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I therefore consider it reasonable that that composition should pertain.
        The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked whether, in a letter that I wrote on 27 February, I was saying that we intended to pass all Northern Ireland

        975
        legislation through the Grand Committee. Certainly not. He will see that in that letter I said that it should also be possible on a Government motion for draft Northern Ireland orders and Orders in Council to be referred to the Grand Committee. It is simply to enhance that as a possibility that we make this proposal.
        In the time available, I cannot sensibly do anything much more than to say this about an important point in conclusion. It has been said—with sincerity, I am sure— that the proposal is bad because it will take away some of the drive for that comprehensive settlement which it is the object of the talks process to help the people of Northern Ireland secure.
        I see no case for that whatever. Here is something that mitigates one of the worst consequences of direct rule— what we call the democratic deficit. It is entirely without prejudice to what we are seeking to do in that talks process. The Grand Committee will not have legislative capacity; in all probability, it will be used primarily for non-controversial Bills. It will have no power to amend. It is completely different from what we are seeking to achieve in this context in the talks process.
        I very much hope that, after an interesting debate, we can proceed, and that the motion will be carried. I commend it to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That—

        (1) Standing Order No. 99 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders No. 99A to 99H below shall have effect;

        (2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, by inserting 'or a motion in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 99A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business))' after the words relating to the Welsh Grand Committee which were inserted on 11th March 1996;

        (3) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) shall be amended, in line 21, at the end, by inserting 'or to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee'; and

        (4) Other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to die foregoing provisions of this Order.

        99 A. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)

        (1) There shall be a standing committee called the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, together with not more than twenty-five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.

        (2) The quorum of the committee shall be ten, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).

        (3) the business of the committee shall include—

        (a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 B (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));

        (b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 C (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates));

        (c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order No. 99 D (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (ministerial statements));

        976

        (d) bills referred to it for consideration or further consideration in relation to their principle, in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 E (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle));

        (e) such legislative proposals and other specified matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 F (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland));

        (f) instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 G (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)); and

        (g) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).

        (4) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.

        99 B. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)

        (1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee by Northern Ireland Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

        (2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.

        (3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.

        (4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.

        (5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired, save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments):

        Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.

        99 C. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates)

        (1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

        (2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Northern Ireland.

        (3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.

        (4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.

        (5) (a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.

        977

        (b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.

        (c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.

        (6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:

        Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.

        99 D. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (ministerial statements).

        (1) The chairman of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Northern Ireland, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.

        (2) Ministerial statements may be made—

        (a) at the commencement of a sitting; or

        (b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or

        (c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.

        (3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.

        (4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.

        99 E. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)

        (1) On the order being read for the second reading of a public bill relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee', and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

        Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.

        (2) A bill so referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle', and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of two and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:

        Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

        (3) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (2) above shall be ordered to be read a second time on a future day.

        (4) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a bill to which paragraph (3) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

        (5) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (2) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown (or in the case of a private Member's bill by the Member in charge of the
        978
        bill), "That the Bill be referred again to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee', and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

        Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only wim the leave of the House.

        (6) A bill so referred again to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle', and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more man one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:

        Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

        (7) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (6) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.

        (8) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (7) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

        99 F. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)

        (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a legislative proposal or other specified matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

        (2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the legislative proposal or matter referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said legislative proposal or matter.

        (3) In this order and in Standing Orders No. 99 A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)) and No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) 'a legislative proposal' means a proposal for a draft Order in Council relating exclusively to Northern Ireland.

        99 G. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)

        (1) Where—

        (a) a Member has given notice of a motion for a humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or of a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or

        (b) a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved,

        a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown, 'That the instrument be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee'; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

        (2) The Committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, "That the Committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the

        979
        proceedings on the motion, if not previously disposed of, not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; and shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put:

        Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the instrument' is made, make without notice a motion to extend to three hours the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

        (3) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraph 1(a) or 1(b) of this order, in relation to any instrument in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (2) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon; which may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

        99 H. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)

        (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee—

        (a) to sit on not more than two specified days in Northern Ireland (at places to be named by the Member appointed chairman), the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;

        (b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at such hours as shall be specified;

        (c) to take questions under Standing Order No. 99 B (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above;

        (d) to hold short debates under Standing Order No. 99 C (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;

        (e) to consider specified bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 E (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) on certain of the days so specified;

        (f) to consider legislative proposals and other specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 F (Northern Ireland Grand
        980
        Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)) on certain of the days so specified;

        (g) to consider specified instruments (whether or not in draft) which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 G (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) on certain of the days so specified; and

        (h) to consider motions for the adjournment of the committee made under paragraph (5) below on certain of the days so specified;

        and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

        Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Northern Ireland, nor from considering at a sitting in Northern Ireland business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.

        (2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.

        (3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).

        (4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.

        (5) On a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) above, after the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.

        Crime (Sentences) Bill
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords have agreed to the Crime (Sentences) Bill with amendments, to which the Lords desire the concurrence of the House. I understand that copies of the Lords amendments are now available in the Vote Office.
        Ordered,
        That the Lords amendments to the Crime (Sentences) Bill be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Howard.]
        Lords amendments accordingly considered.

        New clause
        Lords amendment: No. 1, before clause 1, to insert the following new clause—Conditions relating to mandatory and minimum custodial sentences—
        (".—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of setting out the basis on which the court shall carry out its sentencing functions under this Part.
        (2) Under section 1 below, when determining whether it would be appropriate not to impose a life sentence the court shall have regard to the circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender.
        (3) Under sections 2 and 3 below, when determing whether it would be appropriate not to impose a custodial sentence of at least seven years under subsection 2(2) or, as the case may be, of at least three years under subsection 3(2) the court shall have regard to the specific circumstances which—
        (a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender; and
        (b) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.")
        9.17 pm
        The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to 7.
        Mr. Howard: These amendments all relate to the circumstances in which the court should have discretion to set aside the mandatory sentences prescribed by clauses 2, 3 and 4. These are of course the automatic life sentence for second serious violent or sex offences, and mandatory minimum prison sentences for persistent burglars and drug dealers. The Bill, as passed by the House with a majority of more than 200, provided that, where the stringent qualifying conditions are satisfied, the court must impose the mandatory penalty unless it considers that there are exceptional circumstances that justify not doing so.
        The amendments that were carried, against the Government's advice, in another place retain the exceptional circumstances test in relation to the automatic life sentence but substitute a different test in relation to the mandatory minimum penalties in clauses 3 and 4. The new test provides that the court must impose the mandatory minimum penalty unless it considers that there are specific circumstances which relate either to the offences or to the offender, and which will make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.
        982
        I, my noble Friend Lady Blatch and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), have explained the Government's view on this matter many times during the Bill's passage. We accept that there may be exceptional cases for which a mandatory penalty would be unjust or inappropriate, and that the court needs to have discretion to set aside the mandatory penalty in such cases.
        At the same time, the whole purpose and point of mandatory minimum sentences is to ensure that persistent burglars and drug dealers know that they can expect a stiff minimum penalty if they continue to offend. Mandatory penalties would have the salutary effect that we expect and intend them to have only if offenders knew that they would be imposed as a matter of course in the generality of cases.
        This will not now happen. The Lords amendments drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill that deal with burglars and drug dealers.
        In Committee, Plaid Cymru, supported by the Liberal Democrats, proposed a very similar amendment—but the Labour party abstained. The moment the Bill left the spotlight and went to another place, however, Labour did a U-turn. Its spokesman in the other House proposed this amendment himself. Opposition Members sometimes pretend that these are minor amendments, designed to clarify, which will have little effect. Not so. Indeed, the Master of the Rolls has said, of a form of words which was virtually identical:
        "We shall be back to the present position".
        He is right. There would seem to be a difference of opinion about that between the two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) appears to be nodding in agreement with the Master of the Rolls; the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) shakes his head in disagreement. On this occasion the Master of the Rolls is undoubtedly right—
        Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Bill will still contain mandatory sentences, and that the courts will have to go through a quite different sentencing exercise in order to reach a sentence that is not of the mandatory period? Does he therefore agree that the Master of the Rolls was somewhat overstating the case when he said that we will return to the present position?
        Mr. Howard: No, I do not agree. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that a different process would have to be undergone in order to reach, in the Master of the Rolls' words, "the present position" again; but that— a return to the present position—would be the effect of the amendments.
        The Lords amendment would allow the present pattern of sentencing broadly to continue. A first-time burglar gets an average 16.2 months. A third-time burglar gets an average 18.9; and a seventh-time burglar gets an average 19.4 months. Almost 30 per cent. of burglars convicted for a seventh time in the Crown court are not sent to prison at all.
        Is it any wonder that career burglars treat a sentence of this kind as a minor occupational hazard? I want to change the terms of trade against the career burglar. I want the career burglar to take up an alternative career.

        983
        Opposition Members say that they changed the Bill because they did not want to be unfair to burglars and drug dealers. I want to be fair to their victims—that is the difference between the Conservative party and the Opposition parties.
        Mr. Jack Straw: If I heard him correctly, the Secretary of State has just said that Opposition Members have said that they do not wish to be unfair to burglars and drug dealers. When did any Opposition Member say that?
        Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman should read the debates held in another place. He will find that the thrust of the arguments behind the amendment showed the extraordinary lengths to which he and his hon. Friends would go to ensure that there was no possibility of a third-time burglar getting a minimum mandatory sentence under any circumstance in which that just might not be entirely in accordance with the wishes of the judge in the case. That is the effect of the amendment which the hon. Gentleman and his party supported in the other place.
        Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has not answered my question. He made a serious allegation that Labour Members believe that such sentences would be unfair to burglars and drug dealers. Will he give one example of a Labour Front-Bench Member making such an assertion?
        Mr. Howard: I said that that is the effect of all the arguments that were used—
        Mr. Alun Michael: The Secretary of State is withdrawing.
        Mr. Howard: No. That is the effect of all the arguments used in another place in support of the amendment.
        There is a fundamental difference on this matter between the Conservative party and the Opposition. The Opposition are both soft on crime and soft on criminals. They always have been and they always will be. I wish to take this opportunity to make it clear that we shall amend the Bill to reverse the change as soon as possible after the election. The Opposition cannot and will not give the same pledge. That is the message that we shall take to the country in this general election: on law and order, as on every other issue, people can be sure only with the Conservatives.
        We have accepted the amendments simply to get the rest of the Bill on to the statute book.
        Mr. Michael: It will be voted down by Conservative Back Benchers.
        Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, makes a preposterous allegation.
        The Labour party pretends that it supports much of the Bill but its spokesman in another place, as he always does, gave the game away late last night. Unfortunately for him and his party, Hansard was still present, alert as ever, to record his words. The noble Lord said:
        "I would rather not have the Bill at all."
        984
        He went on to say:
        "The issues which the Bill raises will involve considerable heart searching after the election. I still do not know whether that will be done in statutory form, but something will have to be done about the provisions of this Bill."
        That threat cannot be left unchallenged. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) repeatedly said that he would not tell the country what his attitude was to the Bill until he saw its final shape. Its shape is now there for all to see. It is time for the hon. Gentleman to come clean. Does he support the Bill? Does he agree with his noble Friend, who said that he would rather not have the Bill at all? Does he endorse his noble Friend's call that something will have to be done about the Bill after the election? Does he endorse the praise that his noble Friend heaped on the Liberal Democrats? Does he agree with him that
        "the Liberal-Democrat party has maintained its principle of civil libertarianism … in a relentless way"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 March 1997; Vol. 579, c. 885.]
        The hon. Gentleman must answer those questions—and answer them tonight.
        The Bill, which provides automatic life sentences of imprisonment for repeat rapists and other serious sexual or violent offenders, honesty in sentencing so that no one can be released after five years when he or she has been sentenced to 10, and the principle of minimum mandatory sentences, constitutes the most radical step change in criminal justice this century. For the time being, for the reasons that I have given, I beg to move that the House accepts the Lords amendments.
        Mr. Straw: We have just been treated to a foretaste of the technique that the Secretary of State intends to employ during the election. He makes assertions with no factual base and, when challenged, he shamelessly tries to wriggle out of the claim that he has just made by changing the words that he used. The Secretary of State laughs about this serious matter; no doubt he will laugh all the way to his Government's defeat in six weeks' time. It is a serious matter to stand at the Dispatch Box and charge Labour Front-Bench Members and Liberal Democrats with saying that it is unfair to gaol drug dealers and domestic burglars for three and seven years and, when challenged on that, to be unable to produce a single reference to justify it. To my knowledge, no such speech has ever been made. When the Secretary of State realised his error, he did not even apologise, but simply wriggled out of it by saying, "Oh well, it is the effect."
        Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
        We had another example of that technique this morning on the radio when, in an increasingly hysterical interview, the Secretary of State said that the Opposition parties had sympathy for career burglars and dealers in hard drugs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman smirks about that. Every time he makes such ludicrous statements on the radio, all that happens is that more and more people have confidence in the Labour party's policies on law and order, not in his party's policies.
        The simple truth is that the Government have been soft on burglars and drug dealers over the past 18 years. If the Secretary of State wants to judge on the record, not on

        985
        the rhetoric, burglary has rocketed since 1979. It has more than doubled. At the same time, there has been a threefold increase in the chance of a burglar getting away with his appalling crimes—getting off scot free. In 1979, one in 11 burglars were caught and convicted. Last year, the number had fallen to an appalling one in 33.
        Illegal drugs now pervade and disfigure our society in a way that was unthinkable two decades ago. In the first five years of the present Prime Minister's Administration, the number of drug addicts notified to the Home Office more than doubled, from 18,000 in 1990 to over 37,000 in 1995.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman and his party are so keen to get burglars, drug dealers and other criminals convicted, why did they oppose the changes to the right to silence, which have led to a reduction of almost a half in the number of suspects refusing to answer questions put by the police and an increase in the number of guilty men convicted in the courts of this land every day of the year? Why did the hon. Gentleman's party oppose that change?
        Mr. Straw: Yet again, the Secretary of State is trying to rewrite the record. We proposed what the royal commission recommended—[Interruption.] He now says that it did not go far enough. That is a different point from his claim that we wholly opposed what the Government were seeking to do.
        Let the Secretary of State remember what happened. The royal commission recommended that inferences from the exercise of the right to silence ought to be adducible by the trial judge to the jury, in particular circumstances. We tabled amendments to put that into practice. The Secretary of State put forward a proposal that went further. At the time, those two were voted on. I made it clear to him in correspondence about six months ago that we are happy for the current law to remain.
        As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's claim that the number of suspects refusing to answer has declined by a half, that is accurate in one sense, but it is worth remembering that it is a percentage of a percentage. The proportion who are now willing to answer has increased from 75 per cent. to about 85 per cent. I am happy that that has happened, but it is a rather different figure from the one that the Secretary of State implied.
        Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State should make it clear when he refers to the Opposition parties that the Ulster Unionists would not wish to be associated with any effort not to impose the maximum sentences on repeat burglars, rapists and drug dealers?
        Mr. Straw: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
        I mentioned the fact that the number of drug addicts had doubled in the five years between 1990 and 1995. Where there is such drug addiction, there is inevitably much more crime, not just in the drug dealing itself, but in theft, burglary, robbery and all kinds of dishonesty to obtain the cash to feed the drug habit.
        986
        For all the Home Secretary's ridiculous, absurd bluster and his thrashing around to blame anyone and everyone for the rise in crime but the Government who have presided over it, he knows that the Government have been soft on burglars and drug dealers, as they have been on crime overall.
        The Bill is an admission of 18 years of failure, for it fundamentally reverses the sentencing policy of 16 of those 18 years and turns on its head the Criminal Justice Act 1991, for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted. That Act, as he knows, sought not to increase the length of prison sentences, but to cut them. It sought to prevent the courts from taking into account the character or the previous criminal record of defendants. That Act introduced the badly worded unit fine system, which almost brought the magistrates courts to their knees.
        The Secretary of State voted for the lot. He now has the audacity, however, to claim that others are soft on crime. He complains about inconsistency in sentencing, yet in 1990 he voted against Labour's proposals to secure more consistency. He did so on the ground that what we said would interfere with judicial independence. He talked about
        "the dead hand of conformity"
        and argued that we would end up with the experience of the United States.
        Reverses of policy have taken place on each of the 34 criminal justice Bills introduced over the past 18 years and during the passage of other Bills. The policy behind the Bill before us in respect of minimum sentences and much else has been characterised by one botch after another, one U-turn after another.
        What exceptions should there be to prescribed minimum sentences for repeat burglars and-drug dealers? That is the issue before the House. When the Secretary of State made his speech at the 1995 Conservative party conference, his message was at least clear:
        "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime."
        There were to be no exceptions of any sort. No exceptions were mentioned in any part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that October. It is—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but we can call for a copy of his speech. There were to be no exceptions. The word "exceptions" was never mentioned. No synonym was ever mentioned and there were no mentions of exceptions in the explanations added in the notes to editors, which are always a feature of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speeches to party conferences. The message was clear and unequivocal. As I said, there were to be no exceptions. Three convictions for burglary meant three years and three drug dealing convictions meant seven years.
        Two months later, there was the first signal of a U-turn. The Law Society's Gazette was told in December 1995 by the Secretary of State that there might have to be exceptions. When the White Paper appeared in November last year, there was a reference to variations from the minimum in "genuinely exceptional cases". When the Bill was published in November, the wording had changed again. We were told through the Bill that there could be a lesser sentence in "exceptional circumstances".
        Two people were probably responsible for the Secretary of State's U-turns. First, I suggest, was the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who in

        987
        1991 warned the House about the problems of minimum sentences. He described them as a "slippery slope". He argued that if one case is allowed as an exception, it becomes difficult to resist others. The hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear that exceptions there would have to be because, as he explained, there are many degrees of blameworthiness.
        I suggest that the second influence on the Secretary of State in his U-turns on exceptional circumstances was the Lord Chancellor. Lord Mackay has made no secret of his unhappiness with the way in which the sentencing policy outlined in the Bill was originally proposed, nor his unhappiness with the Secretary of State himself.
        Lord Mackay gave a revealing interview in The Times on 5 November, which appeared on page 8. Having admitted in the interview that he had balked at the idea of minimum sentences, he said of the exceptional circumstances wording that he had ensured that that phrase was included
        "so judges could escape what they saw as a restriction on their ability to match punishment and crime."
        He added:
        "I think it"—
        the phrase—
        "enables them"—
        the judges—
        "to deal justly with particular cases."
        No one doubts the good faith of the Lord Chancellor. The problem is that the more the Bill has been examined in this place and the other place, the more it has become clear that its wording would not enable judges to deal justly with particular cases, as the Lord Chancellor said.
        This is not a matter of speculation. Indeed, it is one of the few issues on which both Ministers and senior members of the judiciary are at present agreed. The Minister of State, for example, quoted with approval the view of the Lord Chief Justice that the relevant phrase will be construed narrowly. The Lord Chief Justice has led his colleagues in arguing that the wording will produce injustice.
        In its abstract sense, injustice would not have been the only consequence of the Government's wording. There would have been personal, concrete injustice for any near-mentally defective individuals, whom not even Ministers in their quieter moments believed should have been locked up for three years, but who, on the tiny examples that we have been given by the Secretary of State, could easily have been, on three individual convictions.
        There would have been even worse injustice to victims and their communities as, with the wording proposed by the Secretary of State, many more guilty criminals would have walked free from court.
        Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
        Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but it is not us but the Government who say that. Exactly that was said by the Government in their 1990 White Paper.
        988
        The point was rubbed in by the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) when, as Minister of State, Home Office, he said that minimum sentences
        "could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment. That is always one thing that worries me about minimum sentences."—[Official Report, 20 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 349.]
        In response to that point, the hon. and learned Member for Burton said quite correctly that proper exceptions would have to be written into the Bill.
        Mr. Howard: As, in general, juries do not know whether the defendant before them has previous convictions, they would not know whether a minimum mandatory sentence would apply in their case, so the hon. Gentleman's point completely falls.
        Mr. Straw: I know that the Secretary of State had a very distinguished career at the planning Bar, but even from my—
        Mr. Howard: Answer.
        Mr. Straw: I was going to answer from my limited experience at the criminal Bar, and the much greater experience of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) at the criminal Bar. The Secretary of State does not live in the real world. In such circumstances, of course the character of the defendant would be given. Juries are not foolish or stupid. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain why he, as a member of the Government, assented to the 1990 White Paper, which claimed categorically that minimum sentences could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment. Why did the Government put that forward in 1990?
        Mr. Howard: I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, but he seems bereft of understanding this evening. There is a difference between the proposition identified in the White Paper, which deals with minimum sentences in general, and the very specific targeted proposals in the Bill that provide for minimum sentences for repeat offenders, for third-time burglars and for third-time traffickers in hard drugs. It would be a very bold counsel for the defendant who would automatically put before the jury the character of the defendant in those circumstances. That is the difference between the two.
        Mr. Straw: But in any circumstance, one could arrive only at a situation where guilty men walked free as a result of the prospect of an automatic minimum sentence, if that was put in by the defence; and the Government of which the Secretary of State is a member clearly had that in mind when they asserted that absolute minimum sentences could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment.
        Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, these days, it is far more common for defence counsel to include their client's character in order to be able to bring out all the other advantageous facts for the defence that can flow only from the character going in, and that juries these days are very fair about defendants whose character is put in? That is the experience of all of us who practise

        989
        in the criminal courts. There is potential in the provisions for the totting up to be used by skilful counsel as a way of securing sympathy from the jury that would not be available currently. That, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, is the real world in which those of us who practise as criminal barristers operate.
        Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course that is the real world, and that it is why there has to be proper provision for exceptions.
        Without any regard for the facts of our amendment, the Secretary of State bleats that it would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. We have heard that phrase time and again, and it is increasingly less convincing. It will do nothing of the kind, as Ministers in the other place made clear. We heard that nonsense just now from the Secretary of State, but in the other place the Government Chief Whip, Lord Strathclyde, said categorically that the Bill, as amended by the House of Lords, provides for
        "automatic life sentences for serious violent and sexual offences; establishes the principle of mandatory minimum sentences for persistent drug offenders and domestic burglars".
        Baroness Blatch added on Third Reading that the Bill
        "addresses some very serious concerns in the community about violent offences, dealing in Class A drugs and persistent burglaries."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 March 1997; Vol. 579, c. 838, 891.]
        We agree with those sentiments. Much as they try, the Government cannot have it both ways.
        Our amendment would give life to the intention of the Lord Chancellor to enable judges, within a framework of minimum sentences, to deal justly with particular cases. That was the phrase that the Lord Chancellor used. Why cannot the Government see that, or do they want the courts to deal unjustly with particular cases? Do they want to betray the interests of victims, as guilty people walk free from courts?
        Our amendment has been carefully worded, and contrary to the claims of the Secretary of State, is very different in character and effect from that moved by the Liberal Democrats here and in the other place.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman seems to be coming to the end of his remarks. Before he sits down, I remind him of the undertaking that he gave to the House before the Bill left for the other place that, when it was in its final shape, he would tell the House and the country of his attitude to it. We look forward to his answering that question, and the other specific questions that I put to him on whether he agrees with the remarks made last night about the Bill by his noble Friend, Lord Mcintosh of Haringey.
        Mr. Straw: Of course, I shall deal with our approach to the Bill. But as I was saying, our amendment is carefully worded, and is different in character and effect from that moved by the Liberal Democrats here and in the other place. There would be a clear presumption in favour of the minimum sentence. That was accepted when the debate on this amendment was held in the other place. The discretion of the court, which the Secretary of State has
        990
        accepted in principle, would be properly defined to avoid injustice and the betrayal of victims that would follow from his wording.
        In addition, there would be the added safeguard that in every case the Attorney-General would be able to appeal any sentence that he felt made undue use of the limited discretion being given to the court. If we are in government, we intend to make use of that discretion. I do not believe for a moment that 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of cases that would otherwise trigger minimum sentences would result in an exercise by the courts of discretion. That was never the intention of this place or the other place. If that were to happen, it would obviously have to be looked at again by the House and by the Government.
        In the other place, the amendment was supported not only by their Lordships on the Opposition Benches, but by 29 Conservative peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, the former Conservative Lord Chancellor. The Secretary of State should consider that the next time he accuses anyone who supports the amendment of being soft on burglars and soft on drug dealers. Is he suggesting that that long list of distinguished former Law Officers, Lord Chancellors and other Ministers of the Crown in Conservative Administrations in the past 18 years are soft on crime, soft on drug dealers and soft on burglars? I hope that in the next six weeks he will seek to elevate the debate above such insults not only to us—we can take those—but to members of his own party.
        The other place having made its decision on the amendment, the proper constitutional way would have been for this House to debate and vote on it in the usual way. It is for this elected House to make final decisions on all such matters. That is what I agreed with the Secretary of State, and what the Labour Front Bench in the other place voted on yesterday. I regret that that has not happened. In many respects, however, the other place did the Home Secretary a favour yesterday. The Home Secretary knows that there was substantial support for our amendment, on his own side in the House of Commons as well as in the other place. He knows that, had the amendment been subject to a vote here, he would have been in great danger of being defeated by his hon. Friends.
        I have made it clear throughout proceedings on the Bill, and I make it clear now, that we support automatic life sentences for repeat rapists and other serious sexual and violent offenders, as laid down in the Bill. We support the principle of minimum sentences of three and seven years respectively for thrice-convicted burglars and drug dealers, and, under the amendment, the practice as well. If such arrangements are to achieve their end, however, they must work justly and efficiently. The amendments that we have tabled will help that process.
        The Government go into this election with a worse record on crime than any Government since the war, and a worse record than any other major industrialised country. A former Home Office Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), told The Guardian on 1 August last year:
        "The Labour Party is outflanking us on law and order and there is a serious danger of the Conservative Party at all levels losing the plot".
        The Home Secretary has certainly lost the plot on law and order. Under his party, crime has rocketed, victims have suffered and communities have been disfigured by crime.

        991
        The sooner the present Government are swept from office, the sooner we can again have measures to make our communities safe again.
        Mr. Alex Carlile: In my last gasp in the House, I make no apology for reviving—and, indeed, speaking from the heart of—the Liberal credentials that made me a Liberal and a member of the Liberal Democrat party.
        When we hear the Labour party talk of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and when we hear the Home Secretary say,
        "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime,"
        we are not hearing policies or proposals; we are just hearing slogans. It really is time that both the present Government and the party that may well form the next Government got to grips with an issue that has been driven home to them time and again.
        The issue has been driven home by, in particular, the likes of Lord Bingham, our present Lord Chief Justice; Lord Taylor, his immediate predecessor; Lord Woolf, the Master of the Rolls; and Lord Donaldson, the previous Master of the Rolls—no socialist he—that the basis for making new laws in relation to criminal justice policy is worthless unless it is founded on principles of justice.
        When the Bill left the House of Commons after Third Reading, the Labour party was doing a sort of soft shoe shuffle around the issues. It was not sure whether it was for or against the new provisions, or somewhere in between. In the House of Lords, it was Liberal Democrat peers who started the debate that has led to the amendment that the House of Commons will accept tonight—and I am proud of that, too.
        What was the basis of the argument advanced by the Liberal Democrat peers? It was purely that the law should be just and should continue to be administered by judges, and that the House of Commons should not tell judges how to exercise their discretion in matters that go to the very root of judicial discretion.
        The Labour party, of course, could not adopt the Liberal Democrat amendments in the other place; apparently, it would have been undignified for it to do so. It therefore created its own amendment, and that is what is contained in the amendments that we are debating now.
        Yesterday, we were in a very odd position. It is clear that it took the Liberal Democrats to force the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, in which the House will accept a Labour amendment that was passed in the House of Lords, because the Labour party is not sure whether it really wanted its amendment— which was passed by the Lords—to be passed in the House of Commons. What a strange situation that is. However, things often move in a mysterious way and here we are.
        What are we left with? For the Home Secretary to say that his particular prejudices being defeated results in a coach and horses being driven through the Bill is very unconvincing. He has a distinguished past as an expert in town and country planning law—I am told that there was none better—but he has shown his inexperience time and again in the understanding of what happens in criminal courts.
        One is bound to ask oneself: what does one have to do to a Home Secretary such as this if he will not listen to the Lord Chief Justice, the previous Lord Chief Justice,
        992
        the Master of the Rolls, the previous Master of the Rolls, the former Lord Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who was a Minister of State in the Home Office and who single-handedly won the argument on Second Reading on the Bill? What does it take to persuade the Home Secretary that the basis for changing criminal justice policy must be to produce just results?
        I am disappointed that we have not gone a stage further than the amendments. They contain the apparently unacceptable proposition that someone should not receive a mandatory minimum sentence for burglary or the possession of class A drugs if it would be unjust for him to receive such a sentence for the possession of class A drugs or burglary, so the Government want sentences to be passed that are unjust. That is the only conclusion that one can draw, and it is a most extraordinary one.
        Mr. James Wallace: By definition.
        Mr. Carlile: By definition, as my hon. Friend says.
        We can view with great satisfaction the outcome of the negotiations. There will be minimum mandatory sentences. The Home Secretary should recognise that we for one have moved some way towards his position in accepting that there should be new presumptions in sentencing policy. Today, when the judge sentences for a third burglary or a third class A drugs offence, he takes what he considers to be the appropriate sentence, having regard to the leading cases that are in the standard books on sentencing. He then tinkers one way or the other with those standard sentences.
        When the Bill enters into law, the position will be completely different. It will be presumed that the minimum mandatory sentence should be passed, but, if the judge goes through a different thought process from today's sentencing procedures and decides that it would be unjust to pass such a sentence, he will pass another sentence. What on earth can be wrong with that? It considers the victims of crime, it ensures that the criminal receives the proper sentence, and it is a sensible process. It is extraordinary to be told that that drives a coach and horses through the Bill.
        We Liberal Democrats were not as successful as we would have wished to be in relation to mandatory life sentences. Yesterday in the other place, Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, in a moving and eloquent speech, pointed out that the passing of a sentence of life imprisonment is a solemn and formidable occasion. The person who is sentenced forfeits not only the time that he spends in prison, but the rest of his life, to the state. In certain circumstances, the state can recall him to prison, even if he does not commit a criminal offence.
        I have been in court, probably on more occasions than the Home Secretary, when life sentences have been passed. Unfortunately, not a small number of them have been on people whom I have defended unsuccessfully, and I am delighted to say that a fair number have been on people whom I have prosecuted successfully. It is a solemn occasion, and not something to be trifled with.
        It is extremely important that, when a life sentence is passed and the judge makes the prisoner forfeit the rest of his life to the state, even after that prisoner is released, if he is to be, there should be a clear understanding that

        993
        there is a system of real justice embracing that solemn process. There is no more solemn process in the courts than the passing of a life sentence.
        I would therefore have liked to see the same amendment made in relation to mandatory life sentences as in relation to burglary and class A drugs offences. None the less, we have agreed to go a little bit of the way with the Home Secretary, by means of subsection (3) of the new clause to be inserted by Lords amendment No. 1.
        In life sentence cases, there will be an even stronger presumption that there should be an automatic life sentence. A case in which that will not happen will have to be very exceptional. To describe that as driving a coach and horses through the Bill passes understanding. I am afraid that it is another of the Home Secretary's slogans.
        In sum, we, the Liberal Democrats, are pleased to have been the instrument of justice—for that is what we have been, when the Labour party was reluctant to play that part, and when the Home Secretary could not see it when it stared him in the face.
        It being Ten o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
        It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question required to be put at that hour by Order [this day].

        ESTIMATES, 1997–98
        Resolved,
        That a further sum not exceeding £115,536,748,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1998, as set out in HC 335, 336 and 337.
        Ordered,
        That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolution: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim and Mrs. Angela Knight do prepare and bring it in.

        CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
        Mr. Michael Jack accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March 1998; to appropriate the
        994
        supplies granted in this Session of Parliament; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time this day and to be printed [Bill 140].
        Order for Second Reading read.
        Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day] and Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read a Second time.
        Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith, and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
        That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of any Lords Amendments or proposals relating to bills which may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Knapman.]
        Question agreed to.

        CRIME (SENTENCES) BILL
        Lords amendments again considered.
        Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        10.1 pm
        Mr. Alex Carlile: I was about to add one comment. I hope that, during the general election campaign, those who may be in the House afterwards will allow the public to be given a sensible and informed debate on the issues surrounding the criminal justice system.
        Members of Parliament serve the public ill by misleading them about the nature of legislation and the attitudes of other political parties. Every party represented in the House, without exception, wants to improve criminal justice policy. No party in the House is soft on crime. We are all striving to find better solutions to a serious problem. Let us hope that, during the election campaign, the subject can be debated intelligently, for a change.
        Lords amendment agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 88 agreed to.

        Education Bill
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords have agreed to the Education Bill with amendments, to which the Lords desire the concurrence of the House. I understand that copies of the Lords amendments are now available in the Vote Office.
        Ordered,
        That the Lords amendments to the Education Bill be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Forth.]
        Lords amendments accordingly considered.
        Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 110 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

        Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations)
        10.14 pm
        The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
        That the draft Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
        The order would withdraw from effect, subject to possible later revival, the provisions of section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996, which established a forum for discussion of
        "issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland".
        Putting it in plain English, the order would wind up the forum, at least for the time being.
        If, in the language of section 7 of the Act, it appears to me that the negotiations that have been proceeding in Northern Ireland since last June are suspended, I am obliged by that section to make an order of this character, which requires the approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
        At a session of the opening plenary of the negotiations on 5 March it was acknowledged that, in the words of the chairmen's statement, while some areas of potential agreement had been identified, no basis had emerged for reaching agreement on the question of decommissioning.
        That crucial subject has been under discussion since last autumn. There was a general recognition that further progress in the talks was impossible before the general election and the local elections that will be held in Northern Ireland on 21 May, so the plenary agreed to adjourn until 3 June. By reason of that and of all other relevant circumstances, it appears to me that by that adjournment the talks are suspended. Accordingly, I must make the order.
        It has been a disappointment to us all that the talks were not able to make greater progress in their first nine months. It is important that the participants want to resume, and they will do so on 3 June. We should not underrate the progress that has been made under the dedicated and excellent chairmanship of Senator George Mitchell of the United States, General John de Chastelain of Canada and Prime Minister Harri Holkeri of Finland.
        The participants agreed a complex set of rules of procedure, and there was a wide measure of agreement on the agenda for substantive negotiations—although there has so far been no vote on that question—but they have not been able to reach agreement on the question of decommissioning of arms, despite much discussion and the emergence in some areas of a significant degree of potential agreement.
        Decommissioning is a question of capital importance. There is very wide agreement that there can be no place in a democracy for the use or threatened use of force for political purposes. It is the Government's view that the only approach likely to deliver decommissioning of arms illegally held by terrorist organisations is the approach recommended by Senator Mitchell and his colleagues in the international body. That is the approach requiring that some decommissioning take place during the progress of political negotiations.
        That is a question to which the talks will undoubtedly have to return. I hope that it will prove possible to advance quickly over the decommissioning hurdle and

        997
        enter into the substance of the negotiations. I am delighted that the independent chairmen have reaffirmed their personal commitment to the process. Meanwhile, by reason of the forthcoming elections, we have reached an impasse, and hence the suspension.
        I want to emphasise that I believe that the negotiations have the potential to deliver the settlement that the great majority of people in Northern Ireland hope for. The process is capable of bringing together all the main political interests in Northern Ireland, but they must each acquire the same entry ticket: they must show that they are willing to work only by democratic and non-violent means.
        Sinn Fein should at once remove its self-imposed exclusion. An IRA ceasefire should be unequivocally and credibly restored, and Sinn Fein should show that the other conditions set out in section 2 of the Act are fulfilled. That will open the way for an invitation to Sinn Fein to enter the talks.
        Most important is the fact that the process is one of dialogue. Without dialogue, the prospects for Northern Ireland are at best unpromising. I profoundly hope that, early in my successor's time, there will be sustained movement into substantive negotiations, and progress through the heavy agenda that must be addressed, in a generous and constructive spirit. That, I believe, is what much the greater part of the people of Northern Ireland hope for from the talks, despite the anxieties and hesitations that they will inevitably feel.
        If such progress can be brought about, we have the prospect of a far brighter and more hopeful future for Northern Ireland. However, if it cannot be brought about, prospects will be far worse across the entire range of everyday life for everyone who lives there. I firmly believe that there are sensible grounds for hope. For the moment, however, a pause in the process has supervened.
        It is right, therefore, to review briefly the work of the forum. It opened shortly after the talks, on 14 June last year. It set to work with industry, under the distinguished and dedicated chairmanship of Mr. John Gorman, who deserves warm thanks for agreeing to take on so novel and challenging a set of responsibilities.
        Many of the forum's early meetings were taken up with discussion and agreement on its rules of procedure. They were eventually agreed, and were approved by me in September 1996. Since then, it has debated and considered a wide range of social and economic issues, including education, health care, disability, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and environmental pollution. In addition, it has established five standing committees, whose remits currently relate to education, health, agriculture and fisheries, the economy and public order. Some of its proceedings have attracted criticism, but I believe that, by a substantial balance, its work has been beneficial. It was a pity that the Social Democratic and Labour party thought it right to withdraw from the forum, and I greatly hope that, when it is revived, the SDLP will return.
        When considering the motion, we should note that the forum's initial lifespan would in any event have expired at the end of May this year. The Secretary of State is, however, with the approval of Parliament, empowered to revive it for a further period, or periods, until its definitive
        998
        expiry at the end of May 1998. It cannot go on longer. That will plainly not be a matter for me, but I can say that it will be the intention of a future Conservative Government to revive the forum as early as practicable in the life of a new Parliament. That is for the future. Meanwhile, I invite the House to agree that the forum should, in conformity with the scheme that the House approved last year, cease to meet because the talks are suspended. I commend the draft order to the House.
        10.22 pm
        Ms Marjorie Mowlam: As this will be my last debate with the Secretary of State, I acknowledge and put on record his personal commitment over his years in the job to trying to move the Northern Ireland peace process forward. We know that from trying to keep up with him seven days a week when he is working as hard as I know he has. His determination to keep Northern Ireland high up the political agenda is well known, and we wish him well when he leaves the House at the forthcoming general election at the end of a distinguished career. In view of what he said earlier, we ought to wish the horse well, too.
        It is unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), who has been here all evening, has left. This is also his last Parliament, and I put on record the Opposition's acknowledgment of his breadth of knowledge and of the fact that his commitment both to the House and to his constituents over many years has been unstinting. The House will miss him.
        The order is relatively uncontentious. It is the expression in statute of our view that the sittings of the Northern Ireland forum should be entirely dependent on the existence of the talks process. Labour's insistence on that helped to produce the legislation in this form. The elections held last May were designed to build confidence and provide a route into negotiations. As the Prime Minister said, there were two options—some prior decommissioning or an elective process—to determine who should take part in negotiations. The second option provided the route for talks to begin on 10 June. That Sinn Fein was not part of those negotiations when they began was entirely its own responsibility. It is up to the IRA and Sinn Fein to do what is necessary to convince us that they genuinely want peace.
        The elections also provide delegates to the forum. The existence of the forum was not approved widely in both communities in Northern Ireland. To offset that disadvantage, it was given a specific remit to discuss
        "issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland".
        Some members of the forum, whether they currently attend or not, would dispute that that objective had been adhered to, but many of the debates have been informative, such as the debates on the damage caused by the action for community employment cuts, on the problems in the health service and on drug abuse. The committees set up by the forum have also produced some interesting reports, for example on the BSE crisis, on opposition to the Government's proposals on the education and library boards, which were mentioned in an earlier debate, and on water fluoridation.
        I am not making a judgment this evening about the operation or effectiveness of the forum, but democratic accountability and openness in Northern Ireland are of

        999
        concern to us. They are themselves issues of trust and confidence. We hope to have the chance to examine them in much greater detail across the board in Northern Ireland. I have said that, in the event of a Labour victory in the election, we will introduce the necessary order to give the forum its second year of life. I trust that, if we do that, the central objective of discussing issues relevant to the promotion of dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of people's minds when they begin again to take part in the forum debates.
        We support the order. As the Secretary of State said, it is a procedural matter. If we are in government after 1 May, our main focus will be on making a success of the talks process. It is essential that progress is made towards a just and fair settlement that is supported by both traditions. It is crucial that current hurdles are overcome, in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in line with both the principles and the recommendations in the Mitchell report.
        Those taking part in the forum can help by working to build an atmosphere of trust and confidence to encourage those taking part in the talks on both sides to engage with each other and reach a new accommodation. I trust and hope that they will do so.
        10.26 pm
        Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not follow the line that he took for much of his speech, which was, by way of giving his view of the worthiness of the talks process, the work that it has gone through and the basis of the forum. I do not follow him because I think that he is attempting to achieve by deflection what the Northern Ireland Office attempted to achieve by deception.
        In a press release issued on 10 March, the Northern Ireland Office stated that the forum was being suspended. The order shows clearly that there is to be a cessation. The Secretary of State is wiping away the Northern Ireland elected body that was set up as a result of the elections last year. He does that without any degree of balance.
        When the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 went before the House, it had an equivalence— on the one hand a talks process, and on the other the Northern Ireland forum. The Act made it clear that the elections that would be held would be for those two purposes. On that basis, Unionists were prepared to take part. For Unionists, the process clearly required those two facets. As soon as the Secretary of State takes away one of those facets, he undermines the whole. In short, there will be no talks if there is no forum.
        The bottom line in terms of the order is that the Secretary of State is wasting the time of the House. The House does not need to deal with the order. There is no requirement for it. The Secretary of State has a responsibility under the Act to bring the forum to a conclusion if he judges that the talks have been either concluded or suspended.
        The participants in the talks process made it abundantly clear when asked for their views at the last meeting that they were adjourning the talks and that they were doing so to a specific date. There was no question in their minds but that they were suspending the talks. There was no view expressed that the talks were concluded. The talks were adjourned to a specific date and that was not the first
        1000
        occasion on which that had happened. On several previous occasions, the talks had similarly been adjourned, the most recent being the adjournment over the Christmas and new year period. There was nothing new in the participants' deciding to adjourn proceedings.
        The talks participants did not adjourn for the reason the Secretary of State offered the House tonight. I was somewhat surprised by his indication that there were problems in relation to decommissioning—that an impasse had been reached; thus, he said, suspension, but disagreement on decommissioning had nothing to do with the reason for the adjournment. The adjournment came because of the expected elections for the House of Commons and for local government in Northern Ireland.
        The Secretary of State is asked in section 7(4) of the 1996 Act to determine whether negotiations have concluded or suspended. Clearly they had not done so, so the forum could have continued its business until it decided, in its wisdom, that it would be appropriate to adjourn. What did the forum decide? It decided that, because of the two elections, it would adjourn its business. It has already resolved that it should adjourn—it has taken the decision and is now in adjournment. The body that the Secretary of State seeks through tonight's order to put into cold storage has already put itself into cold storage. It is master of its own business. It has determined that it will adjourn until 30 May—the last possible date to which it could have adjourned under the present legislation.
        The Secretary of State, in proceeding with this order tonight, must therefore have some motive other than to stop the forum from meeting—the forum did not intend to meet. Why does he do it? I can offer two explanations, and he can choose between them. One explanation might be that he is afraid that the committees might continue and do some valuable work, or that the forum might decide to come out of adjournment and make some public comment unfavourable to the Government. That is one possibility, but the Secretary of State should not run away from the views of the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
        The other possible explanation is that the IRA-Sinn Fein organisation demanded that the Secretary of State close down the forum. Is he being obedient to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, who have required him to do what he is doing here tonight? I let him choose which of those two explanations is the right one. If he has a third, let him tell it to the House tonight, because he has yet to tell the people of Northern Ireland what reason he has for doing something that is totally unnecessary. The forum has decided itself that it should adjourn, and the legislation does not require him to cause the forum to cease to have effect if it has adjourned to a specific date.
        I hope that the Secretary of State will face up to those issues. He has put on public record his understanding that a future Conservative Government after the 1 May election would be prepared to resurrect the forum if talks were to proceed, and I seek a similar statement from the Labour party. I heard Labour Front Benchers' comments on local radio, and I hope that they, too, will put their views—dare I say unequivocally—on public record tonight. I put it to them that in the forum we have a body that has done a significant and positive job for the people of Northern Ireland.
        Labour Members should not decry the fact that, in some areas, politicians in Northern Ireland have not achieved agreement. It does not automatically follow that we have

        1001
        done a good job in areas about which we agree—such as agriculture, health, education or drugs—and a bad job in areas on which there is not unanimity. If those were the criteria, what obituary would the House have, given that we disagree on a wide spectrum of matters? The record of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation would be much better than the record of the House of Commons if the litmus test that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) offers were the right one.
        The forum has done a significant job in airing controversial issues. The fact that a matter is controversial does not mean that it should not be raised in the forum. If we are to achieve understanding in Northern Ireland, it is important that each party understands the angle of vision of the others, so the forum has performed an important role. There were 31 plenary meetings. About five or six committee reports have been produced. The committees would have wanted to continue their work and produce further reports. As an innovation, a representative whom the Secretary of State had appointed to carry out a review of policing in Northern Ireland spoke to the forum and was questioned by it—all in a calm, deliberative manner.
        The work of the forum deserves significant credit, and I am glad that the Secretary of State made it clear that, even in his assessment of the performance of the forum, substantially, it had worked to its credit.
        Before I conclude, may I say to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that there really is a requirement—I put it as strongly as that, a requirement— on the SDLP to return to the forum? Its representatives cannot turn their back on the elected body to which they were elected. The people of Northern Ireland from their tradition determined that they should be at the forum to speak and vote on their behalf. Through no fault of the Unionist representation in the forum, the SDLP turned its back on the forum and decided, because it was under pressure on an issue of public concern in Northern Ireland, to take it out on the forum. That is essentially what the SDLP did.
        The only ugly scene that I witnessed in the forum involving the SDLP was an attack on the SDLP, not by the Unionists, but by the so-called sister party of the Liberal Democrats, the Alliance party, which sneaked into the forum, stole the seats of the SDLP and tried to push it into the background.
        Who stood up for the rights of the SDLP in the forum? The Unionist parties. The SDLP has no reason to say that the Unionists were not sympathetic to ensuring that its rights were protected in the forum.
        Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am sure that that was an odd line that the hon. Gentleman was fishing with to get me to respond. Let the House know that the SDLP withdrew from the forum because it was the only democratic weapon that we had to show our horror and disgust at the Drumcree events, the intimidation of our communities and the blocking of every road in Northern Ireland, led by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. What did people want us to do—go to the barricades?
        Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he took out on the forum something that was not its
        1002
        responsibility. He talks about taking up a democratic weapon, but there is little sense in taking up a democratic weapon if one merely shoots oneself in the foot with it, as he and the SDLP have done.
        I noticed the hon. Gentleman marching in the St. Patrick's day parade a few days ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on calm reflection, while going around his constituency during the coming election, will spend a moment to think of the useful work he could be doing on behalf of his constituents in the forum. If the new Government take the step of resurrecting the forum, and we then attend our first meeting, I hope to see the pleasant, smiling face of the hon. Member for South Down as he takes his seat on the forum benches.
        10.39 pm
        Mr. John D. Taylor: St. Patrick, great British personality that he was, has been mentioned this evening. I have just spent a long weekend in Washington attending various events marking the annual occasion. I was at the White House, at our British embassy and elsewhere. I travelled back last night, and have been on my feet for the past 36 hours, so I shall certainly not speak at great length.
        I want to thank the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) for her tribute to our former parliamentary leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), who is leaving the House at the forthcoming election. I know that he will thank her himself, but I wanted to place my party's appreciation for her kind thoughts on the record.
        In turn, we wish the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland all the best. As a former Stormont Minister, I know that the role he has had to play is one of the most difficult in the Government of the United Kingdom. It is not just a matter of deciding policies; the job concerns issues of life and death. No other Cabinet Minister carries such serious responsibilities. Although my party has had many differences with the Secretary of State on issues of policy, I and my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party know that he believed at all times that he was acting in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. We appreciate the time and service which he has given our community.
        I find it difficult to understand the order under discussion. I share the views of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson); I remain unconvinced that such an order is necessary. If it is possible to adjourn the forum for the Christmas recess, it seems to me possible to adjourn it for the few weeks of a general election campaign. I fail to understand the need for an order formally suspending the body. I can certainly understand the need for an order to resume the forum after 31 May— the legislation requires that if the forum is to have a second year of life.
        In Northern Ireland, there are three possible ways forward. One is to resort to violence, to killing, to terrorism and to destruction. We have had that for more than 27 terrible years, and we do not want to fall back into it. The second option is for the Dublin Government and our Government to attempt to impose a solution on Northern Ireland. That will definitely result in street reaction by the people of Northern Ireland. We have had that before, and we do not want violence again.
        The only way forward, therefore, is dialogue and agreement. That is what the legislation providing for the forum and the talks process was all about. I am glad of

        1003
        the recognition of the progress that has been made in the talks process at Stormont. We have reached agreement on a number of issues: on the chairmanship, the rules of procedure, and the agenda for the first plenary session. Whenever there was a crisis on those issues, it was the Ulster Unionist party that gave the lead in bringing about agreement. I believe that the talks process can make progress.
        The good news is that the nine participating parties mat entered the talks nine months ago, even if others tried to throw them out, are still there tonight. That is an achievement in Northern Ireland, where so many people have walked out of talks on various issues over many years.
        Tributes have been paid to the forum's work. I agree that it has passed many motions and resolutions that would appeal to Labour Members, as was said in an earlier debate. Likewise, the committee work has been imaginative and has contributed towards parties in Northern Ireland working together for the good of all the people there. We have had reports on BSE, potatoes, agriculture and many other issues, all of which have been first-class productions.
        Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I appeal to the Social Democratic and Labour party to reconsider its position. Dialogue requires everyone to participate— that is, everyone who opposes violence. The SDLP has portrayed itself as—and is—a constitutional party. From time to time, through its leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), it has said that it will talk anywhere, any place, any time. Our national Parliament created a forum in Belfast and I hope that, after the forthcoming general election, when the political temperature subsides, we shall find the SDLP taking its proper place in the Northern Ireland forum.
        We in the Ulster Unionist party want to see the forum and the talks proceed. If there is no forum, there will be no talks process because the legislation combines both— one goes with the other. The Government clearly understand that message, which is why we welcome the Secretary of State's statement that, after the general election, a future Conservative Government would restore the forum in Northern Ireland. Likewise, the hon. Member for Redcar also made a commitment that a future Labour Government would restore the forum in Belfast. We welcome the Labour party's statement and look forward to the election. Whichever party wins, we are thankful that we shall once again have a forum in Belfast in June 1997.
        10.46 pm
        Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) and I have worked closely together on many occasions. We had deep divisions but always respected one another, and he knows that well. He and I entered the House at the same time; he is now leaving the Chamber—although I do not think that he is leaving the House; he is going elsewhere and will still be seen in the Corridors as an ex-Member of Parliament. We wish him well. I used to tell him that, if he got married, I would do the marriage ceremony for nothing, but he never took up that offer. That is a pity— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) could have shared it.
        Some things need to be said tonight. I agree whole-heartedly with what my deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said: there was
        1004
        no need for tonight's debate. Nothing in law makes the Secretary of State come to the House and say that he is exercising those powers, because the forum can go on until the end of May. A new Parliament would then be in existence and it could deal with the issue.
        The forum has been severely criticised, simply because Sinn Fein said that it would not be there. How could anybody trust Sinn Fein? It tells us that it wants to look at the whites of our eyes and enter into debate. It could have debated with us every Friday at the forum; we could not have kept it out. It was a member of the forum; why did it not come?
        Sinn Fein did not come because the forum is the only representative body in Northern Ireland that mirrors the wishes of the electorate. The crowd that meets at Stormont does not mirror the electorate, because the largest party has three people at the table and the smallest party has two. There is no proper representation at the talks at Stormont. At the last meeting, the two Governments and the SDLP were able to block any discussion about decommissioning. All the other parties wanted to talk about the 17 resolutions that we had on the table, except the southern Government, the British Government—our own Government—and the SDLP, so we were not allowed to talk.
        At least in the forum there is a mirroring of the percentage of votes of each party. Of course, I disagree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). We did not push the SDLP out of the forum. We wanted SDLP representatives to stay. We fought and we adjourned the talks, so that the chairman could shift the Alliance party representatives out of their seats. They had to be shifted out of their seats—the Alliance party that reads us all lectures about good behaviour, law keeping and so on.
        I fought to get the SDLP representatives seated, but what thanks did we get? They all went away. They told us tonight that they went away because of what happened. The hon. Gentleman may as well have gone away from the House, because the House has more responsibility for what happened in Northern Ireland than the forum ever had. The Secretary of State took decisions about what happened in Northern Ireland. To go away because one does not get one's own way is childish.
        The issue in the forum centred on the fact that we believed that the flag of our country should fly, but others disagreed. That was the bone of contention: should the Union flag be seen on the building? A great deal of rubbish was spoken about whether it was a public building, whether people could object under the present laws and so on. A strange country we live in, when the national flag cannot fly on an elected forum. That would not be said about Dublin castle. If I went there and said, "Take down that flag—it offends me," I would be strung up from the nearest lamp post.
        It is a shame that the SDLP representatives do not go to that forum. They should be there and they should be debating with us. If they can persuade us, they should do so. They do not like the forum because it mirrors the percentage of the electorate of Northern Ireland. They are not a majority. Even if they brought Sinn Fein with them, they would not be a majority. That is their trouble.
        Those who are in a majority position in Northern Ireland are reduced by boycotts of public bodies. We sat at Stormont. We did good work on the prior assembly.

        1005
        The SDLP would not come to Stormont either. The official Unionists boycotted the other talks. My party was at all the talks.
        I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) speaking about Washington. I got an invitation to the Washington do, and I was amazed. It was in honour of his excellency the Prime Minister of Ireland and Mrs. Bruton. I am sure the hon. Gentlemen did not say in their constituencies that they were away to Washington to honour the Prime Minister of Ireland—not the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic—oh no, the Prime Minister of Ireland and, I am sure, his dear, sweet wife. I had no intention of going.
        Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I am not giving way. Did the right hon. Gentleman not get an invitation?
        Let us have a little common sense and realise that there are deep feelings in Northern Ireland about the territorial claim of the Irish Government and of Mr. Bruton himself. I will not honour the Prime Minister of Ireland because there is not a Prime Minister of Ireland. There is a Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, but he is not the Prime Minister of the whole of Ireland, and the same applies to his sweet wife.
        This Parliament is following the foolish path that it took years ago when it abolished Stormont. I heard the former Prime Minister say, "We have settled things in Northern Ireland. There will now be peace." That was when Stormont was prorogued. I said, "It has been like a Sunday-school party hitherto. Now you will see the real happenings." How true that prophecy was. Look back upon what happened when Stormont was abolished.
        I acknowledge that Stormont was not a perfect assembly. I was a member of it only at its end. I was a leader of the Opposition when all the nationalists left. That was when I got a job. I led for the Opposition. It is interesting that all the leaders of the Opposition were nationalists until I came along at the end of the day. I know of Stormont's weaknesses, but it was pulled down when it could have worked. It could have been mended. It could have been helped. Instead of that, the House said, "Wipe it away."
        Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That was not my vote.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: I know that.
        What happened? We had chaos. I say to the Government and to those who think that they are the Government in waiting, but only God knows that, that my party will not be at the talks until the forum has its first meeting. My party will not be bluffed. I am aware of the deals that have been talked about with Dublin. One of the deals is that the forum cannot meet if the IRA declares a ceasefire. That is the IRA's position and its negotiating stance. In effect, it is saying, "We can't have that forum meeting. We never went to it. We don't want it to meet. We don't want the Unionists to be discussing what is happening." If there is to be a move on either side of the
        1006
        House to bring back talks without the forum, that will not be on. I am glad that there are signs that some agree with me.
        It is not on to say to the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, "We are not going to listen to you." The reasoned majority of the Ulster people must be heard. The election will prove that once again. The people will not have their elected assembly destroyed merely because the Social Democratic and Labour party or Sinn Fein says, "We are not going to sit in it."
        It could be that, before the forum returns, Sinn Fein will declare a ceasefire. There are some who say that that will be before the election. I do not think so. I think that the announcement will be made after that. If Sinn Fein does better than is expected in the election, it will say, "We have got our votes and we will now have a ceasefire." Before anyone can say anything in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State, who holds the key, can say, "Yes, we are inviting you." If Sinn Fein is to say to the British Government, whichever party forms that Administration, "Right, we are prepared to return to the previous ceasefire," that will not be sufficient. It was a phoney ceasefire. The Government should be warned of that, whoever that Government may be.
        My party will not be sitting with the gunmen who have not given up one weapon. They are engaged in terrorism. There is serious news from Northern Ireland. Shipments of arms and armaments are getting through. We could be in for the darkest and bloodiest of times. Is it thought that any self-respecting Unionist will negotiate with people who can put a gun to his head and say, "I don't agree with the talks at the forum; we shall start up violence again"? They will be responsible. They are responsible, and the Government—whoever they are—must deal with IRA-Sinn Fein and anybody else who has weapons and is not prepared to give them up. Let the House learn that tonight.
        It is sad that, at the end of this Parliament, we shall abolish something that does not need to be abolished. Why not let it ride out its time? On a free vote, the forum decided unanimously that it would adjourn. That is how it should have been left. It is a pity that we are having this discussion, which will not help the decent people of Northern Ireland who want peace and liberty, who want, as does everybody else, to do their work and to rear their families in peace and quiet.
        11 pm
        Mr. Harry Barnes: I have only two brief points. I have a suggestion as to how the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party can get the Social Democratic and Labour party into the forum. I made this point in an earlier debate. If the Unionists entered, or proposed to enter, the British-Irish parliamentary body, could they not make a deal with the SDLP so that the SDLP could go to the forum and the Unionists could go to the British-Irish parliamentary body?
        The British-Irish parliamentary body has nothing to do with interfering with territory and arguments of that nature; it operates in much the same way as the forum in terms of committees, and produces reports on day-to-day concerns. There must be many matters that it would be useful to discuss with the Republic of Ireland—matters that do not in any way interfere with sovereignty. The two

        1007
        separate countries would have to decide, through their own systems, the extent to which they accept any proposals.
        We have Select Committees in the House, but that does not mean that, if a Select Committee produces a report, the Government have to respond to its recommendations. The British-Irish parliamentary body is a weaker link to some extent. Representatives from two different nations meet and discuss ideas. Reports are produced on valuable measures on social security and a whole host of issues that are quite enlightening to the representatives of the two nations.
        There is a chance for the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP to talk turkey and to make arrangements so that they overcome the limitations of being involved in forums and bodies in which it would be fruitful for them to be involved.
        Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there are three strands in the present talks structure, and that strand 3 addresses the issue of relationships between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom? Therefore, to follow the line that he suggests would undermine the purpose of strand 3.
        Mr. Barnes: From the talks, all sorts of things might develop about the future of Northern Ireland. It might affect whether there is to be a forum and what the arrangements are. In the end, the people of Northern Ireland will decide. In the meantime, the British-Irish parliamentary body would not interfere in any way with these matters. Its discussions are mainly about economic and social matters, the role of the European Union, funding and so on. Those are matters about which it is quite fruitful to have different viewpoints.
        TDs and senators on the Irish side of the discussion are keen for Ulster Unionists to be involved, not to dominate them or to influence the decisions. They feel that a viewpoint is not being put. It is fruitful to have debate between people to sort out one's position. The Unionists could do a valuable job within the British-Irish parliamentary body.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: I have carefully followed the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We are always interested to hear what he has to say in a Northern Ireland debate, because he is one of those who contributes to Northern Ireland business. He does not compare equals. The forum is a body elected by the people of Northern Ireland. It was elected to bring the talks about, as the way into the talks is by the forum. One cannot participate in the talks without being a member of the forum.
        The hon. Gentleman is talking about a body of people representing two Parliaments. That raises the issue of the claims of the Irish Parliament, which was built on the 1937 constitution. That constitution states that the Irish Parliament's authority is over the whole of the island. I will not sit down with any representative who says, "I rule you anyway. You're here only on my sufferance." I do not want to sit down in such a body. If the colleagues to whom the hon. Gentleman refers really want peace, why do they not get rid of that immoral, illegal and criminal constitutional claim? We would then have the Berlin wall down.
        Mr. Barnes: Many hon. Members on both sides, from Ireland and from the United Kingdom, who attend the
        1008
        British-Irish parliamentary body, would like articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution to be removed. Some of them want that to happen more quickly, and for some it is a long-term aim. Understanding would be much greater if the Ulster Unionists were involved and could put that view strongly.
        I grant that these are different bodies with different arrangements, and that one has a direct democratic mandate, whereas the other is an indirect arrangement between the two Parliaments. However, given the present impasse—the Social Democratic and Labour party does not attend the forum and the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionist party do not attend the body—such involvement may be fruitful, and I hope that serious thought will be given to my suggestion.
        I often show my dislike of the Conservative Government and much of what they stand for, but I have great reservations about such criticism when it comes to the present team led by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I often feel that their position is somewhat undermined by other factors.
        The problem of parliamentary arithmetic has had an impact on developments, although not as great as some Opposition Members believe. The Northern Ireland team have the problem of the ideological baggage that the Conservative party carries around with it. Sometimes they take up economic and social policies that are replicas of those applied to Great Britain. That undermines some of their work to establish peace and reconciliation.
        I welcome the work that has come out of the framework documents and the role that the Secretary of State has played. I have encouraged that, although I have not always accepted everything. I want to associate myself with the comments that other hon. Members have made about the Secretary of State.
        11.8 pm
        Mr. Phil Gallie: I shall be fairly brief. I open my remarks by saying how much Conservative Members owe my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he has filled the difficult position of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have heard much about the forum, but it is a tribute to him that the forum has been established.
        I also want to pay tribute to the British armed services, which have protected the people of Northern Ireland through difficult times, and have perhaps offered reassurance in times of comparative peace.
        I regret that the forum is to be suspended, and I am just a little worried about what other issues in Northern Ireland are being suspended. Let me draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the findings of the judicial review back in December, when the cases of my constituents Jim Fisher and Mark Wright—two Scots Guardsmen—were referred back to the life sentence prison review board. Since then, there appears to have been stagnation and inaction.
        I should have liked to hear that, as well as the forum's being suspended, the process in that regard would be reversed—that there would be no suspension of the review board's examination of the position of those two guardsmen, with the possibility of a fair and just settlement in respect of their current imprisonment at an early date.

        1009
        Other soldiers who have made errors of judgment on the streets of Northern Ireland have served three and three and a half years respectively. These two soldiers have now served more than four and a half years, and every week that passes is wasted time for them and their families. I feel that those in the Northern Ireland Office, particularly the civil servants, should get a move on with the inquiry in which they have been asked to engage, make recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend, and bring justice to the cases of Mark Wright and Jim Fisher.
        11.11 pm
        Ms Mowlam: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        We have heard a number of interesting speeches. Let me make clear our hope that, when the forum resumes after the election, whichever party is in government—for the commitment to resumption has been made clear by both sides of the House—matters relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland are at the forefront of the minds of all delegates, and that all parties to the talks bring a renewed vigour and commitment to their efforts to reach agreement.
        11.12 pm
        Sir Patrick Mayhew: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Let me give grateful thanks for the kind and gracious things that have been said about me, and couple with that the name of my future horse. I refer to the tribute kindly paid by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). I am also grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), in particular, for mentioning the team.
        I should point out that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—who is now in his place beside me—will no longer be here, his constituency having sadly been shot from under him by the boundary commission. My right hon. Friend has greatly assisted the people of Northern Ireland. I also associate myself with what was said about the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), who is an old friend as well as a very wise bird.
        The key to the critical things that have been said tonight is: "There is no need to do this." Alas, I disagree: there is not only a need, but a requirement on me by law, because it appears to me—that is the language of the legislation— that the talks have been suspended. That is what it says in the Act.
        I could have said that this was one of the adjournments that happen from Friday to Friday or even over the Christmas holidays, and that it was plainly not a
        1010
        suspension; but I have had to take a number of factors into account. I have had to take into account all relevant factors.
        Those factors include, but are not limited to, the fact that this is a period of adjournment—so expressed, as I made clear in my opening speech—of some three months. It is intended not to see us over the period from one week to the next, or over a holiday period, but to enable us to overcome a difficulty that can now properly be described as an impasse. During that period, there will be a change of Parliament, and there will constitutionally be a change of Government, although whether there is a further Conservative Government or a Labour Government remains to be seen.
        Those questions led me to conclude, after careful thought, that this was not one of those adjournments that were simply adjournments and not suspensions; this was a suspension. That being the case, it is imposed on me by law that I withdraw from effect the provisions of the Act that bring into force a forum.
        Mr. William Ross: This House adjourns every year from July to October. Why does it not suspend itself if it were a question just of the length of time?
        Sir Patrick Mayhew: This House is not subject to a constitutional statute that speaks of suspension. The talks process is in the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act and is subject to such a statute. It does not fall to anyone to determine whether the House is suspended. It falls to people to decide whether it has been adjourned. There are adjournments and adjournments in the context of the Act. That is why I have had to introduce the motion—it is imposed on me by law.
        The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made the amiable suggestion that I introduced the motion because the IRA told me to do so. At this time of night, I will allow that to speak for itself. He also thought that it might be because the forum would continue and come out with something uncomfortable. I have made it perfectly clear why I have had to introduce the motion.
        I warmly endorse what has been said—and the manner in which it has been said—about the desirability of the Social Democratic and Labour party rejoining, if and when the forum is resumed, as it will be if there is a Conservative Government after the election. I repeat what I have said about, on balance, the value of the forum's work. It would be much better if the SDLP were able to resume.
        I am grateful for the way in which this matter has been debated. I commend the motion to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That the draft Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

        Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland)
        11.16 pm
        The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
        That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
        The draft order will continue in force for 12 months, from 16 June, the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. The Act comprises a range of provisions, almost all of them temporary, which supplement the ordinary criminal law for the purposes of combating terrorism in Northern Ireland. It provides the police and the Army in Northern Ireland with specific operational powers to assist them in successfully deterring and disrupting terrorist attacks, and to enable them to bring to justice the perpetrators of serious terrorist crime. It also strengthens the criminal justice systems in certain important respects.
        In particular, the Act provides for the Diplock system of non-jury trial, with its associated safeguards; for the classification of certain offences as terrorist offences unless certified otherwise by the Attorney-General; for the police and Army in certain circumstances to have powers of stop, arrest, search, entry and seizure beyond those found in ordinary criminal law; for roads to be closed; for offences against public security and public order; for the detention of terrorist suspects without trial, although that particular power is currently lapsed; for the regulation of the provision of private security services, historically a sector in which terrorists have been active; and for the special regime that operates in the police holding centres, where terrorist suspects are interviewed. The Act also provides for independent scrutiny of military complaints procedures.
        I should remind the House of events as they unfolded during the early part of 1996, because it was against that background that the emergency provisions Act, then a Bill, passed through its parliamentary stages. I shall not list the atrocities. Hon. Members remember them vividly. They remember the two innocent people murdered at South Quay. They remember the people injured there, at Aldwych and in Manchester. They know that, as a result of those atrocities, many more lives were blighted for ever by terrorist thugs who think that they will get what they want by killing, maiming and bullying.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of his recital of those events, and bearing in mind the fact that in our perception the ceasefire was a sham, will the Minister accept, on behalf of his fellow Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is responsible for education in Northern Ireland, our congratulations on having given a sharp educational lecture to Senator Kennedy when he suggested that Sinn Fein could come into talks straight away, without a credible ceasefire?
        Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful for those remarks. I can always count on my right hon.—perhaps I should add "and learned"—Friend to give sharp lectures when they are appropriate and needed.
        1012
        Under cover of darkness, the terrorists continued their nightly punishment attacks, and behind the scenes they continued to train, to organise and to plan more evil.
        Then, on 7 October, the provisional IRA detonated two car bombs, one shortly after the other and without a warning, inside Thiepval barracks, Lisburn. Thirty-eight people were injured, and Warrant Officer James Bradwell later died of his injuries. More recently, Lance-Bombardier Stephen Restorick was murdered by the provisional IRA while checking a car at a vehicle checkpoint in Bessbrook.
        Those incidents are notable on account of the casualties; they are also notable in another respect. The Thiepval bombing illustrates the provisional IRA's callousness in deliberately placing the second bomb outside the medical centre—the one place that, as a result of the first bomb, could be guaranteed to be crowded with the injured and those attending to them.
        The Bessbrook incident, a sniper attack at a vehicle checkpoint, illustrates starkly the provisional IRA's complete disregard of the general public, and of anything or anyone that gets in their way. Even schoolchildren merit no special consideration. Only yesterday, security forces recovered two mark 16 mortars close to a school in Derrylin, County Fermanagh. There are countless other similar examples.
        In January and February this year, serious terrorist attacks were occurring at the rate of one every three or four days—and that does not include attacks aborted or thwarted. Already this year there have been two deaths, including the brutal murder of Mr. John Slane last Friday at his home in Belfast.
        Here I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported as always by their family members, and to the armed forces, to whom the people of these islands owe so much. Their professionalism is reflected in the considerable catalogue of successes achieved against the terrorists in recent months.
        Repeatedly, terrorist operations have been prevented, some at advanced stages of preparation, weapons have been recovered and arrests made. Last December, for example, five significant finds of arms were made. Nine such finds were made in January, eight in February, and four in the first week of this month. Since the beginning of January, there have been 155 arrests in connection with terrorist crime, and 57 people have been charged with terrorist-related offences. Several terrorist operations have been disrupted at an advanced stage.
        Among the significant quantity of weaponry recovered since the end of November are 17 mortars and rocket launchers, over 5,000 lb of explosives and a number of firearms, including several automatic weapons and nearly 2,500 rounds of ammunition.
        Several of these finds would not have been possible were it not for the special powers that the emergency provisions Act provides—powers to search, for example, or to stop. There can be no doubt that lives have been saved because of successful security forces operations, and because the security forces can rely on the emergency powers.
        Mr. Phil Gallic: My right hon. Friend referred to a number of successes achieved by our armed services.

        1013
        Does he agree that the armed services are always working on a knife edge, and that they never know when danger will strike? On that basis, does he agree that their performance has been absolutely superb? Is it not remarkable that so few errors of judgment have been made over many years by members of our armed services who have perhaps acted marginally out of line with their instructions?
        Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right. I understand the special interest that he espouses in connection with the skills of our armed forces serving in Northern Ireland.
        Special provisions of the kind contained in the Emergency Provisions Act have been in place in Northern Ireland since the early 1970s. Successive Governments have felt them necessary, and successive Parliaments have voted to keep the provisions. As the House is only too well aware, in the intervening period the people of Northern Ireland have experienced only a brief respite in the evil campaign, which, but for their resilience and successive Governments' resolve, would have destroyed the fabric of their society.
        The Government have consistently said that their aim is to see the emergency powers dismantled, and that the powers will remain only for as long as they are necessary to counter terrorism. It is important that emergency powers of the kind I have described are regularly reviewed and questions asked about whether they continue to be needed and about whether they have been used fairly and properly, as Parliament intended.
        For this reason, the Act incorporates a mechanism to ensure that it is reviewed annually. To inform the House's debate this evening, we shall rely on the report published earlier this month by Mr. John Rowe QC, the independent reviewer of the operation of the Act during 1996.
        I take this opportunity to say that the Government are especially grateful to Mr. Rowe, who, at short notice, completed his review and produced his report to a much more constrained time scale than normal to accommodate this year's curtailed parliamentary calendar. Mr. Rowe has examined both the use made of the various provisions of the Act against the background of the prevailing security situation in Northern Ireland and their utility in terms of deterrence since it came into effect in August last year.
        Mr. Rowe's conclusion is unequivocal:
        "Undoubtedly the powers and provisions of the Act are required for another year. There is continuing terrorist activity, and there is a real threat of more of it."
        He adds—and the House will, I know, be reassured by this—that, so far as he can see, the provisions of the Act have been used fairly and carefully and he has not seen any examples of abuse, nor has he been told of any.
        Mr. Rowe notes:
        "During the course of my reviews of the PTA and EPA I am reminded that the United Kingdom is bound by the Treaty obligations of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which require national laws to comply with principles and standards regarding the rights of individuals".
        He adds that these make specific provision for arrest according to law, and proper judicial and trial procedures, and they should be borne in mind when considering whether the emergency legislation has been used fairly and properly.
        1014
        Mr. Rowe goes on:
        "I bear in mind also that a balance must be struck between the measures necessary to combat terrorism on the one hand, and on the other the extent to which those measures infringe human rights. A State must have a right to protect itself, but the means of protection may limit the freedom of the individual."
        In addition to the invaluable role performed by Mr. Rowe, we are fortunate to have the services of a number of other distinguished independent observers, who monitor particular areas of the emergency legislation. I am happy to say that the recently published reports of the independent commissioners for the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr. Bill Norris, and of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures, Mr. David Hewitt, provide further reassurance that the emergency powers are not being abused.
        For the fourth successive year, the independent commissioners have said that they have found nothing to give anyone the slightest cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in police custody by uniformed officers at the holding centres. For his part, the independent assessor of military complaints procedures notes the continuing low level of formal, non-criminal complaints against the Army—24 in 1996—despite the increase in Army patrolling in response to the renewed threat.
        The Government share Mr. Rowe's view that the provisions are still needed. They accept his conclusions, and urge the House to continue the Act in force for a further 12 months. Against the background of South Quay, the current Act—then a Bill—completed its parliamentary stages. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, drafted against a peacetime scene, has a lifespan of two years.
        Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that, following the Provisional IRA's renewed campaign, there were calls for the Act's lifespan to be extended. The Government resisted, in the hope that sense would prevail and the ceasefire would be restored—a genuine ceasefire. They had already requested Lord Lloyd of Berwick to consider the future need for counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom in the event of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The lifespan of two years would allow the Government to consider Lord Lloyd's recommendations for proposals for a new legislative framework.
        In the event, Lord Lloyd reported in October 1996, against the background of the intensifying campaign by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. He has said that, even if there were lasting peace in Northern Ireland, permanent counter-terrorism legislation would be needed to meet the threat of other kinds of terrorism, both domestic and international. He makes a series of other recommendations, all of which assume lasting peace.
        The Government acknowledge the considerable contribution that Lord Lloyd makes, against the climate he was asked to assume, but as announced to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 20 February in a written answer to a parliamentary question, in the continuing absence of a lasting peace, the Government believe it is too early to reach a firm view on possible fundamental legislative change.
        We hope sincerely that there will be a renewed and permanent cessation of violence, which would enable us to re-open Lord Lloyd's idea of a new legislative

        1015
        framework for combating terrorism. Meanwhile, the Government intend to produce in due course proposals to strengthen existing controls on terrorist finances, along the lines of Lord Lloyd's helpful analysis.
        The Government continue, through the talks process currently adjourned until 3 June, to seek to secure a comprehensive political settlement, which would take account of the different aspirations of the two traditions in Northern Ireland. We seek to establish political institutions that command cross-community acceptance and thus to remove all excuses for those who would pursue political change by means of violence.
        With the notable exception of Sinn Fein, which has excluded itself from the talks process, representatives of all political parties successful in the elections held on 30 May last year are working with the Government and the Irish Government to help to bring about a lasting political solution. Sinn Fein knows what it must do to get to that table. It must realise that democracy imposes obligations: it is not all rights.
        Now is not the time for the House to divide on an issue such as this. I urge Opposition Members to vote with the Government tonight to continue in force the provisions of the Act and in doing so to send a clear message to the terrorists: "You haven't gone away. Nor have we. You must rethink your strategy, because we will never give in to violence. By violence, you will continue to achieve nothing. You should end it now."
        11.34 pm
        Mr. Tony Worthington: May I pay tribute at the outset to the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler)? I believe that the following debate will be his last appearance at the Dispatch Box. Being on the Front Bench and having responsibility for security is not in the normal run of political experience, and I pay tribute to him for his unfailing courtesy and helpfulness. His respect and admiration for the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security services were evident in his speech: he has come to have a deep respect for those at the sharp end in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that they will hold him in deep respect for the contribution that he has made.
        In the present circumstances, there might be a tendency, especially at this time of night, to nod through the continuance order and move on to other matters, but that would be wrong, because of the importance of the issues and because it would certainly be discourteous to the advisers to whom the Minister referred, who have invested a great deal of time in considering how the legislation has operated.
        As the Minister said, we are aided by four pieces of research: the Lloyd review; J. J. Rowe's report; the report by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr. Norris, the independent commissioners for the holding centres; and Mr. Hewitt's work as the independent assessor of military complaints procedure. The most important, ultimately, will be the Lloyd review.
        This is not a criticism, because we did not make the point at the time, but in retrospect it seems unfortunate that the Lloyd review's terms of reference were so predicated on the continuation of the ceasefire. When the ceasefire did not continue, the tendency was to think that the review was not immediately relevant; that is not so.
        1016
        In setting up the review we had the knowledge that terrorism is endemic in the modern world; we want legislation that responds to that fact. Unfortunately, the threat of all kinds of terrorism may be there in perpetuity. We should also remember that terrorism, using the definition of it as the use of violence for political ends, continued during the ceasefire.
        The Government's response to Lloyd has been disappointing. Lord Lloyd himself said that many of the procedural provisions in the Emergency Provisions Acts might have taken a different form given the existence of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. He also said that once lasting peace had been established in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom there would be no need for separate Acts: one would suffice.
        Of course we all hope that there will be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire, but if there is not, what have the Government learnt from the Lloyd review which would lead to a change in the legislation? One of Lord Lloyd's useful contributions was to formulate a set of principles about anti-terrorist legislation.
        Lord Lloyd said that legislation against terrorism should approximate as closely as possible to the ordinary criminal law and procedure and that additional statutory offences and powers may be justified, but only if they are necessary to meet the anticipated threat; and that, as the Minister acknowledged, such measures must strike the right balance between the needs of security and the rights and liberties of the individual.
        Lord Lloyd said further that the need for additional safeguards should be considered alongside any additional powers and that the law should comply with the United Kingdom's obligations in international law. Those are useful yardsticks against which to judge the Emergency Provisions Act.
        I found J. J. Rowe's assessment of the working of the EPA disappointing this year. I understand the constraints to which the Minister referred, but it is a thin document and often simply describes background events or the contents of the Act. There is little that is analytical or reflective. For example, nothing is said about internment, except that the power should remain lapsed. However, let me take particularly the section on scheduling.
        Scheduling takes an offender into the Diplock court procedure rather than into the normal criminal court procedure. We and others in the past have suggested that instead of cases being automatically scheduled unless the Attorney-General certifies them out, the presumption should be that they would normally be dealt with by the criminal courts unless certified in to the abnormal procedure of the Diplock courts. Rowe says
        I do not think that the time has yet arrived when this can occur".
        However, appendix D of the report shows that a remarkable change has occurred between 1990 and 1996.
        In 1990, 51 per cent. of 908 offences were taken out of scheduling. In 1996, 85 per cent. of 1,522 offences were taken out of the Diplock procedure and out of scheduling by the Attorney-General. Unless I have misread it totally, that seems significant. However, the matter is even more significant than that. The principal characteristic of the Diplock courts is that the judge sits without a jury to avoid intimidation of jurors, but in 1996, out of 170 offenders, 128 pleaded guilty. Those people were dealt with under

        1017
        the Diplock procedure, so in a sense, the services of a jury would not have been necessary anyway. Only 42 people pleaded not guilty, of whom 21 were found not guilty.
        Although J. J. Rowe seems not to have noticed, the Attorney-General appears to have moved to certifying in. Only a tiny number of people in the Diplock procedure would need juries because 75 per cent. of the offenders involved pleaded guilty. It is almost as if the Attorney-General has taken the suggestions that we have been making—and we are not against this—and is moving the procedure away from the Diplock system.
        I have a question about waiting times. With smaller numbers, waiting times for trials have fallen slightly, but the average time from remand to committal is 27 weeks, or just over six months. The average wait for trial, as far as one can tell from the figures, is 45 weeks, or just under a year. Averages can conceal a great deal. Would it not be valuable to include in the statistics the spread of times that people waited? We should know the maximum and minimum times waited for trial, and not only the average figure. The average seems large, although movement is in the right direction.
        I commend Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and the assistant commissioner, Mr. Norris, for their report on the operation of holding centres. It is a model of what Parliament needs to consider—whether we need holding centres and what their regime should be. When Sir Louis Blom-Cooper pays tribute to the RUC by saying that over four years
        "we have found nothing that might have given the public of Northern Ireland the slightest concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in police custody by officers at the Holding Centres",
        we have confidence in his statement because the rest of the report is so questioning and probing.
        Can the Minister give us answers to the following questions set up by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's report? Just what plans do the Government have—just what plans are the Government leaving—about the future of Castlereagh holding centre? This is the fourth time that Sir Louis has said that it should be closed. He has said:
        "We think the time has come, if it has not long since passed, when Castlereagh must go and go today and not tomorrow. We find it intolerable that the substandard conditions at Castlereagh should disfigure a system which, in almost every respect, conforms to the required standards of treatment for detainees."
        Sir Louis says that even if a new building is not planned, as he believes that there should be—probably for joint use with a new police station—it would be better to close Castlereagh now that the numbers are so much reduced and use Gough barracks and Strand Road. The Government should have a position on that.
        Why have the Government been so slow on the issue of silent video recording? The Secretary of State said on 12 June 1995 that he intended to introduce electronic recording. That is not far off two years ago. We considered the Report stage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill on 19 February 1996, exactly 13 months ago, so why has the consultation period only just come to an end on a code of practice on silent video recording? No installation of the equipment has taken place yet.
        When will Sir Louis and the rest of us receive a reasoned answer to his proposals on the circumstances in which disclosure of audio tapes could be allowed?
        1018
        He made detailed proposals for safeguards. Silent video recording is restricted in what it can tell you. Sir Louis in his report used a football analogy about what one can tell about what might have been said by one person to another during a football incident. One cannot tell accurately what was said. Audio recording would be much more useful. It has particular appeal because it would deal smartly with the problems associated—the Minister will remember our interchanges in previous discussions on the Bill—with what is known as the voir dire argument and would save weeks of court time. Is it not time that Sir Louis had an answer to his proposals?
        I should like to put to the Minister a couple of points made by the independent assessor of military complaints in his report. Mr. David Hewitt remits his post at the end of this month. I sincerely thank him for his work, which has been valuable to us. We thank him in particular for the work that he did in 1993 and 1994 in revising the complaints procedures. He pays tribute, with which I concur, to the Army for improving its procedures. I have only one question and it relates to appendix C, but Mr. Hewitt does not concern himself about it in his text. There is a large difference between the number of informal complaints lodged against 3 Brigade, as compared to 8 Brigade and 39 Brigade. In 1996, there were 192 informal complaints against 3 Brigade, compared with 36 each against 8 Brigade and 39 Brigade. What were the reasons for that? I appreciate that there may be reasons of geography, or the tensions of the time, although the complaints seem to be fairly well spread throughout the year.
        I regret that I have raised so many issues on the Minister's last day at the Dispatch Box, but he would not have expected anything else of me. They are important issues, in terms of justice and civil liberties. Even if the Minister cannot fully answer the points that I have raised today, I have at least told the civil service the questions that an incoming Labour Government will want to have answered.
        We shall not vote against the order because it is important to safeguard the people of Northern Ireland. I should like the Minister to respond to the points that I have raised.
        11.49 pm
        Rev. Ian Paisley: First, I offer the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), the good wishes of my colleagues and myself as he retires from the House. It is one thing to resign one's seat; it is another to fight and lose; but it is a far worse thing when the boundary commission destroys one's seat and takes it away. I do not know whether in his mind there is a feeling that it is some sort of conspiracy to get rid of him altogether from the House, but we wish him well and I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland would join us in that.
        The Government and the security forces will ignore at their peril the warning contained in John Rowe's report on the annual review of the Emergency Provisions Act. On page seven, he says that, since the end of the IRA ceasefire,
        "there has been a marked increase in the level of terrorist activity, both in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. I am particularly dealing with Northern Ireland; activity there is attributable to terrorists on both sides.

        1019
        There have been deaths caused by explosion, firearm attacks and assaults. Indeed, within a few days before the writing of this, a British soldier was killed by a sniper's bullet at Bessbrook.
        There are persistent serious attacks on the security forces. There is the regular movement and preparation of firearms and munitions; and searches reveal such things. Robberies are carried out for the purpose of funding terrorist organisations. In preparation for terrorist attacks like these, ordinary dwellinghouses are taken over by terrorists, who intimate the householders.
        Terrorist organisations maintain their structure and influence. There is intimidation of local communities and businesses, and there is overwhelming intimidation of people who would otherwise be witnesses in a court of law. Paramilitary 'punishment' assaults take place regularly."
        That is a solemn comment on what is happening in Northern Ireland at this very moment.
        In the past fortnight, our Province has tasted more of the IRA's unremitting evil. On Friday, a terrorist bomb seriously injured soldiers and police personnel in east Belfast. Seven days before, soldiers to the west of the city escaped another Provisional IRA bomb. On Friday, a Roman Catholic man was shot dead in his home. Only by the mercy of God have many other attempts on the lives of soldiers and civilians failed to produce the number of casualties the IRA has planned for our Province.
        There are some credulous people who publicly suggest that those bombing failures are, in fact, planned failures and that the IRA is in some way planning to miss its targets in a phoney war to keep its more militant members happy. I have never listened to such nonsense being spoken about the ruthless and murderous intent of the IRA. Anyone who believes that the IRA is not intent on mass destruction should take a few minutes to go to the spot in Bessbrook that marks the place where young Stephen Restorick met his death—brutally murdered by the IRA on Ulster's frontier with the Irish Republic.
        Many more soldiers, police officers and civilians will be sacrificed in a war with terrorism that should have been won years ago. John Rowe's firm conclusion is that the EPA is still required on the statute book, but I urge the Government—whatever Government are in power—to take the next vital step and start enforcing those measures, so that they have a greater effect against the terrorist.
        I welcome the success that the security services have had. I notice that several terrorist suspects have been brought to the courts on serious charges, resulting from arrests in west Belfast last week; I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that in certain areas the IRA has been put under pressure and hunted down. However, I believe that its members must be targeted for round-the-clock surveillance and they must be caught and put behind bars for a long time. These people will not be reformed. They are murderers and intend to murder, and they must be punished as such.
        I join others in the House in paying tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, to the members of Her Majesty's forces and to all who serve the community to give us protection. I also pay a tribute to people who are often forgotten—the dear mother who, every morning, says goodbye to her husband and lover, the father of her children, not knowing what will happen during the day. Many members of my church serve in the security forces and I know how mothers feel, how wives feel, and especially how children feel when their Dad goes out in answer to the call of duty. Those are the really brave people in Northern Ireland, whose voice is seldom heard, who soldier on from day to day. I lay a wreath of tribute to them tonight.
        1020
        The Government have embarked on a course that I feel is a tragedy: they believe that they can woo the men of violence. I think they will live to regret it. Already, the IRA has made fools of the British and Irish Governments and of the American Government. I spoke to Bill Clinton when he was in Belfast. He thought that he had the IRA converted and he thought, because Gerry Adams had shaken his hand on the Falls road and he had received such a good reception at the city hall, that it was all settled and he would go home as another saint. Of course, the nationalists would have protested at having a St. Bill or a St. William; that would not have been in keeping with their vocabulary.
        I said to Bill Clinton, "You would not bring the murderers from Oklahoma to the White House. You would not shake hands with them. You would not say, 'Keep your guns.' You would not say, 'There is a place for you in government.'" Says I, "What do you think of me? You've said you want to know how an Ulsterman ticks. How I tick is the way you would tick. You would kick me out of this room if I suggested such things. Well, I feel like kicking you out of the room when you shake hands with Gerry Adams, his hands stained with the blood of five of my European constituents who lost their lives in the Shankhill road."
        The IRA has played one phoney ceasefire on the Government and would like to do so again. I trust that no British Government will be fooled again, because all the IRA wants is to attain its goal. Let not the people of the Irish Republic think that members of the IRA are their friends, for what they would do in Northern Ireland they will do in the south of Ireland to get their way.
        The IRA campaign is tragically for real. The IRA is not interested in peace; it is interested only in total victory for itself. A Government who do not realise that to be the case will feel it their duty to protect the citizens of this kingdom. The attendant facets of terrorism continue with unrelenting accuracy. They are targeting for murder, paramilitary beatings, money laundering, racketeering and all manner of criminal activity, including the drug business, destroying youth and children.
        Any society that has been threatened by the level of criminal violence witnessed in Ulster during the past three decades must protect itself in the most meaningful way that it can.
        A great deal has been done to alleviate the position of those who have been charged with terrorist offences. I know that conditions, for instance, in the Castlereagh holding centre are not great; but I know worse conditions in which our soldier boys and police men are serving tonight. I have seen how some of them do not even have their own beds. They get out of bed and another man gets into it. I think we should get our priorities right: we should first look after the men who are doing the job on the ground for us.
        Anti-terrorist legislation is vital. All too often it is misinterpreted as anti-civil liberties. The fact is that it is in place to uphold our civil liberties—the liberties of the peaceful majority against the murderous evil of terrorism. I want the powers that we have to be effectively used. Some time ago a television documentary programme carried out an investigation into the activities of Martin McGuinness. He is going to be a "respectable" candidate at the election, standing against my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).

        1021
        After the documentary's revelations, I called for McGuinness's arrest; so did many other hon. Members. Was he ever questioned for directing terrorism? Was he ever taken to a police station or to Castlereagh? It would not suit the Government to take a leading republican such as Mr. McGuinness. There would be an outcry. Indeed, there was a outcry recently when bail was not granted to a prisoner in this country. I heard a Member of the European Parliament from the south of Ireland tell Europe that she, the prisoner, was being tortured in a London gaol!
        We need to be tough on terrorists, whichever side of the fence they come from. The Government must be more creative in pursuit of republican terrorism—and all terrorism. They should use the measures at their disposal instead of just threatening to use them. What is the use of the Act if it is not used? It just becomes an annual farce, not an annual renewal.
        12.2 am
        Mr. William Ross: I echo the regret expressed by others that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), is having, perforce, to leave the House. It is an unfortunate fact that before someone can come here, he must have a constituency; in that constituency he has to get folk to vote for him; and the right hon. Gentleman managed both things—but just as he was getting settled in, finding a useful job to do in Northern Ireland, along came the boundary commission and swept his constituency away.
        The very opposite applies in Northern Ireland, of course. At the behest of the Dublin authorities, people run around changing the boundaries to ensure that some Members of this House who rarely attend can remain in it.
        Many of us have come to know and respect the right hon. Gentleman. We regret his leaving, and the fact that other constituencies did not have the good wit to take him aboard. He would have been an asset in any new Conservative Government responsible for Northern Ireland. If the Conservatives are elected again, they will face a certain difficulty in the Northern Ireland Office— most of its occupants seem to be going, going or gone.
        My eye, like that of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), was caught by chapter 3 of Mr. Rowe's report. I shall not weary the House by reading out what the hon. Gentleman has already read out; but I was surprised to see Mr. Rowe talk about dwellings being taken over by terrorists who intimidate the householders without going on to point out that cars were clearly stolen to order by the same terrorists. Sometimes, cars turn up with false number plates. They are usually the same colour and often the same make as cars that are sitting 20, 30 or 50 miles away. The idea that the attacks mounted by the IRA are put up on the spur of the moment is blown out of the window by that fact alone.
        We also have the statement at the bottom of page 7 that
        "There is intimidation … and there is the overwhelming intimidation of people who would otherwise be witnesses in a court of law."
        When the Minister opened the debate, he drew attention to the Diplock courts. I am surprised that Mr. Rowe did not mention that one of the reasons why we have Diplock
        1022
        courts is that the IRA would not only intimidate witnesses; it would murder jurors who dared to find IRA members guilty. People who think that members of the jury could hide away in a society as small as Northern Ireland are wrong: they could not. While I believe that many people would serve honestly in juries, others simply would not be willing to do so, because of the fear that would be caused to them and the dangers to their families while they were doing that work.
        In that chapter, we see clear hints of the methods that the terrorist organisations use. But there is more to it than that. They not only use those methods; they take care to terrorise first the Roman Catholic population. If some of them are prepared to stand up against them, they are eliminated or intimidated into silence and acquiesence with the IRA and its activities. Once they have finished with the Roman Catholic population and had it silenced or moved out, they attack the Protestant and Unionist population.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman wait a moment?
        The terrorist organisations carry out attacks on Protestant and Unionist property for two reasons: first, to create a Republican ghetto, in which they are left in complete control; and, secondly, to raise the temperature. We had two such incidents last night: one in Bellaghy, which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) knows well, where an Orange hall was burnt; and a second in Clough, where another Orange hall was burnt. There has not been too much of that during the past few months, but it is now on the up, to ensure that the temperature rises.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: May I just mention that that was clearly seen in the murder of young Stephen Restorick? The woman who was beside him when he was shot has come under so much threat that when a memorial service was held in Bessbrook, the young boy's mother and father could not invite her, as she would be under more threat. One can have no stronger threat than that: people being intimidated when they go to a memorial service for a person whom the IRA has murdered.
        Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's remarks will no doubt be heard and, I hope, absorbed by the few people in the House to hear them. I have other personal knowledge of the intimidation that has been practised on Roman Catholics.
        The horror is that, for the past 25 years, the Northern Ireland Office has treated IRA-Sinn Fein as if it was simply another political pressure group that will at some time reach a compromise deal. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has sadly left the Chamber, went down the same foolish path as he often goes down, when he insinuated that there is an economic and social solution. The same concept breaks through the surface periodically whenever people talk about doves and hawks in the IRA. I have always believed that those people are all hawks. I have never believed the soft words and crocodile tears that we get from people such as Mr. Adams. Those people are the best of actors; they would all have been worthy of an Oscar, had they gone into films. They are not in films, however; they are in

        1023
        murder. That is what they are about. They use every concession as a stepping stone. They do not look upon a concession given to them as a way of edging towards an agreement. They look upon those who give them concessions as bloody fools; then they seize the concession and say, "What's next?" They immediately stop talking about what they have been given—that fades into that past—and they move on to their next demand.
        Reference has been made to the events of last summer. We should compare that with what has emerged over the months since, especially in the Prime Time TV programme, in which it was revealed that the entire confrontation on the streets of Northern Ireland had been planned by the IRA for three years. It did not drop out of the blue. It was not genuine protest by residents. It had been planned for three years, in the words of Mr. Adams himself. He subsequently complained, because the world saw what he said.
        There has been much talk about processions in Northern Ireland. It is surprisingly difficult to get proper figures as to what sort of processions they are. The police list them as loyalist, republican and other. I can think of many different organisations in the broad unionist community, some of which might describe themselves as loyalist, but others would not. I can also think of organisations that might not be too happy to be labelled republican because of the connotations that that term has acquired in Northern Ireland over the years.
        There was a parade through my local village of Dungiven on Monday—a perfectly peaceful parade. I am not sure whether those people would each or all describe themselves as republicans. They have had their own troubles with Sinn Fein, IRA and their fellow travellers down the years. I hope that when the police compile statistics in future, they will be rather more precise, so that we can see who is marching, where they are marching and what it is all about.
        I also hope that the House and hon. Members on the two Front Benches will learn the simple fact that IRA-Sinn Fein already has its targets chosen for street confrontation in 1997.
        The Minister is right. The IRA has not gone away. It never went away. It simply threw a fairly thin smokescreen round itself. Some people were foolish enough to believe that, but we on this Bench were never among those who believed what the IRA said. We have lived among IRA members, we know them and we have had to put up with their horrors, in the present case for nearly 30 years. Some of us in the B Specials, such as myself, in the 1956–61 campaign went out and fought them in the roads, controlled the roads and beat them. I believe that they could be beaten again.
        The campaign has been running so long and its roots have now run so deep that there is no easy answer. The first bitter lesson that hon. Members on the two Front Benches and the Northern Ireland Office as an official body must learn is that the IRA is constantly intent on trouble. It has no interest in peace. The reason for its existence is to cause trouble, to create constitutional change in Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom. So many people for so long have ignored that simple fact.
        I believe that in the coming year, whatever Government are in power, whoever the Ministers are and whoever the Chief Constable is in Northern Ireland, they can do
        1024
        nothing more than select the path that diminishes the possibility of violence and keeps it containable. They will not achieve that by doing what the police did last year.
        The legislation is necessary. As the Americans found out when dealing with the Mafia and its drugs and thuggery, normal law is not enough in some instances. It is not enough when one is dealing with a terrorist organisation of the type that we face in Northern Ireland. It is not enough to bring peace. The extra muscle embodied in the legislation is needed.
        The IRA will not sit down peacefully at any table to discuss the future of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. It is not interested in peace. It is interested, as has been said, in victory. It must be convinced, and it is not yet convinced, that it will not be victorious. It must be brought to the conclusion that it will not succeed. If that happens, it will vanish, as it has vanished before. Its numbers will diminish, as will its power, and we shall have peace again. That will not come about while we have the nonsense that so often fills the air in Northern Ireland and across the Chamber.
        12.14 am
        Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister of State, who introduced the debate, has attracted expressions of good will from both sides of the House, and I associate myself with them. Those of us who have not been Members for Northern Ireland cannot know and understand how different Members' responsibilities are there. Perhaps more compellingly, those of us who have not been Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office almost certainly cannot appreciate the particular burdens, obligations and responsibilities that service in that office undoubtedly creates. I express my good will to the Minister of State and the Secretary of State, who was in the Chamber only a short while ago. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have served in the Northern Ireland Office with great distinction and great dignity.
        It seems that there will not be a Division on the order. If there had been a Division, in accordance with the practice of my right hon. and hon. Friends for many years, I should have advised them to vote for the order. I and they would not do so with great enthusiasm, but rather because I regard the order as a regrettable necessity. I would vote for the order with considerable reservations because I profoundly believe that the rights, protections and civil liberties of all United Kingdom citizens should be the same wherever they live, and that only in the most unusual circumstances can a departure from those principles be justified.
        On the evidence that we have heard so far, some of it rather chilling, and on the basis of our own knowledge, we are entitled to conclude that the circumstances still obtaining in Northern Ireland justify once again the renewal of the order. Those circumstances justify powers that in other circumstances would undoubtedly be regarded as draconian. These powers should not be maintained for an instant longer than is necessary. They should be grudgingly tolerated. We in this place, and our successors, should work with all the power available to us to withdraw them at the earliest possible date. They represent a serious incursion into the rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom, which they are entitled to expect wherever they live.

        1025
        Why is it that the powers continue to be justified? That is the position only because it appears that the cancer of terrorism lies still at the heart of life in Northern Ireland. The powers contained in the order will not eliminate that cancer; at the very best they may contain it. Unless and until a political settlement that commands the support of the entire community of Northern Ireland is achieved, we are likely fo face the sort of terrorist activity that so affects our judgment of these issues.
        Before us is an issue to which we shall clearly return— those of us who are here—in the next Parliament. I understand that new primary legislation will be required. I express the hope that that legislation will not be treated simply as a routine repeat of the primary legislation that gives rise to the order that we are discussing. When that legislation is considered, it will be regarded with public confidence only if it is appropriate to the circumstances of the time.
        For the moment, the order should command our support. Indeed, it would be most curious if at this stage of the Parliament the House were to reject it for any reason. That would be akin to Alice in Wonderland. I divine from the speeches so far that that is not likely to happen, but the fact that we have to deal with this each year reminds us that what we are doing is of great significance, and it is something that will have quite startling and significant consequences for the civil rights of a large number of members of the United Kingdom. We should never do it lightly, but in the circumstances that prevail, I believe that we are compelled to continue to renew the provisions of the order.
        12.19 am
        Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall be brief. My speech is prompted by Mr. Rowe's report. I should like to ask the Minister a question, but before I do, I offer him my compliments. In my dealings with him, he has always responded in a most courteous and helpful way, and I know that I will receive a courteous response this evening. As one who hopes to return to this place in a few weeks' time, I would like him to know that he may have gone but he will not be forgotten.
        My view has always been that those convicted in our courts of acts of violence should receive condign punishment. Not so very long ago, at the High Court in Glasgow, I think—the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) might correct me on this—a loyalist terrorist was found guilty, rightly and properly, and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for arms trafficking. He was attempting to run arms across to Northern Ireland. A few years ago, when I was on the review committee of a prison in Scotland, twice in about seven months I interviewed two prisoners, both of whom were under assessment for release under licence and had been sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment for running arms across to Northern Ireland, so I have a little experience of these matters.
        I remind the Minister that he quoted from paragraph 2, page 5, of Mr. Rowe's report, which says:
        "I bear in mind also that a balance must be struck between the measures necessary to combat terrorism on the one hand, and on the other the extent to which those measures infringe human rights."
        1026
        The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to a young woman who is detained in a London prison, and said that an MEP had claimed that this young woman had been subjected to torture. That is an absurd claim, I believe that the circumstances surrounding her detention leave much to be desired. In my view, when a person suspected of acts of terrorism is arrested and detained, they should be treated in a way that does not infringe their basic human rights.
        May I point out to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, in Cornton Vale prison in Scotland, when a pregnant woman prisoner has her baby, she is certainly not manacled at any time before, during or after the birth. She is allowed, if she has the wherewithal psychologically and physically, to take care of her child for 12 months. At the end of that period, for understandable reasons, the child is sent to carefully chosen foster parents—and I mean carefully chosen—or to the family of the detained woman. I say to all hon. Members, including the Minister, that that treatment should be afforded to Roisin McAliskey in Holloway prison. It know that it is outwith the Minister's terms of reference, but I hope that he will bring my remarks to the attention of his right hon. Friends.
        Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Dr. Godman: I shall give way in a minute.
        I have no truck with those involved in such dastardly activities. That young woman is a remand prisoner. In a Scottish prison, such as Cornton Vale, she would be treated differently. I have written to Mr. Richard Tilt telling him that. I have also written to The Irish Times, because one of its journalists, in a recent article on Ms McAliskey's unsuccessful bail application, thrice referred to the British prison system. I pointed out to the editor of The Irish Times that his journalist should have referred to the English prison system, because there is an important different between the two systems. A pregnant woman would be treated differently in Cornton Vale prison, irrespective of the crime of which she is suspected or convicted.
        It is in the interests of the child that he or she should not be separated from the mother, whatever she has done. As long as the child's safety is regarded by everyone as paramount—I need hardly say that to this audience—a woman remand prisoner or a woman prisoner who has been convicted in a court of law should be afforded the same treatment as would be afforded to one of my constituents who may have committed a heinous crime.
        I am making no excuses for this young woman, but her treatment, as it is portrayed in the international media, gives valuable ammunition to primitive republicans everywhere. I was talking to someone in Australia.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The House knows that I do not mind passing references to matters that go slightly wide of the issue under consideration, but the hon. Gentleman is dwelling on this point, and it goes beyond the scope of our considerations.
        Dr. Godman: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Dr. Godman: May I finish my apologies to Madam Deputy Speaker? I have said before that you are renowned

        1027
        for your gentle strictures, and I shall not risk another one so close to the end of this Parliament. I just want to say that in my view this young woman should be transferred to the prison in Northern Ireland that has mother-child facilities.
        I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I hope that he does not get me into trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he is a terrible man.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: The prisons in Northern Ireland and their treatment of prisoners are excellent. I have acted as a prison chaplain, and I have also been a prisoner, so I should know. I was passing no strictures on the circumstances of the case. I was simply saying that a southern Ireland MEP said that the treatment was virtually torture, which was completely and totally untrue.
        Dr. Godman: I know of the hon. Gentleman's prison career. I am not sure that he was ever incarcerated in a woman's prison, which would have been grossly unfair on women prisoners.
        Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Dr. Godman: Just let me say that I did not impugn the hon. Member for North Antrim. I said that he had referred to an MEP who had made that wild allegation.
        Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a person who is held on an extradition warrant being transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland. I inquired about that, and my understanding is that that is not possible. The individual has to be held in either a Scottish or an English prison, such as Holloway, and cannot be held elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There is certainly no place in the system in Northern Ireland for such a prisoner. Surely the hon. Gentleman's strictures on the holding of pregnant women in prison apply to all such prisoners in English prisons. That is the understanding that we have been given by the Minister of State, Home Office.
        Dr. Godman: I am not saying that special privileges should be given to a specific prisoner who has been detained under these measures. I think that, if Scottish female prisoners are treated in such a way—rightly and properly, in my view—female prisoners south of the border should be treated in like manner. I remind the Minister, who is a decent. fair-minded man, of what he said in his speech, and of the direct quotation that he offered from Mr. Rowe's report:
        "I bear in mind also that a balance must be struck between the measures necessary to combat terrorism on the one hand, and on the other the extent to which those measures infringe human rights."
        I have dwelt on the point for far too long, and I apologise for that. In this case, however, I think that there has been an infringement of basic human rights, which has provided propaganda for primitive republicans and their supporters not just in the United Kingdom, but throughout the world. As I said, I spoke to someone in Australia who expressed concern.
        Of course it is right and proper for the security forces to pursue such persons with the utmost vigour, but when persons are detained they must be treated fairly and
        1028
        properly in our prison systems. I believe that, whatever the technical difficulties, the best course would be to transfer Roisin McAliskey to a prison in Northern Ireland so that her child can be born there and mother and child can be together. That is the plea that I make to the Minister.
        12.31 am
        Sir John Wheeler: I shall endeavour to be brief in replying to this important debate, but it would be churlish of me not acknowledge the kind references made to me by all who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I have enjoyed responding to his numerous detailed questions over many hours in the Committee Room and elsewhere during our service on opposing Benches. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and, of course, to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). It has been a great privilege to serve the people of Northern Ireland, and the House, in my present capacity, and I am sorry that I am to be the first and last Member of Parliament for Westminster, North.
        As I have said, this has been an important debate. All the issues that have been raised are serious. In particular, the remarks of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie gave notice to Northern Ireland Office officials of the answers that they would need to have ready should he find himself in Stormont castle in six weeks' time. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I very much agree with him about the Lloyd review and its importance to the anti-terrorist law, and the procedures that the House should consider in the next Parliament. There are indeed elements that must be considered very carefully when the next Parliament comes to consider the basis of that legislation—but that is for the future and not for this evening.
        The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked about the certifying in of scheduled offences. Parliament has decided with good reason that, because of the situation that has existed in Northern Ireland, certain cases need to be scheduled. The Attorney-General, indeed successive Attorney-Generals, may certify out certain offences on the recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecutions if a particular case has no connection with the emergency situation. It would be invidious for the Attorney-General, who is responsible for prosecutions, to be given powers to confer a restrictive mode of trial in particular cases instead of relieving it, as he may do at present with those cases not associated with terrorism.
        A year ago, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and I exchanged our thinking about that matter in Committee. The statistical change to which he referred reflects the fact of the ceasefires. I am sure that he will be reassured that that has been the case, and it does not change the basic argument in favour of certifying out.
        The hon. Gentleman asked about silent video recording. Responses to the recently concluded consultation exercise on codes of practice governing such recording are being assessed. Tests on the necessary equipment are well advanced, and I assure him that that project is being taken forward with real purpose. I am confident that his points will also be taken into account in assessing that.

        1029
        Remand waiting times will require some detailed research, but it is still within my gift to undertake it, and should the hon. Gentleman be interested in the outcome during the general election campaign, I shall ensure that he has some additional reading.
        As the House knows, the decision to introduce silent video recording was based on the Chief Constable's advice and it represents a compromise in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland but, as with all these things, it is certainly kept under review.
        With regard to military complaints, the increase in the number of informal complaints is partly due to the Army implementing recommendations made by Mr. Hewitt at paragraph 4.3 of his current report. That is the basis for the change in those statistics.
        The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow raised an issue that is not, perhaps, really the subject of the debate or within the order, but I hope that I may be allowed to comment on it briefly as he raised a matter of humanitarian importance. The Government believe that prisoners held on remand, who are innocent until proven guilty, are subject to all the proper medical care and treatment. I understand that the remand prisoner in question will be allowed to keep her baby while in prison and that proper facilities are available, but she is facing grave charges, which are accountable in Germany. That is why she must remain in Holloway prison unless a court of law determines otherwise.
        Elsewhere in the debate, the hon. Member for North Antrim touched on the appearance of a Mr. Martin McGuinness in a television programme. May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is never inhibited from investigating crimes and allegations, certainly not by this Minister or by Her Majesty's Government, but bases its investigation on the facts and, alas, the House will be surprised to know, not all television programmes are precisely accurate.
        The hon. Member for East Londonderry made many profound remarks about terrorism and its on-going character. I greatly appreciate and agree with what he said. He made an important point about the Diplock courts, which protect jurors as well as witnesses. That is why it is essential that that procedure must continue in the present circumstances in Northern Ireland, in view of the odious list of punishment attacks that occur every 24 hours.
        I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East in that nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to say to the House, "The legislation is not necessary any more, and we can do without it." It is right that we should constantly examine the need for such legislation; that is why the House of Commons exists.
        I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. It has been an important one.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisins) (Continuance) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

        Public Order (Northern Ireland)
        12.40 am
        The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
        That the draft Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.
        In his statement to the House on 30 January, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the Government welcomed the report of the independent review of parades and marches, and announced a number of measures that we would take in response to it.
        The Government undertook to establish without delay an independent Parades Commission with an education, conciliation and mediation role, in time for this year's marching season. At the same time, the Government began consultation on the wider decision-making and related powers of the Parades Commission recommended by the report. That consultation will last until the end of March. The Government accepted the other recommendations of the report, and undertook to examine opportunities to implement them, including the necessary legislation.
        The order will amend the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to implement some of those recommendations that do not hinge on the outcome of the current consultation exercise. The period required for notification of a parade or procession will be increased from seven to 21 days, and new controls on alcohol at parades will be introduced.
        The proposal for a draft order was published on 25 February and was distributed to a wide range of individuals for consultation. In order to ensure, so far as possible, that the provisions of the draft order would be in effect before this year's marching season, it was necessary to shorten the consultation period from the usual six weeks to two weeks. Those who responded to the consultation generally welcomed the proposed measures.
        Since the publication of the proposal, the Government have taken the opportunity to make two minor technical amendments, which I shall deal with now. First, we have amended article 4(5), which gives the police power to dispose of intoxicating liquor that has been surrendered. There may be circumstances in which a police officer has confiscated drink that he genuinely, but mistakenly, believed to be alcoholic. To provide for such a situation, we have made an amendment to give the police power to dispose of anything that has been surrendered to them. The change mirrors an amendment made to the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill, on which the provision is broadly based.
        Secondly, we have added a new article 4(10), to ensure that the time limits on the exercise of the controls on alcohol will also apply in a "stand-off situation, where persons have assembled for a parade that does not then go ahead. The amendment will mean that the confiscation powers will end at midnight on the day on which those who have assembled disperse.
        I shall now deal briefly with the detailed provisions of the draft order. The current seven days' notice to be given of a public procession has been clearly shown to be

        1031
        inadequate, especially for contentious parades, to give all sides maximum opportunity to discuss differences at a local level and, it is to be hoped, to come to agreement.
        The order will therefore increase the period of notice from seven to 21 days. With regard to spontaneous parades, the order will provide that, where it is not reasonable to require the organisers to notify the police 21 days in advance, they may give less than 21 days' notice, but will be required to explain the reason for the short notice. The order will also require that notice is given in a standard form, which will be set out in regulations, and which must be signed by the person giving the notice.
        The review team—that is the North team—noted considerable and widespread concern from all parts of the community about the problems caused by alcohol at parades, a problem that the measures contained in the draft order address. The measures make a discretionary power available to the police. Clearly, the use of the powers by the police will be dictated by the operational situation and discretion will be exercised. I am confident that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will adopt a sensible and commonsense approach to the enforcement of this measure.
        In summary, the order would implement a number of the recommendations in the review team's report. I hope that we shall be able to press on with other necessary legislation to deal with any other matters raised in the report in the next Parliament, should that prove necessary after the consultation period. I commend the draft order to the House.
        12.45 am
        Mr. Tony Worthington: We find this to be a miserably inadequate order, but we shall support it because we recognise that its two provisions—the need to extend the period of notice to 21 days, and the need to control alcohol—are necessary. Those seem to be common sense and should be applied, but we feel that the people of Northern Ireland have been badly let down. In the words of the Secretary of State on 30 January in response to the North report:
        "Last summer, public disorder occurred in Northern Ireland on a very grave scale."
        We now have these two small provisions, which have become the total legislative response so far by the Government to the North report. There were 43 recommendations in the North report and the Government's response is that two are to be enacted. We feel particularly aggrieved because it was obvious for so long that the Government should be reappraising how marches and parades in Northern Ireland should be conducted and controlled.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) was pressing from the middle of the summer of 1995 for action on this, and the Government responded only after the appalling events of last summer. They then failed to act upon the North report in full when it was published and we are now left, in effect, with two clauses as the Government's response. Any incoming Government will feel that their task has been made more difficult. As my hon. Friend said on January 30
        "The police were put in an impossible position. The House has a duty to do all that it can to prevent such a situation from arising again."—[Official Report, 30 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 509–10.]
        1032
        That is not what the House has done.
        The central recommendation of North—in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, "the guts" of the report—was that there should be an adjudicatory body. That was not immediately accepted by the Government, who said that they would need further consultation. Can we hear from the Government the results of that consultation? The Government gave the impression that they were hesitant about an adjudicatory body, but will they now confirm that it is their view that there should not be such a body?
        For our part, the Labour party can confirm that it is our intention to enact the North report in full. The Government promised that, in terms of the non-adjudicatory functions—the Minister confirmed this—they endorsed the report's recommendations, which they believed should be implemented without delay. We are less than a fortnight before the start of the marching season, and nothing is in place. The measures that we are considering today will not be in place for the start of the marching season, and even the 21-day rule created by this order will not be effective until the marches that will take place in the middle of May.
        What has happened to the advisory commission? What is its membership? I remind the Secretary of State that he said in the House on 30 January:
        "The Government therefore intend to establish, as soon as possible, an independent body of five people, to be known as the Parades Commission, with the mediation, conciliation and education roles recommended in the report. We intend that the new commission should be in place ahead of this year's marching season, precisely because we recognise that it has a valuable role to play."
        He said that legislation would not be required to establish the commission, so it is fair for us to ask where it is.
        If there is a commission, as the Government agree, even if it is only with the mediation, conciliation and education role, it is vital that it is backed up by a statutory code of conduct. From reading Hansard of 30 January, it would seem that the Government accepted the recommendation that there should be a statutory code of conduct. They agreed that a code should be prepared and published for consultation as soon as practicable. We want to know where the code is that will apply to this year's parades.
        The Government also said that consideration should be given, as recommended by North, to changes to articles 4(1)(b) and 7 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. What conclusions have they come to on that matter? They also pledged that there would be a registration scheme for bands, which would be introduced as soon as the necessary practical arrangements could be put in place. Again, what has happened to that proposal?
        The Secretary of State also said:
        "There needs to be within all who live in Northern Ireland the will and … determination that last year's terrible events shall never again occur … the Government pledge that they will play their own part to the full."—[Official Report, 30 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 509–510.]
        I hope that I can have a full response to my questions.
        Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman not yet understand that there is in Northern Ireland an organisation called the IRA and its fellow travellers, who are determined that there will not be

        1033
        understanding and are totally committed to seeing that there is mayhem, violence and confrontation in the streets? So long as they are there, those events will occur.
        Mr. Worthington: I understand that. We need to appreciate that many people told North that, to cope with that problem, there needed to be a better statutory framework than exists at present. That will not solve the problem of organisations dedicated to causing mayhem, but we can improve the legislative framework within which we are operating.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the head of the IRA-Sinn Fein has said that those events came about as a result of careful and deliberate planning for three years? If I stood up in Northern Ireland and said that I had planned events for three years, my feet would not hit the ground—I would be in Castlereagh. The head of the IRA-Sinn Fein was never even questioned by the police. Now, we are hearing that there will be trouble in other places where there has never been any trouble. This is an IRA-concocted way to have trouble throughout the Province.
        Mr. Worthington: I respect what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am aware—I could not see it myself because I was here—of the programme that demonstrated that there had been planning and that Mr. Adams said that that had occurred. One also has to recognise, however, that people on the other side of the divide are convinced that similar planning will cause confrontation in the opposite direction.
        The North report was instituted with our full support to try to improve the framework within which judgments about marches were made. We believe that the Government could have done more and that any incoming Government will be left in a much weaker position than they should have been because of the lack of action on the report.
        12.54 am
        Rev. William McCrea: I have listened carefully to the speeches in this important debate. It is important, because I believe that we are witnessing an attack on one group of people in Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom.
        Before developing my theme, I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in wishing the Minister a happy retirement. I trust that, as he has found fulfilment in serving the people of the United Kingdom, and the people of Northern Ireland in particular, he will also find it in whatever occupation he turns his hand to. The people of Northern Ireland deeply appreciate the service that he gave, and Members of Parliament have at all times found him courteous and concerned for their safety in the face of IRA terrorism. He has always shown personal concern for individual Members and their constituents.
        I express my appreciation on behalf of my constituents in Mid-Ulster, because the Minister played an important role and gave support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and members of the security forces protecting the citizens
        1034
        of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland in particular. I trust that he accepts the appreciation of the people of Ulster.
        I am extremely concerned about the order, which is reactionary: as we have come to expect, after some agitation from republicans and others, and interference from outside Governments—from the United States of America or the Irish Republic—there has been a reaction from Government. Unfortunately, the reaction is comparable with that in the legislation on dogs, which was bad law. The order is not in the interests of the Northern Ireland community, and it will be regretted.
        Once again, we are creating a nightmare. The situation that has developed is causing great concern in the community. Marches and parades have been part of the culture of the Unionist community over the years. I was raised in Arboe, where Unionists were the minority, and we had excellent relationships with the nationalists. Problems are being created that simply did not occur before. Neighbour is being turned against neighbour, and that has not simply happened: it has been carefully devised over several years.
        We are approaching the marching season, and many people are talking about another Garvaghy road. Let me remind the House once again that the Orange parade that walked to the church there two years ago did so in a legitimate and lawful parade. The parade was given the authority to do that and to leave the church and go back down the Garvaghy road to the Orange hall in Portadown. They were not acting outside the law. They had legal authority to go to and from church. The route was laid out, notice was properly given and permission granted. Why are we talking about the situation? How did the order come about? Let us remember the facts.
        The IRA went into the Garvaghy estate, took over some of the homes—as mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) in a previous debate—and threatened the community. Many Roman Catholics were told to get out on to the streets and object to the parade. They were intimidated out, but that does not seem to matter; it was the Orangemen who were at fault. They were just coming to and from church in a proper, legal procession in an honourable and decent fashion, as they had for many years.
        Mr. Roy Beggs: And none of them had had a sip of alcohol.
        Rev. William McCrea: No alcohol was consumed. People were acting legally, but terrorists got involved. Their voice seems to mean more, because behind it is not just the ordinary marching of feet but the thud of a bomb or the power of a gun. That registers more. Sad to say, over the years it has registered with more authority with Governments, with those who are supposed to be protecting the community in a democracy. It seems that terrorists must be listened to, because their threat is not that of a debate in the House.
        As hon. Members know, over the years, the voice of those who have exercised their democratic right of debating in the House has been little heard, and it has meant very little. We had the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the framework document. Was that the will of the people or of their elected representatives who speak on the people's behalf, and who have gone to the people to

        1035
        renew their mandates? I was one of those who, after the Anglo-Irish Agreement, resigned my seat, even though Mid-Ulster has a republican majority. I was willing to resign my seat and put myself before the electorate again to ensure that the Government knew that I was speaking with the authority of the people who sent me to the House.
        The people spoke; the voice of the ballot box spoke again, but the reaction was that one Minister said that it does not matter how people vote, because the Government would have it their way anyhow. So much for democracy; but terrorist gunmen can say that Orangemen, even in lawful procession, cannot go down a road because they will shoot them. Sad to say, there was a reaction to the threat of the gun. They did not have to shoot, only threaten. The community is being held to ransom.
        My family knows exactly what the power of the gun of an IRA terrorist thug means. The blood of my loved ones ran in the streets and homes of the Northern Ireland, and but for the mercy of God, as the Minister knows, every one of them would have been lying dead—no thanks to the terrorists. They threaten the community.
        That was what happened on the Garvaghy road. It had nothing to do with Drumcree parish church, but everything to do with murdering thugs who seem to think that they have the right to threaten the community and hold it to ransom. Why do they think that? It is because they have done it for the past 30 years and got away with it.
        Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is because of the abject failure of successive Governments for 30 years that the outgoing Government and whichever party is the incoming Government had better recognise that the demonstration of solidarity across Northern Ireland, arising from the despicable ban on the lawful parades, is symbolic of a new atmosphere in Northern Ireland? The majority community will not tolerate interference from Dublin or America, or failure on the part of the Government properly to act.
        Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his views heard. They are my views, too. The reality is that there is a different spirit. There is talk of the spirit of Drumcree. Yes, there is the spirit of Drumcree. There is a spirit within Northern Ireland. We are sick of concession after concession. All that the terrorists have to do is hold their guns up in the air and threaten to shoot the people of Northern Ireland. Not only are we threatened with being shot, but our rights, our liberties and our freedoms are being taken away.
        I am sickened as a Member of Parliament who has come to the House for the past 14 years to be told by those leading for Her Majesty's Opposition that they will race on. They will not hold back. Once they get in, they are going to race on. It does not seem to me that we have any rights at all, or that we will be listened to at all.
        I have a message for the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). He is not coming to Northern Ireland to dictate. We are sick of dictation. There will be a bit of democracy, and in a democracy, the people have some say. They have a right to be listened to. Their elected representatives have a right not to be shot at or silenced, and a right to be heard, and by the grace of God we will be heard because we are going along the road of democracy.
        1036
        Every concession—Garvaghy road, for example—has been looked upon as weakness. Every concession has been looked upon by Republicans as a stepping stone to more concessions. They hold out the begging bowl. Of course, with every concession they obtain, they can remind us, "Sure, all we had to do in the past was threaten or shoot, and look what we have got for it." I ask the House to think carefully.
        What have my people who have been democrats and peaceful, law-abiding citizens got? What has been the end result after we have gone down the road to democracy, and the ballot box has been supreme? The bullet has been cast aside. We do not want it. I will tell the House what we have got. We have got coffin after coffin, grave after grave. Some might not want to listen, but that is the sad reality.
        It does not seem that many want to listen to the Ulster Unionists, but my, it seems important to listen to the republican, because he might have an ear in the White House. There might be a hand outstretched in the White House that will take Adams's hand and hold it tight. He might have a southern Government down in Dublin who are happy to play footsie with him, but we are talking about something which affects our rights, our freedoms and our liberties.
        What happened at Garvaghy road? Did it happen by chance? Let me quote what Adams said. I will quote it word for word because it is important:
        "Ask any activists in the North did Drumcree happen by accident, and they will tell you 'no'… Three years of work on the Lower Ormeau Road, on Portadown, parts of Fermanagh and Newry and in Bellaghy and up in Derry… Three years work went into creating that situation, and fair play to those people who put the work in. And they are the type of scene changes that we have to focus on and develop and exploit."
        That is what the order tells us tonight—that we are reacting to three years of planning by terrorists.
        Did the parades start three years ago? No, they did not. I am 48 years old, and there were parades from the day I was born and for years and years before. We lived side by side with our Roman Catholic neighbours, and we insulted nobody. We lived as good neighbours—we worked together, we sweated together, and, when anything happened to our loved ones, we wept together. It is sad that, today, neighbour is turning against neighbour because of a few thugs who created a situation, planned it, schemed it and now tell us that they are going to focus on it, develop it and exploit it.
        What have we heard from the Dispatch Box tonight? That those thugs are going to be aided and abetted and assisted. I hope that, when they leave this House at the end of this Parliament, go back to their constituencies and put their head on their pillow at night, hon. Members have a clean conscience. But I tell them this: anybody who knows that the IRA has planned, focused, developed and exploited the situation in Northern Ireland and who aids and abets them through legislation is guilty.
        What are we told? Twenty-one days. What for? Not 21 days for people to talk together, but 21 days to allow republicans to build up a case against us. That is what the 21 days are for: 21 days for them to invent or create scenes and to manipulate situations; 21 days to conspire against lawful, legal, law-abiding people; 21 days for thugs who have never given anything to the community and who have no intention of ever giving anything to the

        1037
        community. All they have done is draw out the blood of the community and leave it on the street and laugh when the poor corpses go by. That is the reality—21 days.
        There is no doubt that the order will pass, that it will get through tonight, but will it solve the situation? No, it will not. It is another piece of appeasement.
        I have this to say on the subject of alcohol. Anyone who knows me knows that I oppose alcohol. I am a teetotaller—I hate the stuff, because I saw enough of it when I was a boy. Is there not rank hypocrisy here? A few months ago, legislation was raced through this House. What for? To extend drinking in Northern Ireland. We were told, "You have not got enough of it, you have not got long enough to do it, you need more time to do it. Not only that, but you have not enough outlets—you'd better get it into every corner shop." It is sickening hypocrisy.
        This order might be only a couple of pages long, but it means a lot. It only takes a line on a page to remove a person's liberty altogether, and that is the road this House seems to be taking. God forbid. I did not want to be brought up in China. I was born in the United Kingdom.
        1.14 am
        Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) pleaded for more action to be taken to put an end to this problem. One of the best ways of doing so would be to change the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the implanting of the Maryfield secretariat in Northern Ireland, which is one of the cancers that has been eroding our community as people have interfered at different levels of government in Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Government must take the final decision, but time and again they have implemented recommendations from Maryfield, and many people in Northern Ireland are aware of the part played by Maryfield in 1995 and 1996.
        The order before us stems from the North report; the Labour Front-Bench team has chided the Government for not fully implementing the recommendations in the report. The North committee was asked to examine the issue of parades. It focused on the loyalist parades, especially the Orange parades. It also moved from the concept of parades to comment on the qualifications of an Orangeman and to accuse the Orange Order of being the cause of sectarianism in Northern Ireland.
        Although the committee had an Anglican chairman, the report said nothing about the Thirty-Nine Articles; although a committee member was a Presbyterian minister, the report said nothing about the Westminster confession of faith; and although a member was a Roman Catholic priest, the report said nothing about some of the claims of Vatican Council II, even in its modern form, and nothing about the other sectarian claims, which even forbid a person to have communion although they claim to be one with us in other ways. It was strange that the committee went down that road.
        On the issue of the number of days' notice, the laughable fact is that it is well known when the Orange parades will be held: every police station has the rotas and times. Only as a result of the introduction of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 was seven days' notice required. We were told that it was requested by the police, and thereafter we abided by it.
        1038
        We managed at that time to get rid of some of the more obnoxious interference in civil liberties, although we did not get it all dealt with at that time. Interestingly, the Liberal spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), visited us to make a plea for civil liberties on prevention of terrorism, but he does not appear to realise that the requirement of seven days' notice interferes with civil liberties.
        I am happy to recognise that the Minister's statement earlier showed that the Government are aware that a requirement of 21 days' notice would be unduly restrictive, because it would interfere with many aspects of public life, such as a moment of rejoicing. If a football team won the cup, or if an athlete returned from a foreign sporting event as a champion, there would be a spontaneous welcome, which would be a breach of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. It would be even worse if people had to wait 21 days. The Orange institution has no difficulty with the 21 days from that point of view. Some traditional walks do not go out of their way to provoke people. People can easily remain unprovoked by just staying at home.
        I live off the Ormeau road. I cannot see the Ormeau bridge from my house; but some people have such brilliant eyesight that they can see the Ormeau bridge from Dungannon, 40 miles away. They feel provoked, so they come up to prevent loyalists from walking down a main road. Some loyalists take no more than five minutes to walk from the bridge to the Northern Ireland cricket ground—yet that is supposed to amount to provocation.
        As for spontaneous protest, last year, in the village of Pomeroy, during the holiday season, a person managed to get an oil tanker supplied with oil to deliver oil around the country. This happened during a boycott of the local non-Orangeman trader who had run an oil business for years. In England, Scotland or Wales, could someone immediately procure an oil lorry and a supply of oil to coincide with a boycott of a local trader? The evidence of that came not from the BBC or Ulster Television but from a prime time programme on the RTE station in the Irish Republic. It all adds up to evidence of plotting to undermine stability.
        We question whether the order is needed. It will not solve the problem at all.
        When people ask me why I do not drink, I usually say that I am better off without it—I am bad enough without it, too. Someone once asked me, "Don't you enjoy yourself, then?" I said, "I do; and I know I'm enjoying myself when I haven't a headache in the morning."
        Will the provision governing alcohol be used for all sorts of public gatherings? We Orangemen have tried in the past to get the police to implement the law. Public houses are not supposed to open before 10 o'clock in the morning, yet they were allowed to trade before that time, with no action taken against them. We also raised the question of special licences being issued on the twelfth, only to be told that nothing could be done but to issue the licences.
        I know that the Minister said that the measure would be implemented with sensitivity, but what does that mean? Belfast and other places have in the past experienced "alcohol-free zones". The law is such that a constable can do nothing to a person breaching the law, unless he first warns the person that he or she is in breach of it. The person must then carry on drinking around the next corner

        1039
        before another constable can do anything about the situation. That is totally laughable. The police have told us that this sort of legislation is unenforceable.
        Legislation is being rushed through the House. I empathise with the idea behind it and recognise the old saying, "When the drink is in, the wit is out." We face the problem of lager louts in England and football hooligans around Belfast or elsewhere, but I question whether the police will be able to enforce such legislation.
        I draw attention to the Opposition's cry for more action to be taken and ask them to consider where they are heading with that action. If we have an adjudication body that is also charged with mediation, there is an immediate conflict. Nor has there been a clear perception of the concept of mediation.
        For example, last year, people in the Ormeau road were asked whether they would accept me, as the apprentices in Londonderry accepted the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), to bring them together and mediate. The Rice faction in the Ormeau road said, "We are not of that mind." Fair enough; I am broad-minded, and I accept that they did not like me. However, they are so entrenched in bigotry and opposition to proper democracy that they were not even prepared to recognise the then deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast, Alderman Dr. Macdonald, an SDLP elected representative for that very area.
        I am sorry that our colleagues from the SDLP are not here now. We saw the scenes on television. There was a mass invasion from west Belfast to try to occupy the Ormeau road, and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), Dr. Macdonald and others were there trying to mediate. They were ignored and insulted, because the Rice faction, which organised those residents' groups throughout the Province, was not prepared to listen to them.
        The North report spoke about the conflict between the loyal orders and the residents' groups. The loyal orders had no conflict with anybody; the residents' groups sought the conflict, trying publicly to discredit the RUC and get television pictures of it allegedly battering those innocent people into the ground.
        When I was at a football match in London recently, it was fascinating to see the police presence just to control the crowd. I know of no place—certainly not in the city of Dublin—where an unruly crowd is allowed to dominate. I remember student days there, when workers just protesting on the street for the right to walk were batoned off the street by the Gardai. The RUC has not done that.
        Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those confrontations over the past two years, we have seen an attempt by the IRA to determine who will rule the streets, and that, so far, it has been getting away with it on too many occasions?
        Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend is correct. I have no wish to detain the House, except to say that the Government now and after the election must watch that they do not repeat the tragedy and folly of 1968–69, when they did not read the philosophy of Dr. R. Johnson, who was then the education officer of the IRA. They are following the same procedures now. Having failed by terror to intimidate the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the IRA is now seeking to destabilise the community through street protests.
        1040
        I congratulate the Minister and thank him for his services to Northern Ireland.
        I was interested to note that in the earlier debate there was no reference to the drugs scene, other than by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Is not something going wrong in that respect? In my constituency within five days last week two men with paramilitary connections died from overdoses of drugs.
        1.30 am
        Rev. Ian Paisley: This is an important debate. It goes to the heart of the situation in Northern Ireland. Those who do not know the situation in our Province and are not acquainted with Irish history will not be aware that from time to time processions have been at the centre of much disorder, both when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and since the separation of the 26 counties from the United Kingdom.
        Various Parliaments and Governments of the United Kingdom have dealt with the problem in the way that we are told that it must be dealt with tonight. One can read Irish history from the time when Ireland was one within the United Kingdom and from the founding of Ulster and one will find people who did not know the place attempting to introduce bans and giving in to unruly elements who decided who shall walk the streets. They all failed totally, and this motion will fail, too.
        It is not the House that will suffer, but the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland and their children. The House has come to a sorry state. When anything is to be done in Northern Ireland, people are called in who do not know what is happening there.
        We have the problem of decommissioning. It should never have been a problem. The terrorists should have been told from the very beginning, as the Prime Minister told me, that they must hand in their weaponry. Government and Opposition spokesmen said the same. Even the great Dick Spring said the same. But the Government could not do it, so they called in strangers— the peace envoy nominated by the President of the United States, the general from Canada and the former Prime Minister of Finland—people who knew nothing about Northern Ireland. They produced a report, which the Government were accused of rubbishing. All that was brought out of the report was the principles.
        I accept the principles, but I do not accept the report, because it came down on the side of mutuality. I must wait for the day when the IRA army council and the combined loyalist military command—two outlawed organisations—come to an agreement, and their arms will be handed in. What utter folly. When will those two illegal so-called army councils achieve mutuality and agree? That is what I am asked to accept in the talks. It is the policy accepted by the Government. It has been accepted by the Irish Government. It has been accepted as the basis of the talks. No right-thinking person will commit himself to that.
        And then we have trouble with parades. What happened? We had a person from the United Kingdom who had never seen a parade in his life and knew nothing about them. We also had a liberal Presbyterian ex-moderator who was on the record as being against parading. We had a Roman Catholic priest who was also on the record as being against it. Those were the people

        1041
        who came together to find a solution. So they brought in their solution, which was an attack on people who paraded. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has said that it was a definition of sectarianism. It was an attempt to tar and feather anyone who walked on the roads who happened to be a Protestant and believed in the Williamite revolution settlement, on which the constitution of this country is built. That is what it was all about.
        We were told that the answer was the commission. What will happen when the commission meets? What will happen when the full-blown recommendations are made? Will it be advisory? There will be interests that will prove to be at variance. How will it be possible to adjudicate and then mediate? It is not possible to be an adjudicator and a mediator at the same time.
        We are told that everything will be fixed up and we shall have the commission. It will meet and say, "No, the Orangemen are not going to walk down that particular road. Although they have walked down it for 180 years, they can no longer do so because it offends certain people."
        On the day of the parade people will turn up and the police officer in charge who is there to keep the peace says, "The only way that I can keep the peace is to let this orderly parade through." And he does that. From every throat of every opposing person there will be a cry for the officer's dismissal from the service. Why will that be? The cry will be made because the officer kept the peace.
        I want the House to know that the Orangemen walked to Dumcree church and walked back again. They walked that parade because the route was agreed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but Oban street in Portadown was closed to the Orangemen.
        I happened to be mere. The Orangemen were given a solemn undertaking that their one church parade of the year would not be affected. We know that the parade has taken place for 180 years. They were told, "You will go there and come back again." So two years ago they went on the route as usual. They had the return from the church to Portadown agreed. The route was legally set up by the police. But when the Orangemen came out of the church they were told, "The road is blocked. The IRA are in the Garvaghy road estate with their guns and you can't go down."
        The police changed their mind and said, "They will never go down that road." I am not an Orangeman, but I was asked to go to Dumcree by the Orangemen. They asked me to talk to the police, which I did. I talked to the assistant chief constable, Blair Wallace. It was in the middle of the night in Belfast. He said, "We will face the Orangemen down." I said, "What about facing down the men with the guns on the Garvaghy road estate?" The law breakers should have been faced down, not those who were keeping the law.
        I said to Blair Wallace, "You have been a friend of mine for years but I tell you that you are a fool because the Orangemen will go down that road. They will wait, wait and wait, and eventually they will go down that road." He said, "Never. You can go back to them and say that they will never go down that road. That is it."
        1042
        Why did the police not deal with the elements in the Garvaghy road? They did not because of the pressure of the southern Government and the Maryfield secretariat. A storm was stirred up about that, but eventually we went down the road. Let us remember that the last parade was not told that it could not go back down the road. It was open ended, and once the people reached the church the same thing happened. They had eventually to get down the road, because of a problem. People all over the Province said that if that happened it would be the end. The men from Dublin were exhorting the RUC to get stuck in to law-abiding citizens whose only crime was that they were going to a place of worship and wanted to get home.
        The House should realise that that cannot be done to the people of Northern Ireland all the time. People have to realise that there must be a democratic solution. What is the use of democracy if the people, through the ballot box, cannot appoint their spokesmen and urge the Government to take the right action? We know what happened. After that, of course, everything was blamed on Drumcree, but Drumcree had nothing to do with it; it was the people in the Garvaghy road. To make out that Drumcree parish church was the centre of some revolution is nonsense. The people who caused the trouble were in the Garvaghy road.
        The problem is spreading across the Province. We now have the problem in Drummore, which had never heard of it before. As my colleague pointed out, it is a well-orchestrated IRA plan that they will exploit every time, and there will be serious trouble. Yet we are told that we have to approve the order tonight.
        Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole concept of local agreements is nonsense, because even if agreement were reached between a loyalist organisation and the ordinary Roman Catholics living in the area, it would immediately be seized on by the IRA and a garbled version would come out? The whole thing would be blown out of the water by the IRA. Is not that the lesson that we should absorb from what happened when people have hitherto tried to talk to each other?
        Rev. Ian Paisley: There is not a place about which that could be more truly said than Dunloy, in my constituency. In Dunloy is a Presbyterian church where Orangemen have paraded for more than 100 years. Much pressure has been put on it. The present moderator of the Presbyterian church said, "As my people go to church on Sunday morning, they are told by the people in Dunloy, 'We've got the caretaker out of his house and we have it. You now don't have a full-time Minister, and we'll get your church as well.'" After these troubles, they went into the churchyard and desecrated the most prominent grave there, tearing up the moss that covered it and throwing it all around the churchyard. Then they broke all the windows in the area.
        Who are these people? As the Member of Parliament for that area, I was very concerned. A friend of mine knew many of the local people in Dunloy. With all our help, he brokered an agreement: that, on 26 November, an Orange service would go through to the church. The decent people of Dunloy said, "Yes, but we have to protest against it." We said, "You have your protest. We'll understand that, but as long as we get through." The people of Dunloy were so impressed by the way in which the Orangemen

        1043
        handled the situation—allowing no one to walk in a parade except by invitation, and limiting the numbers— that they withdrew their application and said, "We'll not protest. You can go."
        On the Sunday that the protest was to be held, IRA men from Loughguile and from the Mid-Ulster area moved in and told the people who had brokered the agreement with us, "You can't do that. You are going out on the street to stop this, and if you don't, we'll shoot you." They produced a gun and put it to a man's ear, and said, "That is what is going to happen", and it did happen. The police let it happen. They did not have enough power to put the procession through. Now those people tell us that they can do nothing, because they are under threat, which is exactly what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said. That is being repeated all over the place.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to neighbour being set against neighbour. What I have described is what is setting them one against the other. They are intimidated and run into the ground by gunmen. Mr. Adams boasts about that, and the police do not take him away. For three years he has been working to destroy our country and to break the law. People will exploit the situation even more. They are getting everything they want. They want 21 days to organise their rebellion.
        The House should know that no notice used to be given for traditional parades. That was not needed, because the police knew that they would take place on a certain day. When that day arrived, the local sergeant would confirm that it would take place as usual and arrangements were made. The House took away that traditional parade agreement. Why did they scrap it? Because of the Anglo-Irish agreement and the new Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
        We went to prison in protest about this issue, and the House laughed at us. Hon. Members are not laughing tonight about what happened last year. They should have listened to us and not gone ahead with this order. My hon. Friend and I have dealt with Hibernian processions, which go through predominantly Protestant areas. I resent what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said about people on the other side who would stop them. No one lays a finger on those Hibernians: they walk their traditional route and they will continue to do so.
        Mr. William Ross: Is it not a fact that, in living memory in Northern Ireland, there has not been an attack on any parade of the Ancient Order of Hibernians by the Protestant population?
        Rev. Ian Paisley: I know of no place or time in history since the drawing of the border and Northern Ireland remained within the United Kingdom when the Protestant population attacked an AOH parade. That is a traditional parade, but the traditional parade agreement has been thrown out. This order was hailed by the south of Ireland as a great step forward. It is certainly a step forward for the IRA. We are now going further and further into the mess and mire of this whole situation.
        1044
        We must draw back, because people will say, "If we cannot go to our church, as we have always walked to our church, the time has come to make a stand." Do not force law-abiding citizens to become lawless. There are plenty of lawless groups in Northern Ireland. Some lawless groups on the Protestant side are being courted by the Government and the Opposition.
        When I walk out in the morning and go down the Newtownards road, I see the great big notices put up by the Progressive Unionist party and Ulster Democratic party—the two fringe loyalist groups that are connected with Protestant paramilitaries—which say, "Carson brought in the guns. Paisley says, 'Hand them over'." And I am supposed to sit in quietness with those people, at a table.
        That slogan is all over Northern Ireland. Not only did those people write it on the site; they went to a new church that we were building, and wrote it there. It does not hurt me, because everyone knows where I stand on the issue. I have had bullets put through my bedroom window by Protestant paramilitaries, so I know something about it. I am not worried about myself, but I am now seriously worried about the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. They have had enough.
        I ask the House to be careful about what it does, and I worry about what Opposition Front Benchers have said. The matter needs careful consideration. We are talking about 21 days to give those in authority time to stop the parade. The longer we give them, the more they will be organised. What are people in Dungannon to do with the Ormeau bridge? Why do they have to bring people from the outlying areas of republicanism into the Ormeau road, and allow them to sleep them over in their houses? The local people in the Ormeau road were not causing the trouble.
        It should be remembered that every residents' organisation is led by an IRA man. The IRA controls those organisations, and it can exploit them. I say this to the House: do not go down this road, because it will end in disaster. Hold back, and consider. Why should Northern Ireland be governed, in times of difficulty, by commissions that are set up and present reports? The report that we are discussing has never been properly analysed by the House: I do not think that we have ever had a proper debate to consider it. It has never been submitted to a Committee of the House; it has simply been rammed through.
        Father Crilly, Dr. Dunlop and the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford university are not the men to make a decision about something that they have not had to live with. I think that it is time the House considered what it is doing, and had a proper evaluation of where this will lead. The chief constable said that, under the regulations, it would be impossible for him to do his job. It is a policing job, not a job for people who just think, "This is the way to do it." The place must be policed, but it makes the job of a chief constable—or any officer—impossible if, instead of using his professionalism and the opinions that he has after long service and experience, all that is set aside by people who do not know.

        1045
        I would be interested tonight—as, I know, would the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—to see who will be on the committee that will make these decisions. I trust that the House will think again.
        1.51 am
        Sir John Wheeler: We have had an interesting debate on this modest order. I understand that the House is, as it were, restive for rest, so I shall be as brief as possible.
        The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) have made some profound remarks about the character of public order events in Northern Ireland—remarks that the House would do well to heed. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South that the loyalist institutions have within their constitution an obligation not to be triumphalist, to keep the peace and to operate within the rule of law in their activities in Northern Ireland. That needs to be widely understood.
        The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster spoke with great passion, because he has suffered what few hon. Members in the present Parliament have suffered, and perhaps few, if any, Members of the Parliament that is to assemble in May are likely to suffer. He and his family have been under machine-gun fire in their home. They know what terrorism is and the evil of it. He is entitled to speak with the fire and determination that he did because of that personal experience. He and others were right to draw attention to the evil of Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein manipulating residents' groups to cause the maximum disruption during what is commonly called the marching season. The House should recognise where the fault lies. It is to be deplored. I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster for his kind references to myself. I am deeply obliged to him for that.
        After I had introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) raised a number of issues. He castigated the Government for not implementing the North commission report in full. The modest and brief debate that we have enjoyed illustrates to him the difficulty of implementing that report in full, a report with profound and, in some respects, radical recommendations, which, if they are to stand a chance of influence and success, must enjoy the support of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, some of whom have spoken in the debate. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the debate and realise that the Government's chosen course of consultation, proper analysis and a determination to introduce in the next Parliament legislation that can be supported, is the wisest course.
        The Government will proceed to appoint members of the commission for the narrow purpose of mediation, conciliation and education. It has not been easy to find people willing to serve on that body, but I hope that the Government will be able to announce the chairmanship and membership very shortly.
        The hon. Gentleman also referred to the codes of practice and other matters of some detail. All those have yet to be resolved and determined. They all take time. The evidence for the necessity of that time has surely been exposed in this short debate.
        1046
        I commend the order to the House.
        Question put:—
        The House divided: Ayes 59, Noes 6.

        Division No. 100]

        [1.57 am

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Kynoch, George

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Lidington, David

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Arbuthnot, James

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        MacKay, Andrew

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Barnes, Harry

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Bates, Michael

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Boswell, Tim

        Malone, Gerald

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Merchant, Piers

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Carrington, Matthew

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Clappison, James

        Paice, James

        Coe, Sebastian

        Pickles, Eric

        Conway, Derek

        Riddick, Graham

        Rowe, Andrew

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

        Spencer, Dr Robert

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Cran, James

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Stephen, Michael

        Fabricant, Michael

        Sweeney, Walter

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Gale, Roger

        Wells, Bowen

        Gallie, Phil

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Whittingdale, John

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Heald, Oliver

        Worthington, Tony

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

        Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr.Richard Ottaway

        Knapman, Roger

        NOES

        Beggs, Roy

        Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

        McCrea, Rev William

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Ross, William (E Londy)

        Mr. Peter Robinson and Rev. Martin Smyth.

        Taylor. Rt Hon John D (Stranaf'd)

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That the draft Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.

        MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY TO PARLIAMENT
        [Relevant documents Second report from the Public Service Committee of Session 1995–96, on ministerial accountability and responsibility (HC 313), the Government's response thereto (HC 67 of Session 1996–97) and the first report from the Public Service Committee of Session 1996–97, on ministerial accountability and responsibility (HC 234).]
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 March],
        That, in the opinion of this House, the following principles should govern the conduct of Ministers of the Crown in relation to Parliament:
        (1) Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Steps Agencies;
        (2) It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
        (3) Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute and the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, January 1997);
        (4) Similarly, Ministers should require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their directions to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil Service Code (January 1996).—[Mr. Carrington.]
        Question agreed to.

        POLICE (INSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY ASSISTANTS) BILL [LORDS]
        As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

        DANGEROUS DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
        As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

        Christian Millennium Projects
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]
        2.8 am
        Mr. Michael Alison: I am glad to have this opportunity late in the life of the present Parliament—not to mention late in the day—to raise a topic that bears as much on the future as on the past: the coming millennium celebrations, and the Christian input to the various projects that have been proposed.
        I am especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage for taking the trouble to listen to this short debate and to contribute to it. I must congratulate her on the clear and constructive analysis that she gave in her lecture at Crosby hall on 6 February about the spiritual scope and significance of the millennium event, including a useful guide to the date and time that the millennium is reached and formally starts.
        Obviously, we all owe more to Dionysius Exiguus— Dennis the Small—than most of us realise. I think that my right hon. Friend knows that some people in this place, in another place and outside are nevertheless severely disappointed that the Millennium Commission has offered so little endorsement and practical support for the notion that the millennium at perhaps its most fundamental level is a Christian event and landmark.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who once occupied the post of Secretary of State, said when he set up the Millennium Commission in 1994:
        "For many people, the third millennium has a spiritual significance as the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Christ."
        Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the most welcome and forthright statement said, in a letter to The Times, I think on 2 December 1996:
        "I have always been determined that people should be aware of whose millennium it is anyway. We shouldn't be ashamed of it being Christian. On the contrary, we want to identify it as a Christian event."
        That was well spoken, if I may say so.
        However, the spiritual dimensions of the millennium still seem to have been missed in terms of hard cash. There is a yawning black hole where there should be a pearl of some price. That is highlighted when one considers the grants being paid to Christian-based projects. Of the £767 million in grants paid to date, only 0.9 per cent. has been paid to Christian projects in the community, and only 2 per cent. has been longlisted in the final round of the Millennium Commission. Surely that is an inadequate expression of those very priorities that Ministers have espoused and expressed.
        If one looks in even more detail at the support committed by the commission for projects in rounds one and two, longlisted in round three and reserve-listed projects, one finds a grant total that reaches the huge sum of £1,767 million, of which specifically Christian projects have scored only £24 million—a derisory sum in all conscience, or 1 per cent. of the total. Indeed, the paid and committed portion of that £24 million comes only to £7 million, which is a mere snowflake on the volcano of grant.
        1050
        Other heads of expenditure include 22 per cent. of the total for science projects, 23 per cent. for leisure projects, 9 per cent. for community projects, 10 per cent. for education projects and 35 per cent. for environment projects. Worthy though those heads of expenditure are, they serve merely to underline how much land remains to be possessed if the promise of a significant and specifically Christian landmark on the millennium landscape—the cathedral, so to speak, of our era—is to be fulfilled.
        Against that background, I strongly urge the Millennium Commission, over which my right hon. Friend presides, to extend its procedures for project selection to a fourth round that will concentrate specifically on the spiritual dimension of the celebrations and on projects supporting faith, the family and young people.
        That would chime with my right hon. Friend's striking exposition in her Crosby hall speech of the idea of renaissance: regeneration and renewal, physical, personal and social. In a moving passage, she articulated a vision that struck me as being as practical as it is relevant. She said:
        "Individualisation and fragmentation within the communities of Western society is an increasing concern—elderly people isolated, and the world of work and of young people dominated by the computer screen rather than direct personal communication. The Millennium provides an opportunity for people of all ages and backgrounds to come together to meet their neighbours, perhaps for the first time. Street parties and fireworks can provide a one-off chance to do this, but I hope that we can make this contact of enduring and added value."
        There are a couple of projects of a specifically Christian character for which I would seek my right hon. Friend's notice, support and interest. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will mention at least a third in a short intervention that he intends to make presently.
        The first project is a northern one. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh wants to establish a museum or visitor centre to celebrate the tremendous Christian heritage of the ancient kingdom of Northumbria, which is the cradle of Christianity in this country, and produced giants of the calibre of St. Aidan, the Venerable Bede and St. Cuthbert.
        Such a centre could be ready for the millennium and perhaps even provide a home back in the north for the Lindisfarne Gospels. Alas, an approach to establish such a centre in Cramlington in Northumberland last year was turned down by the Millennium Commission. The new proposal on which I would focus on behalf of my hon. Friend will be centred on Durham, which is more in the middle of the region, and would incorporate a bid for the Lindisfarne Gospels to be released from the British Library. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider with sympathy and sensitivity that bid by one of her most distinguished younger ministerial colleagues.
        The other project of a specifically Christian character is one of which my right hon. Friend is well apprised, thanks to her generous provision of time and her receptivity; it is the so-called Christian millennium village project, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and I are sponsoring and have spoken to her about. She will know that that imaginative project— involving the environmental renovation of a derelict riverside site in London and, above all, the construction

        1051
        of a purpose-designed set of buildings for a practical outreach programme for families and young people in particular—has generated widespread cross-party and interdenominational support
        That project is not just another London metropolitan project: it is for the whole country, as evidenced by the explicit support that it has received from the two Anglican archbishops, including the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of Durham, Wakefield, Chelmsford and Monmouth. In addition, leaders of the Roman Catholic, Methodist and Baptist churches have all expressed their support for the project's general vision and purpose.
        I am content to let the Bishop of Durham have the last word. In a letter to my right hon. Friend on 28 February last, he wrote:
        "I am sure you are aware of the answers given by Lord Inglewood in the House of Lords on 17 February 1997 which seem to indicate a willingness to give more favourable consideration to Christian projects in a possible 4th round of the Millennium Commission. Up to now, only about 1 per cent. of the money allocated has gone to specifically Christian projects, but you have yourself endorsed the need to celebrate the millennium in a distinctively Christian way.
        The sponsors of "Millennium Village" are, I gather, meeting with you on 5 March and I would greatly hope that you could then give them an assurance that there is to be a fourth round in which special consideration would be given to Christian projects, and that their imaginative proposals for a "Millennium Village" could therefore be resubmitted."
        I am glad to allow the Bishop of Durham to have the last word in my speech, and I am sure that I have left enough time for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent.
        2.20 am
        Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On 15 October 1964, the electors of Barkston Ash conferred upon the House an extraordinary benefit, by sending to it my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). From that time, whether at Barkston Ash or at Selby, he has adorned the House. I was a long way from the House in 1964, but when I came, I found him—as I am sure that every new Member has—a friend, a counsellor, and a help. As a former chairman of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, I pay tribute to him not only for his great personal qualities, but for the extraordinary Christian witness that he has given the House throughout his time here. We are grateful for that.
        I am being allowed a word or two to present to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a scheme of which she has already heard something. To celebrate the millennium, a group of us believed that we should challenge every school in the United Kingdom to stage in the school year 1999–2000 an original dramatic production illustrative of some element of the life of Christ. We expect that this will be widely taken up by schools, and we have already secured the whole-hearted support of the Church of England, through all of whose committees the plan has gone.
        I have written to Cardinal Hume, who I understand is likely to be very receptive. We have support from the Headmasters Conference, the Secondary Heads Association, the chief inspector of Ofsted, Nick Tate of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and a host of other people. So far, nobody has thought that it was a poor idea.
        The idea is that schools should enter a festival at local level, drawing in, if they wish, their local communities to help them to produce it. They would be assessed by their
        1052
        local communities, and those that seemed to have particular merit would be entered for a regional festival round. I have reason to suppose that the Independent Television Network will cover that round and help us, although it is premature to say that. Our hope is that a distinctive group of productions will feature in the festival celebrations in Greenwich.
        All this is highly tentative at the moment. We have considerable expectations and hope, but we have nothing assured. We are seeking funding from the Millennium Commission. I suspect that the funding we need is not very great by comparison with that of many other projects.
        The purpose is to involve schools throughout the nation in studying one of the gospels—many of them, perhaps, almost for the first time—to give them an opportunity to demonstrate their understanding that the millennium is the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ, and to give tangible recognition throughout the nation of the fact that this is a celebration not only of the birth of Christ but of 2,000 years of Christian history, which has shaped the nation.
        At the moment, the project goes under the working title of Superstar 2000, but whether we shall keep it, I am not certain. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has already shown a friendly face to the suggestion, will smile upon our endeavour, and perhaps give us some practical advice and help on how we may carry it forward.
        2.24 am
        The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is an honour and a privilege to respond to this Adjournment debate introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He will know that I do so out of respect for his phenomenal service to this place in the past 33 years, as well as out of support for the themes that he has raised today. He has served as a Minister in many Departments. I know not only of the respect in which he is held in the House, but, having had the honour to visit his constituency, of the affection and admiration that his constituents have for him and, indeed, for his wife Sylvia Mary.
        As we approach the millennium, we are busy ensuring that the steps we take and the huge resource at our disposal—£1.6 billion through the national lottery allocated to the Millennium Commission—is used wisely and well, and forms a lasting legacy that will build communities, promote regeneration and reinforce the spiritual dimension in our communities.
        My right hon. Friend will know that I am not the dictator of the Millennium Commission. I am its humble chairman, and it is composed of nine independent commissioners, who take a range of views. Overall, we have sought to establish a pattern in which the themes have been regeneration, in its literal sense— environmental projects—and in the community sense. Those are the themes that bind people together and give them a sense of belonging and continuity at a time of great change.
        My right hon. Friend rightly points out that I have on a number of occasions sought to reinforce the message that the millennium is a Christian anniversary. It marks 2,000 years since the birth of Christ. It is a key landmark

        1053
        in the history of the Church. He will be aware that the Pope has declared the year 2000 a holy year for the Roman Catholic Church. Thirty-five million pilgrims are expected in Rome. The Pope will lead a party of Christian leaders of all denominations up Mount Sinai for a dedicated act of worship.
        Apart from Rome, we are further advanced than elsewhere in our plans and preparations. I was able in my speech at Crosby hall to set out the timetable so far, the dates already in the diary, the key messages, and our commitment to provide more information as we approach that crucial date. We have set up working groups with the different Churches and faith groups and with local authorities. We have established liaison with the royal household, and set up working parties to deal with overseas issues and with the media. We believe that this is a moment in time when people will want not only to celebrate but to reflect—a moment to take stock, a moment for renewal and regeneration, whether seen from a secular or spiritual perspective.
        My right hon. Friend referred to some of the figures from the Millennium Commission. So far, the Commission has awarded £844 million to capital projects across the United Kingdom. That includes some £10.3 million to nine specifically Christian projects, which will provide benefits not only to Christian congregations but to the wider community.
        The commission recently published its shortlist of third round projects, which will go forward for detailed appraisal. It contained an additional eight Church projects, seeking a total of £20.4 million pounds in grant. Of course, there have also been many initiatives which have been led by the Churches but which are not specifically Christian. An example I visited recently is the national discovery park in Liverpool, which, led by the Dean of Liverpool, received an offer of £27 million. I commend the dean for his activities.
        Other faith groups have been recognised. All are agreed that the message of the millennium should be inclusive, not exclusive. I admire the way in which all the faith groups have wanted the spiritual dimension of the millennium to be recognised, albeit with a respect and understanding for faiths other than the Christian faith. For example, we have committed £4.9 million to two projects put forward by Hindu organisations which are designed to foster multicultural awareness and inter-faith understanding.
        I could gladly give my right hon. Friend a full list of Christian projects for which the Millennium Commission grant has been approved or shortlisted. Several are particularly exciting. I am most interested in the Thornbury centre in Bradford. A grant of £1.2 million has been committed to providing a new community centre built on the site of a former church.
        The centre will greatly enhance the appearance of a large housing estate in an area of considerable economic disadvantage, and will provide a new focus for the local community. It will include facilities for recreation, vocational training, flexible worship, conferences and exhibitions, as well as a community restaurant. Elaine Appleby, who works there, is typical of the social entrepreneurs whom we want to support, where possible, with millennium resources. I have visited similar
        1054
        initiatives—St. Martha's in Nottingham and St. Mark's in Godalming in my own constituency—that enable Churches to perform their work in the 21st century.
        There are, however, many other ways in which the Millennium Commission has sought to support Churches. Four hundred churches are to be floodlit for the millennium with a £2.3 million grant. Bells will be supported—not only the bell tower at Basildon: £3 million has been committed to the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers' proposal for ringing in the new millennium. The money will pay for the founding of new bells and the restoration of old bells and belfries in 100 churches, so that, at noon on the first day of 2000, there can be a stirring peal of church bells throughout the land, which is a splendid way to greet the millennium year.
        My right hon. Friend referred particularly to the millennium Christian village project in Battersea. He will know that I have great personal sympathy for that project. The commissioners nevertheless took the view that, although the project would have a regenerative impact in Battersea, and would certainly have provided valuable Christian support for young people, it was not possible to support it in this round.
        I have to tell my right hon. Friend that, in the third round of applications, 1,011 projects submitted bids; of those, only 119 were selected for the long list. It will not be possible for the commission to support even those 119, once they have been through their detailed appraisal. My right hon. Friend can therefore see that the competition for funding was certainly intense.
        I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 6 March, saying:
        "I must pay tribute to the excellent work which was done to produce such a well worked-up proposal. I expect that the imagination and commitment which you were able to show, and continue to show, will mean that you achieve your objectives at the end of the day."
        I share the disappointment of those involved in the project, but I should like to address my right hon. Friend's point in respect of a possible fourth round.
        Certainly I and many other commissioners hope that it will be possible to have a fourth round. It would not be wise to make a formal announcement until we are clearer about the resources coming through in the long term, but I will certainly reflect to my fellow commissioners his request that the theme of faith, family and young people should be supported.
        In many other areas of the national lottery, such as sport and arts, we have indeed been moving towards investing in young people as much as in old buildings, and the new heritage legislation will enable us to involve young people and use lottery money for that purpose. Youth is one of the themes that the Millennium Commission has sought to endorse, as is science, along with the main regeneration theme.
        Let me inform my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby of some of the many other ways in which lottery money has already been helping Christian projects. So far, the score is about 238 awards, totalling about £30 million. The Arts Council gave £1.2 million to the Royal School

        1055
        of Church Music. Many organs are being restored. The heritage lottery fund has made 150 grants, totalling £17.8 million and, this week, another 22 more awards, totalling £4 million, were made. Churches throughout the country are benefiting from that opportunity.
        I especially welcome the largest grant—£2.5 million to Canterbury cathedral for an education centre, to tie in with the great focus on our Christian heritage that English Heritage is celebrating this year as we move towards the millennium.
        On a smaller scale, churches throughout the country are receiving assistance with bells and with restoration. A new visitor centre is to be built at Westminster cathedral. All Saints, Putney, where I worshipped as a child, received £96,000 for the Burne-Jones/William Morris stained-glass windows. The church of St. John the Evangelist, close to the House at Waterloo, received £217,000. St. Peter and St. Paul's church at Watlington received money for its bells. So it goes on.
        It is a wonderful opportunity to release congregations from the need to raise money for the restoration of their buildings, so that they may raise money for their mission—for their work in the community, which they often very much welcome.
        Many of our cathedrals have received help, not only Canterbury but Chester, York Minster, St. Edmundsbury, Southwark, Bradford, Peterborough: all have received money or are shortlisted for help.
        My hon. Friends know that I want to build communities as well as buildings. That is why it is so important that the Millennium Commission has set aside £200 million for millennium awards for people who invest in their communities.
        1056
        I take to heart the message of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—we do need to involve and inspire young people in the millennium, and excite them about it. I shall talk further about the sources of assistance that might be able to make a contribution, either through the Millennium Commission's festival programme or perhaps through the Arts Council, which, like the sports and heritage lottery boards, is likely to fund initiatives in its field of endeavour that chime with the aims and objectives of the millennium.
        All those organisations regard the millennium not only as the moment for enjoyment, for a street party, for a celebration, for knowing our neighbours and friends, but as a moment of more lasting significance. We have set in train discussions with Church leaders who reinforce that message. Details are being settled of national millennium services, international events and a regional programme.
        We believe, however, that Christian precepts should underpin all our work implicitly, if not explicitly. The millennium is a Christian anniversary. The impressive activities that churches are already planning give ample testimony to the fact that we endorse that message. The wide range of Church-based and Church-backed initiatives already being supported by the Millennium Commission and other funding bodies are an excellent start. I believe that, in the run-up to the millennium and during the millennium year, the Christian faith, heritage and culture of the United Kingdom are being, and will continue to be, cherished and celebrated.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Three o 'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Metropolitan Police Committee's advice on proposed objectives for the Metropolitan police in 1997–98. [21370]

  Mr. Howard
  Following consultation with the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Committee and the Commissioner, I have approved the following objectives for the Metropolitan police in 1997–98;

  (i) To increase the security of the capital against terrorism;

  (ii) to solve at least 20 per cent. of burglaries, 15 per cent. of street robberies and at least maintain at the present level detections for offences of supplying illegal drugs;

  (iii) to reduce crimes of local concern in identified crime prone areas on every division;

  (iv) to improve public reassurance through visible, effective patrolling and problem solving;

  (v) to improve the briefing, tasking and debriefing of operational officers;

  (vi) to equip operational staff with the management information they need to do their jobs;

  (vii) to structure our central support services to ensure the best support to operational policing.

  These objectives and details of how to address the Government's key objectives for policing are set out in the "Metropolitan Police Policing Plan 1997–98" which the Commissioner is issuing with my approval. I will be sending copies to all hon. Members whose constituencies fall wholly or partly within the Metropolitan police district and arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary on complaints and discipline in the Metropolitan police. [21392]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have today placed in the Library a note of the recommendations from the report, together with the Commissioner's responses and the police authority responses, which take into account the advice my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received from the Metropolitan Police Committee.

  Asylum
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers from Saudi Arabia have been granted(a) refugee status, (b) exceptional leave to remain and (c) permanent residence in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years by year of arrival. [20930]
  596
  Mr. Kirkhope
  During the period 1987 to 1996, a total of 10 nationals of Saudi Arabia were granted asylum, or refused asylum but granted exceptional leave, in the United Kingdom. During the same period, fewer than 10 Saudi nationals, previously granted asylum or exceptional leave, were accepted for settlement—this excludes any such persons subsequently accepted for settlement on non-asylum related grounds.

  A full breakdown of the above, by the year of arrival in the United Kingdom, is not available.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open Government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20940]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Data Protection Registrar

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  In addition, consideration is being given to the possibility of including all executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  (b) Scrutiny by the Audit Commission

  None (the Audit Commission has responsibility only for local government).

  (c) Scrutiny by the National Audit Office

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Criminal Cases Review Commission

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Data Protection Registrar

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  Parole Board

  Police Complaints Authority

  (d) Statutory provisions for Open Government

  The following executive NDPBs are required by statute to publish annual reports:

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Criminal Cases Review Commission

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Data Protection Registrar

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Horserace Totalisator Board

  Parole Board

  Police Complaints Authority

  597
  Those NDPBs which are subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are also subject to the code of practice on open government, and other NDPBs are being asked to develop codes of practice on similar lines.

  (e) Performance Indicators

  Home Office NDPBs are encouraged by the relevant sponsoring unit to develop and publish performance indicators and associated targets wherever possible.

  (f) Provisions under the Citizen's Charter

  Those executive NDPBs which offer a service to the public are encouraged to adopt the principles set out in the citizens charter and to publicise how these are being reflected in their working arrangements—for instance, the Commission for Racial Equality has published a statement of charter standards and the Gaming Board has published customer service targets in its annual report.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20906]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Publication of annual reports

  Alcohol Education and Research Council (statutory)

  Commission for Racial Equality (statutory)

  Criminal Cases Review Commission (statutory)

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (statutory)

  Data Protection Registrar (statutory)

  Gaming Board for Great Britain (statutory)

  Horserace Betting Levy Board (statutory)

  Horserace Totalisator Board (statutory)

  Parole Board (statutory)

  Police Complaints Authority (statutory)

  (b) Publication of annual accounts

  Alcohol Education and Research Council (statutory)

  Commission for Racial Equality (statutory)

  Criminal Cases Review Commission (statutory)

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (statutory)

  Data Protection Registrar (statutory)

  Gaming Board for Great Britain (voluntary)

  Horserace Betting Levy Board (statutory)

  Horserace Totalisator Board (statutory)

  Parole Board (statutory)

  Police Complaints Authority (statutory)

  (c) Publication of the minutes of meetings

  The Commission for Racial Equality keeps copies of the Commissioners' monthly meetings, which are available to the public. (voluntary arrangement)

  (d) Publication of the agendas of meetings

  The Commission for Racial Equality keeps copies of the Commissioners' monthly meetings, which are available to the public. (voluntary arrangement)
  598

  (e) Publication of registers of members' interests

  The Police Complaints Authority and Horserace Betting Levy Board have registers of members' interests which are currently not published. The Commission for Racial Equality voluntarily publishes a register of its members' interests in its annual report.

  In addition, the Gaming Board plans to set up a register and the Horserace Totalisator Board are considering this issue.

  Firearms
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the disposal of weapons banned under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [20693]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The majority of the lawfully held weapons which will become banned under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 will be destroyed by the police in accordance with local police arrangements. Some weapons which are compatible with current police firearms standards may be retained for police training purposes, others of particular interest may be taken into local museum collections.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a category A inmate awaiting determination of extradition proceedings can be held or apply to be held in Northern Ireland. [20367]

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. The Extradition Act 1989 makes no provision for a separate jurisdiction for Northern Ireland. Under section 9 of the Extradition Act, the court of committal can only remand a person in custody to a prison in England and Wales.

  Immigration Forms
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace the current application forms for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [21371]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The current application forms expire on 14 April 1997. Revised versions of the six existing forms have been prescribed, together with a new form for those applying for an extension of stay or indefinite leave to remain following the refusal of asylum. These will be valid until 14 April 1998. From today until 14 April 1997 applications may be made on either the newly prescribed forms or the existing versions. Only the newly prescribed versions may be used for applications made on or after 15 April 1997. The new forms will be available shortly from the application forms unit—0181 760 2233—and copies have been placed in the Library.

  John Kinsella
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a decision on his review of the case of John Kinsella. [20534]
  599
  Mr. Kirkhope
  My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the case of John Kinsella should be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. A letter was sent from the Home Office to the Court of Appeal on 17 March 1997.

  Scientific Procedures (Dogs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps were taken to ensure that the dogs acquired from sources(a) within the European Union and (b) outside the European Union used in scientific procedures during 1995 were purpose bred. [20659]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The provenance of imported dogs is routinely checked. In 1995, all such dogs were purpose-bred for laboratory use.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the present humanitarian situation in Kenya; and if he will make a statement. [20971]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Much of Kenya is currently experiencing drought conditions, the worst affected areas being in eastern and north-eastern provinces. The British Government have provided emergency assistance totalling £3.9 million through Oxfam and the World Food Programme, mainly for the provision and distribution of food for pastoralist communities. The long rains, expected at this time, are now beginning to fall in some parts of the country. We are continuing to monitor the situation carefully.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to promote cleaner and more efficient energy use. [19453]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government actively promote energy efficiency through a wide range of initiatives and programmes across all sectors, including information and advice, voluntary schemes, and selective use of grants, incentives and regulation. The Government also established, and fund, the Energy Saving Trust. The trust's resources for the years to 1999–2000 were increased in the November Budget by £21.5 million, to £71.5 million.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list(a) the number and (b) the cost of (i) television advertisements, (ii) national newspaper advertisements and (iii) other advertisements that will be made in total as part of the energy efficiency advertising campaign; [20967]

  (2) how many calls have been received by Intelmark from members of the public in response to the current energy efficiency advertising campaign; [20969]
  600
  (3) what is the total cost of the current energy efficiency advertising campaign; [20965]

  (4) if he will give the dates that the current energy efficiency advertising campaign (a) began and (b) will end; [20964]

  (5) how many additional inquiries from members of the public have been made to local energy advice centres, as a result of the current energy efficiency advertising campaign; [20968]

  (6) if he will list (a) the number and (b) the cost of (i) television advertisements, (ii) national newspaper advertisements and (iii) other advertisements to date as part of the energy efficiency advertising campaign; [20966]

  (7) how much money is being paid to Intelmark to deal with inquiries from members of the public as part of the current energy efficiency campaign. [20970]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  These are matters for the Energy Saving Trust, the independent private company which has developed and is running the current energy efficiency campaign.

  Flood Alleviation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for how much of the year it is estimated that water will flow naturally through the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton flood alleviation scheme channel; and for how much of the year water will have to be pumped into the channel in order to keep the water moving. [20951]

  Mr. Clappison
  Water will flow naturally through the flood relief channel all year round without the need for pumping.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens' charter. [20943]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department are listed in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies 1996". A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Thursday 22 February 1996, Official Report, column 259. Since then, Central Manchester development corporation has been wound up. Otherwise, the position in respect of the bodies covered by that answer remains unchanged.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20903]
  601
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department are listed in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies 1996". A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on Tuesday 27 February 1996, Official Report, columns 454–55. Since then, Central Manchester development corporation has been wound up. Otherwise, the position in respect of the bodies covered by that answer remains unchanged.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of Water Services publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20952]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on Monday 22 July 1996 Official Report, column 29.

  Commission for the New Towns
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current remit of the Commission for the New Towns; and if he will make a statement. [20851]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The current remit of the Commission for the New Towns is to continue disposing of the remaining new town land holdings and other assets at a rate consistent with maximising receipts and securing value for money, while also disengaging from its remaining liabilities in an orderly cost-effective manner.

  The role of the commission after March 1998 was addressed in the reply given on 11 March 1997 by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration Official Report, columns 120–21.

  Details of how the commission carried out its remit can be found in its annual report and accounts 1995–96, copies of which were laid before Parliament on 15 October 1996.

  Millennium Park (Grimsby)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce his decision on the application for planning permission made by Kestonbond Hoist Ltd. of Laceby, North East Lincolnshire, to build its proposed millennium park in Grimsby. [21163]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No decision on whether the application to which my hon. Friend refers, should be called in for determination by the Secretary of State, can now be made until after the general election.

  Housing
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the scheme for construction contracts under the Housing Grant, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 will become operative. [21138]
  602
  Mr. Clappison
  The consultation paper, "Making the Scheme for Construction Contracts", which the Department of the Environment published last November, pointed out that it was reasonable to assume that the scheme would not be laid before Parliament before spring 1997. We have made good progress with the consultation exercise but it is now clear that we will not be laying the scheme in the current Session.

  The consultation document canvassed views about the need for an "adjustment period" between the making of the scheme and the implementation of the complete legislative package. The responses showed that an adjustment period of a few months could well be needed. The precise duration may depend, to some extent, on the date the scheme is approved by Parliament.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will implement revised arrangements for administering European structural funds for England. [21388]

  Mr. Curry
  Following my announcement of 3 December 1996,Official Report, column 580, we notified the European Commission about the revised arrangements, and issued draft administrative guidance to programme monitoring committee partners, the local authority associations and the Training and Enterprise Councils National Council. The consultation demonstrated general support for introducing a more strategic, integrated approach to the administration of European structural fund programmes in England through the introduction of action plans and a single European regional development fund vote. Detailed points have been made about the implementation of this approach which the Government will consider further.

  We expect the European Commission to agree the 1997 to 1999 objective 2 programmes during April. To ensure that work on the implementation of these programmes can proceed without delay, we shall therefore finalise and issue the administrative guidance as soon as possible.

  The Government have taken account of the views of local partners about the position in the Mersyside objective 1 area where, as with objective 5(b) areas, there is an on-going six-year programme covering the period until December 1999. In all these areas, the revised arrangements will apply where the appropriate programme monitoring committees wish to adopt them for the remaining life of the current programmes.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the final receipt from the sale of the Housing Corporation's loan portfolio to NatWest Markets. [21389]

  Mr. Curry
  The purchase price will be subject to changes in the underlying portfolio and to movements in the gilt rate until completion on 26 March, and I cannot therefore give a figure for the final sale receipt until after Parliament has risen. However, I shall write to my hon. Friend when the final figure is available, and place copies of the letter in the House Libraries.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has yet completed the sale of the Building Research Establishment. [21423]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Yes. The sale transaction was completed earlier today.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the mean(a) winter season and (b) annual concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at each national air quality monitoring site in each year since 1986–87, or the first year when the site commenced monitoring. [20276]

  Mr. Clappison
  A copy of the requested information, for national automatic air quality monitoring sites, has been placed in the Library of the House. Statistical information on air quality, including nitrogen dioxide, is also available in the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Statistics No. 18, 1996" and "Air Pollution in the United Kingdom: 1995" published on behalf of the Department by the National Environmental Technology Centre. Copies of both reports have been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Nirex Reports
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that Nirex prepares quantitative analysis of the in-model and out-of-model factors which could significantly affect the calculated risk produced by Nirex 97. [20677]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. However, Nirex will need to satisfy the Environment Agency of the robustness of its safety case for any underground repository.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will send Cumbria county council copies of the Nirex reports N94, N96, N97, N98 and N99; [20676]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Nirex DSAT reports N95, N96, N97, N98 and N99. [20955]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department does not have copies of these reports.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the relationship between the identified geological features and the measured responses reported in Nirex report 5/96/003; [20678]

  (2) what period of time will be allowed for independent peer review of the document Nirex 97. [20679]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information should be requested from UK Nirex Ltd.

  Business Rates
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about delays to preparations for, or provision of information about, the proposed business rate relief for 604
  village shops and similar businesses; and if he will make a statement on the timetable for implementing such relief. [20453]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have received a number of representations about rate relief for village shops. To allow local authorities sufficient time to prepare for the scheme, we intend to bring the rate relief measures into force from 1 April 1998.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals have been put to him, since 1 January 1995, from organisations representing small businesses, for(a) abolition of the business rates system and its replacement by another system for raising revenue and (b) fundamental changes in this system as it affects small businesses; and which proposals were received from more than one such organisation. [20452]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have received a number of different proposals from organisations representing small businesses for the reform of the rating system.

  Harbour Porpoises
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to identify special areas of conservation, under the EU habitats and species directive, for harbour porpoises; and if he will make a statement. [20518]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. The available scientific evidence is insufficient to identify sites which meet the requirements set out in article 4(1) of the directive relating to aquatic species which range over wide areas.

  Land Reclamation
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land has been reclaimed by development corporations since their inception; and if he will make a statement. [20470]

  Mr. Curry
  The urban development corporations have made substantial progress in the reclamation of derelict and contaminated land.

  A total of 2,976.3 hectares of land had been reclaimed up to 31 March 1996.

  Pollution Inspectorate (Report)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the report TR-Z2–11 (Oldfield 95) prepared for HMIP. [20691]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. This is a matter for the Environment Agency.

  Go-Karts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current arrangements for health and safety inspections carried out at go-kart circuits; and if he will make a statement. [20539]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Operators of go-karts are either employers or self-employed people conducting an undertaking. As such, they are subject to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and relevant regulations under the Act.
  605
  Circuits are inspected by either the Health and Safety Executive or local authorities depending on the main activity at the premises.

  Building Regulations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions are included in the Building Regulations 1991(a) to ensure that underground drainage systems are resistant to damage by rats and (b) to prevent rats escaping from the sewerage systems; and if he will make a statement. [20987]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Building Regulations 1991 are cast in functional form, and as such contain no specific guidance on protecting underground drainage systems from rats. However guidance on the construction of drainage systems is provided in the approved document to part H of the Building Regulations, and includes advice on measures to deal with infestation of drains and private sewers by rodents.

  Sewer Baiting
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the legal responsibility of local authorities and the water service companies with respect to sewer baiting. [20988]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is no specific duty on water and sewerage companies in relation to the control of rats in sewers. However, all sewerage undertakers have programmes to control and reduce the number of rats in their systems. This includes the use of baits in pumping stations and air vents to stop rats entering the system, or on ledges within sewers.

  Local authorities have a long-standing duty to keep themselves informed about the sufficiency of drainage systems in their area to ensure that they do not pose a threat to public health. Failure to control rat infestations on property could be enforceable by the local authority environmental health officer under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, if it is judged to be a statutory nuisance.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Prime Minister's Question Time
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a staement on(a) his assessment of, and (b) consultations on, possible changes to the format of Prime Minister's Question Time; and what was the outcome. [20451]

  Mr. Newton
  I have nothing further to add to my speech in the debate on parliamentary procedure on 11 July 1996,Official Report, columns 631–71.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Standing Orders to limit the time taken by Front-Bench spokespersons on speeches at the Scottish Grand Committee. [20448]
  606
  Mr. Newton
  I think matters of this kind are better dealt with informally.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Ms Marie Younie
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received concerning the case of Marie Younie and the governing body of Belfairs community college in Leigh; and if she will make a statement concerning the conduct of the governing body and the Funding Agency for Schools in relation to their treatment of Ms Younie and the legal costs involved in her case. [20633]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend has received many representations in support of both the governing body and Ms Younie since the breakdown in their relations. It is not possible to guarantee good working relations in any occupation and it is particularly unfortunate when this happens in schools. Nevertheless, this is an internal school matter. It is for the governing body to determine what action is deemed appropriate, but the Funding Agency for Schools is responsible for ensuring propriety in the use of public funds by grant-maintained schools.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will rank primary schools in order of the proportion of children eligible for free school meals. [20509]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information on the proportion of children eligible for free meals for any particular school is not published centrally.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Bills her Department and its predecessor Department have sponsored in each of the last 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19772]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The Department has sponsored a total of 32 Government Bills between 1982 and 1997. The breakdown for each year is as follows:

  Bill

  Result

  1981–82

  Employment Bill

  Passed

  1982–83

  Education (Fees and Awards) Bill

  Passed

  1983–84

  Education (Grants and Awards) Bill

  Passed

  Trade Union Bill

  Passed

  1984–85

  Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill

  Withdrawn

  Further Education Bill

  Passed

  1985–86

  Education Bill (Lords)

  Passed

  Education (No.2) Bill

  Passed

  Education (Amendment) Bill

  Passed

  Sex Discrimination Bill (Lords)

  Passed

  Wages Bill

  Passed

  1986–87

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill

  Passed

  1987–88

  Education Reform Bill

  Passed

  Employment Bill

  Passed

  1988–89

  Dock Work Bill

  Passed

  Employment Bill

  Passed

  1989–90

  Education (Student Loans) Bill

  Passed

  Employment Bill

  Passed

  607

  Bill

  Result

  1990–91

  School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill

  Withdrawn

  School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No.2) Bill

  Passed

  1991–92

  Education (Schools) Bill

  Passed

  Further and Higher Education Bill

  Passed

  Offshore Safety Bill

  Passed

  1992–93

  Education Bill

  Passed

  Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill

  Passed

  1993–94

  Education Bill (Lords)

  Passed

  Sunday Trading Bill

  Passed

  1994–95

  (Disability Discrimination Bill

  Passed Supporter)

  (Jobseekers Bill

  Passed Supporter)

  1995–96

  Education (Student Loans) Bill

  Passed

  Nursery Education and Grant Maintained Schools Bill

  Passed

  1996–97

  Education Bill

  In Process

  Skills Mismatch
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the extent of skills mismatch on a regional basis. [19470]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department funds an annual survey of employers' recruitment difficulties which provides data at regional level and monitors similar data from the CBI. Recruitment difficulties tend to be higher in the southern regions of the country. However, they are generally lower in these regions than they were at the peak of the economic cycle in 1990. Many recruitment difficulties may not be due to skills mismatch.

  Employment Service
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what performance targets will be set to ensure that the Employment Service achieves its aims and objectives in 1997–98. [21391]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Employment Service's aim is to promote a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market by helping unemployed people into work, while ensuring they understand and fulfil the conditions for receipt of jobseeker's allowance. This aim is supported by five objectives.

  I have set the Employment Service targets for each of its objectives as follows:

  Objective A:

  To offer unemployed people, particularly the longer-term unemployed and others at a disadvantage in the labour market, help and advice in finding work or appropriate training; and to encourage employers to recruit them.

  Targets

  1. To place 1.75 million unemployed people into work, of whom 1,050,000 million are JSA claimants.

  2. 47.5 per cent. of total JSA claimant placings to be long-term (six months plus) claimants.

  3. To place into work 75,000 JSA claimants out of work for two years or more.

  4. 43 per cent. positive outcomes for JSA claimants invited to a 12-month advisory interview.

  5. 150,000 ES clients to start on training for work.

  608

  Objective B:

  To offer people with disabilities particular help and advice in finding and retaining work or appropriate training; and to help and encourage employers to make such opportunities available to them.

  Target:

  6. 4.8 per cent. of total unemployed placings achieved to be people with disabilities

  Objective C:

  To advise jobseekers of the labour market conditions for receipt of jobseeker's allowance and to ensure that those receiving it are available for and actively seeking work, where appropriate by requiring specific activities of individual claimants.

  Targets:

  7. 10 per cent. of initial claim enquiries not to be pursued as new claims.

  8. 145,000 submissions to adjudication where there is an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking or willing to accept work.

  9. 70 per cent. of adjudication decisions made within 14 days.

  10. 97 per cent. of Training for Work allowance payments to be accurate.

  11 To ensure 90 per cent. of claims to JSA are passed to the Benefits Agency within seven days from date of claim.

  12. To ensure that the accuracy of ES activity on a JSA claim is 97 per cent.

  Objective D:

  To provide services to all clients in accordance with published standards and expectations, developed in line with the citizens charter initiative.

  Standard:

  13. To deliver the standards of service in the jobseeker's charter.

  Objective E:

  To manage the delivery of programmes and services efficiently, effectively and economically, and within the resources available.

  Target:

  14. To achieve £40 million in efficiency savings.

  In addition, the Employment Service will be measured against the following criteria, to ensure that it is satisfactorily operating the jobseeker's allowance:

  to achieve effective joint working between ES and BA;

  to improve the service to jobseekers;

  jobseekers should improve the effectiveness and intensity of their jobsearch;

  the intervention regime operates effectively, both qualitatively and quantitatively; and staff and clients understand the purpose of jobseeker's agreements and use them effectively.

  Remploy
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets Remploy has been set in its 1997–98 annual performance agreement. [21390]

  Mr. Paice
  My noble friend the Minister of State has written to the chairman of Remploy approving the 1997–98 annual performance agreement between the Department and the company. This agreement covers the
  609
  Year from 1 April 1997 It has been negotiated by the chief executive of the Employment Service on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The targets are:
  the average number of disabled people employed by Remploy Ltd. will be at least 9,800;
  the average number of disabled people employed under the Interwork scheme will be at least 3,000;
  at least 200 disabled employees will move from Remploy factories to Interwork, having been employed there for at least one year, or from Interwork or factories to open employment;
  Remploy Ltd. will keep within a total unit cost target (operating deficit per disabled worker) of £10,000;
  the unit of cost of Interwork should be no more than £4,400;
  Remploy Ltd. will keep within an operating deficit of £99 million (including reorganisation costs).

  Estimated total expenditure on ill-health retirements

  Maintained schools sector

  Heads

  Other teachers

  Other sectors

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  £ million

  Number of teachers

  1990–91

  273

  1,119

  1,176

  2,295

  7,313

  14,882

  22,195

  4,730

  5,972

  10,702

  1991–92

  320

  1,278

  1,300

  2,578

  8,167

  16,722

  24,889

  5,215

  6,498

  11,713

  1992–93

  376

  1,413

  1,408

  2,821

  9,072

  18,552

  27,624

  5,830

  7,126

  13,956

  1993–94

  450

  1,632

  1,595

  3,227

  10,231

  20,618

  30,849

  6,474

  7,772

  14,246

  1994–95

  517

  1,961

  1,842

  3,803

  11,725

  23,475

  35,200

  6,862

  7,924

  14,786

  1995–96

  574

  2,176

  1,972

  4,148

  12,841

  25,627

  38,468

  7,627

  8,924

  16,551

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 March,Official Report, columns 346–47, what was the role of Professor Caddy in relation to evaluating evidence concerning the crash of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [20605]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In 1996, Professor Caddy conducted an independent scientific review of forensic analysis cases carried out at the Forensic Explosives Laboratory— formerly the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment—which might have been affected as a result of the contamination of a centrifuge with a high explosive, RDX. The forensic analysis of Lockerbie evidence was carried out at this laboratory. Professor Caddy's report stated"it can only be concluded that the results from all cases remain a true measure of the presence of the explosive RDX".

  This statement covered the Lockerbie case.

  Government Communications Headquarters
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce a decision on the options presented in the consultants' review of future needs of GCHQ; and if he will make a statement. [20632]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The study into GCHQ's future accommodation needs, and how they will be met, is being conducted by an in-house team of civil servants with professional advisers. The outcome will be presented to 610
  The text of the annual performance agreement has been placed in the Library.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent in each year from 1990 to 1996 on the teachers' early retirement scheme in respect of retirements on grounds of ill-health; and what was the number of(a) male and (b) female teachers covered in each year, broken down in respect of (i) class teachers and (ii) head teachers in (1) England and (2) Wales. [15157]

  Mrs. Gillan

  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: The estimated expenditure on ill-health retirements and the number of male and female teachers by grade and sector is shown in the table. These are all teachers who were in receipt of ill-health pensions in the year in question.

  the director of GCHQ this spring. If it is concluded that the private finance initiative is likely to offer a viable solution, Ministers will be consulted and an announcement made as soon as possible thereafter.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of GCHQ. [20627]

  Mr. Rifkind
  GCHQ has had to adapt quickly to the world's changes, but the need for good intelligence to guide policy making, crisis management and military operations remains as strong as ever. GCHQ will continue to make a major contribution to the nation's security well into the next century.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the terms of reference for the consultants' review of future needs of GCHQ; and if he will make a statement. [20630]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 17 January 1997, column 424.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the findings of the consultants' review of future requirements of GCHQ; and if he will make a statement. [20629]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Any advice that GCHQ has received from the professional advisers engaged for this study will include privileged or confidential information which, if disclosed, might affect GCHQ's legal or commercial position, or those of third parties. I do not therefore propose to publish this information.
  611
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis the contract to carry out a review of future needs of GCHQ was tendered; how many bids were made; what criteria were used to decide the successful bidder; what was the cost of the review; and if he will make a statement. [20631]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The review is being conducted internally by GCHQ; a number of external advisers are involved but GCHQ maintains control of the study. The advisers' contracts were tendered and awarded in accordance with standard public sector procurement practice in order to ensure value for money in the delivery of these services. It is not Government policy to provide details of the expenditure of the intelligence and security agencies.

  Family Reunion Applications
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current number of family reunion applications from nationals at

  Publish

  Annual reports

  Annual accounts

  Minutes of meetings

  Agendas of meetings

  Register of members interests

  British Council

  1Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Britain-Russia Centre

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Commonwealth Institutes in London and Edinburgh

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Great Britain-China Centre

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  2Yes

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (voluntary)

  No

  No

  3Yes

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  1 Under the provisions of the Charities Act 1993.

  2 Executive committee members only.

  3 From 1 April 1997.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit

  Publish

  Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner

  Scrutiny by Audit Commission

  Scrutiny by NAO

  Statutory provisions for open government

  Performance indicators

  Performance under citizens charter

  British Council

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Britain-Russian Centre

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Commonwealth Institutes in London and Edinburgh

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Great Britain-China Centre

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Westminster Foundation For Democracy

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  612
  British missions in (a) Kenya, (b) Ethiopia, (c) Eritrea, (d) Egypt and (e) elsewhere at the latest date for which information is available. [20928]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The number of family reunion applications at the British embassy in Addis Ababa from Somali nationals in 1996 was 603. The number of family reunion applications from nationals of other countries, or of applications at other British missions is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20904]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the following table:

  Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20942]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the following table:

  Entry Clearance Fees (Bangladesh)
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of fees charged in pounds sterling for applications for entry clearance in Bangladesh; what was the level of fees charged on(a) 1 January 1996 and (b) 1 January 1994; and if he will make a statement. [20428]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Entry clearance fees are set in sterling at rates which apply worldwide. The fees which applied on the dates in question can be found in the Consular Fees Order 1989 No. 152 (as amended), the Consular Fees Order 1995 No. 1617 and the Consular Fees Order 1996 No. 1915. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Somali Nationals
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications have been received at British missions from Somali nationals seeking family reunion in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [20929]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The number of family reunion applications at the British embassy in Addis Ababa from Somali nationals in 1996 was 603. Neither figures for previous years nor applications from Somali nationals at missions in other countries are held centrally. They could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Thomas Hamilton
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when Ministers were informed that Thomas Hamilton of Dunblane was a police informer. [20656]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Cullen's inquiry looked very closely into Thomas Hamilton's background and his relationship with the police and no information came to light to suggest that he had ever been a police informant. Inquiries of the four forces in whose area Thomas Hamilton ran boys' clubs and of the Scottish crime squad have confirmed this.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that organophosphates will not in future be used to protect British troops. [20336]

  The Prime Minister
  [answer 18 March 1997]: The Ministry of Defence aims to provide the best available means to protect its military personnel, including, where appropriate, the use of pesticides for environmental health purposes. I am advised that pesticides in the services' inventory are kept under review to ensure that appropriate products are available for use in a variety of situations. Some organophosphate pesticides will continue to be included in the inventory as long as these are judged to provide the best available protection in particular areas of actual or potential deployment.
  614

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister in how many cases in the past 12 months he was advised that the cost of answering a parliamentary question would exceed £450; and in how many of those cases he declined to provide an answer on grounds of disproportionate cost. [20651]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd) on 27 February, Official Report, column 320.

  Parliamentary Delegations
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes there are in the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union. [21454]

  The Prime Minister
  Following the recent death of Martin Redmond, who served as a member of the United Kingdom delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union from 1987, the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has been appointed as a representative in place of Mr. Redmond and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has been appointed as a substitute.

TRANSPORT

  Worcester Transport Package
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide guidance to Hereford and Worcester county council on the steps it needs to take to demonstrate that it has consulted local people in respect of its next package bid for Worcester; and if he will make a statement. [20808]

  Mr. Watts
  If Hereford and Worcester county council needs guidance on any aspect of developing the transport package for Worcester, including the adequacy of its public consultation arrangements, they should consult officials at the Government office for the west midlands or my Department.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the passenger forecasts for Croydon tramlink. [21049]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a commercial matter for Tramtrack Croydon Ltd., the private sector consortium which has won the concession to build, operate and maintain Croydon tramlink.

  Driving Test Centre, Aylesbury
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the driving test centre in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. [21024]

  Mr. Bowis
  The lease for the present driving test centre in Aylesbury expires on 21 June 1997. The Driving Standards Agency is negotiating a short-term lease to
  615
  remain at the centre until an alternative property, offering better facilities for candidates and examiners, can be found within the town.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of future funding plans for the Jubilee line extension on the safety of the line. [21025]

  Mr. Bowis
  There has been no change in the position on safety, which remains the first priority for London. Underground Ltd. in all aspects of its undertaking, including the Jubilee line extension.

  Road Traffic Accidents (Hemsworth)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal road traffic accidents occurred in Hemsworth in (i) 1979, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1996. [20720]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not readily available by parliamentary constituency. Information is available by local authority, and I list the figures for Wakefield metropolitan district council.

  Accidents in Wakefield district by road class and severity

  Year of accident

  Accident severity

  1st road class

  1979

  1990

  1995

  Fatal

  'A' road

  15

  7

  6

  Other

  17

  16

  8

  All roads

  32

  23

  14

  Serious injury

  272

  330

  221

  Slight injury

  830

  849

  981

  All roads

  1,102

  1,179

  1,202

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20933]

  Mr. Bowis
  Following are the answers for each of the Department of Transport's executive NDPB's.

  (a) The Traffic Director for London, the Trinity House Lighthouse Service (THLS) and the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB).

  (b)None.

  (c)The Traffic Director for London, the London Regional Passengers' Committee (LRPC), THLS and NLB.

  (d)None.

  (e)The Traffic Director for London, THLS and NLB.

  (f)The Traffic Director for London.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of the Rail Regulator publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes
  616
  of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this in each case is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20891]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 19 July 1996,Official Report, Volume 281, column 682–83.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of the Rail Regulator which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20936]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 19 July 1996,Official Report, column 682.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20895]

  Mr. Bowis
  Following are the answers for each of the Department of Transport's executive NDPB's.

  (a) The Traffic Director for London and the London Regional Passengers' Committee (LRPC), under statutory requirement. The Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) and Trinity House Lighthouse Authority (THLB), as a consolidated report under statutory requirement.

  (b) The Traffic Director for London, under statutory requirement and the LRPC, voluntarily. The NLB and THLB as a consolidated report, under statutory requirement.

  (c) The LRPC, voluntarily.

  (d)The LRPC, voluntarily.

  (e) None.

  M40
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the deterioration of the M40; and if he will make a statement. [20477]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 18 March]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Dr. Kim Howells, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about his assessment of the deterioration of the M40 motorway.
  As you may be aware, a Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) contract under the Government's Private Finance Initiative has been awarded to UK Highways M40 Ltd for the operation and maintenance of the M40 from Junction 1 to Junction 15. The contract is 30 years and work began on 6 January 1997.
  The age and type of construction of individual sections of the M40 vary considerably and hence there are significant variations in the residual life of both pavement and surfacing.
  Prior to the DBFO contract the Agency's Agents responsible for maintaining the motorway undertook regular surveys of the structural and surface conditions of the road. They maintained the M40 in accordance with Highways Agency standards. All of the

  617
  Agents records were made available to tenderers bidding for the DBFO contract. For the section between junctions 1A and 3 the contract requires that the road be widened from 3 lanes to 4 and this will inevitably necessitate substantial treatment of the existing carriageway.
  Part of the route between junctions 6 and 8 is in need of major maintenance and the DBFO contract stipulates that the existing concrete carriageway shall be overlaid with "black top" during the course of this year.
  The DBFO Contract requires that the contractor undertake routine inspections and structural assessments of the road and that they maintain the road to a high standard. This mechanism will ensure that the road will not deteriorate in the future as the penalty for failure to meet their obligations would be termination of the contract.
  I am confident that the M40 is not deteriorating and that with the current contract a high standard of maintenance is assured for the next thirty years.

  Vehicle Excise Discs
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumptions the Treasury uses when calculating the cash flow loss to the Exchequer of being paid in two instalments for six-month vehicle excise discs as against the single instalment for a 12-month disc. [20908]

  Mr. Bowis
  The cash flow loss depends on the interest and inflation rates pertaining at any time. At the current Treasury discount rate of 6 per cent., and inflation of around 2.8 per cent., the loss on the private and light goods licence would be some £3.20 if the annual duty were paid in two six-monthly instalments.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (i) six-month and (ii) 12-month vehicle excise discs were issued for the last year in which figures are available. [20910]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of licences issued against VED payments in the UK in 1995–96 was:

  (i) 6 month: 20,342,490

  (ii) 12 month: 17,933,098.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total administrative cost of issuing vehicle excise discs for the last year in which figures are available. [20909]

  Mr. Bowis
  The issue of vehicle excise discs is an integral part of the vehicle registration and licensing system. The total administrative cost in the UK in 1995–96 was some £128 million, excluding enforcement.

TREASURY

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) EMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor, and the value of the contract in each case. [17609]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury has awarded only two contracts to the contractors mentioned since 1992:(a) EDS in December 1993, valued at £1,475.80 for the supply and installation of a memory board and
  618
  (d) Capita in March 1994, valued at £22,031.25 for a consultancy to review the personnel statistic division.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many persons employed in the coal mining industry had as their place of abode a location within(a) each travel-to-work area and (b) each local authority area in South Yorkshire in each of the last seven years; [17536]

  (2) how many persons employed in the coal mining industry had their place of work within (a) each travel-to-work area and (b) each local authority area in South Yorkshire in each of the last seven years; [17595]

  (3) what information he has collected since 1990 on the (a) place of residence and (b) place of work of persons employed in the coal mining industry. [17596]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 25 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Kevin Barron, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions on information that has been collected since 1990 on persons employed in the coal mining industry in South Yorkshire.
  Information by place of residence is not available at this level of detail. Estimates based on returns from employers, for place of work and travel-to-work area, are available biennially from 1989. The Statistics of Trade Act (1947) requires that I do not publish data which could reveal information about individual employers. The reduction in the number of businesses engaged in coal mining in South Yorkshire has caused me to treat most of the information you seek as confidential. Within the aforementioned restrictions I have supplied the available information in the attached table.

  Employees in coal mining1 in south yorkshire

  Local authority district

  1989

  1991

  1993

  1995

  Barnsley

  2—

  2,900

  2—

  2—

  Doncaster

  6,200

  5,200

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  5,200

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  16,500

  13,100

  4,000

  1,100

  Travel-to-work area3

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  6,000

  5,200

  —

  —

  Rotherham/Mexborough

  4,600

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  16,500

  13,200

  4,000

  1,100

  Source:

  ONS 1989–1993; Census of Employment.

  1995; Annual Employment Survey.

  11989: Standard Industrial Classification 1980;coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels

  1991–95: Standard Industrial Classification 1992; mining and agglomeration of hard coal.

  2Confidential

  3Includes areas outside South Yorkshire.

  Duplicate NHS Numbers
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent, and what other contributions have been made, by the General Register Office and the Registrars of Births and Deaths towards the costs of correcting the problem of duplicate NHS numbers. [19102]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Kevin Barron, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your recent question on how much has been spent by the General Register Office and the Registrars of births and deaths towards the costs of correcting the NHS duplicate number problem.
  To date, the Office for National Statistics (incorporating the General Register Office) has spent £33,000 on discussions with the NHS Executive, analysis of problems causing duplicate NHS numbers for babies, and planning and programming software changes. Registrars of births and deaths have not spent money on correcting the NHS duplicate number problem.
  In addition, advice and instruction have been given to Registrars during routine helpline work. This is provided as part of the General Register Office day-to-day support of the local registration service.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate what the unemployment level would have been for the United Kingdom if inactive jobseekers were included in the totals in each year from 1992 to the present; [20097]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom who were not active in their search for employment but wished to be employed, in each year from 1992 to the present. [20096]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions on time series of the numbers of people unemployed, inactive job seekers and people who were not active in their search for employment but wished to be employed.
  Estimates available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) are shown in the attached table. The LFS uses the widely accepted International Labour Office (ILO) definition of unemployment. The ILO measure covers people who were available to start work in the two weeks following their LFS interview and who had either looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview of were waiting to start a job they had already obtained.
  People who would like a job, but have not sought one in the last four weeks, or have looked for work but are not available to start in the next two weeks are not unemployed according to the ILO definition. However, the ONS appreciates that there is a lot of interest in these groups. We regularly publish information about the numbers and characteristics of these people in the LFS Quarterly Bulletin. For example, table 31 in Quarterly Bulletin Number 18, published in December 1996 shows that 6 per cent of those in
  620
  Great Britain who wanted a job, but were not seeking one were "discouraged workers" (i.e. they were not looking for work because they believed no jobs were available).
  Detailed analyses of any aspect of the LFS, including the groups you have asked about, are possible via the publicly accessible LFS database.
  The Labour Force Survey Quarterly Bulletin is available in the House of Commons Library. The LFS database can also be accessed via the House of Commons Library.

  People who are ILO unemployed or are economically inactive and would like a job

  ILO unemployed

  Inactive wanting a job of which:

  Seeking workM2

  Not seeking work3

  19921

  2,769

  326

  1,707

  1993

  2,936

  324

  1,972

  1994

  2,736

  276

  2,155

  1995

  2,454

  283

  2,153

  1996

  2,334

  227

  2,261

  1 In spring 1992 only the inactive people of working age (men 16–64, women 16–59) were asked if they wanted a job. People over working age were not asked. All inactive people aged 16 and over were asked the question in other years.

  2 But not available to start within next two weeks.

  3 Within last four weeks. Also note that more detailed analysis of this category is available in the LFS Quarterly Bulletin.

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees work in a workplace which employs fewer than 10 people in the Hemsworth constituency. [20725]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jon Trickett, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many employees work in a workplace which employs fewer than 10 people in the Hemsworth constituency.
  Information is available from the Annual Employment Survey on workplace units employing between 1 and 10 employees (inclusive). At September 1995 there were 3"300 employees working at such workplaces in the Hemsworth parliamentary constituency.

  Basic Pension Plus
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in the amount of tax which people on (1)(a) a quarter, (b) a half and (c) three quarters of average earnings and (2) average earnings can expect to pay (i) over their working life and (ii) over their lifetime under the proposed tax regime of the Government's basic pension plus proposal, relative to the existing tax regime. [20435]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The precise details of the scheme will be decided in the light of full consultation on the Green Paper. Estimates of the amount of tax paid by people over their working life and entire lifetime would also depend on the exact nature of changes in the tax regime, work patterns and life expectancy. Broadly speaking, over a lifetime, the two different tax treatments are equivalent from the saver's

  621
  point of view—apart from the treatment of the lump sum—as long as the person's marginal rates of tax are the same in work and in retirement.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the level in 2040 of the single and married person's tax allowances for those over the age of 65 years if these allowances are uprated in line with(a) prices and (b) earnings; and what proportion of average earnings this would represent. [20433]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: Allowances at 1996–97 prices and the proportion of average earnings these represent are in the tables.

  Income tax allowances (£) in 2040–41

  Increased in line with

  Prices

  Earnings1

  For people aged 65 to 74

  Personal allowance

  4,910

  11,740

  Married couple's allowance2

  3,115

  7,455

  For people aged 75 and over

  Personal allowance

  5,090

  12,170

  Married couple's allowance2

  3,155

  7,545

  1 Assuming a 2 per cent. real growth in earnings each year and without statutory rounding in annual increase.

  2 Tax relief for these allowances is restricted to 15 per cent.

  Proportion of average earnings in 2040–41 which income tax allowances represent

  ased in line with

  Prices Per cent

  Earnings Per cent

  For people aged 65–74

  Personal allowance

  11

  27

  Married couple's allowance

  7

  17

  For people aged 75 and over

  Personal allowance

  12

  28

  Married couple's allowance

  7

  17

  UK Overseas Investments
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of United Kingdom overseas investments are in(a) Germany, (b) the European Union, (c) the United States of America, and (d) the rest of the world. [20686]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the overseas investment.
  The figures requested are shown in the table below. They are based on flows and stock of direct investment overseas i.e. where the United Kingdom company has a significant and lasting interest in an enterprise operating overseas. No information is available centrally regarding the geographical breakdown of portfolio investment overseas.
  622

  Direct Investment: Percentage of UK Total

  Area

  Flows during 1995

  Stock at end 1995

  Germany

  6

  5

  EU (including Germany)

  37

  36

  USA

  40

  31

  Rest of the world

  23

  33

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has agreed the business plan for the Office for National Statistics for the period 1997–2000. [21421]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Yes. Copies of the plan, giving details of the performance targets I have set for 1997– 98, have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Authorities (Restitution)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission report "Restitution: Mistakes of Law and Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments" (Law Com. No. 227). [21456]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Government have given careful consideration to the report, which makes recommendations falling under two quite separate heads. The Government have accepted the Law Commission's recommendations for general legislation on the restitution of benefits conferred under a mistake of law and will introduce legislation implementing those recommendations when a suitable opportunity arises. The further recommendations, relating to ultra vires receipts by public authorities, raise other issues, which we are now considering.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open Government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20939]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor's Department sponsors two such bodies: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. However, the latter has been inactive since March 1992 when the Lord Chancellor announced his decision to postpone implementation of the authorised practitioners scheme.

  The Legal Aid Board is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, scrutiny by the National Audit Office, statutory provisions for open government, performance indicators and provisions under the citizens charter. It is not subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.
  623
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members's interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20892]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor's Department sponsors two such bodies: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. However, the latter has been inactive since March 1992 when the Lord Chancellor announced his decision to postpone implementation of the authorised practitioners scheme.

  The Legal Aid Board publishes annual reports which are laid before Parliament. Annual accounts are included in that report, as is information about the background of board members. The board does not publish the agendas or minutes of meetings of the board or its committees. There are statutory requirements for the board to publish information as to the discharge of its functions in relation to legal aid and for the Lord Chancellor to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every statement of accounts and report of the auditors sent to him in accordance with requirements under the Legal Aid Act 1988.

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who arbitrates in instances where the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors is unable to agree with the Legal Services Ombudsman in respect of complaints dealt with by both bodies. [20849]

  Mr. Streeter
  There is no provision for arbitration in such cases. However, the Legal Services Ombudsman has confirmed that, in practice, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors complies with all his recommendations to pay compensation to a compliant. In cases where the ombudsman recommends that a compliant be reconsidered, recommendations will have been complied with once the Office has formally reconsidered the complaint. The ombudsman cannot direct the office to arrive at a particular decision.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will make a statement on the composition of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors; [20850]

  (2) what criteria the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors employs in determining complaints referred to it; how many complaints it has received to date; how many complaints have been referred to the Legal Services Ombudsman; and in respect of how many of these the ombudsman has found in favour of the plaintiff. [20852]

  Mr. Streeter
  The composition of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and the handling of complaints are matters for the Law Society and the office.

  During 1996, the Legal Services Ombudsman reported on 1,282 cases dealt with by the office and its predecessor, the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. In 389— 30 per cent.— of those reports, there was a finding favourable to the complainant in that the ombudsman made a
  624
  recommendation in their favour or recorded a formal criticism of the professional bodies handling of the original complaint.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to implement the recommendations of the hygiene advisory teams report by William Swann; what was the total cost of producing this report; and to which industry bodies it was circulated. [19662]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 6 March 1997, Official Report, columns 1023–35, and 12 March 1997, Official Report, columns 372–85. The review was carried out by the hygiene advice teams, made up of one official veterinary surgeon and one meat hygiene inspector. It involved visits to all licensed plants, producing a written report and agreeing an action programme for each plant. A summary report was produced. The total cost was £436,000.

  The final report was made available at the meeting of the Meat Hygiene Service industry forum held on 5 August 1996. Representatives of the following industry bodies were present:

  British Meat Manufacturers Association

  British Pig Association

  British Poultry Meat Federation

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers

  International Meat Traders Association

  National Farmers Union

  National Federation of Meat and Food Traders

  Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers

  Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Association

  Cattle Feed
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date avoparcin was first licensed for use in the feed of beef cattle over three months old; what were the Swann committee recommendations relating to feed antibiotics in calves(a) under three months and (b) over three months of age; on what date the Swann committee recommendations were first made; what factors determined the degree of consideration given by the Veterinary Products Committee to Swann committee recommendations prior to the issuing of a licence for cattle over three months old; and if he will make a statement. [20658]

  Mrs. Browning
  Avoparcin was first licensed for beef cattle over three months old on 20 July 1976.

  A copy of the Swann committee's report is in the Library of the House. It is entitled: "Report of the Joint Committee on the use of Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine" and was published in November 1969. At that time the feeding of antibiotics,

  625
  without prescription, was permitted only for pigs and poultry. About the use of antibiotics in calves, the report said:
  "We recommend that 'feed' antibiotics conforming to paragraph 9.11 should be available without prescription for calves up to 3 months of age".

  The report made no recommendation for calves over three months of age.

  The Veterinary Products Committee always takes account of the principles of the Swann committee's report when it considers the statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy, in considering applications for marketing authorisations for antibiotics.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement of (ii) voluntary. [20901]

  Mr. Boswell
  The annual reports and accounts of the following executive non-departmental public bodies, for which my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible, are published:

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Food from Britain

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners' Company

  Horticultural Development Council

  Horticulture Research International

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Milk Development Council

  Legislation requires, in each case, that the annual report and accounts are published. Minutes and agendas of executive non-departmental bodies' meetings are not published. There is no statutory requirement to do so.

  The MAFF executive non-departmental public bodies will state in their individual codes of best practice for board members, which are currently being adopted, that registers of members' interests will be made available to the public. There is no statutory requirement to publish registers of members' interests.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20944]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information required on executive non-departmental public bodies is as follows:

  SUBJECT TO:

  (a) Investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  626

  (b) Scrutiny by the Audit Commission

  None

  (c) Scrutiny by the National Audit Office

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners' Company

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  Agricultural Wages Board

  Regional Flood Defence Committees

  Food from Britain

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Horticulture Research International

  UK Register of Organic Foods

  Milk Development Council

  National Audit Office access rights to the other bodies are as follows:

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority (in respect of publicly voted money)

  Meat and Livestock Commission (in respect of agency work

  Horticultural Development Council arrangements are being finalised

  Apple and Pear Research Council arrangements are being finalised

  (d) Statutory provisions for open government

  Access to government information is set out in a code of practice which the bodies are currently adopting. There are no statutory provisions for open government.

  (e) Performance Indicators

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners' Company

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  Food from Britain

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Horticulture Research International

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  UK Register of Organic Foods

  Horticultural Development Council

  Milk Development Council

  Apple and Pear Research Council (details are being finalised)

  (f) Provisions under Citizen's Charter

  To date, the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Sea Fish Industry Authority have all published citizens charter standards of service.

  Animal Protection
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to support the proposal by the German Government that article 3 of the EC treaty should be amended to include among the activities of the Community a contribution to the improvement of animal protection; and if he will make a statement. [20946]

  Mrs. Browning
  At the intergovernmental conference, we have made clear our view that there should be a formal, legal obligation on the Community to take account of the welfare requirements of animals in specific areas such as agriculture and transport. The draft protocol that we tabled last July would achieve this aim. Germany has made a slightly different proposal, which also recognises the Community's role in improving animal welfare, but is more generalised in its scope. We believe that the more
  627
  specific approach we have proposed is more likely to lead to the result we seek and is therefore the better of the options.

  Flood Alleviation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the estimated cost of the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton flood alleviation scheme at the time that the plans were first put out for public consultation; and what is the current estimated cost of the scheme. [20947]

  Mr. Boswell
  Following the local public inquiry held in 1992, the cost of the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton flood alleviation scheme was estimated to be £73.4 million—on a fixed price basis. The Environment Agency's current estimate is some £83 million, which includes nearly £9 million for projected inflation. The costs will be partially offset by income from the sale of sand and gravel excavated from the flood relief channel.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of households that will be protected by the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton flood alleviation scheme, once it has been completed. [20949]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton flood alleviation scheme is designed to provide protection from a one in 65 year flood event for 12,500 people, 4,800 domestic properties and 700 commercial buildings locally. In addition, the presence of the scheme will help to prevent disruption of roads and railways and the loss of communications systems and public utilities over a much wider area.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated completion date for(a) the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton flood alleviation scheme and (b) the subsequent landscaping. [20948]

  Mr. Boswell
  Work on the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton flood alleviation scheme is expected to be finalised before the end of 2001, and the main flood relief channel should be completed by the end of 2000. Landscaping is being carried out in parallel with the construction works and should be finished within the same, overall time scale.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration has been given in the plans for the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton flood alleviation scheme, to the effects of the lowering of the water table, lower average rainfall, and climate change on the likelihood of flooding in the area, and the volume of water which will flow though the new channel. [20950]
  628
  Mr. Boswell
  These aspects have been fully considered by the Environment Agency during scheme design. The existence of the flood relief channel will have no measurable impact on groundwater levels. While there has been a trend towards lower average rainfall in southern England in recent years, studies related to global climate change suggest that there could be an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme events, the type of event against which this scheme is intended to provide protection. It is too early to quantify any such changes, but clearly it would be imprudent to design a scheme for anything less than the flood conditions experienced in the past 50 years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Science Base
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from British industry on the funding of the United Kingdom science base. [19457]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have regular meetings with different sections of British industry to discuss its involvement with our excellent science and engineering base, the funding for which has increased by over 10 per cent. in the past decade.

  Investment
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the latest figures for the flows of inward and outward investment to and from the United Kingdom. [19458]

  Mr. Lang
  Inward investment into the United Kingdom amounted to £19 billion in 1995, a threefold increase on 1994. Outwards flows totalled nearly £24 billion as United Kingdom firms continued to build on their position in international markets.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the relative importance of each of the factors taken into account by potential inward investors when selecting a country for investment; and if he will make a statement. [19465]

  Mr. Lang
  Inward investors locate in the United Kingdom for a variety of reasons that are unique to each company. Some of the reasons most regularly given by investors include our low corporation tax, low cost of production, established enterprise culture, a skilled and adaptable work force and our established industrial infrastructure.
  629
  . Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which EU countries have invested more per employed person than the United Kingdom in the period since 1979. [19477]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  Since 1979 business investment in the United Kingdom has accounted for a greater proportion of gross domestic product than in France, Germany and Italy.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's overall deficit on total trade in goods in the years(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [19462]

  Mr. Nelson
  In each year since 1994 the deficit in trade in goods has been just over 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product, down from 2 per cent. in 1993. Between 1974 and 1978 the deficit averaged 3 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's overall deficit on trade in goods for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995. [19475]

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) earlier today.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's overall deficit on trade in goods in recent years. [19476]

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) earlier today.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the deficit in trade in goods in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [19461]

  Mr. Nelson
  The deficit in trade in goods in both 1995 and 1996 was 1.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. Overall, the balance of payments current account is close to balance and at its strongest for a decade.

  Trade Balance (Electrical Products)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's balance of trade with EU countries, with special reference to heavy electrical products. [19464]

  Mr. Nelson
  British exports of goods to the EU doubled between 1988 and 1995. During the same period exports of heavy electrical products rose by 116 per cent.
  630

  Exports (European Union)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will commission a study into the change in the level and categories of United Kingdom-manufactured and semi-manufactured exports to other EU countries since the single market commenced. [19467]

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for these exports are already available. They show that since the single market commenced in 1993, the value of UK exports of finished manufacturers to the EU has risen by 47 per cent. and of semi-manufactures by 27 per cent.

  Synex Ltd
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the decision of the South West industrial development board not to award a regional selective assistance grant to Synex Ltd. in July 1995. [19469]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  The role of regional industrial development boards, such as the SWIDB, is to provide independent advice on applications for RSA. The decision whether or not to award a grant rests solely with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who in the south-west is represented by officials at the Government office for the south-west. Each application for regional selective assistance is determined on its merits against the common criteria for the scheme. The project as presented to GOSW was judged not to have satisfied the criteria and therefore the GOSW properly decided in May 1995 not to award a grant to Synex. This decision was confirmed in July 1995 following an appeal by the applicant.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the main reasons cited to his Department by inward investors for locating in Britain. [19471]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  I refer to the reply previously given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of jobs created through inward investment by overseas companies in(a) North Yorkshire, (b) west Yorkshire and (c) the north of England during the last five years. [20684]

  Mr. Knight
  We expect 11,671 new jobs to arise from inward investment projects in the north of England notified to the Invest In Britain Bureau where decisions were taken during the financial year 1995–96. These figures are a combination of returns from north-east England, north-west England and Yorkshire and the Humber.

  The Yorkshire and Humberside development agency has estimated that the number of jobs created through inward investment was 80 in north Yorkshire and 1,619 in west Yorkshire.

  Semi-conductor Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide further assistance to the British semi-conductor industry. [19472]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government are already providing assistance to the British semi-conductor industry. It is supporting the National Microelectronics Institute under the information society initiative programme for business. The institute, a partnership between the industry and Government, aims to promote the growth of the microelectronics industry in the UK, in particular by stimulating the manufacture of semi-conductors in the UK. Another part of the information society initiative, the microelectronics in business programme, introduces UK companies to semi-conductor technology, and encourages best practice in its use in products. In addition, a number of individual semi-conductor manufacturers, and their suppliers, have received assistance in respect of new investment.

  Human Genetics Advisory Commission
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. [19473]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Human Genetics Advisory Commission held its first meeting on 27 February, where it discussed its work plan and agreed initial priorities. Members identified the implications of genetic testing for insurance as an immediate priority and the chairman has written to his counterpart in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to confirm the adequacy of the existing law on human cloning. The HGAC also confirmed its commitment to listening and making itself open to wider public views on the issues at stake. I refer the hon. Member to the advisory commission's press statement on 27 February and to my statements of 27 February and 10 March on the implications of the cloning of an adult sheep at the Roslin Institute. Copies of all three have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. [19479]

  Mr. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) earlier today.

  Export Trade
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of the rise in the value of the pound upon the United Kingdom export trade; and if he will make a statement. [19474]

  Mr. Nelson
  Exports are still expanding despite the rise in the value of the pound. Export volumes grew at an annualised rate of 7 per cent. during the final quarter of 1996 and manufacturers expect orders and deliveries to continue to grow.

  UK Trade
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to representations 632
  from the Confederation of British Industry regarding the relative strength of the United Kingdom's trading position in Europe. [19463]

  Mr. Nelson
  The UK's trade with Europe has climbed to record levels. At a recent meeting with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the CBI welcomed the very low level of output price inflation that was contributing to this performance.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation under the social chapter is currently being(a) prepared and (b) considered; and if he will make a statement. [19466]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Issues under discussion include rights for part-time and temporary workers, information and consultation at national level and the reversal of the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases. The Commission is considering future action in many other areas, including individual dismissals and sick pay. All these measures would be likely to impose damaging, job-destroying burdens on business if we gave up our opt-out from the social chapter.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received on his recent publication, "Privatisation". [19478]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has received numerous requests, principally from delegates to the conference and from UK diplomatic posts overseas, for additional copies of the booklet "Privatisation: Setting Enterprise Free".

  The publication has also prompted six written parliamentary questions. Five of these have been from the hon. Member. The sixth was tabled by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made by the World Trade Organisation of infrastructure risk to computer systems of millennium compliance; what plans he has to pursue the issue; and if he will make a statement. [20188]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  There has been no assessment to date by the World Trade Organisation of this issue. The Government are very aware of the significance of the problem and its implications for world trade and have been working hard to address it within the UK and the European Union. We are looking at how best to bring the issue to international attention in close consultation with UK industry. We have suggested to the Commission that the matter should be raised with the ISO.

  Coal Mine Closure Programme
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of the coal mine closure programme on related industries. [19459]
  633
  Mr. Page
  The hon. Member may recall that the Employment Select Committee published a report in January 1993 which, among other things, considered the consequences of British Coal's proposed pit closures for related industries. The Government provided a full response to that report.

  Small Companies (Audit Exemptions)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the results of the recent consultation on proposed amendments to the small companies audit exemptions; and what actions he plans to take. [21459]

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce that all three of our deregulatory proposals were endorsed by the public consultation, and I propose to implement them at once, in order to bring the benefits to small companies as soon as possible.

  Our main proposal, to raise the audit exemption threshold to £350,000 annual turnover and so to abolish the statutory requirement for the "audit exemption report" which has been required since 1994 in the turnover band from £90,000 to £350,000, was supported by two thirds of the 272 respondents to the consultation.

  This change will bring the deregulatory benefits of total audit exemption to an estimated further 200,000 small companies.

  The current arrangements will be retained for those charities which have chosen to incorporate, pending an early consultation on options for harmonisation of the financial reporting requirements under charities legislation on the one hand and companies legislation on the other.

  The two technical amendments on which we also sought views, relating to the treatment of companies which form part of groups and of dormant companies, enjoyed the overwhelming support of respondents. Companies which form part of groups will not be required to file audited individual accounts, provided that they are not otherwise excluded and that the turnover of the group does not exceed the threshold. The regulations clarify that dormant companies are automatically entitled to audit exemption on the same terms as qualifying non-dormant companies.

  A summary of the responses to the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Public Encryption Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to issue a public consultation document on the Government's proposals on the provision of public encryption services. [21461]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am pleased to announce that, further to my reply to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on 10 June 1996,Official Report, columns 13–14, I am today publishing a consultation paper outlining the Government's detailed policy proposals for the licensing of trusted third parties (TTPs) for the provision of encryption services. The proposals involve licensing TTPs who offer encryption services to the public in order to facilitate the development of electronic commerce; to protect consumers; and to preserve the ability of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to fight serious
  634
  crime and terrorism, and protect economic well-being and national security, by requiring disclosure of encryption keys under safeguards similar to those which already exist for warranted interception.

  This initiative is part of the Government's overall policy on promoting electronic commerce for the benefit of both business and the public. It forms an integral part of the Government's strategy for building the information society in the UK— the information society initiative.

  The consultation paper seeks comments from industry and the public on the broad outline of the proposed legislation. Copies are available in the Library of the both Houses. I expect to make a further statement on the future direction of the Government's proposals once the outcome of the consultation exercise is known.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a report by the Director General of Telecommunications for the year 1996, under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. [21458]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Yes. The 13th report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. it covers the period 1 January to 31 December 1996. Copies of the report have been laid before each House of Parliament and placed in the Libraries.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the international clearance of frequency 35 for use by Channel 5. [21455]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Frequency channel 35 will be used from nine major transmission sites and, because of the potential of such transmissions to create interference problems with neighbouring countries, it is necessary to co-ordinate their use with other countries. The Radiocommunications Agency has obtained agreement to transmission from five of the sites—Fenton, Sudbury, the Wrekin, Hannington, and Ridge Hill. It is anticipated that the outstanding issues concerning the other sites—Kilvey Hill, Waltham, Bilsdale and Darvel—will be resolved by the end of April.

  According to Channel 5 Broadcasting, the use of frequency channel 35 could mean that an extra 4 million people will be able to receive the service, increasing coverage to over 80 per cent. of the population. The Government announced on 16 September 1996 that Channel 5 will have access to this frequency for a period of five years. Towards the end of this period, the Government will review the position on the development of the market for advance digital services and will make a judgment whether, and if so for what period of time, Channel 5 may continue to use the channel. In due course, the channel will be redeployed to facilitate the new digital broadcasting opportunities. We have agreed with Channel 5 that it is responsible for developing a sensible transition plan to enable the channel to be retrieved and for warning those customers affected that they may need to migrate in due course to alternative delivery mechanisms such as cable, satellite or digital terrestrial television.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, columns 59–60, on overseas investment, if he will list for each percentage the value of outward direct investment at 1995 prices. [20047]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: The value of UK direct investment to the European Union, the United States and the rest of the world, in current prices, is given in the table. Information in constant prices is not available.

  UK foreign direct investment overseas

  £ million, current prices

  EU15

  USA

  Rest of the world

  Total

  1984

  -279

  2,767

  3,326

  5,814

  1985

  2,492

  3,230

  2,903

  8,625

  1986

  2,238

  7,559

  2,001

  11,798

  1987

  2,240

  12,591

  4,328

  19,159

  1988

  5,358

  10,472

  5,086

  20,916

  1989

  5,940

  11,676

  3,875

  21,491

  1990

  5,103

  47

  4,958

  10,108

  1991

  3,916

  2,235

  3,153

  9,304

  1992

  4,621

  1,321

  4,165

  10,107

  1993

  6,146

  7,476

  3,237

  16,859

  1994

  8,274

  4,905

  6,161

  19,340

  1995

  9,613

  10,364

  6,047

  26,024

  Source:

  Business Monitor MA4, Overseas Transactions, ONS.

  Notes:

  1. Negative investment flows indicate net disinvestment overseas.

  Such disinvestment occurred in the Netherlands in 1984.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department and its executive agencies have spent drafting, publishing and circulating each of their customer charters and customer standard documents; and how many copies of each document have been issued. [19383]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For the agencies, responsibility for expenditure in this area lies with the chief executives. I have asked them to reply direct.

  Two service providers in the main Department have citizens charter commitments. These are the redundancy payments service, which has a charter, and the overseas trade services, which has a charter standard statement.

  For the RPS, approximately 1.6 million charter leaflets were produced between 1991 and 1996 at a cost of around £37,000. This figure does not include drafting and distribution costs which are not separately identifiable.

  OTS has included its charter standard statement in a number of publications including "A guide to export services". Around 80,000 copies of this document were issued in 1996. Costs for the charter standard statement are not separately identifiable in the costs of producing and distributing these publications. Figures are not available for the cost of drafting the charter standard statement.
  636
  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 March 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about expenditure associated with the production of customer charters and Customer Standard documents. One thousand copies of NWML's Code of Practice were printed at a cost of £870 in December 1993. This figure does not include the costs of drafting and distribution, which are not separately identifiable.

  Letter from J. C. Octon to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 March 1997:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the cost of publishing and circulating customer charters and customer standard documents.
  The Patent Office produces a single leaflet which serves as its charter statement and customer service standards. We have no estimate for staff time spent in drawing up and consulting over its content but during the past financial year 36,000 copies have been printed and circulated at a cost of £3,150. This includes the cost of printing 200 customer service standard posters for display within the office.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 March 1997:
  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade for information about expenditure related to customer charters and customer standard documents. As Chief Executive I have been asked to reply to you direct.
  As an Agency responsible for aspects of law enforcement, we also publish a Code for Enforcement which is combined with our Charter Standard Statement as a single document. The costs about which you have asked, and which apply to the document as a whole, are as follows:
  Drafting: £2,000 Approximately one man month
  Publishing: £5,547
  Circulation: £750 Approximately for postage costs incurred
  Copies issued: 6,200.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 March 1997:
  You asked the President of the Board of Trade a question about the Department of Trade and Industry expenditure in drafting, publishing and circulating each of their Customer Charters and Customer Standard documents: and how many copies of each document have been issued. I am replying in the absence of Peter Joyce, the Chief Executive, from the office.
  The Insolvency Service first issued its Published Standard during the financial year 1992/93. Between February 1993 and November 1995 a total of 147,900 leaflets and 886 Published Standard posters and charts of performance against standard were produced at a total cost of £26,024. This included both design and print work.
  The Published Standard was recently revised and a further 280,000 leaflets and 50 posters have been produced for use in the coming 12–18 months at a total cost of £7,967.
  It is not possible to quantify the cost of drafting the revised Published Standard as this was work completed within The Service as part of normal staff duties. As regards distribution, the leaflets are made available to the public at the offices of Official Receivers and at the Courts.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 March 1997:
  You have put down a Parliamentary Question asking for the cost of producing and issuing Charter Standard documents. I have been asked to reply direct to you on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.

  637
  My Agency produces a number of Citizen's Charter related information sheets for the benefit of our customers. These documents set out our Charter Standard principles, details of our performance against published standards, how to complain against Agency levels of service and a Code of Practice explaining the responsibilities of our Local Offices and how they work with businesses in enforcing wireless telegraphy legislation.
  Our family of Charter leaflets were introduced during 1994, since when the total numbers and costs of printing and numbers issued are as follows:
  RA Complaints Procedures (RA238): 4,000 have been ordered to date at a cost of £424.00, of these 3,695 have been distributed;
  RA Performance Standards (RA239): 5,000 have been ordered to date at a cost of £1,400.00, of these 4,639 have been distributed;
  RA Local Offices Code of Practices (RA248): 3,000 have been ordered at a cost of £500.00, of these 2,786 have been distributed;
  RA Citizen's Charter Statement (RA251): 7,000 have been ordered at a cost of £1,083, of these 6,161 have been distributed.
  It is impossible to say what the cost of circulating these documents has been. Many copies are given out at exhibitions which the Agency attends, distributed along with other documents requested by customers or in multiple numbers to interested parties. The drafting of the leaflets is all done in-house by staff who are involved in these duties in any event and it is again impossible to separate out these costs. With the exception of the Performance Standards leaflet (amended and reprinted annually), none of these documents has been changed since their introduction, nevertheless, drafting of the originals is estimated to have occupied around 5 man days of effort in total.
  For your information I enclose copies of each of these leaflets, (RA239 is currently under review to cover our 1997/98 targets), which I hope will be of interest to you.

  Structural and Cohesion Fund Receipts
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the projected net receipts under the combined structural and cohesion funds of the EC budget of (i) Spain, (ii) Portugal, (iii) Greece and (iv) Ireland, from 1997 to 1999, expressed as an average sum per day. [20048]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: It is not possible to give figures for structural and cohesion funds receipts for the period 1997–99 by member state, since these will depend upon the rate of implementation of each of the member state's SCFs programmes. Forecasts of gross allocations by member state for the period 1994–99 are available, however. These are shown in the table, expressed as an average sum per day. These allocations will be partly offset by the contributions each member state makes to the total SCFs budget, but the size of these contributions, for 1997–99, will not be known until 1999.

  Gross allocations under the structural and cohesion funds 1997–99: average per day

  Million ecu, 1996 prices

  Spain

  22

  Portugal

  10

  Greece

  9

  Ireland

  4

HEALTH

  Mental Health
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure on mental health services as a proportion of total NHS spending in each year since 1988–89. [18733]

  Mr. Burns
  Information in the form requested is not available. Hospital and community health services expenditure on mental health services from 1988–89 is shown in the table. HCHS expenditure increased in real terms by 0.5 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1990–91 and by 2.7 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1995–96. Local authority gross expenditure on mental health services increased in real terms by 220 per cent. from £79.1 million in 1988–89 to £339.1 million in 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Hospital and community health services mental health expenditure

  HCHS mental health expenditure 1995–96 prices £ million

  HCHS mental health expenditure as a proportion of total HCHS expenditure Percentage

  1988–89

  2,140.8

  12.50

  1989–90

  2,136.3

  12.34

  1990–91

  2,125.2

  12.07

  1991–92

  2,444.9

  11,58

  1992–93

  2,523.3

  11.56

  1993–94

  2,452.6

  11.00

  1994–95

  2,437.2

  10.69

  1995–96

  2,511.5

  10.65

  1. The 1995–96 figures are provisional.

  2. The figures include expenditure on the purchase of the following services:

  Hospital—Inpatient and outpatient expenditure—the consultant specialties of mental health, child and adolescent psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, psychotherapy and old age psychiatry. Day patient expenditure—in the categories mental health (alcoholism, drug abuse, psychogeriatrics and general), child and adolescent psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.Community—

  Community mental health nursing.

  3. Figures for 1991–92 onwards cannot be compared with those for earlier years due to changes in accounting practices following the NHS reforms.

  Lung Cancer
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average annual cost to the NHS for treating people suffering from(a) lung cancer and (b) mesothelioma over the last five years. [19377]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Hospital Buildings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has the cost of maintaining redundant and empty hospital buildings in each region in the last year for which figures were available. [19416]

  Mr. Horam
  Estimated costs of maintaining redundant and empty hospital buildings for 1995–96 in each region are in the table.
  639

  Region

  cost £000s

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,500

  Trent

  1,584

  Anglia and Oxford

  590

  North Thames

  1,800

  South Thames

  1,100

  South and West

  1,300

  West Midlands

  442

  North West

  1,500

  GPs (Malpractice or Incompetence)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners(a) were accused by patients of malpractice or incompetence, (b) were disciplined following such accusations and (c) successfully appealed to industrial tribunals, in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [21021]

  Mr. Malone
  The hon. Member may wish to refer to "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England, 1996 Edition" by the Department of Health, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Psychiatric Readmissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients aged 16 to 64 years have been readmitted to the care of a psychiatric specialist within 90 days of discharge in each of the last five years(a) nationally, (b) by regional health authority and (c) by health authority. [20120]

  Mr. Burns
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. Information on the number of patients aged 16 to 64 who were readmitted as emergencies to the care of a psychiatric specialist within 90 days of previous discharge has been collected by health authorities since 1 April 1996. The first annual estimates for 1996–97 will be available later this year.

  Carcinogens
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 10 human carcinogens his Department assesses to be most dangerous, giving in each case estimates of the number of the(a) deaths and (b) illnesses they cause. [20024]

  Mr. Horam
  There are many types of human cancer and for most the causes are not fully understood. Genetic, behavioural and environmental factors all have a role, but it is difficult to accurately quantify the mortality and morbidity caused by each specific factor.

  Smoking has been associated with lung cancer and several other cancer sites and has been shown to contribute to approximately 30 per cent. of all cancer deaths. Smoking is responsible for at least 80 per cent. of deaths from lung cancer which represents over 25,000 deaths per annum in England and Wales.

  It has been estimated that geophysical factors, ultraviolet light and background ionising radiation, may account for about 3 per cent. of all cancer deaths. Of lung cancer deaths it is estimated that around 5 per cent., some 1,600 a year in England, might be partially attributed to exposure to radon.
  640
  The available medical and scientific data have also identified alcoholic beverages, life style factors, certain chemical processes and a number of individual chemicals that may pose a carcinogenic risk to humans. Readily available data do not enable the presentation of comprehensive, robust and comparable estimates of numbers of deaths or illnesses which can be attributed to each of these agents.

  Health Service Administration
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the budget for hospital and community health services of(a) health authorities and (b) fundholding general practitioner practices was spent on administrative costs in the last year for which figures are available. [20045]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: The information requested, for 1995–96, is in the table:

  £ millions

  District Health Authorities, Regional Health Authorities and Special Health Authorities

  Fundholding GP practices (excluding preparatory year)

  Hospital and Community Health Services expenditure

  21,957

  1,847

  Health Authority Head Quarters administration

  1,002

  —

  Management allowances allocated (Practice Fund Management Allowance)

  —

  90

  Administration as percentage HCHS

  4.6

  4.9

  1. Figures for HAs and GP fundholders are not directly comparable for a number of reasons. For example:
  —GPFH management allowances support fund expenditure on drugs and staff, as well as on HCHS.
  —HA HQ administration figures include expenditure on medical negligence, capital charges, grants to voluntary bodies and some healthcare services (e.g. health promotion).
  —HA HQ administration is included within HA HCHS expenditure, whilst GPFH management allowances are not included within the HCHS expenditure of GPFHs.
  2. All figures remain provisional. HCHS expenditure figures are sourced from summarised national accounts. The HQ administration figure is sourced from the annual accounts of health authorities. GPFH management allowances are as allocated to regional health authorities.

  Mr Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amount spent on NHS management and administration in each region in England in the last year for which figures are available. [20544]

  Mr. Horam
  For figures for 1995–96 trust management costs, I refer the hon. Member to the booklet "Health Authority Costs and Management Costs in NHS Trusts" which was published on 13 March 1997. Figures for health authority costs, by region, for 1995–96 are shown in the table.
  641

  1995–96 HA costs by region

  Region

  HA costs(£000s)

  Anglia and Oxford

  48,881

  North Thames

  78,553

  North West

  64,580

  Northern and Yorkshire

  64,280

  South and West

  63,720

  South Thames

  77,053

  Trent

  47,679

  West Midlands

  52,637

  England

  497,383

  Figures are sourced from the annual accounts of district health authorities and family health services authorities, and remain provisional.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines was paid to travel to the United Kingdom in 1995, as indicated in his answer of 25 April 1996 Official Report, column 281; what was the cost of the visit to public funds; and from where this individual travelled. [20484]

  Mr. Malone
  Proceedings of the committee are confidential, and this includes the identity of particular members attending particular meetings.

  Alcoholic Soft Drinks
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has held with(a) the Portman Group, (b) other organisations representing the alcohol industry and (c) health organisations, on the marketing of alcoholic soft drinks; and if he will make a statement. [20870]

  Mr. Burns
  Officials have regular meetings with the Portman Group and health organisations. Alcoholic soft drinks are often discussed. We welcomed the industry's efforts to self-regulate through the Portman Group's code of practice for the packaging, marketing and sale of alcoholic drinks.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department intend to take to regulate the marketing of alcoholic soft drinks. [20925]

  Mr. Burns
  The Government share the concern expressed about the potential appeal of such drinks to young people. We believe the alcoholic drinks industry must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the public that it can regulate itself satisfactorily. We warmly welcome the Portman Group's code of practice for the packaging and marketing of these drinks. However, we will continue to monitor how the code works in practice.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to take action to restrict the sale to minors of kits which can convert soft drinks into alcoholic soft drinks. [20924]

  Mr. Burns
  These products are covered by the provisions of the food labelling regulations and must be clearly labelled so as not to mislead consumers about their nature. We are not convinced that restrictions on the sale of these kits to children is the right approach. Use of such kits involves a number of detailed processes which would in practice need to take place in the home. As with other 642
  potential risks of this sort, it is up to parents to exercise supervision over their children to avoid them getting into danger.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Wakefield)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average length of hospital waiting lists for non-urgent operations in the Wakefield district in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996. [20721]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available. Waiting list information collected centrally does not distinguish between urgent and non-urgent cases.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanner
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS trusts which do not have an MRI scanner. [20757]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Electricity Transmission Lines (Health Implications)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, columns 102–4, concerning the incidence of cancer or other abnormalities in adults and children if he will (a) ensure that the two pilot studies relating to cancer incidence incorporate maps showing high tension power lines and the places of domicile and work of those affected and (b) consult the appropriate medical and health bodies concerning (i) the practicality and (ii) the desirability of mapping such transmission lines and the incidence of other abnormalities in their vicinity. [20153]

  Mr. Horam
  The two pilot studies will explore the feasibility of investigating the possible relationship between the incidence of cancers and residential distance from electricity transmission and distribution systems. Neither of these studies is designed to investigate other abnormalities. However, the National Radiological Protection Board's advisory group on non-ionising radiation reviews work related to possible effects of electromagnetic fields on human health. It has been principally concerned with the risk of cancer but also keeps under review possible effects on other diseases and abnormalities as well as on developmental effects in utero.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20905]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is in the table.
  643

  Name of body

  Annual report

  Annual accounts

  Minutes of meetings

  Agendas of meetings

  Register of member's interests

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Workers

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (voluntary

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (voluntary)

  No

  National Biological Standards Board

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (voluntary)

  No

  Medical Practices Committee

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (voluntary)

  No

  No

  1 From 1 June, all executive NDPBs will be required to make their registers of members' interests open to the public.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20941]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 14 March 1996, at columns 754–56.

  Silicone Implants
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 739, if he will assess the advantages of classifying silicone implants as human prostheses. [20978]

  Mr. Horam
  Implanted human prostheses, such as breast implants, come within the scope of the Medical Devices Regulations (SI 1994 No 3017). Under the regulations medical devices fall into four different risk categories which dictate the severity of controls that are applied before the device may be sold; implanted human prostheses such as silicone implants fall into the second highest category. This means that before a manufacturer can place his device on the market with a "Conformity European" marking of conformity under the regulations he must have his design and manufacturing process verified by an independent certification organisation to ensure that the devices produced meet the relevant essential requirements relating to safety, quality and performance.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale community health council in respect of the award of the contract by East Lancashire health authority for provision of drug misuse services; and if he will make a statement. [21010]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received four letters; two from the chairman of the CHC and two from hon. Members enclosing copies of the chairman's letter. A full response will be sent as soon as possible.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Irish Medium Courses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors preclude the curriculum studies and the education studies modules of the Irish-medium BEd course from being taught entirely through the medium of Irish; and what measures(a) St. Mary's college, Belfast and (b) the Department of Education for Northern Ireland are taking to increase the amount of teaching through the medium of Irish. [19697]

  Mr. Ancram
  Students are equipped to teach in both Irish and English medium schools with St. Mary's college building on the skills of its existing staff to increase the amount of teaching through the medium of Irish. The extent of such teaching is a matter for the college to determine within the resources available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the role of the Irish-medium development officer in relation to each of the stage 1 modules of the Irish-medium BEd course and the PGCE course at St. Mary's college, Belfast, with particular reference to staff at the college. [19692]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is to develop the BEd modules and the PGCE course for Irish medium education in liaison with the relevant college staff.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the stage 1 main subject modules of the Irish-medium BEd course at the St. Mary's college, Belfast were last redesigned. [19693]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1996.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the new Irish-medium PGCE course at St. Mary's college, Belfast is designed to cater for the specific needs of Irish-medium schools; and for what reasons the whole course will not be taught entirely through the medium of Irish. [19696]

  Mr. Ancram
  The figure is 100 per cent.

  Students are being equipped to teach in both Irish medium and English medium schools.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of each of the stage 1 modules of the new Irish-medium BED course at St. Mary's college, Belfast caters for the needs of Irish-medium schools; and if he will make a statement. [19698]
  645
  Mr. Ancram
  The figure is 100 per cent. of each.

  The course is being developed to provide teachers for Irish medium schools.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of children(a) sat and (b) achieved a grade A to C in (i) one and (ii) two or more science GCSEs in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [19874]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of candidates entered for science GCSEs conducted by the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in 1996 and the proportion who achieved grades A*-C is as follows:

  Number entered

  Percentage grades A*-C

  Biology

  2,526

  87.9

  Biology (Human)

  193

  48.7

  Chemistry

  2,471

  89.5

  Double Award (Modular)

  3,994

  66.7

  Double Award (Non-modular)

  5,379

  92.4

  Physics

  2,460

  88.0

  Single Award (Modular)

  5,624

  34.1

  Single Award (Non-modular)

  1,117

  59.4

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of children(a) sat and (b) achieved a grade A to C in (i) history, (ii) geography and (iii) Latin, in (1) GCSEs and (2) A-levels in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [19878]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of candidates entered for history, geography and Latin GCSEs and A-levels conducted by the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in 1996 and the proportion who achieved grades A* to C (GCSE) and grades A-C (A level) is as follows:

  Number entered

  Percentage grades A*-C

  GCSE

  History

  6,419

  68.9

  Geography

  11,296

  64.9

  Latin

  214

  90.7

  A level

  History

  2,166

  65.6

  Geography

  2,296

  58.7

  Latin

  46

  78.3

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of children(a) sat and (b) achieved a grade A* to C in (i) one and (ii) two or more live foreign languages GCSEs in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [19876]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of candidates entered for French, German, Irish, Italian, and Spanish GCSEs conducted by 646
  the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in 1996 and the proportion who achieved grades A* to C is as follows:

  Number entered

  Percentage grades A*-C

  French

  9,842

  62.3

  German

  993

  75.9

  Irish

  2,213

  59.3

  Italian

  178

  62.4

  Spanish

  1,123

  70.6

  Mr. Flynn:

  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of children (a) sat and (b)achieved a grade A to C in (i) one,(ii) two and (iii) three or more science A-levels in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [19875]

  Mr Ancram
  Informationis not available in the form requested. The number of candidates entered for science A-levels conducted by the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examination and Assessment in 1996 and the proportion who achieved grades A to C is as follows:

  Number entered

  Percentage grades A-C

  Biology

  1,427

  57.7

  Chemistry

  1,534

  65.7

  Physics

  1,262

  59.2

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of children(a) sat and (b) achieved a grade A to C in (i) one, (ii) two and (iii) three or more live foreign language A-levels in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [19877]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of candidates entered for foreign language A-levels conducted by the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in 1996 and the proportion who achieved grades A to C is as follows:

  Number entered

  Percentage Grades A-C

  French

  1,149

  62.2

  German

  170

  63.5

  Irish

  296

  67.9

  Italian

  38

  73.7

  Spanish

  255

  71.4

  Latin and Ancient Greek
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of(a) comprehensive and (b) grant-maintained schools in Northern Ireland currently offer (i) Latin and (ii) ancient Greek as (a) a GCSE and (b) an A-level option; and if he will make a statement. [19879]
  647
  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number and percentage of grammar schools in Northern Ireland in which pupils took GCSE and A-level examinations in Latin and in Greek in 1995–96 are as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  GCSE

  Latin

  29

  40.8

  Greek

  4

  5.6

  A level

  Latin

  13

  18.3

  Greek

  1

  1.4

  No non-grammar schools had pupils taking these examinations.

  Petrol and Diesel
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to set up an inquiry into the sale and price of petrol and diesel in Northern Ireland on the same basis as the inquiry in Scotland. [20316]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have no such plans.

  Retail Outlets
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which new retail outlets resulting from inward investments, have been given relief or assistance towards their annual rates demand in the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [20373]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No special rate reductions have been granted in Northern Ireland in the past three years to any part of the retail sector.

  Department of Education
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the annual running costs of DENI headquarters, Bangor, for the past financial year; and what are the budgeted total running costs at this departmental headquarters for this financial year and for the next financial year. [20372]

  Mr. Ancram
  The departmental running cost baselines allocated to DENI for the specific years are as follows:

  1995–96: £15.670 million

  1996–97: £15.695 million

  1997–98: £15.450 million

  The figures are at 1995–96 prices

  Martin McGartland
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been paid to Martin McGartland in criminal injuries compensation in relation to the events surrounding his abduction by the IRA. [20750]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Denis Stanley. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  648
  Letter from D. A. Stanley to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply on behalf of the Compensation Agency to your Question concerning the amount of money paid to Martin McGartland in criminal injuries compensation.
  Mr McGartland's 1992 claim under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation)(Northern Ireland) Order 1988 had to be refused because it failed to satisfy a number of requirements of the legislation. His subsequent appeal to the County Court was also refused and as a result no money has been paid to him under the 1988 Order.
  I trust this explains the position.

  Statutory Rules
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland statutory rules were made in 1996, by Department; and what(a) number and (b) percentage replicated rules and regulations for Great Britain. [21003]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of statutory rules made, by Department, in 1996 was:

  Department

  Number in 1996

  Department of Agriculture

  93

  Department of Economic Development

  53

  Department of Education for NI

  30

  Department of the Environment for NI

  186

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  10

  Department of Health and Social Services for NI

  231

  Although NI statutory rules and orders may follow a general policy set by GB legislation they do not replicate those made for Great Britain. The drafting will take into account for the NI institutions and entablements and apply the policies to the local/central government structures.

  Licensing Law
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines were applied to the recent licensing law changes; and if he will make a statement. [21006]

  Mr. Moss
  As is the standard practice, the new licensing laws were assessed against the policy appraisal and fair treatment principles and there did not appear to be any aspect of the laws which would give rise to direct or indirect discrimination.

  Ulster Museum
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the attendance figures for 1996 reported by the Ulster museum, including its outstations, with the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1995. [20111]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1996 a total of 256,064 people visited the Ulster museum and the Armagh County museum—a decrease of 24.20 per cent. on the attendance figure for 1995.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Basingstoke, what is his scientific evidence for his statement that there is no difference between naturally found calcium fluoride and adding hexafluorosilicic acid or disodium hexafluorosilicate. [21136]

  Mr. Moss
  There is no evidence to suggest that there is any difference in effect between flouride which occurs naturally in water and that produced by adding either hexaflourosilicic acid or disodium hexaflourosilicate to water.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which(a) health and social services boards, (b) district councils, (c) political parties and (d) other organisations in Northern Ireland have sent representations to his Department (i) recommending and (ii) otherwise supporting, the fluoridation of water in Northern Ireland. [21135]

  Mr. Moss
  All four health and social services boards in Northern Ireland have recommended the fluoridation of water supplies for their resident populations. Antrim borough council is the only district council in Northern Ireland to have indicated support for the boards' recommendations.

  Information on the views of Northern Ireland political parties and other organisations on fluoridation is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will announce his decision on whether or not to proceed with the fluoridation of water in Northern Ireland. [21137]

  Mr. Moss
  On 13 March I announced my decision to turn down requests from health and social services boards for approval to proceed with fluoridation proposals. However, health and social services boards may submit fresh applications in the future.

  Ulster Savings
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of Ulster Savings. [21393]

  Sir John Wheeler
  All new investments in Ulster Savings ceased with effect from 1 June 1991, although arrangements for reinvestment were retained. Having given careful consideration to the findings of a further policy review, I have decided that the facility to reinvest

  Distributing body

  Agreement date

  Award date

  Recipient

  Award amount £

  Scottish Sports Council

  20 March 1996

  21 March 1996

  University of Strathclyde

  474,500

  Sports Council

  22 April 1996

  1 May 1996

  University of Birmingham

  131,300

  Scottish Sports Council

  26 June 1996

  3 July 1996

  Gordon Sports Medicine Centre

  5,900

  Sports Council

  21 October 1996

  6 November 1996

  National Sports Medicine Institute

  2,702,738

  Total

  3,314,438

  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the 650
  in Ulster Savings should be withdrawn. However, It has been agreed that the proceeds of matured Ulster savings certificates may be reinvested instead in National Savings with effect from 1 April 1997.

  Holdings Centre
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an announcement about the posts of independent commissioner and deputy commissioner for the holdings centres which fall vacant on 31 March. [21426]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew

  I am happy to announce that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr. Bill Norris have accepted reappointment to the posts of independent commissioner and deputy commissioner respectively.

  I am grateful to them both for accepting reappointment and I am confident that they will continue to monitor the care and treatment of detainees held in custody and to produce well-informed annual reports.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Consultants
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department has spent on contracts with external consultants in each of the last five financial years. [20907]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Actual figures

  1992–93: £1,200,000

  1993–94: £1,547,360

  1994–95: £467,497

  1995–96: £304,632

  1996–97: £209,092

  Sports Medicine (Lottery Awards)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the awards from national lottery proceeds made to sports medicine organisations, indicating the amount of the awards and(a) when they were agreed, (b) when they were made and (c) who were the recipients. [19104]

  Mr. Sproat
  By the end of February 1997 four awards had been announced for sports medicine organisations. The details are as follows:

  recommendation of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art during the half-year ended 31 December 1996, specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was exported or retained, with

  651
  particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institution; and if she will list any items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case (a) the valuation and (b) the relevant time limit. [20110]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  Description of item

  Valuation£

  Outcome

  A painting Erminia finding the wounded Tancred by Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, called "II Guercino" (1591–1666)

  3,500,000

  Acquired by the National Galleries of Scotland

  A pair of French Empire mahogany armchairs by the Parisian firm Jacob-Desmalter, c. 1803–13

  249,904.50

  Acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum and Galleries on Merseyside

  An "ideal" female bust by Antonio Canova, 1817

  695,000

  Acquired by the Ashmolean Museum

  A London delft "clapmash" charger inscribed "John Ayres 1637"

  280,000

  Export licence granted

  A silver-gilt and mother-of-pearl casket by Pierre Mangot, 1532

  3,000,000

  Export licence granted

  A pair of George II open armchairs by William and John Linnell, c. 1753

  192,307.69

  Export licence granted

  A marble bust of Henry Fuseli by Edward Hodges Baily, 1824

  128,000

  Acquired by the National Portrait Gallery

  A daguerreotype portrait of Sir John Herschel, c. 1848

  27,053.75

  Acquired by the National Portrait Gallery

  A negative and three prints by William Henry Fox Talbot, 1839

  7,000 each

  Acquired by the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television

  Five Roman coins, 41–54 AD

  495 each

  Export licence granted

  Three Roman coins, 41–54 AD

  825

  Export licence granted

  A library desk by Giuseppe Maggiolini, c. 1784

  1,683,012.50

  Export licence granted

  A Venetian bronze andiron attributed to NiccolÒ Roccatagliata, c. 1600

  77,752.50

  Acquired by the National Galleries of Scotland

  A pair of late eighteenth—or early nineteenth—century Anglo-Indian ivory armchairs

  138,275

  Decision deferred until after 4 April 1997

  A gold box by G. M. Moser, c. 1760

  314,171.15

  Acquired by the Royal Museum of Scotland

  A neolithic stone ball

  8,000

  Decision deferred until after 8 April 1997

  A painting A Cup of Water and a Rose on a Silver Plate by Francisco de Zurbaràn, c. 1627–30

  305,997.10

  Acquired by the National Gallery

  A painting Madonna and Child with Saints with a Distant Landscape by Annibale Carracci (1560–1609)

  197,325

  Decision deferred until after 8 May 1997

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings,
  652
  (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20899]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Annual reports

  Arts Council of England

  British Film Institute1

  British Library1

  British Tourist Authority1

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission1

  Broadcasting Standards Council1

  Community Development Foundation

  Crafts Council

  English Heritage1

  English Sports Council

  English Tourist Board1

  Football Licensing Authority1

  GB Sports Council

  Geffrye Museum1

  Horniman Museum1

  Library and Information Commission1

  Millennium Central

  Millennium and Galleries Commission

  Museum of London2

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester1

  National Gallery2

  National Heritage Memorial Fund1

  National Lottery Charities Board1

  National Portrait Gallery2

  Public Lending Right1

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England)

  UK Sports Council

  The following bodies produce a triennial report:

  British Museum1

  Imperial War Museum

  Natural History Museum1

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside1

  National Museum of Science and Industry1

  Tate Gallery1

  Victoria and Albert Museum1

  Wallace Collection1

  (b)Annual Accounts

  Arts Council of England

  British Film Institute1

  British Library1

  British Museum1

  British Tourist Authority1

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission1

  Broadcasting Standards Council1

  Community Development Foundation

  Crafts Council

  English Heritage

  English Sports Council

  English Tourist Board1

  Football Licensing Authority1

  GB Sports Council

  653

  Geffrye Museum1

  Horniman Museum1

  Imperial War Museum1

  Library and Information Commission1

  Millennium Cenral

  Millennium Commission1

  Museum and Galleries Commission

  Museum of London1

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester1

  National Film and Television School1

  National Gallery1

  National Heritage Memorial Fund1

  National Lottery Charities Board1

  National Maritime Museum1

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside1

  National Museum of Science and Industry1

  National Portrait Gallery1

  Natural History Museum1

  Public Lending Right1

  Royal Armouries

  Sir John Soane's Museum1

  Tate Gallery1

  UK Sports Council

  Victoria and Albert Museum1

  Wallace Collection1

  (c)Minutes of Meetings

  British Film Institute

  English Sports Council3

  GB Sports Council3

  UK Sports Council3

  (d)Agendas of Meetings

  British Film Institute

  English Sports Council3

  GB Sports Council3

  UK Sports Council3

  (e)Register of Members Interests

  Arts Council of England3

  British Film Institute3

  British Library3

  Crafts Council3

  English Sports Council3

  Library and Information Commission3

  Museum of London3

  National Heritage Memorial Fund3

  National Lottery Charities Board3

  National Gallery3

  National Maritime Museum3

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside3

  National Museum of Science and Industry3

  Natural History Museum3

  Sir John Soane's Museum3

  Royal Armouries3

  Wallace Collection3

  All of DNH's executive NDPBs are currently developing registers of members' interests. Many of these are already in place and are open to the public on request.1Indicates where this is a statutory requirement.
  654
  2Indicates where an annual report is published by the organisation is only statutorily obliged to publish a triennial report.
  3Indicates are available upon request.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open Government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20938]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are listed in schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 as amended. This includes:

  Arts Council of England

  British Film Institute

  British Library

  Crafts Council

  English Sports Council

  English Tourist Board

  English Heritage

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Registrar of Public Lending Right

  Royal Commission on Historic Manuscripts

  UK Sports Council

  (b)None.

  (c)All of the Department's executive NDPBs are subject to scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  (d)All bodies falling within the jurisdiction of the PCA are subject to the Code of Practice on Open Government. Lord Nolan's report on Standards in Public Life recommended that all executive NDPBs should develop their own codes of openness.

  (e)The Department monitors the performance of its NDPBs through the Corporate Planning process and through annual Funding Agreements, in which targets and performance indicators are set.

  (f)The principles of the Citizen's Charter apply to all the Department's NDPBs.

  London Marathon
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the total costs incurred by the Royal Parks in staging the 1996 London marathon. [18973]

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Mr. Tom Pendry, dated 19 March 1997:
  I have been asked by Mr. Iain Sproat to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the costs incurred by the Royal Parks by the 1996 London Marathon because I am responsible for the management of the Royal Parks.
  The costs, which include the involvement of the Agency's staff in planning for the race, additional Royal Parks Constabulary manpower in the Parks on the day, supervision of the arrangements for the race, and employing contractors to clear up after the event, total £22,750.

  Academy of Sport
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what evaluation procedure was used to select the shortlist of applications for the British Academy of Sport. [18336]

  Mr. Sproat
  The evaluation was carried out in an objective and non-political way by an experienced joint Department of National Heritage United Kingdom Sports Council evaluation panel. The evaluation panel was chaired by the chief executive of the UKSC and included two officers from the UKSC and two officials from DNH. In addition, the evaluation panel was advised by four outside consultants.

  There was two stages to the evaluation process. At the first stage, all 26 bids were evaluated by the evaluation panel against pre-defined criteria drawn up to assess compliance with the bid prospectus. At that stage, a list of 13 bids which should proceed to a detailed technical evaluation in stage two was determined. At stage two, there was a detailed technical evaluation of each of the 13 bids by the evaluation panel and its outside advisers. Each bidder was also given an opportunity to present their bid at an interview with the evaluation panel and advisers.

  Based on the advice of the evaluation panel, the Government and the UKSC announced on 25 February that the academy would be chosen from three contenders: the Central consortium, the Heyford Consortium and the Sheffield Consortium. These proposals are now being considered in more detail by the UKSC and DNH.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State or National Heritage if she will make a statement on the current position regarding the establishment of the Academy of Sport and on the sites under consideration. [20682]

  Mr. Sproat
  The United Kingdom Sports Council and the Department of National Heritage completed the second stage of the evaluation process on 25 February when it was announced that the British Academy of Sport will be chosen from three contenders: the Central Consortium, the Heyford Consortium and the Sheffield Consortium. These proposals are now being considered in greater detail with a view to identifying the preferred site. An announcement on the preferred site and organisation or organisations will not be made until after the general election.

  Bletchley Park
  Mr. Allason

  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received regarding the future of Bletchley Park; and what action she proposes to take. [20673]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has so far received around 120 letters on Bletchley Park. The Bletchley Park trust applied to the Heritage lottery fund in 1995 for funding towards the preservation of the park but was turned down. Decisions on applications to the Heritage lottery fund are made by the trustees of the National Heritage memorial fund and Ministers cannot intervene. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chairman and chief executive of the Bletchley Park trust on 3 March to hear about their proposals for the site. She wished them well with any new application they chose to submit.
  656

  Inheritance Tax (Items in Lieu)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half-year ended 31 December 1996 of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed by testators or executors in the matter of allocations; and if she will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation, with the respective dates of their acceptance, in satisfaction of inheritance tax. [20109]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information which the hon. Member requests is as follows:

  Item(s)

  To whom allocated

  Conditions/wishes expressed

  An archive of papers relating to Cheshire

  Council of the University of Manchester (for retention at the John Rylands University Library)

  1—

  Ten acres of woodland at Tadworth, Surrey

  Surrey County Council

  2—

  Eddison Theatre Collection

  Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum (for display at the Theatre Museum)

  1—

  Les Andelys (painting) by Maurice de Vlaminck

  Norfolk County Council (for display at the Castle Museum, Norwich)

  3—

  Aboriginal Bark Paintings

  Board of Trustees of the British Museum (for display at the Museum of Mankind)

  2—

  Two wings of a 13th-century ivory triptych

  Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum

  1—

  A collection of prints by Picasso, Dubuffet, Kokoschka and others

  The Council of the University of Manchester (for display at the Whitworth Art Gallery)

  2—

  A collection of German stoneware

  Board of Trustees of the British Museum and the Trustees of the National Museum of Wales

  2—

  A BÖttger Teapot and BÖttger tankard

  Chancellors, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (for display at the Ashmolean Museum)

  2—

  The Stoke Edith Hangings

  Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum

  4Not known

  The Old Man and his Grandson (drawing) by Arthur Rackham

  Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum

  3—

  An archive of family papers

  Derbyshire County Council (for retention at the Derbyshire Record Office) and Northamptonshire County Council (for retention at the Northamptonshire Record Office)

  1—

  Furniture and lamps by Giacometti

  Council of the University of East Anglia (custodianship by the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich)

  1—

  St. Vincent's Rocks, Clifton by Thomas Girtin and Protrait of Thomas Girtin by John Opie (both paintings)

  Council of the University of Manchester for display at the Whitworth Art Gallery

  1—

  657

  Item(s)

  To whom allocated

  Conditions/wishesexpressed

  Storith Heights (painting) by Thomas Girtin

  Chancellor, Master and Scholars of the University of Cambridge for display at the Fitzwilliam Museum

  1—

  1 Wish as to allocation.

  2 Conditional offer.

  3 Unconditional offer.

  4 The Stoke Edith hangings were accepted in lieu of estate duty in 1961 and ownership passed to HM Government. Following their acceptance the hangings remained on loan for display at Montacute House (a National Trust property) until as mutually agreed between the Victoria and Albert museum and the National Trust, the hangings were moved to the V and A in parts (in 1980 and 1994). In 1996 the V and A asked the Secretary of State to arrange for ownership of the hangings to pass to them on a permanent basis and Lord Inglewood agreed, making a section 9 direction on 9 November 1996.

  Items awaiting allocation

  Date of acceptance

  Musical automation clock by Thomas Weekes

  21 February 1995

  Landscape with Lord Coventry on a Blue Roan Horse and Deer, Hounds and Attendants and Dead Stag (painting) by John Wootton

  13 March 1997

  Exercise
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding a campaign to encourage people to take up exercise. [17415]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 February 1997]: Both our Departments were members of the Government's physical activity task force, whose recommendations led to the launch of the Active for Life Campaign, which encourages people to take up exercise. I am particularly keen to ensure good exercise habits are instilled from an early age, through our initiatives to promote sport in schools.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 15 November 1996,Official Report, column 365, on feasibility studies funded by the national lottery, when the information on feasibility studies will be available. [17650]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer March 1997]: I apologise for the delay in providing the hon. Member with this information. To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have announced 320 awards for feasibility studies representing an investment of £30.4 million. So far, 79 of these studies have produced full applications and of these, six have resulted in lottery awards. Many studies have yet to be completed, while others have resulted in full applications which are being considered by the distributing bodies in the normal way. Awards to feasibility studies represent less than 1 per cent. of the total value of awards announced to the end of February 1997.
  658
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 272, if she will list the total amount of national lottery grants for each borough of (a) London and (b) the West Midland county expressed as an amount per head of population. [19595]

  Mr. Sproat
  National lottery awards announced up to the end of February 1997 for London and the west midlands are as follows:

  London and West Midlands

  Borough

  Population1

  Amount(£)

  Amount per head(£)

  London

  Barking and Dagenham

  143,681

  1,071,055

  7.45

  Barnet

  293,564

  2,461,559

  8.39

  Bexley

  215,615

  956,958

  4.44

  Brent

  243,025

  1,832,794

  7.54

  Bromley

  290,609

  7,476,404

  25.73

  Camden

  170,444

  86,335,870

  506.54

  City of London

  4,142

  11,841,599

  2,858.91

  Croydon

  313,510

  3,366,060

  10.74

  Ealing

  275,257

  2,986,024

  10.85

  Enfield

  257,417

  1,541,826

  5.99

  Greenwich

  207,650

  16,564,058

  79.77

  Hackney

  181,248

  17,753,247

  97.95

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  148,502

  6,703,809

  45.14

  Haringey

  202,204

  6,381,305

  31.56

  Harrow

  200,100

  3,590,502

  17.94

  Havering

  229,492

  589,690

  2.57

  Hillingdon

  231,602

  892,617

  3.85

  Hounslow

  204,397

  5,473,625

  26.78

  Islington

  164,686

  44,965,514

  273.04

  Kensington and Chelsea

  138,394

  63,524,583

  459.01

  Kingston upon Thames

  132,996

  3,758,458

  28.26

  Lambeth

  244,834

  44,198,769

  180.53

  Lewisham

  230,983

  5,704,069

  24.69

  Merton

  168,470

  2,713,004

  16.10

  Newham

  212,170

  27,820,385

  131.12

  Redbridge

  226,218

  2,215,329

  9.79

  Richmond upon Thames

  160,732

  34,168,089

  212.58

  Southwark

  218,541

  34,152,431

  156.27

  Sutton

  168,880

  996,636

  5.90

  Tower Hamlets

  161,064

  27,783,515

  172.50

  Waltham Forest

  212,033

  5,775,850

  27.24

  Wandsworth

  252,425

  5,224,201

  20.70

  Westminster, City of

  174,814

  267,633,730

  1,530.96

  Grand total

  6,679,699

  748,453,565

  112.05

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  961,041

  110,414,076

  114.89

  Coventry

  294,387

  7,929,987

  26.94

  Dudley

  304,615

  7,153,841

  23.48

  Sandwell

  290,091

  10,734,464

  37.00

  Solihull

  199,859

  1,118,716

  5.60

  Walsall

  259,488

  17,838,162

  68.74

  Wolverhampton

  242,190

  7,573,169

  31.27

  Grand total

  2,551,671

  162,762,415

  63.79

  1Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1993.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department and its executive agencies have spent drafting publishing and circulating each of their customer charters and customer standard documents; and how many copies of each document have been issued. [19385]
  659
  Mr. Sproat
  The only document my Department has issued is the "Export Licensing Unit Code of Practice." This was issued in 1994 at a cost of £1,360.38 and approximately 1,000 have been issued. The Royal Parks agency has published and circulated a visitor's charter. This was first produced in 1994 at a total cost of £2,072.61 and has recently been revised at a total cost of £2,222.61. To date approximately 5,000 copies have been issued. Whilst the Historic Royal Palaces agency has its own visitor's charter it has not been published. It is prominently displayed at all ticketing offices at the palaces.

  Football Clubs
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list for each of the last five years, the football clubs which have received grant aid from the Football Trust indicating in each case(a) the amount of money awarded and (b) if the money was awarded in respect of (i) safety and (ii) community. [19906]

  Mr. Sproat
  Over the past five years, the Football Trust has provided £140 million for Taylor-related redevelopment work, £20 million for ongoing safety work and £5.5 million for community work at professional clubs in England, Wales and Scotland, as well as £12.4 million for non-professional and grass roots football. I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a schedule, provided by the Football Trust, setting out information on the grants awarded to individual clubs.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many questions were tabled from reply by her Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16793]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage was established in April 1992.

  The available figures for the number of questions answered by my Department in each parliamentary Session are as follows:

  Session

  Number of questions answered

  1992–93

  1,281

  1993–94

  1,099

  1994–95

  1,226

  1995–96

  1,124

  Source:

  POLIS.

  The rest of the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many Bills her Department has sponsored in each year since it was formed; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19769]
  660
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The Department of National Heritage was formed in April 1992.

  The following Bills have been sponsored by my Department:

  National Lottery etc. Act 1993

  Broadcasting Act 1996

  National Heritage Act 1997

  They have all been passed by Parliament.

  S4C
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much S4C will receive from her Department in the current year; and how much it received in the previous year. [20718]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: S4C received £68,416,000 from my Department in 1996 and there is provision of £73,300,00 for the current year.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what restrictions and requirements are placed on S4C as regards the language of programmes made using public funding provided by her Department. [20717]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The Welsh Fourth Channel Authority receives public funding to fulfil its function which is set out in section 57 of the Broadcasting Act 1990: to provide a television broadcasting service of high quality for reception wholly or mainly in Wales. Under that Act, S4C is required to ensure that a substantial proportion of its programmes broadcast between 6.30 pm and 10 pm are in Welsh.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of the new digital channels available to S4C will be used for broadcasting in(a) English and (b) Welsh. [20547]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The Government have offered S4C guaranteed capacity of half of the third multiplex in Wales. S4C is required to simulcast the Welsh language programmes in its peak analogue service as part of its digital service, but is not otherwise constrained as to the language in which its digital services are broadcast.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the chairman or any of the members of S4C have declared interests or shareholdings in any independent production company. [20715]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The chairman and members of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority are required under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to declare any interests or shareholdings they may have in any independent production company. None has declared such an interest.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what monitoring her Department carries out of the use of the public funds provided to S4C; and what assessment it has made of the use of those funds in the past year. [20719]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: It is a long standing policy that broadcasting services are independent of Government editorially and, to the greatest

  661
  extent possible, in economic and regulatory terms. It is for the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority to regulate S4C and for S4C's management to supervise the efficiency of the broadcaster. There is a memorandum of understanding between my Department and S4C, the primary purpose of which is to ensure that S4C's systems of financial management are sufficient to safeguard public funds. The actual management of those funds is a matter for the authority.

  Sport (Broadcasting)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what restrictions exist on television companies in receipt of public funds bidding against each other to broadcast sports events. [20716]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The obligations placed on the BBC and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority in respect of their broadcasting services, which are set out in the royal charter and agreement and the 1990 Broadcasting Act respectively, do not impinge on the freedom of these broadcasters to negotiate for programme rights to sports events.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will provide figures for her Department's private finance initiative projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milbum) of 6 March,Official Report, columns 692–93; and if she will list her latest estimates of annual totals for PFI projects, on the same basis as those given in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [20394]

  Mr. Sproat
  For the first part of the hon. Member's question, I refer him to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington on 13 March,Official Report, columns 281–82.

  The current estimates of annual totals for PFI projects, are shown in the following table:

  PFI capital expenditure—current revised figures

  £ million

  PFI capital expenditure

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  Signed contracts

  1.4

  1.4

  1.4

  4.2

  British Museum Study Centre

  6.0

  15.8

  6.0

  27.8

  British Museum Great Court

  —

  —

  1.0

  1.0

  Science Museum Wellcome Wing

  —

  —

  1.0

  1.0

  Tate Bankside Roof Observatory

  —

  —

  4.0

  4.0

  Tate Millbank Queen Alexander site

  —

  —

  15.0

  15.0

  Tate Millbank electric sub-station

  —

  0.3

  —

  0.3

  Natural History Museum combined heat and power

  —

  1.0

  2.0

  3.0

  British Librarybibliographic cataloguing

  4.0

  —

  —

  4.0

  British Library catering and conference

  1.5

  —

  —

  1.5

  British Library digitisation

  —

  35.0

  40.0

  75.0

  Sports Council IT

  —

  2.0

  —

  2.0

  English Heritage— Stonehenge

  —

  5.5

  20.5

  26.0

  English Heritage—GIS

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.9

  Total

  13.2

  61.3

  91.2

  165.7

  662

SCOTLAND

  BSE
  Mr. Welsh

  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the costs of the BSE crisis in Scotland to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [18005]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: The Government's concern has been to provide support in a way which benefits all parts of the beef chain and enables a recovery of market confidence. The current estimates of the extra amounts paid out as a result of the BSE crisis in Scotland to the industry under the following schemes to 31 December 1996 are as follows:

  £ million

  Beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes:

  top-ups

  16.6

  Beef marketing payment scheme

  7.0

  Over-30-months scheme:

  producers payments

  65.9

  slaughter and rendering fees

  13.5

  Calf processing scheme

  2.6

  Slaughtering industry (emergency aid) scheme 1996

  10.0

  Also, in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 December 1996, the EU agreed to accept 10,901 tonnes of beef into intervention from Scotland at an estimated buying-in cost of around £22 million.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a supervised release order mandatory for all those who commit sexual offences which result in custody, irrespective of whether the case is heard on indictment. [19075]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: Amendments to clause 3 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill were tabled at Lords Committee stage. These raised a similar point to the hon. Member's question. No further Government amendments are proposed.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of farms in Scotland are currently classified as organic; and if he will make a statement. [19859]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: There were 99 registered organic units in Scotland as at February 1997. This represents approximately 0.2 per cent. of the 50,817 farms and crofts which submitted a separate census return in June 1996, although the two figures are calculated on a different basis.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards implementing Lord Cullen's recommendation for the
  663
  development of a Scottish vocational qualification in respect of work with children; and if he will make a statement. [20095]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: Following receipt of Lord Cullen's report, Scottish Office officials met with representatives of the Scottish Vocational Education Council. SCOTVEC has now submitted a paper to the Scottish Office to facilitate consideration of the options for the development of vocational qualifications for adults working with young children.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by constituency, based on home addresses, the number of pupils currently supported under the assisted places scheme. [20216]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: Information on the home addresses of assisted place pupils is at present not held centrally. Following the commitment made by my right hon. Friend on 10 March 1997, Official Report, column 40, this information is being sought, and will be collated in the manner requested. I will respond in full as soon as possible.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total cost to public funds of the assisted places scheme for each year since 1987. [20977]

  Mr. Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) on 29 January 1997,Official Report, column 244.

  Regeneration Programmes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been paid, from the priority partnership areas and regeneration programmes, to the districts of(a) Kelburn, (b) Woodhall, (c) Broadfield, (d) Bowfarm, (e) Greenock Central, if) Gibshill, (g) Larkfield and (h) Brachturn in Greenock and Port Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [20648]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: These districts are included within the boundaries of the Inverclyde priority partnership area, which was designated on 11 November 1996 and will receive urban programme funding in the order of £3.87 million over the first three years. Urban programme resources are defrayed in the first instance by local authorities who then claim 75 per cent. grant annually in arrears from the Scottish Office development department. At this stage, therefore, expenditure incurred in 1996–97 is a matter for Inverclyde council.

  Banner Committee
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what actions he has taken on the recommendations of the Banner committee. [20422]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The Government have made significant progress in taking forward the various recommendations in the Banner report.
  664
  In particular, the Farm Animal Welfare Council has already agreed to adopt the general principles set out in the report and has established arrangements for liaison with the animal procedures committee.

  A working party has also been set up to look into the role of non-veterinarians in relation to the artificial insemination of cattle and horses. We continue to support internationally harmonised controls on genetically modified organisms and efforts to achieve an acceptable EU patents directive.

  Animal Geno-mapping
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on animal geno-mapping. [20423]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The Scottish Office does not fund any research on animal geno-mapping.

  Under existing co-ordination arrangements for UK agricultural research, responsibility for animal geno-mapping research lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards patents established with the Roslin Institute during its motherhood of work leading to the cloning of sheep. [20424]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The Scottish Office holds no such patents with the Roslin Institute. This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who co-funded the work leading to the cloning of sheep.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of work at the Roslin Institute for addressing(a) cystic fibrosis, (b) haemophilia B, (c) blood-clotting and (d) the mathematics of the in-breeding of animals. [20425]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The work at the Roslin Institute has been funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Research Council, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the European Union and the private sector.

  No detailed assessment of the impact of this research on specific medical conditions in humans has been made at this stage. The Scottish agricultural college has, however, been able to use the information on the mathematical theory of animal breeding in its advice to the farming industry.

  Fishermen's Organisations
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the fishermen's organisations which(a) he and (b) his officials have met since 1 July 1996. [20493]
  665
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Since 1 July 1996 I have met with:

  Fife Fishermen's Association

  Pittenweem Fishermen's Mutual Association

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation

  Shetland Fishermen's Association

  Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association

  National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations

  In the same period, officials have met the following fishermen's organisations:

  Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation

  Clyde Fishermen's Association

  East Coast Licensed Small Boat Association

  Fife Fishermen's Association

  Fife Fish Producer's Organisation

  Fishermen's Association Limited

  Firth of Forth Fishermen's Association

  Highlands and Islands Fishermen's Association

  Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association

  North East Scotland Fish Producers Organisation

  Orkney Fishermen's Association

  Pittenweem Fishermen's Mutual Association

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation

  Scottish Fishermen's Organisation

  Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association

  Scottish Whitefish Producers Organisation

  Shetland Fishermen's Association

  Shetland Fish Producers Organisation

  West of Scotland Fish Producers Organisation

  In addition, there have been a number of joint meetings involving Ministers, officials and industry representatives from throughout the United Kingdom.

  Fishermen's Association Ltd.
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy in respect of meetings between(a) Ministers and (b) officials and the Fishermen's Association Ltd. [20494]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Department arranges meetings with representatives of fishermen's organisations as and when appropriate.

  Meat Hygiene
  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence Professor Pennington asked for from the Meat Hygiene Service in Scotland in respect of standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses as part of his inquiry. [20736]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for Professor Pennington and the expert group. Information from the Meat Hygiene Service has been made available through one of the group's members and the MHS is preparing further material to supply to the group. I understand that group members have also visited slaughterhouses to observe the position at first hand.
  666

  Salmon Strategy Task Force
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to implement recommendation No. 33 of the report of the Scottish Salmon strategy task force. [20815]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I have sent a copy of the report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No decisions on the report's recommendations will be taken until the consultation process now under way is complete.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the attendance figures for 1996 reported by the national museums and galleries in Scotland, broken down to the individual institutions but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1995. [20113]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  1996

  Percentage change since 1995

  National Museums of Scotland

  1,178,944

  +5.8

  National Galleries of Scotland

  990,888

  +9.9

  Figures for the national museums of Scotland relate to the royal museum of Scotland, the museum of antiquities, the Scottish agricultural museum, the Scottish united services museum, the museum of flight, the museum of costume and the gasworks museum. The national galleries of Scotland figures relate to the national gallery of Scotland, the Scottish national portrait gallery, the Scottish national gallery of modern art, national galleries of Scotland exhibitions held in the royal Scottish academy, Duff house in Banff and, for the first time, Paxton house, Berwick.

  Forestry Sales (Wales)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, columns 151–52, if he will list the woods that have been placed on the market by Forest Enterprise in Wales since 12 November 1996, to the latest available date, indicating in each cause (a) the name of the wood, (b) the unitary authority it lies in, (c) the number of hectares it covers, (d) the date on which it was put up for sale and (e) if a public access agreement (i) has been agreed and (ii) is being negotiated. [20979]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your Question about the sale of Forestry Commission woodlands in Wales.
  There have only been three properties placed on the open market, since 12 November 1996, as follows:

  667

  Unitary authority/name of property

  Area (ha)

  Date placed on market

  Access agreement

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Hendre Rhys

  18.3

  17 January 1997

  No

  Powys

  New Forest

  Plantation

  9.0

  27 November 1996

  Yes

  Tack Wood

  63.0

  27 November 1996

  Yes

  Forestry Authority Schemes
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total payments to private landowners under forest authority schemes in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland; and if he will list the 20 largest recipients in Scotland, indicating in each case the purpose of the award and the amount for each year since 1993. [20976]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The total payments to woodland owners by the Forestry Commission are set out in the table.

  £ million

  Year ending 31 March

  GB

  Scotland

  1993

  21.8

  10.3

  1994

  29.8

  13.4

  1995

  32.8

  17.3

  1996

  32.1

  16.3

  19971

  27.5

  14.5

  1 To end of February.

  The Forestry Commission does not keep a record of cumulative payments made to each owner. To list the 20 largest recipients would require a manual search through a very large number of individual grant scheme files. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Health Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated planned reduction in administrative costs projected for the Scottish health budget in each year for which a projection has been made in 1996–97 prices. [20972]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Health boards' management costs reduced by £3 million in 1995–96. NHS trusts and health boards will achieve savings of £14 million in 1996–97 and health boards will achieve savings in 1997–98 of £17 million.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the costs to public funds of the nursery voucher scheme for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [20975]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Government plan to spend some £3.8 million, £47.4 million and £70 million on the pre-school education voucher initiative in Scotland in the three years 1996–97, 1997–98, and 1998–99 respectively.

  Crime
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of crimes were 668
  carried out in each police authority in Scotland by people under the age of (a) 20 and (b) 16 years in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [21275]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not collected centrally on the estimated age of offenders responsible for recorded crimes. Information is collected on the age of offenders convicted in the criminal courts. This could not, however, be relied on to provide an answer to the question, as not all recorded crimes are cleared up by the police and most persons under 16, and some persons aged 16 and 17, suspected of offending are not prosecuted but are referred to the reporter to the children's panel.

WALES

  Assisted Businesses (Political Objectives)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if businesses or organisations with declared political objectives can, or could obtain, financial support from(a) the Welsh Development Agency and (b) the Development Board for Rural Wales. [20611]

  Mr. Hague
  Support cannot be given for political purposes. Any business or organisation can apply for financial support from the WDA and/or DBRW provided the application relates to a specific project or initiative which matches the economic or environmental criteria and objectives of an appropriate WDA or DBRW scheme. Aid to some sectors is restricted or prohibited by the rules of some schemes and by EU state aid rules.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a review into the establishment of an education standard spending assessment in Wales equivalent to that which exists in England. [20526]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  With the agreement of the Welsh Local Government Association, standard spending assessments for local authorities in Wales are unhypothecated. It is for each authority to decide its spending priorities taking account of its statutory responsibilities and its own view of needs and priorities. The current system should encourage local accountability.

  National Museum and Gallery of Wales
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the attendance figures for 1996 reported by the national museum and gallery of Wales, including its outstations, with the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1995. [20112]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of 819,605 persons visited the national museum and galleries of Wales during 1996, an increase of 5 per cent. compared with the number of 780,344 in 1995.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject
  669
  to (a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20932]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) the Arts Council of Wales (ACW), the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (CBDC), the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), the Development Board for Rural Wales (DBRW), Housing for Wales (HfW), the Residuary Body for Wales (RBW), the Sports Council for Wales (SCW), the Wales Tourist Board (WTB), the Welsh Language Board (WLB) and the Agricultural Wages Committees are all open to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration;

  (b) the Audit Commissioner is the external auditor of the Residuary Body for Wales;

  (c) the Comptroller and the Auditor General is the external auditor of all Welsh executive NDPBs except the RBW, Wales Youth Agency (WYA), HfW, and CBDC, to whose books and papers he nevertheless has access a) under the National Audit Act 1983 for the purpose of carrying out examinations on value for money, and b) by agreement, for the purpose of examining questions of regularity and propriety;

  (d) all are encouraged to adopt procedures under the code of access to Government Information;

  (e) all identify, publish and report against key performance measures in their annual reports other than the Higher and Further Education Funding Councils for Wales (HFEFCW), who give details in their corporate plan, which is also published.

  (f) all are subject to the provisions of the citizens charter.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20893]

  Mr. Hague
  This information requested is as follows.

  (a)All—under statute, charter or other controlling documents. The report of work by the Agricultural Wages Committee is included in the annual report of the Agricultural Wages Board;

  (b)all except the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales and the Agricultural Wages Committee—under statute or charter;

  (c)none;

  (d)none;

  (e)all have adopted or are in the process of adopting a code of practice based on the "Code of Best Practice for Board Members of Public Bodies" published by HM Treasury in June 1994 and further guidance issued by HM Treasury in January 1997. They publish or will then publish or make available such a register for inspection.

  Forest Enterprise (Sales)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each unitary authority in Wales the number of woods which Forest Enterprise intends to put up for sale by the end of the financial year 1996–97. [20980]
  670
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive. Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Wales has asked me to reply to your Question about the sale of Forestry Commission woodlands in the period up to the end of the current financial year.
  We have no plans to market any new woodlands in Wales before 31 March 1997.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients suffering from glaucoma were treated by general practitioners during(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96. [21084]

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

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he is proposing to make to the cash limits for his Department for the current financial year. [21427]

  Mr. Hague
  The local authority capital cash limit— WO/LACAP—will be reduced by £6,465,000 from £518,206,000 to £511,741,000; the Housing for Wales cash limit—WO/HFW—will be increased by £6,465,000 from £96,137,000 to £102,602,000.

  The transfer of £6,465,000 from the local authority capital cash limit to the Housing for Wales cash limit is in respect of work undertaken by housing associations on behalf of local authorities.

  Housing
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what progress has been made with the sale of Housing for Wales's loan portfolio. [19567]

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his reply 6 March 1997]: The purchase price will be subject to changes in the underlying portfolio and to movements in the gilt rate until completion on 26 March. I cannot therefore, give a figure for the final sale receipt until after Parliament has risen. However, I shall write to my hon. Friend when the final figure is available, and place copies of the letter in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Army Training Land
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current requirement for Army training land in the United Kingdom; and what arrangements there are for the stewardship of such land. [21457]

  Mr. Soames
  I have today published a document, "Striking a Balance '97", the second report on the management of the major Army training areas, following the original "Striking a Balance", published in October 1995. The new document describes the work going on in
  671
  a number of areas to ensure that the land on which the Army trains is managed with as much sensitivity as possible to the requirements of local people.

  The document also reports on the work we have done to analyse the Army's requirement for training land in the United Kingdom. This work shows that, following the return to this country of many units from Germany, and the introduction of new systems, the Army has a significant shortfall in training land in the UK. The report also shows a number of ways in which this shortfall can be reduced including by development of existing facilities and, in particular, the proposed development of Otterburn.

  A copy of "Striking a Balance '97" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Sales Teams
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which countries Army sales teams were deployed in 1991. [20106]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  According to our records, Army sales teams—now called export support teams—were deployed in the following countries during 1991: Brunei, France, Morocco, The Netherlands, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries where loan service personnel were deployed in 1991. [20174]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 March 1997,Official Report, columns 507–10.

  Gulf War (Organophosphate Pesticides)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what quantities of Fenitrothion were taken to the Gulf for use at British military establishments as part of Operation Granby in 1990–91; up to what date it was used; and what additional stocks were(a) obtained locally and (b) used; [19086]

  (2) what quantities of Neocydal 60 EC were obtained in the Gulf by British forces in 1990 and 1991 in Operation Granby; what languages were printed on the use instructions for this insecticide; what translation facilities were available for interpreting these instructions; and what use in action was made of Neocydal. [19093]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 4 March 1997,Official Report, columns 587–88.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his annual departmental budget was spent in Wales in each of the past five years; what(a) non-departmental Government bodies and (b) executive agencies responsible for his Department operate in Wales; and what land his Department currently (i) owns and (ii) leases in Wales, indicating the area of each site. [20707]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not possible to split the total defence budget by geographical area. Defence expenditure on equipment and associated direct employment in Wales for the most recent five years for which analysis is available 672
  is in table 1.9 of "UK Defence Statistics 1996", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. For each financial year from 1990–91 to 1993–94 inclusive the estimated proportion of the total equipment expenditure spent in Wales was about 1 per cent. In the financial year 1994–95 the proportion is estimated to have been about 1.5 per cent.

  The National Employer's Liaison Committee is my Department's only non-departmental Government body to operate in Wales.

  Five Ministry of Defence agencies maintain operational establishments in Walesr: the Army Initial Training Organisation; the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; the RAF maintenance group; the RAF training group; and the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency. In addition the Army base Repair Organisation has a contracts office in Cardiff.

  The Defence Estate Organisation, which is scheduled to launch as an agency on 18 March, maintains a deputy defence land agent office at Brecon, and is responsible for the management of the defence estate throughout Wales.

  The following agencies maintain a presence or from time-to-time conduct operations or training in Wales: the Ministry of Defence police; the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency; the Meteorological Office; the Defence Dental Agency; and Military Survey Defence Agency.

  I am placing the information requested regarding Department owned and leased land in Wales in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's implementation of the recommendation of Sir Richard Scott on accountability to Parliament on trade in arms. [19460]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) on 22 January 1997,Official Report, columns 600–01, about action to implement the recommendations of Sir Richard Scott's report.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent defence contracts or subcontracts have been awarded to companies based in and around Colchester; and what is the value of each contract or subcontract. [20279]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  During the current financial year, over 200 prime contracts have been placed by MoD contracts branches on approximately 100 companies either based in the area or where the major element of the work is being performed or sub-contracted in and around Colchester. Because of the number of contracts it is impractical to list them individually, but values range from several hundred to several million pounds.

  The above does not include any minor sub-contract work, or local purchase orders placed locally by MoD units as this information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Army Apprentices College
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made a decision on the future use of the former Army apprentices college near Harrogate; and if he will make a statement. [20681]

  Mr. Soames
  No firm decision has yet been made on the future of the Harrogate site. It will be drawn to the attention of bidders for the Army Foundation college, for which we intend to seek private finance, but we are not in a position to reach final conclusions at this stage.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner,(b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20931]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None of my Department's executive non-departmental public bodies are subject to investigation by the Audit Commission. While none of them are listed as subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner they are all subject to the code of practice on access to Government information— under which complaints may ultimately be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner. The Submarine museum has been incorporated as a charitable limited company and is not currently subject to audit by the National Audit Office. All other of my Department's executive non-departmental public bodies are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and all of my Department's executive non-departmental public bodies are subject to performance indicators and citizens charter provisions.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20900]

  Mr. Arbutnot
  There is a statutory right for the public to inspect the annual accounts of all the service museums, held by the Charities Commission; the National Army museum and the RAF museum publish their annual reports voluntarily. The Oil and Pipelines agency's annual report and accounts are laid before Parliament.

  None of the MOD's executive non-departmental public bodies publishes the agendas or minutes of meetings; and there is no statutory requirement to do so.

  Appointees to the Oil and Pipelines agency are required to declare any personal interests and records are maintained.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on low flying by the RAF in the vicinity of Seaham on Monday 3 and Tuesday 4 March between 12 noon and 5 p.m; [19941]
  674
  (2) if the flight paths of low-flying exercises by the RAF now incorporate the vicinity of Seaham. [19944]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF police have been tasked to investigate the activity of 3 and 4 March. My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, will write to the hon. Member when these inquiries are complete. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of family credit claims and (b) the average payment of family credit by benefits offices made each year since 1992. [20296]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of family credit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Stephen Timms, dated 18 March 1997:
  As Peter Mathison is away from the office on annual leave, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the number of Family Credit (FC) claims and the average payment of FC by benefits offices made each year since 1992.
  The information is not available in the format requested. It may be helpful if I explain that FC is administered centrally by the Family Credit Unit. Statistics are produced on a national basis and provide the number of families in receipt of FC within a particular Benefits Agency (BA) office area at a given date. However, this only serves as a "snap-shot" of the position at that given date and does not provide details of the number of families in receipt of FC annually.
  The scan was introduced in 1989 and details are normally held for 18 months. However, details have been retained which indicate the number of families in receipt at April 1993 and each successive year.
  Details of the number of FC claims by BA offices will be placed in the Library.
  Details of the average award of FC are only available on a national basis and are not broken down by BA office area. Details for 1992 and each successive year shown in the attached annex.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Average awards of family credit

  Date

  Average weekly entitlement(£)

  May 1992

  37.69

  May 1993

  43.34

  May 1994

  47.09

  May 1995

  50.17

  February 1996

  54.97

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division, Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1996.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Benefit Recipients
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) of 12 February,Official Report, columns 247–48, if he will list the

  675
  95 per cent. confidence limits for his number of estimated recipients of council tax benefit and retirement pension, and entitled non-recipients of income support; [18677]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) of 12 February, Official Report, columns 247–48, in respect of council tax benefits, if he will list the assumptions which have been made in supplying the answers to her question. [18676]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The figures in my written answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) on 12 February,Official Report, columns 247–48, were based on the housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample. This database consists of detailed records of approximately one in every 100 recipients of housing benefit, council tax benefit or both. This information is supplied by the local authorities responsible for the administration and payment of these benefits. The records include details of amounts of housing benefit and council tax benefit being received, eligible council tax, details of other benefits being received by the claimant or partner and details of any dependants and non-dependants.

  No particular assumptions were therefore made in producing figures for the number of recipients of council tax benefit and retirement pension or the number of recipients of council tax benefit, retirement pension and income support.

  To provide an estimate for recipients of council tax benefit and retirement pension eligible for but not claiming income support, information on the relevant database records was used to calculate whether council tax benefit, after adding back in any deductions for non-dependants, is equal to eligible council tax. This then indicates whether the recipient has income less than his applicable amount—the total of personal allowances and premiums—and therefore whether they would be eligible for income support. Differences in council tax benefit and income support rules relating to earnings disregards and capital amounts have been taken into account in this calculation.

  The only assumptions made are that:

  1.Recipients of council tax benefit and retirement pension, who are not already claiming income support, but receive either war disablement or war widow's pension and have council tax benefit equal to eligible council tax, will not be entitled to income support. This is due to the differences between how income from war disablement or war widow's pension is disregarded for council tax benefit and income support. Analysis of the cases where council tax benefit is equal to eligible council tax, which would total around 16,000, indicates that the vast majority would be unlikely to qualify for income support due to these differences and the relatively large amounts of war disablement or war widow's pension paid in addition to retirement pension. The effect of this assumption, if any, would be slightly to underestimate the number of entitled non-recipients of income support.

  2.The number of special cases where a non-dependant deduction would not be applied and which cannot be identified from the information on the database, is relatively small. In these cases, it has been assumed that a non-dependant deduction has been made and so this deduction has been added back in the calculation
  676
  described above. The effect will be slightly to overestimate the number of entitled non-recipients of income support.

  3. The effects of any other minor differences between the entitlement rules of council tax benefit and income support are small.

  Due to the possible effects of these assumptions, the estimated figure was rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  The 95 per cent. confidence limits are as follows, and do not take into account the effect of the assumptions described above:

  Number (000s)

  Approximate 95 per cent. confidence interval

  Recipients of council tax benefit and retirement pension

  2,431

  2,411 to 2,451

  Estimated recipients of council tax benefit and retirement pension, eligible for but not claiming income support

  260

  250 to 270

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary; [20896]

  (2) if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to (a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20935]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is as follows:

  The Occupational Pensions Board does not publish annual reports or accounts, minutes and agendas of meetings. It has compiled, voluntarily, a register of members' interests which is available for public inspection. On 5 March the board published a final report which contained a detailed history of the board's work and achievements. It is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, scrutiny by the National Audit Office, the statutory provisions for open government and provisions under the citizens charter. It is not subject to performance indicators. The board will cease to exist from 6 April.

  The Pensions Compensation Board was established in August 1996 and commences full operation on 6 April. It will publish an annual report and accounts. It is compiling voluntarily a register of members interests which will be available for public inspection. It is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, scrutiny by the National Audit Office, the statutory provisions for open government and provisions under the citizens charter. It will also be subject to performance indicators.
  677
  The Occupational Regulatory Authority was established in April 1996 and commences full operation on 6 april 1997. It will publish an annual report and accounts. It has compiled voluntarily a register of members interests which is available for public inspection. It is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, scrutiny by the National Audit Office, the statutory provisions for open government and provisions under the citizens charter. It will also be subject to performance indicators.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 342, to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), what is his estimate of the numbers of (a) women and (b) men who could gain if new claims for invalid care allowance were allowed for people over retirement age. [18982]

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated number of women and men who would gain if new claims for invalid care allowance were allowed for people over the age of 65 are 65,000 and 5,000 respectively. Most of these are estimated to gain by only a small proportion of the basic invalid care allowance rate, because of the rules on contributory benefits. Those on income-related benefits would gain entitlement to carer premium.

  Note:

  Estimates are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1994–95.

  Tax and National Insurance (Lower Earnings Limits)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the costs and savings to individuals and employers of aligning the national insurance lower earnings limit and the personal tax allowance at(a) £62 and (b) £70 per week for the year 1997–98. [18978]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table:

  Estimated increase/decrease in revenue from aligning the national insurance contribution lower earnings limit and the personal tax allowance for 1997–98 at (a) £62 and (b) £70

  (a)£62

  (b)£70

  Employee contributions1

  Nil

  -£575 million

  Employer contributions1

  Nil

  +£100 million2

  Income Tax3

  +£4.7 billion4

  +£2.3 billion4

  Notes:

  1Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  2The estimated net gain in revenue from employers' national insurance contributions arises from the counter effect of the contracted-out rebate being applied to a narrower band of earnings.

  3Source: Inland Revenue.

  4Estimates based on information projected from the 1994–95 survey of personal incomes and the 1994–95 family expenditure survey.Figures include the tax yield from reducing the aged personal allowances for people aged 65, whose total income is greater than the aged income limit of £15,600, or over to a minimum level equivalent to (a) £62 per week or (b) £70 per week.

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 309, what percentage of the total amount of national insurance contributions from employees was paid by (a) those with more than twice and (b) those with less than average earnings in (i) 1979–80 and (ii) 1995–96. [19681]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Figures for 1979–80 are not available and could only be provided a disproportionate cost.

  Percentage of total employee national insurance contributions in each band

  1995–96

  More than twice average earnings

  12.8

  Less than average earnings

  35.3

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Personal Pensions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the net present cost, in 1996 prices, of national insurance rebates and incentives paid to those who have joined appropriate personal pensioners since 1988–89, assuming the social discount rate used by his Department. [19950]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 20 February,Official Report, column 712.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the additional housing benefit costs in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99 arising from the provisions under(a) section 167 and (b) section 197 of the Housing Act 1996. [21133]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No estimates are available.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) single people under the age of 25 years and (b) single people aged 25 to 59 years living in the private rented sector made a claim for housing benefit prior to 2 January 1996 which is still continuous. [21139]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown of the costs associated with the establishment of the jobseeker's allowance in Scotland. [20973]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The overall one-off costs of implementing the jobseeker's allowance in Great Britain are estimated at £348 million.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimated total cost of long-term unemployment in Scotland in 1996, separately identifying the costs of(a) the jobseeker's allowance, (b) housing benefit and (c) income support; and if he will indicate the number of people in receipt of such benefits. [20974]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table:

  Estimated annual cost of long-term unemployment in Scotland—1996

  Number of claimants

  Total weekly benefit £

  Implied annual expenditure £

  Income support

  83,000

  4,506,000

  234,000,000

  Unemployment benefit

  13,000

  664,000

  35,000,000

  Housing benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1.The latest available information for expenditure purposes in May 1996. Since jobseeker's allowance was not introduced until October 1996 figures for unemployment benefit have been provided.

  2.It has not been possible to include figures on housing benefit since data are not yet available for 1996. Once data are available, analysis is limited to claimants also in receipt of income support.

  3.Long-term unemployed has been defined as those claiming unemployment benefit for more than six months and includes those who receive income support only.

  Basic Pension Plus
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cumulative gross cost to public funds of implementing the basic pension plus proposals between 2001 and 2040. [20993]

  Mr. Heald
  It is not possible to give a precise cumulative cost since that will depend on when the scheme is introduced and what the initial age limit is. The overall cost to public funds of implementing basic pension plus, including the new rebates and reversing the timing of tax relief, will rise on average by about £160 million in each year following implementation reaching a maximum of about £7 billion by 2040 or later.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the Government Actuary's advice on which he has based his estimate that a person on average earnings paying minium contributions to basic pension plus throughout their life would receive a pension of around £150 a week. [20994]

  Mr. Heald
  The Government Actuary's assumptions, on which the estimated pension of £175 per week for a person on average earning was based, are shown in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 11 March,Official Report, columns 195–96.

  Departmental Select Committee Report
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the Government's response to the Third report of the Social Security Committee, "Uprating of State Retirement Pensions Payable to People Resident Abroad" (HC 143 of Session 1996–97). [21424]
  680
  Mr. Lilley
  The Government welcome the Committee's report, which focused on the long-standing policy of uprating UK state retirement pensions when paid abroad in specific countries. The report is an important and useful study.

  The report contained one recommendation:
  "That there should be a free vote at prime time to allow Members to express their opinion on the principle of whether the Government should pay upratings to some or all of those pensioners living in countries where upratings are not paid at present".

  Whipping arrangements are a matter for the business managers of all parties. The Government note that the House had the opportunity to debate the uprating of pensions paid abroad during the passage of the Pensions Bill in July 1995. Over 200 hon. Members voted on amendments aimed at providing uprating increases, which were heavily defeated.

  The Committee's report rightly recognises that priorities for public expenditure will inevitably be taken into account in considering the issue. Almost £1 billion a year is paid to UK pensioners abroad. It would cost another £250 million a year to bring frozen pensions up to the rate that would be paid if the pensioner were in the UK.

  Pensions and Benefits (Earnings Link)
  Mr Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the savings to his Department in 1995–96 of ending the link between disability benefits and annual earnings at current prices. [16782]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer Tuesday 25 February 1997]: The information is in the table.

  The link between the benefit uprating and earnings was broken in 1980 to ensure that long-term provision for the sick and disabled should be sustainable.

  Expenditure savings 1995–96

  £ million

  Incapacity benefit

  1,495

  Invalidity allowance/age addition

  80

  Attendance allowance/disability living allowance

  1,335

  NCIP/severe disablement allowance

  105

  Invalid care allowance

  105

  Notes:

  1.Estimates are rounded to nearest £5 million.

  2.Estimates converted to 1996–97 prices using GDP deflator.

  3.Estimates take account of offsetting costs in the income related benefits.

  4.Disability living allowance includes the higher and middle rate care components. The mobility components and lowest rate of care component have been excluded from the calculation as they were never linked to earnings.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division.

  Disability Payments
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reasons for the corrections to his answers to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe of 11 November,Official Report, column 90 and of 4 December,Official

  681
  Report, columns 714–15 in respect of disability benefits; and if he will update his answers to include figures for the year 1995–96. [16780]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 25 February 1997]: The estimates of the additional costs of uprating invalidity benefit, including invalidity allowance, in line with the higher of earnings or prices in my replies of 11 November 1996, Official Report, column 90 and 4 December 1996, columns 714–15, did not take account of the fact that between November 1980 and November 1985, the rate of basic invalidity pension was abated by 5 per cent. in lieu of taxation and that an equivalent abatement applied to the rates of invalidity allowance between November 1980 and November 1981.

  The revised estimates in my answers of 10 February, Official Report, columns 78–79 were based on the assumption that such an abatement would not have applied if the link with earnings had been maintained.

  The estimates also incorporated refined calculations, based on information that had not been originally available, of the offsetting savings arising from fewer claims to income-related benefits.

  Sickness and Social Security
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what factors underlie the expected expenditure on sickness and social security between 1996–97 and 2001–02 projected in the financial statement and Budget Report 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [17651]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 25 February 1997]: I have been asked to reply.

  Two factors account for the expected increase in social security expenditure on the sick and disabled between 1996–97 and 1990–00. First, a large increase in the number of sick and disabled claimants. Secondly, an increase in the number receiving premiums over and above the basic benefit payment.

  My reply to the hon. Member on 24 February, Official Report, column 19, about growth in cyclical social security expenditure, highlighted that projections beyond 1999–00 are based on simple broad assumptions. Consequently, a detailed breakdown of expenditure trends is not meaningful, which is why projections of benefit expenditure beyond 1999–00 are rounded to the nearest £1 billion.

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.

Pensions: Downrating during Hospitalisation
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
What savings occur from the financial penalty imposed on persons on state retirement pensions who spend up to six weeks a year in hospital.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, data are not available to calculate savings from downrating of retirement pensions for stays in hospital of up to six weeks. The only cases where downrating applies during the first six weeks of a hospital stay are where the person goes into hospital from a council home. The estimated total saving from hospital downrating of state retirement pensions is some £60 million a year, almost all of which comes from downrating after six weeks.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the people concerned have earned that pension, by their entitlement and through the insurance scheme? Does he further agree that when they go into hospital they are still faced with the same responsibilities to keep the home going, whether it be house, bungalow or flat? Is it right that they should then be deprived of that money if they spend more than six weeks in hospital undergoing treatment which is designed to make them better, when going there is not their personal choice?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the downrating of the state pension when someone is in hospital for over six weeks and the further downrating when they are in hospital for over 52 weeks is of long standing and has been the policy of governments of both parties since the inception of the pension system in 1948. Of course, the pension is not all lost. The downrating is merely a portion of the pension after six weeks and then a slightly larger portion after 52 weeks. The reason is that, if the state is looking after many of the person's needs in hospital, it would be double provision to continue to pay the pension should they be in hospital for some time. The state system is pay-as-you-go, unlike Basic Pension Plus, which we have just announced and which would be funded.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whether it is something which has been operated by all kinds of governments does not matter? The fact is, as my noble friend said, that it is an
894
insurance-based pension. Let us make no mistake about that. It has been contributed to by pensioners and it is their money. Will he accept that other people are not similarly disadvantaged when they go into hospital, and it is about time that the Government, of whatever colour, reviewed their policy and ceased to penalise older people when they go into hospital?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the fact of the matter is that pensions are paid out of the taxes and national insurance contributions collected in the same year as the pensions are paid out. As I mentioned, it is not a properly funded policy. The point is that the taxpayer and national insurance payer are paying to look after someone in hospital for more than six weeks initially and, if it goes on, for more than 52 weeks. It seems to me that it is double provision if they get the help there and at the same time receive their full retirement pension. I believe that they get sufficient of their retirement pension to continue with any responsibilities for their house and so on that they might have. But if the noble Lord wants the social security budget to rise by another £60 million, I suggest that he talks to his honourable friend Gordon Brown about his suggestion that the budget that we are providing for the next two years is perfectly adequate in social security.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify that £60 million? How many persons does it represent in one year who are benefiting from the state, as the noble Lord said? How many persons are involved?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position on downrating is that approximately 35,000 people at any one time have their pension downrated. Approximately 20,000 of them are in the six to 52-week period and approximately 15,000 are in the over-52-week period.

Inward Investment and Employment Statistics
2.38 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their forecast for inward investment for the remainder of this financial year and what effect that figure will have on the unemployment statistics.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, it is not possible to predict the number of new inward investment decisions and related employment figures that will be notified to my department's Invest in Britain Bureau in this period. However, the pattern over the past three years has shown an upward trend in both numbers of projects and jobs created.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that today in Dunfermline, Scotland, the Hyundai Company of Korea is breaking

895
the ground for a new factory, which will give 2,000 jobs to the constituency of the Shadow Chancellor? Does he agree that the declared objective of the party opposite is such that to sign up to the social chapter is surely a somewhat strange step, in view of that investment?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Noble Lords may laugh, but I do not believe that there is anything in the least bit humorous about it. Dunfermline is an area that many in the party opposite had written off as a place for employment, opportunity and reasons for optimism. Two thousand jobs will be created there. That is as a result of this Government's policy in attracting inward investment. I have no doubt whatever that, were we to sign up to the social chapter, that quite remarkable record in Europe, which is better than anyone else's, would seriously be put in peril.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in order that the Question may be considered within its correct perspective, will the Minister confirm that, according to the Government's figures, for every £1 invested inwards in the United Kingdom, £2 is invested outside Britain?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure that those figures are correct. However, we have a remarkable economy in that we attract almost as much inward investment as we invest outwards. We wish to see that activity maintained. It is as desirable that we attract inward investment as it is that we invest elsewhere around the world. We are doing that extremely satisfactorily and efficiently.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that one of the reasons the UK has the bulk of inward investment into Europe, not only from Europe, but also from Korea and America, is the competitive position of our industries? They have a lower labour on-cost than our main competitors in Europe. Does he agree also that, if the social chapter was signed, inward investment would dry up?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, yes. An interesting indication of that is not so much the Japanese and Korean investment that we now attract to the United Kingdom—we are the number one location for Asian investment—but that some of the most important investments undertaken by German companies are now in the United Kingdom. Most notable, in recent years, is the massive Siemens semi-conductor plant in the north-east of England.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us who those foolish investors are from this country who invest abroad when it is so much more attractive to invest at home?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, all manner of companies. One group that certainly would not have been investing abroad, had it not been for this Government, are the privatised utilities which now have
896
extensive investments overseas. It is highly desirable that they should undertake that activity and no other government would have given them that opportunity.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to what extent would a dissipation of the funds of the utilities through the proposed windfall tax—which will give six months employment to the unemployable—deny investment in restructuring which would create genuine long-term jobs?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have just made the point that those utilities that have been privatised have been extremely successful and are now investing in every continent in the world. If they were to be subjected to a windfall tax, I would consider that their prospects of being able to continue that high level of investment, either in the United Kingdom or overseas, would be seriously diminished.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the evidence he gave earlier indicates beyond doubt that inward investment into Scotland is not at all deterred by the prospect of a Scottish Parliament?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is absolutely no indication of that. I am saying that we can look to those areas of Scotland which the noble Lord's friends wrote off. For instance, parts of Lanarkshire and Dunfermline, as we have already mentioned, through the efforts of this Government and the Scottish Office have been turned around. They now provide some of the finest hi-tech jobs in the country. We deserve the credit for that and not the noble Lord's party.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the obvious confusion of noble Lords opposite in relation to the effects of legislation and policy on Scotland throw a little light on an intriguing headline in the Glasgow Herald a week ago, which read, "Labour amends wrong clause"?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I did not see that heading, but it does not surprise me.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, certainly on my last question in this Parliament, I could not be in a better mood? Mention has been made of the social chapter, privatised utilities and the windfall tax. I cannot think of anything more that noble Lords opposite could have spoken about. But I retain an interest in the Question on the Order Paper which asked for a connection between investment and unemployment.
One interesting aspect about this Government is that they have presided over the largest and most sustained level of unemployment in modern history. At the same time we have had high inward investment. The resulting implication is that there is, at best, no connection between inward investment and the employment figures. If one was cynical, one might point out that inward investment perhaps leads to higher unemployment rather than lower. However, I would never say that on such a pleasant and final day for me. Does the noble and

897
learned Lord's department have any evidence whatever, at a serious level of analysis, relating to the level of inward investment and the level of unemployment? Is there any data to which he can guide me?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his question; I was wondering how I was going to get in today's unemployment figures. They are now down by 68,200, following on 68,000 in January and 46,000 in December. I am more than happy to answer as many questions as the noble Lord wishes on unemployment and the improvements that we have secured. I cannot accept that there is no relationship between our massive improvement in the way in which we have attracted inward investment and jobs. Since 1986 around 250,000 jobs have come to the United Kingdom from European investment alone.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the serious point is that in 1993, for example, unemployment was virtually 3 million and inward investment was massive in that year. There simply cannot be a connection; that is the point.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with respect, it is not. There are 2,000 people in Dunfermline today who give the lie to that assertion.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has obviously lost touch with the economics he once used to teach? It is a commonplace of business that before employment is created the factories have to be built and the markets discovered. If the noble Lord does not know that, I only hope that he will not be going back to teaching economics when his party is disappointed in the election, as undoubtedly it will be.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is only the last point of my noble friend's question with which I disagree. I hope the noble Lord will go back to teaching economics.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, what proportion of the number of unemployed is directly related to the jobseeker's allowance?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have given the figure of the number of people unemployed. It has been going down steadily. I do not understand what else the noble Lord wants. Some 68,000 people have come off the register. That is extremely important. I should have thought that the whole House would be delighted that the trend is in the right direction. One sometimes feels that the noble Lord and his friends have a vested interest in keeping those unemployment levels up.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on today's unemployment figures. In the light of those figures, how does he explain the MORI poll reported in
898
today's papers showing that unemployment is causing more anxiety to voters than any other single subject? Are the voters just stupid?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords. They must be worried when they contemplate that, unlike the United Kingdom, countries like Germany probably have the highest unemployment levels since the 1930s. One of the causes has undoubtedly been the very high social costs that are attracted to employment in Germany. The prospect that such social costs might be attached to employment in the United Kingdom would seem to be very good cause for the electorate to be worried.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say how much of the £2 outward investment referred to by my noble friend in the ratio of £1 inward investment is invested in countries in Europe which have signed the social chapter and have a national minimum wage?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness that figure. What I can say is that there is investment throughout the world. Indeed I am delighted to say that much of the investment that is currently underway from the United Kingdom is in the developing world. I am sure that she will be as pleased as I am that there is still that investment from the United Kingdom. We all benefit from it in the long run.

NAAFI: Food Supply Contract
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the NAAFI food supply contract has been awarded to a private company, Booker Foodservice, and what saving to the taxpayer will result from this decision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the award of the food supply contract to the Booker Foodservice Group followed a year-long competition phase. The tenders submitted were subjected to thorough commercial and technical evaluation and the Booker bid was assessed as clearly offering the better overall value for money for the department. Savings as a result of the tendering process over the life of the contract are currently estimated to be of the order of £15 million.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords. I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware that the awarding of the contract to this company could result in the possible loss of 2,000 jobs of people formerly employed by NAAFI? Is this social cost taken into account by the Government when considering what the costs are to the taxpayer?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the job losses announced by NAAFI are clearly a matter for regret. But I would stress

899
that the majority of them are the result not of the loss of the food supply contract but of the restructuring programme that was recently announced by NAAFI's chief executive. That programme should be regarded as a vote of confidence in NAAFI's future and is aimed at ensuring the long-term health of the corporation and had already been planned before the decision on the food supply contract was announced. However, there is good news for some because Booker expects to create some 300 new jobs by virtue of winning the contract.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that NAAFI is not a perfect supplier? My own TA unit frequently receives supplies of beer that has very little shelf life remaining. Is the Minister aware of the great difficulties of drinking such large quantities of beer in a relatively short space of time?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend should have to put up with a glass of beer that is not to his satisfaction. He makes an important point. NAAFI knows that there is scope for improvement in the services it offers. It underlines the point that NAAFI will now focus on its traditional core activities; namely, its shops and clubs. It will do that in partnership with high street stores and leading breweries so as to maximise efficiency. The priority for NAAFI is to maintain the momentum of that programme, which has already got off to a very good start, and to make sure that it can provide high quality retail and leisure facilities for service personnel.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as this may be the last point at which the noble Earl and I have exchanges from our respective Dispatch Boxes, perhaps I may, with the leave of the House, thank him very sincerely for the way he has conducted the defence portfolio in this House. He has been a model of courtesy and I am most grateful from my point of view. I also congratulate the Minister on not introducing the minimum wage. Previous Ministers have brought everything in; this one has been left out. Can he expand a little on the future of NAAFI? Having lost what I understand is a very important contract—an important element in NAAFI—does the Minister consider that NAAFI, even in spite of what he said about the retail activities, has a real future?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his generous remarks. I too have enjoyed our exchanges across the Dispatch Boxes over the past 18 months or so. The future importance of NAAFI to the services cannot be overstated. NAAFI now has a chief executive who is determined to drive the organisation forward, to modernise and to make sure that its services are consistent with what our Armed Forces wish to receive. I have every confidence in NAAFI's ability to do that and every confidence that the restructuring exercise that I mentioned will enable it to
900
invest to the degree necessary to ensure that the clubs in particular but also the retail outlets are upgraded to a satisfactory standard.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, while the business deal that has been explained today sounds very good, is the Minister aware that some of the people involved have a reputation for asset stripping in other companies? Can we have an undertaking that this exercise will not have that kind of ending? Is the Minister aware that some of the same people are now targeting the Co-op movement? Those of us who have been involved with the Co-op all our lives do not want anything to do with them. Can he give an undertaking that the Bank of England and the Ministries concerned will keep a close watch on the activities of these people as one of their companies has had to cease trading on the instructions of the Bank of England because it had acquired an artificial increase in its share prices?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the contract will be closely monitored as it proceeds. Booker is the market leader in food distribution. It has a well proven track record. It is setting up dedicated facilities to support the MoD contract which, as the noble Lord will be well aware, will be backed up by the considerable strength of the Booker plc organisation. My department considered all aspects of the food supply requirement both in this country and overseas during its evaluation of the tenders. We were absolutely satisfied that Booker's proposals were sound, realistic and achievable. I repeat that I am confident that we shall see a successful transition of the food supply contract when NAAFI's service comes to an end later this year.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House how many other tenders they had other than Booker's for this particular contract?
Earl Howe: My Lords, tenders were initially invited from six companies, but in the end bids were received from only two; namely, NAAFI and the Booker Foodservice Group.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of the fact that NAAFI is itself restructuring and no doubt endeavouring to modernise its activities, would it not have been better in the circumstances at least to have given the contract to NAAFI and to have retained the jobs rather than to put out the contract to an outside operation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we made it clear when NAAFI gained the food supply contract initially in 1994 that that contract would be subject to a tendering exercise last year. We adhered to that. Having decided on that route, we had to make sure that the competition was fair and open. I, and no doubt many others, were disappointed that NAAFI did not manage to secure the contract. But clearly we have a good prospect, as I have said, in the shape of Booker to ensure that the contract is delivered successfully. As regards job losses, I stress again that jobs will be created by Booker. It is not

901
entirely a one-way story. But for those people who are losing their jobs steps are being taken to minimise the pain to ensure that resettlement services are available, advice and so on. I believe that the decision we have taken is in the long-term interests of our Armed Services.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Countess, I think we should give perhaps five minutes to the next Question.

Digital Television Services
3.2 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect a decision from the ITC on the bids by the Digital Television Network and British Digital Broadcasting to operate digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the award of licences to operate commercial digital terrestrial television multiplexes is for the Independent Television Commission. It is for the commission to determine the time needed to consider the applications which have been submitted.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the assessment in last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph that British television is on the verge of a decision which could see the multi-billion pound future of pay television handed to Rupert Murdoch? In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that it would be wrong for this decision to be made while Parliament is not sitting? Further, does he not think it right that Parliament should take a broader look at decisions being made in the broadcasting industry, such as over-the-set top boxes, paying the levy and various strategic alliances, all of which involve a steady accretion of power by Mr. Murdoch? Is it not time that Parliament took a broad view of the power that Mr. Murdoch is acquiring in our media to see whether that is in the public interest?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, these matters were considered at very considerable length during the debates on the Broadcasting Bill last year. Very strong measures have been put in place to control media concentration. No company can control more than three digital terrestrial multiplexes; no company can provide more than 25 per cent. of new digital terrestrial programming; no company can have more than 15 per cent of the total television audience. These matters have been set down. The procedures for dealing with digital terrestrial multiplexes were given by Parliament to the ITC. It is always the case that Parliament can debate these matters whenever it wishes.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the inside story is that this
902
decision is scheduled to be announced on 1st May when perhaps the attention of the whole nation will not be entirely on it. The Minister mentioned Section 8 of the Broadcasting Act which covers these issues very specifically. Great emphasis is given to criteria of competition and the provision of a variety of programmes to meet a diversity of opinion. Will the Minister confirm that the Government still agree with that? Will he further confirm that the overarching principle stated in Section 8 is that the promotion of digital television should be, "otherwise than by satellite"? Will he tell us what the Government mean by that phrasing and whether they still support it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm the first part of the remarks made by the noble Lord. The second part of his remarks are self-explanatory. We believe that award of the digital terrestrial television licences should be in order to promote the uptake of digital terrestrial television.
Lord Renton: My Lords, without disagreeing with the answers which my noble friend has given so far, is he aware that when I tried recently to buy a new television so that I could see how well we were doing in the general election, I found that the only kind of set available was Japanese, possibly made in this country? Can my noble friend say whether British Digital Broadcasting will be seen and heard in future on British made sets?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is jumping the gun a little. British Digital Broadcasting has not been granted a licence for anything. One of the purposes of our proposals for digital terrestrial broadcasting in this country is to promote the industry and technology in order to provide jobs for here and for profits to be generated abroad.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, that in the Bill which he steered through this House great emphasis was laid on the importance of maintaining competition? Is the Minister further aware that this decision will shape the future of British digital broadcasting in general in a way which is of great concern to future viewers and consumers? Although we are all told that the British general election has been virtually decided by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, as he already controls 90 per cent. of satellite broadcasting, that he intends to launch 200 digital satellite channels, and that he will be a major element in this new proposition, does the Minister agree that it might be a good thing if the ITC were to delay its decision until the general election was over and we were all a little cooler and able to take a more rational view of where the public interest lies in this matter?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the proposals in Section 8 of the Broadcasting Act specifically state that one of the considerations of the ITC must be whether the applicant has acted in a manner to ensure effective and fair competition. The noble Lord is absolutely right

903
about the long-term significance of the decisions that the ITC will take. Those matters have been set down by Parliament for decisions to be taken by the ITC independently. However, the noble Lord is not right in saying that the result of the general election is to be determined by Mr. Rupert Murdoch. There has been a lot of debate about his possible endorsement of one party or another. I notice that the newspaper which endorsed the video of the alleged frolics of Princess Di may have endorsed the party opposite.

Police (Property) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Police (Property) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time, and passed.

Finance Bill
3.9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
As many of your Lordships will have noticed, the Bill before us this year is considerably shorter than last year's—something that I am sure will be welcome to everyone. Last year's Finance Act, and a number of others before it, were, I trust, the exception, dealing as they did with a number of large one-offs, such as new rules for self-assessment and the extensive new rules on corporate loan relationships to mention just two. So I hope we are back to something more like a typical length of Finance Bill.
As last year, this Bill opens with a piece of good news Clause 1 cuts the rate of duty on spirits. The Scotch whisky industry in particular is an important export earner, and it is pleasing that for the second year running we have been able to cut the duty on whisky by 4 per cent. This will reduce the incentive to smuggle, and reinforce the message we have been sending to overseas tax authorities that they should not discriminate against our goods. Also for the second year running, the Government have not raised the duties on wine and beer. This measure will help to allay the drinks industry's concerns over cross-border shopping and smuggling, which was the subject of a short debate in your Lordships' House recently.
Clause 6 of the Bill puts into effect the Government's commitment to increase the duty on road fuel by an average of at least 5 per cent. in real terms each year. This not only plays a significant role in reducing borrowing, but it is an important part of the air quality package in the Budget. We believe it is right to reduce
904
people's incentive to pollute, and we can do that through tax concessions as well as tax increases. That is why Clause 6 also reduces the duty on road fuel gas; it is why Clause 7 provides for the reduction in the duty on ultra-low sulphur diesel; and it is why we are proposing a cut in the rate of vehicle excise duty of up to £500 for lorries producing very low particulate emissions.
The Bill also raises the duty on tobacco, in line with our commitment. Again, we are determined to press home the message that smoking damages people's health.
The Bill contains a number of measures to protect the tax base against erosion from people's attempts to avoid paying the tax they were intended to pay. I have to say that tax avoidance is not an economically useful activity. It is a zero sum game, because those people who have subverted a tax relief, or found some other way of ingeniously reducing their tax liabilities, simply cause everyone else to have to pay more tax; and people and resources are diverted from activities that genuinely benefit the rest of the economy.
Perhaps I may mention a few of the measures we are proposing. We are tackling a leakage of VAT where insurance is sold alongside goods and services. In some cases, part of the price of the package is shifted onto the insurance product, which is taxed at the lower rate of insurance premium tax. We are therefore increasing the rate of insurance premium tax on products of this sort to 17½ per cent. We are also taking steps in Clause 37 to prevent VAT-exempt companies, not normally entitled to recover VAT on their costs, from doing so on commercial property—though here, as in a number of areas, changes have been made to the Bill in another place to reflect the concerns of those affected. As always, we seek to target the avoidance, without damaging people's legitimate commercial relationships. The full package of VAT measures will yield over £700 million in the first year and protect a further £1.6 billion from attack by avoidance schemes.
The Bill also contains measures to protect the income tax and corporation tax base; for example, Schedule 12 alters the tax treatment of certain finance leasing arrangements. The Bill also brings in the new rules that apply where companies buy back their own shares or pay certain special dividends in an attempt to exploit the payment of tax credits to tax exempt institutions. In new clauses added at Report stage in another place, we have protected the corporation tax yield by blocking two types of highly artificial schemes using derivatives and annuities to turn, respectively, interest received into capital, and capital paid into interest.
I shall not weary your Lordships with a description of all the measures, but we have moved against avoidance schemes wherever we have found them, so that the tax base holds up.
The Bill also removes or reduces certain tax reliefs. Perhaps I may mention the two most important. Clause 61 provides for the phasing out of the tax relief for profit related pay. This relief was introduced by my noble friend Lord Lawson in 1987, explicitly as a temporary measure to encourage firms to set up PRP

905
schemes. It has been an outstanding success. It has now done its job, and it is no longer appropriate to offer such a generous tax relief.
Schedule 14 to the Bill reduces the rate of writing down allowances on long life assets from 25 per cent. to 6 per cent. a year. Twenty-five per cent. a year is too generous for assets with lives of over 25 years. By setting a more realistic rate, and one that is closer to that adopted by companies themselves, investment decisions will he less dependent on their tax treatment.
The Government believe that low tax rates on a broad base are best for the economy and we have taken the further step towards our goal of a 20 pence basic rate of income tax in Clause 54, which cuts the standard rate of income tax to 23 pence.
I finish by mentioning a number of measures we are taking to help small businesses. The cut in income tax in Clause 54 will benefit unincorporated businesses, leaving business men and women more of their own money to spend or invest as they choose. The small companies' rate of corporation tax will also fall to 23 per cent. from next month, benefiting the majority of companies in the country. Small businesses are crucial to the success of the economy. We have listened to their concerns, and responded in this Bill by introducing relaxations to the venture capital trust and the enterprise investment schemes. We are also freezing business rates for small properties this year.
This will be the last Finance Bill of this Parliament. It is fitting that it should be, because it crowns five years of achievement on the economy. Since this Government were re-elected in 1992, we have seen five years of uninterrupted growth, with unprecedentedly low rates of inflation. This year, a family on average earnings should be £370 better off after earnings growth, tax and inflation, and over £1,100 better off than before the last election.
We are the party that has the courage to take tough decisions on spending and borrowing to produce the climate for the economic growth and prosperity that we are enjoying today. We are the party that has put in place the conditions for a fall in unemployment to its lowest level in six years, and to one of the lowest levels in the European Union, as my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie clearly demonstrated at Question Time only a few moments ago. We are the party that believes in letting people keep more of what they earn and save. This Finance Bill proves it. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.16 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for once again so ably summarising a complex Finance Bill. I am sure that he has broken all records in the short amount of time that he took to give that summary. However, in his brief summary, the noble Lord failed to mention one of the most significant aspects of the Bill: the fact that it is a tax-increasing Bill. In Clauses 21 to 24 it introduces, as the Minister
906
conceded, one brand new tax: the extension of VAT to previously exempt forms of insurance. To that new tax are added a raft of tax increases from air passenger tax to higher fuel duties. The total tax raised by this Bill from tax increases amounts to £350 million.
This is the fifth tax-increasing Finance Bill in succession since the general election of 1992. To paraphrase Stephen Dorrell, we have had tax increases year on year on year on year on year—and that is after Mr. John Major famously promised the British people on 7th April 1992:
"Year by year"—
he seemed to anticipate Mr. Dorrell—
"more tax cuts for all".
That was not the only promise. There was the promise that the level of national insurance contributions would not be raised. That promise was broken. There was the promise that mortgage interest tax relief would be maintained. That promise was broken. There was the promise, made over and over again, that there would be no increase in VAT. That promise was broken over and over again.
The truly intriguing question is: why? Why did John Major break every promise that he made to cut taxes? Why have the Conservatives increased taxation by such an extent that between the last election and the election on 1st May the average family will have suffered total tax increases of £2,120. Why? Did the Tories simply tell "fibs" in order to get elected? That may be part of the story; I would not know.
However, there is another far more important lesson to learn from this Finance Bill and from all the tax-increasing Finance Acts of this Parliament. The Tories have been forced to raise taxes because of the underlying weakness of the economy. If growth had been stronger, unemployment would have been lower, saving billions of pounds in social security benefits and sharply increasing tax revenues. If investment had been higher, the British economy would have been more competitive, capturing markets at home and abroad and yielding more taxes to the revenue. If consumers had been able to spend with confidence with their expenditure underwritten by a strong and competitive economy, revenues would have been even higher and would have been secure. Instead, five years after the recovery from the depths of the recession the Government are still running a substantial deficit. Even today when consumption spending is growing at rates reminiscent of 1988 and 1989 the consequent increases in tax revenues leave the Government with a huge deficit, with the prospect of fiscal balance retreating ever further into that pie in the sky.
The Minister claimed that the economy was in great shape. It is simply not true. If it were true, there would not be a yawning deficit in the Government's accounts after five years of tax increases year after year. It has been claimed today that in the past month unemployment has fallen by 68,000. That is not true. What is true is that the number of people eligible for job seeker's allowance has fallen by that number, not the number of people unemployed. When the noble Lord sums up perhaps he will explain why in the past year

907
the number of people eligible for benefit has fallen by 475,000 but the number of people in employment has increased by only 222,000. What has happened to the other 253,000 people who are apparently no longer unemployed but are not employed either?
There is one other aspect of the Finance Bill relevant to the assessment of the platform that the Conservative Party put before the people at the coming general election. Last weekend the Prime Minister said that his goal was to help the people whom he referred to as the "have-nots". If that is so, can the Minister explain why the tax changes in this Finance Bill give a bonus of £5.50 per week to the richest 10 per cent. of the population while taking 50 pence per week away from the poorest 10 per cent.? What a contemptible exercise! This is not an abberation. Year after year the Government's tax changes have hit the poor and benefited the rich. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has recently shown, the top 1 per cent. of earners with an average income of £120,000 per year have received 30 per cent. of all the tax cuts since 1979 but now pay only 4 per cent. of the tax rises that have been imposed since 1992. Is that a policy for the "have-nots"? No, my Lords. This Government are committed to a policy of inequality. They revel in the misery of the poor. The Prime Minister's new concern for the have-nots is sheer hypocrisy.
I am sure noble Lords are aware that the underlying weakness of our economy derives from a failure to invest. Often it seems that this Government care about investment only when it is carried out by foreigners. If only British investors were given the same assistance that foreign investors are given. It is only by greater domestic investment in machines, in the skills and ideas of our people and in innovation for the future that the foundations of the economy can be restored.
Of course, it has been necessary for the Labour Party to accept the overall expenditure plans proposed by the Government for this year. The economy that we will inherit has such fundamental weaknesses that it can do no other. But at the coming election the Labour Party proposes a new framework for economic policy that is not merely investment-friendly but sees increased investment in Britain's future as the fundamental goal of economic policy, from a commitment to monetary stability to the new welfare to work programme financed by the windfall tax on the utilities, from a commitment to the golden rule of public spending which ensures that the Government borrow only for investment to the new tax proposals to encourage long-term investment, from the new university for industry to make the latest skills available to all to the provision of long term finance for small businesses. Every new initiative will be geared to the goal of increasing investment. That is the new economic policy which will build the underlying strength that our economy so sadly lacks today. From that underlying strength will come the greater fiscal revenues to ensure that Labour keeps its promise not to increase tax rates. It is that underlying strength that Tory economic policy has singularly failed to deliver. For that
908
reason, on 1st May the British people will vote for new policies and a new government that they can trust. That is why they will vote for new Labour.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, at this stage of the Parliament I doubt whether the nation is waiting breathless for the speeches to be made on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in this place. Nevertheless, I should like to make two points on the Finance Bill which I believe are of importance.
I regret to say that it seems that we shall start the election campaign in an atmosphere of unreality and hypocrisy. Let us look for a moment at the major promises relating to tax and spending that have been made by the two main parties. Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are committed to improving schools and the National Health Service. Both are committed to maintaining the present expenditure plans of the Government as announced in the Budget. The Labour Party says that there will be no rise in income tax rates. Both promise cuts. The Conservatives promise further cuts in income tax, and Mr. Brown has announced that it is Labour's aim to reduce the lower rate band to 10 per cent. The Finance Bill already sets off along that path—a path that the Government have followed fairly consistently—by lowering income tax rates to 23 per cent.
Unfortunately, these aims are incompatible. I take the example of the National Health Service. Since 1979 expenditure on the NHS has increased in real terms by approximately 72 per cent. For that the Government deserve some credit. The paradox is that, despite that very substantial increase in expenditure on the health service, there is a mass of anecdotal evidence of shortages, rationing, people being unable to get the treatment they need, people being unable to get beds and cases where kidney patients who are over 65 are not allowed to have dialysis. In some respects in this field we have the worst record in Europe. In Britain only some 6 per cent. of kidney patients over 65 receive dialysis treatment, whereas the European average is well over 25 per cent.
Why is this so? There are two main reasons. First, the population has aged, and the older population makes a much greater demand on the health service. Secondly, better and more expensive drugs and treatment are available and the costs rise much faster than the resources that have been devoted to the health service. Despite an average increase in real terms in expenditure on the health service over the past 20 years of some 3 per cent. per annum, the National Health Service has not kept up with rising costs and there is considerable evidence of decay.
What are the Government's plans, endorsed by the main Opposition party; for the National Health Service under the public expenditure programme? The plan is that it should grow in real terms by 0.3 per cent. over the next three years. Inevitably, that means that the quality of treatment will suffer and the health service will fall further into decay.

909
There is an argument between the Government and the Labour Party about cutting red tape and the number of managers. That will make hardly any difference to the future of the National Health Service. It is a matter of unreality and hypocrisy. It may be that one can squeeze extra resources for the health service from extra charges as recommended by the organisation Health 2000. However, my view—which I believe corresponds to reality—is that the only way in which the NHS can maintain, let alone improve, treatment is for us to spend substantially more on it. It seems to me that the only way that can be done is by adopting the suggestion in this week's Economist—which is surprisingly radical given its general views—that there should be an hypothecated income tax, separated from the rest of income tax, which goes solely to the National Health Service. It would make the issues much clearer. I believe that if people knew where the money was going they would be more willing to pay. The alternative that must be faced by both the Government and the Labour Party is that there will be a two-tier health service: an upper tier with more specialised and better treatment, financed by insurance; and a lower, poorish emergency service financed out of taxation. That is my first point.
My second point is concerned solely with taxation. A good deal has been said about helping the poor—the have-nots—but it is now unfortunately clear that both major parties reject any redistributive role for taxation. I joined the Labour Party in my teens because I supported its stand on social justice. I left the Labour Party in the early 1970s because its sense of social justice—if I may over-simplify things—was not combined with any sense of realism. Today, I salute the Labour Party for its conversion to realism, but I regret that it seems virtually to have abandoned any concern for social justice. That is evident from its approach to taxation and to the Finance Bill.
I wish to look for a moment at Mr. Brown's alternative strategy. I recognise that the main priority must be to get people out of the poverty trap and into work, but there will inevitably be a sizeable group—deserted wives, single mothers, disabled people, sick people, old people who depend solely upon the basic state pension, the unskilled, the dregs, as it were of the school system—which will be dependent upon the state and upon very low earnings. What do cuts in income tax do for them? Practically nothing, because most of them do not pay tax. What will the extension of the lower rate band of 20 per cent. do for them? Virtually nothing. As the IFS has shown in the 1997 green budget it benefits the seventh and eighth deciles of the income groups many times more than the bottom three deciles.
What about Mr. Brown's proposals for a 10 per cent. lower rate? That, too, benefits the top five deciles or, if one likes, the top half of earners, much more than it benefits the bottom half. It is claimed that it will help with the poverty trap. The IFS has done some research on that. Let me quote from its 1997 green budget:
"A family receiving family credit and housing benefit currently faces a marginal tax rate of 96.85 per cent. due to very high benefit withdrawal rates. If the lower rate of tax were cut to 10 per cent. its marginal tax rate would only fall to 96.4 per cent.".
910
Big deal! It is down from 96.85 per cent. to 96.4 per cent.
The best way to help the lower paid, or the poor, through income tax is by extending allowances, preferably by turning them into tax credits which are worth the same to high and low rate taxpayers, but that, too, does not much help the poverty trap.
But what stands out a mile is that the way to make tax cuts help the poor is to cut the taxes they actually pay; that is, VAT. A cut in VAT helps the poor most and the richest least.
The tragedy about Mr. Brown's pledge that there will be no change in income tax rates—I have great respect for Mr. Brown—is that the time will come when he will have to raise taxes. If the Government were by any chance re-elected, they, too, would have to raise taxes. There can be very little doubt that this will have to be done. Whoever the Government are, they will either have to raise taxes or let schools and health become worse. If there is to be no change in income tax rates, then we might be able to get something out of changing the way allowances are charged, but the only real weapon for getting extra tax will be VAT which hurts the poorest most.
It is not fashionable to be concerned with poverty. Both main parties now reject taxation as a way of redistribution. I should like to voice a note of dissent. The primary role of taxes is to raise revenue, and to do so fairly according to ability to pay, but there is still room for a redistributive element, provided that there is not a disincentive to wealth creation.
The Finance Bill reduces taxes. It also raises some taxes. But in so far as it reduces taxes that, to my mind, is a grave error for which the next government will have to pay. If there had been room for tax cuts, then the Bill should have had more regard for social justice. Concern for social justice seems to have been abandoned by Conservatives, and, I regret, the Labour Party alike.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am delighted that we have had some little debate this time on the Finance Bill. Noble Lords will recall that the previous Finance Bill was not debated as a result of a government and opposition decision. Today we have had a short debate, inadequate to cover enormously complex and difficult issues that arise on the Finance Bill, but still we have, as a matter of principle, had some discussion of it.
I do not wish to obtrude unduly upon that restraint and, in the circumstances of this Session, inevitable state of affairs. But I want to stress, as the noble Lord opposite stressed, the desirability of cutting VAT. VAT is a very bad tax indeed. It falls, as the noble Lord said, particularly upon those least able to afford it. It is an inflationary tax. It is, indeed, a damaging piece of taxation.
The point that I should like to make on this Second Reading of the Finance Bill is that the government of the day, whoever they may be, should undoubtedly, when we return, cut VAT heavily and restore the ordinary system of taxation. I could of course dilate at

911
some length on the various highly complicated issues with which my noble friend the Minister dealt so clearly and effectively, but that, I think, would be contrary to the wishes of the House. But what is important is that the House has established the right to debate the Finance Bill and to make such points as the one I have ventured to make about VAT. If the expression of opinion in this House against VAT is effective, as I believe that it will be, we shall be beginning to address in the right direction the handling of the Finance Bill—that is, in debating it and amending it.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the time has come in this short debate to wind up and to summarise the position as it has been deployed by previous speakers, and to make a few points in conclusion. In trying to be objective, I should like to start by describing what I believe are the good points of the Bill. First, it has been limited in its scope. It has been a fairly cautious Bill, which I think is appropriate bearing in mind the present delicate balance of the economy.
Secondly, I very much welcome what has been done to help small firms. That is highly desirable. Thirdly, as the noble Lord reminded us, it has been a shorter Bill. It is still pretty long. It is over 200 pages long, but it is easier to manage than the two volumes that we have been used to in recent times.
That said, however, and looking at it in the longer perspective, I believe that it is an opportunity missed. When one looks back on the development of the British economy over the years—certainly over the years since the last world war—what emerges strongly is that we have tended to consume at an increasing rate, but at the same time our investment has not developed in line with that. So we have been strong on consumption, but relatively weak on investment.
I should like to see in successive Finance Bills an attempt to correct that imbalance. Unless we can do so, we shall soon run out of the ability to consume more. Of course, increased consumption is highly desirable, but it has to be supported by corresponding increases in investment. Our performance in investment, even with the benefit of the inward investment of which noble Lords opposite continue to remind us, compares poorly with our main competitors.
The Bill, if subjected to that test, does not show up too well. First, it further stimulates consumption by the admittedly modest reductions in income tax. Many people believe that probably this is not the time to reduce direct taxation because of all the other calls on the economy. Furthermore, later this year there will be a windfall payment by the building societies which will be converting to PLCs. That has been variously estimated at anything from £10 billion to £18 billion, which is the equivalent to several pence off income tax. No one knows how much of that very large windfall will go into increased consumption or increased savings, so there could be a big boost to consumption.
As regards investment, the only measure taken in the Bill is that to which the Minister referred in opening; namely, in Schedule 14, which reduces the rate of
912
write-down for taxation purposes of major investment. That means that in long-term, basic investment there will be less of an incentive. That will be a blow for the heavy engineering industry and will mean that those who are involved in this type of development must think again in the light of the new legislation. I should like to see more fiscal incentive for investment rather than less.
Furthermore, we have the unfortunate situation in the public sector where investment in certain vital areas is diminishing, despite what the Government may say to the contrary. We have been talking a great deal about the Government's plans for London Underground. Although the amount of funding which the Government provide to the Underground has risen over the years, it is, on the basis of statements by the management of the Underground, inadequate to meet normal maintenance. Therefore, users of the Underground can expect more delays as a result of signalling failures and other deficiencies. The Government's solution is to privatise, but on their own estimate, if they were returned to power, it would take three years before a privatisation Bill could be introduced and five years of privatisation before investment in the Underground could reach a proper level. That is eight years from now, but what will happen during that period? It is a gloomy prospect, indeed.
We are led to believe that the Government in their manifesto will be putting forward proposals on the Post Office. It happens to be a successfully run public-sector company, but it is now being pushed into great difficulty by the Government taking virtually the whole of its post-tax profits in enforced dividends. That is totally unheard of in the private sector. No quoted company would be distributing more than about one-third of its post-tax earnings, but Government have been taking up to 90 per cent. from the Post Office.
In my opinion, there are insufficient stimuli to investment in the private sector, and in vital investment in the public sector there is a deficiency. It should be the task of successive Finance Bills to try to put the balance right between stimulating consumption on the one hand and increasing investment on the other.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that my recollection of my time as Minister answerable for Treasury matters at this Dispatch Box is that we have debated the Finance Bill every year. We may not be allowed to amend it, but that is by long tradition and convention. Perhaps my noble friend is confusing the Finance Bill with the Consolidated Fund Bill, which I managed to get through your Lordships' House quickly yesterday afternoon, perhaps without my noble friend noticing.
We have had a number of debates on the economy in recent times. One took place a fortnight ago and there were a number in the autumn and early winter. We have not been short of debates. The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Eatwell, and myself have discussed these matters on a number of occasions to such an extent—

913
I hope that he will not mind me saying so—that on our way to the debate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, expressed the hope that I would not give my usual speech extolling the virtues of the British economy and how well we are doing. I promised him that I would try to contain my enthusiasm in the interest of getting the business through.
However, I must make one or two comments in summing up. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, showed hostility to value added tax. Perhaps my noble friend and I can argue that on another day. However, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is not aware of the limitations imposed on any government in reducing value added tax. It is called the Sixth VAT Directive and it has something to do with the European Union. I understand from some of the noble Lord's previous interventions that he is an enthusiastic supporter and would tie us in even further to the European Union—
Lord Taverne: My Lords, when VAT was at a lower level, at 15 per cent., there was not to my knowledge any infringement of any European Union directive. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, indeed, one is allowed to have a standard rate and two reduced rates, but one is not allowed to reduce the rates of value added tax. That was the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, was making. Some people—I do not subscribe to their view—suggest that the closer we go to Europe the more likely we are to have to extend our rates of VAT because our European friends will insist on that in the course of harmonisation. If that happens, I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and his party will, as always, welcome those suggestions from the European Union. However, I must not be tempted into a European debate because we have plenty of them, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is beginning to look at me with a smile on his face!
When we previously debated these issues I indicated some of the huge improvements that have been made to our economy. Unemployment has fallen again, as I mentioned in my speech and as my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie mentioned at Question Time. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, posed a question about jobs being created and the fall in unemployment. As I am sure he is aware, it is most unusual for a fall in unemployment to be mirrored exactly by rises in employment. Nevertheless, in the past few years we have seen an excellent record of rising employment alongside falling unemployment. According to respective figures from the Labour Force Survey, employment has risen substantially during this recovery. Approximately 900,000 new jobs have been created since the end of 1992. Of course, all of us want to create more jobs, but I believe that the Government's economic policy does that.
As always, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the question of investment. I know that he is always concerned about investment. He said that there were not many measures in the Finance Bill to encourage investment. Whether it is inward investment or
914
investment by British firms in Britain, they are encouraged to invest not only by what is contained in the Finance Bill; they are encouraged by the economic climate created by the Government. It is a climate of low inflation, low interest rates, flexible labour markets, no social chapter and no minimum wage. Those are part of the background which creates a climate which helps investment. We have certainly achieved that position and we are determined to maintain it. Perhaps I may underline the last two points that I made: no signing up to the social chapter and no minimum wage.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, indicated that the Liberal Democrats are now the great tax-raising party. I thought that he objected hugely the last time that I suggested that, as a taxpayer in Scotland. I might be looking at a standard rate of 30p or 31p in the pound. Of course, the Liberal Democrats are enthusiasts for the so-called "tartan tax" which would add 3p. They want more money spent on education and have resisted the two 1 p drops in the standard rate of tax that we have had-25p to 24p and 24p to 23p—and it does not take a calculator to work out that one quite quickly reaches 30p in the pound. From what I heard today, the noble Lord would like to tax even more. He may wish to tax in other ways but certainly, if one was to get that from the standard rate of tax, one would need to do that.
But one cannot divorce taxation from the money that we raise from spending. The noble Lord made much of the health service. I was grateful to him for conceding that since 1979 the real terms increase in expenditure on health has been 72 per cent. and, indeed, if one looks forward to next year, it will be 75 per cent. That has come through not in the kind of demoralised health service which the noble Lord tried to portray and which is normally painted by the spokesman on health from the party opposite. That comes through in waiting times, which are at an all-time low, and in more patients being treated than 18 years ago. As the noble Lord pointed out quite rightly, there are now some remarkable treatments both in relation to surgery and drugs which were simply inconceivable 18 years ago. We have 10 per cent. more nurses and 25 per cent. more doctors than we had at the beginning of the 1980s.
The noble Lord suggested also that we should spend a lot more money on education. One must look at our record on education. I take only one statistic, which I believe is the most impressive one. Every time that I see it, I feel that we should say it again and again, not just as a party political point but as a point to make to the world outside the United Kingdom to show the dramatic improvement in our education system. In 1979, one young person in eight went on to university. Now it is one in three. The United Kingdom has the second highest graduation rate for bachelors degrees in the European Union after Denmark. As a member of this Government for at least some of that time, with a small responsibility for Scottish education at one time, I am mightily proud of our record on education, especially with regard to higher education.
Therefore, we have made huge progress over the years and that has been achieved through sensible balancing of the budget.

915
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, told your Lordships about higher taxes and listed them. He seemed to say that he was against higher fuel duties. I shall wager that that is not what the party opposite will say when they try to cultivate the green vote over the next five or six weeks. He knows why we have decided to have higher fuel duties. We have done that as a means to encourage people to look carefully at the consumption of fossil fuels and the pollution which they create. I was not sure whether he was in favour of leaving the loopholes which we are seeking to close in the Bill by describing them as tax-raising measures.
But he made no mention of the cuts in taxation to 23p in the pound and the increase in allowances which, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, pointed out, help lower paid people in particular. Therefore, we have taken those steps to cut taxation. But as I said to your Lordships on a number of occasions, taxation must be balanced against expenditure. If one wishes to reduce and control taxation, one must reduce and control expenditure. Speaking also as the person who comes to this House representing the largest spending department in Whitehall, I have never noticed any support from the Benches opposite for any measure which I bring to your Lordships' House to control that social security budget.
On the general question of the PSBR, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, it is on a clear downward path. The 1996 Budget ensures that that continues. The PSBR halved as a share of GDP between 199–4 and 199–7 and it is projected to be close to balance by the end of the century.
Your Lordships may be interested to know what that figure was during the course of the last Labour Government. The PSBR this year is less than half the average that it was under the last Labour Government. Therefore, I do not believe that we can take any lessons on the PSBR from the party opposite.
Therefore, in our economy we have strong growth, low inflation, falling unemployment, strong export performance, low mortgage rates and falling public borrowing. We have sound public finances and tax down from 33p in the pound as the standard rate in 1979 to 23p in the pound, its lowest level for 60 years. And, as I say, we have more than bettered the statutory indexation on allowances. That helps everyone in the country and, compared with the year before the last election, a family on average earnings should be more than £1,000 per year better off.
In the last debate on the economy a fortnight ago, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, quoted from a Lloyd's Bank economic bulletin. He did not read it all and I do not blame him for that. But I should like to give another quote from that bulletin which states:
"There is evidence that the UK economy has become more stable recently both in absolute terms and relative to other countries. Sustaining this improvement would remove an important barrier to faster long-term growth in living standards".
916
This Government are determined to sustain that improvement, and this budget helps. I commend the Finance Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may be permitted to make a brief comment about the manner in which he has presented the Government's economic policies in the many debates in which I have been across the Dispatch Box from him during the past three years.
I believe that everyone in the House will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has presented his arguments, answered questions and often evaded questions with considerable wit and charm. Of course, he has defended the indefensible, but he has done that with spirited good humour and cheerfulness and has been assisted on a number of occasions by extremely well-trained speech writers—trained by me.
Before we conclude consideration of this Finance Bill, I should like to thank him for his many courtesies in our frequent debates and to wish him well in the forthcoming long years on the Opposition Benches.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I hope that the House has enjoyed our exchanges, which have often included the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as much as, I suspect, the three of us have enjoyed participating in them.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Education Bill
3.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 32 [Home-school partnership documents]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 45 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 28, line 29, at end insert ("the need for the terms of the partnership document and parental declaration to be so worded that they cannot be used by schools to exclude pupils solely because of the economic or social circumstances of their parents, and to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the context in which this Bill is now being dealt with, I hope that it is reasonable for me to ask the Minister to give the

917
House an assurance that the important issue which is raised by this amendment will not be entirely lost and will be raised with the new Secretary of State, whoever that may be, in the next government so that it can be taken into account during the preparation of guidelines on the implementation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I can certainly give an assurance that we shall reflect on those concerns when drawing up the guidance on home-school partnership documents and their use in school admission arrangements.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance from the Minister. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 61 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Henley moved Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PUPILS' PERFORMANCE
(" . After section 537 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted
"Provision of information about individual pupils' performance.
537A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring—

(a) the governing body of every school which is—

(i) maintained by a local education authority, or

(ii) a grant-maintained school, or

(iii) a special school which is not maintained by a local education authority, and

(b) the proprietor of each independent school,

to provide to the Secretary of State such individual performance information relating to pupils or former pupils at the school as may be prescribed.
(2) In this section "individual performance information" means information about the performance of individual pupils (identified in the prescribed manner)—

(a) in any assessment made for the purposes of the National Curriculum or in accordance with a baseline assessment scheme (within the meaning of Chapter I of Part VI of the Education Act 1997);

(b) in any prescribed public examination;

(c) in connection with the attainment of any vocational qualification; or

(d) in any such other assessment or examination, or in connection with the attainment of any such other qualification, as may be prescribed.

(3) The Secretary of State may provide any information received by him by virtue of subsection (1)—

(a) to any prescribed body or person, or

(b) to any body or person falling within a prescribed category.

918
(4) Any body or person holding any individual performance information may provide that information to any body to which this subsection applies; and any body to which this subsection applies—

(a) may provide any information received by it under this subsection—

(i) to the Secretary of State, or

(ii) to the governing body or proprietor of the school attended by the pupil or pupils to whom the information relates; and

(b) may, at such times as the Secretary of State may determine, provide to any prescribed body such information received by it under this subsection as may be prescribed.

(5) Subsection (4) applies to any body which, for the purposes of or in connection with the functions of the Secretary of State relating to education, is responsible for collating or checking information relating to the performance of pupils—

(a) in any assessment or examination falling within subsection (2)(a), (b) or (d), or

(b) in connection with the attainment of any qualification falling within subsection (2)(c) or (d).

(6) No individual performance information received under or by virtue of this section shall be published in any form which includes the name of the pupil or pupils to whom it relates.
(7) References in this section to the attainment of a qualification of any description include references to the completion of any module or part of a course leading to any such qualification."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115. These amendments meet the purpose of those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in Committee. They enable the Secretary of State to collect the performance data of individual pupils and to provide it to LEAs and others. The data will help schools, LEAs and the Government to analyse performance and will underpin school improvement policies—including target-setting and benchmarking. The exact requirements will be set out in regulations on which there will be full consultation. I can offer assurance that the amendments provide appropriate safeguards to protect the confidentiality of individual pupil data, and that they will not force independent schools to participate in national curriculum assessment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the issue was debated thoroughly in Committee. In our view, the Government's amendments meet the objectives that were set out in the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas; namely, that the Secretary of State should be able to give pupil level information electronically to LEAs to assist with local work on value added and the setting of performance targets. The operation of this new power by the Secretary of State will, we hope, be subject to much discussion after the Bill has been enacted. However, the clause will enable all those with a legitimate interest to obtain the data that they need.
Lord Tope: My Lords, unfortunately my noble friend Lady Thomas cannot be with us this afternoon. However, I know that she would wish me to express our support for the amendments on her behalf. I should also like to thank the Minister for the helpful way in which he approached the matter; and I do so with pleasure.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 6 [The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 70:
Page 70, leave out lines 27 and 28.
Page 70, line 38, leave out first ("Treasury") and insert ("Minister for the Civil Service").
Page 70, line 38, leave out second ("the Treasury") and insert ("he").
Page 70, line 39, leave out ("the Treasury") and insert ("he").
Page 70, line 44, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 66 to 70 en bloc and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 to 84 and 117.
These are technical amendments tabled on the advice of the Treasury. Their purpose is: to remove the requirement for the Treasury's consent to decisions by the Secretary of State about payments to members of the QCA and ACCAC; to transfer decisions concerning the terms on which people who are both members and officers of QCA and ACCAC should qualify for pensions from the Treasury to the Secretary of State; and to take account of the transfer of responsibility for the Vote from which Civil Service pensions are paid from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office. I understand that the Treasury is looking to introduce legislation to change the many previous pieces of legislation where these procedures apply to ensure that all non-departmental public bodies work to the same practices. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 75 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 44 [Supplementary provisions relating to discharge by Authority of their functions]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 37, line 3, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 77, 79 and 86 to 88. I promised during the debate in Committee that I would consider further the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and return at Report stage with appropriate amendments to take account of all learners with special needs, learning difficulties and disabilities in schools, colleges and publicly-funded education.
The amendments place a duty on the new authority and ACCAC to take into account the requirements of persons with special learning needs when carrying out their functions. In amending Clauses 44 and 50, rather than Clauses 41 and 47, as proposed by the noble Baroness in Committee, the duty will apply to all the functions of the authority rather than just those relating to pupils of compulsory school age. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for producing the amendments
920
in response to amendments that I moved in Committee. I am very pleased with this reference to children with special educational needs—indeed, all the special educational needs—and that the authority will have to pay more attention to them than it would have done if the Bill been left in its original form.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Government as I have an interest in the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 37, line 6, at end insert (", and
() the requirements of persons with special learning needs.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 37, line 27, at end insert—
("() In this section "persons with special learning needs" means—
(a) children with special educational needs (as defined in section 312 of the Education Act 1996); or
(b) persons (other than children as so defined) who—

(i) have a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of persons of their age, or

(ii) have a disability which either prevents or hinders them from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for persons of their age.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [The Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 84:
Page 74, leave out lines 13 and 14.
Page 74, line 24, leave out first ("Treasury") and insert ("Minister for the Civil Service").
Page 74, line 24, leave out second ("the Treasury") and insert ("he").
Page 74, line 25, leave out ("the Treasury") and insert ("he").
Page 74, line 30, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("Secretary of State").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 50 [Supplementary provisions relating to discharge by Authority of their functions]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 88:
Page 40, line 10, leave out ("and").
Page 40, line 13, at end insert (", and
() the requirements of persons with special learning needs.").
Page 40, line 34, at end insert—
("() In this section "persons with special learning needs" has the same meaning as in section 44.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 56 [Inspection of LEAs]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 44, line 15, leave out ("each") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 90. These amendments seek to improve the wording of Clause 56(6), with regard to the collection of information from LEAs by the chief inspector. In particular, they remove the pre-set condition that regulations must require each LEA to supply information on an annual basis. They substitute a more flexible arrangement to allow the timing of the supply of information to be adjusted through the regulations. This recognises, among other things, that it may not always be necessary to collect information annually from all LEAs. The Secretary of State would consult LEAs, and others, before making the regulations. I therefore commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, lest we should seem to be rattling through the proceedings at an unseemly speed, I have just one question to ask the Minister. The noble Lord said that the amendment relates to the frequency of reports from LEAs to HMCI. Certainly the LEAs will be grateful for what appears to be the purport of the amendment. They may well say with King Richard II:
"I give this heavy weight from off my head".
While recognising that relief from the onerous task of providing HMCI with annual reports is welcome, the amendment seems to suggest that reports might be made very much more frequently. Can the Minister say whether there is anything to stop that happening, because that could be a very considerable burden on the LEAs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree that it would be a very considerable burden on the LEAs if they were asked to do this more often than on an annual basis. That is certainly not our intention. As I made quite clear, the important point here is that we want to remove burdens on the LEAs because we do not think that it is always necessary for them to produce such a report every year. That is why my right honourable friend will consult the LEAs precisely on the appropriate regulations before making such regulations.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I am quite sure that LEAs will in years to come quote that particular passage from Hansard to their immense relief.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("on such annual basis as may he prescribed.") and insert ("in such form and—

(a) within such period following a request made by the Chief Inspector in any prescribed circumstances, or

(b) at such other times, as regulations may provide.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 97 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 98:
Before Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
("Exceptional educational provision
EXCEPTIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROVISION
.—(1) Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 (exceptional provision of education in pupil referral units or elsewhere) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (duty of local education authority to make arrangements for provision of suitable full-time or part-time education, at school or otherwise, for excluded children etc.), the words "full-time or part-time" shall be omitted.
(3) In subsection (4) (power of local education authority to make arrangements for provision of suitable full-time or part-time education, otherwise than at school, for excluded young persons etc.), the words "full-time or part-time" shall he omitted.
(4) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(4A) In determining what arrangements to make under subsection (1) or (4) in the case of any child or young person a local education authority shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 114 and 118. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, moved an amendment in Committee to remove the words "or part-time" from Section 19 of the 1996 Act and thereby to require that LEAs always arrange full-time education for pupils who are out of school for whatever reason. As the noble Baroness will be aware, I had some sympathy for her aims and promised to consider further whether we could find a way of taking some useful steps in the direction that she proposed without giving rise to the legal, financial and practical difficulties which would have arisen from the amendment that she tabled.
The noble Baroness will also be aware that she and I and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady David, discussed such matters privately. I believe that these amendments meet the commitments that I made. By deleting the words "full-time or part-time" from Section 19, more emphasis is put on the requirement that LEAs arrange suitable education for pupils who are out of school. I believe that the amendments offer a practical way of meeting the concerns which were raised, and trust that they are generally acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we welcome the amendments and no doubt my noble friend behind me may wish to express her more detailed form of gratitude.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Yes, my Lords; I was going to do that in any event. I am most grateful to the Minister for seeing both myself and my noble friend Lady David and, indeed, for the fruitful discussions that we had. We welcome the amendments. As the Minister knows, they do not cover everything that we wanted but, so far as we are concerned, they represent an improvement on the 1993 Act. By taking out "full-time" and "part-time" but leaving in the positive word "suitable", we hope—I think there is general agreement with the Minister on this—"suitable education" will be interpreted to mean, except

923
in circumstances where it is quite impossible, that there should be full-time education, which certainly should be effective education, for those children out of school. I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to us and for having moved towards our objectives.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to discuss the matter with me as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. I thank the Minister for going a long way towards meeting what we wanted. It was not quite everything we wanted, but he went a long way. I hope that the new clause will be interpreted in the way we want, so that children will not receive only one or two hours' education a week and will not be left roaming the streets. I do not know whether guidance will be issued on this matter. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us that and when the guidance might be available. It would be interesting to see it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if there is not guidance, I should be very much surprised. Guidance more or less comes out of our ears, if I can put it that way. As to when guidance would be ready, I am not in a position to be able to advise the noble Baroness but I shall let her know in due course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 106 to 110 not moved.]
Clause 65 [Management committees for pupil referral units]:
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 113 not moved.]
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 80, line 35, at end insert—
(" . In section 4(2) of that Act (schools: general)
(a) for "For" substitute "Nothing in subsection (1) shall be taken to preclude the making of arrangements under section 19(1) (exceptional educational provision) under which part-time education is to be provided at a school; and for"; and
(b) omit "(pupil referral units)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 98. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 83, line 46, at end insert—
(" . In section 537(4) of that Act (power of Secretary of State to require information from governing bodies etc.), at the end add "; and regulations under this section may provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, the provision of information to a person other than the Secretary of State is to be treated, for the purposes of any provision of such regulations or this section, as compliance with any requirement of such regulations relating to the provision of information to the Secretary of State.'"').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 84, line 45, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 2 to that Act (the funding authorities), paragraph 9(2) (superannuation of employees) shall have effect (and be deemed always to have had effect) with the following amendments, namely—

(a) for "the Treasury", in the first place where it occurs, substitute "the Minister for the Civil Service"; and

(b) for "the Treasury". in the other places where it occurs. substitute "he".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 66. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 86, line 19, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 4(2), the words "(pupil referral units)".
In section 19(1) and (4), the words "full-time or part-time".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 98. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended, (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March):
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Lord Henley.)
Clause 1 [Relaxation of controls on changes relating to selective admissions]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 40. I believe those are all the remaining amendments on the Marshalled List.
It is with much regret that I move these amendments which remove Parts I and II from this Bill together with their schedules and all the consequential amendments. With the announcement of the general election there has been much negotiation to agree progress on the legislative programme. As part of those discussions, the Government are pleased that we have agreement to proceed with all of the measures in the Bill on discipline and standards.
These clauses account for three quarters of the Bill. However, the Government very much regret that it was not possible also to secure agreement to proceed with the measures in Clauses 1 to 19 which allowed schools more power to select pupils, and which gave grant-maintained schools more power to develop new provision to meet local needs. These clauses would have encouraged more diversity among schools, helping

925
schools to develop particular strengths and giving parents more choice from among a range of different types of good school.
The Government remain firmly committed to extending choice and diversity. That is a powerful way of raising standards in schools because it allows parents to match what schools offer to the individual needs, interests and abilities of their child. But we do not now have time in this Parliament to secure these important measures. Therefore we shall pursue the discipline and standards measures for now, and come back to the selection and grant-maintained deregulation measures at the earliest possible opportunity following the general election. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendments moved by the Minister. As my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris stated in the Queen's Speech,
"Selection flies in the face of parental preference".—[Official Report. 29/10/96; col. 305.]
We in the Labour Party have set out our policies with regard to this issue in Diversity and Excellence which states that the party wants to give parents a key role in the education of their children.
Opposition parties have argued throughout the passage of this Bill that the Government's plans would mean not parents choosing the school but the school choosing, or choosing to reject, particular children. This would have happened even more if the Government's plans to give new freedoms had remained in the Bill, but thankfully these are being removed.
This is the 18th education Bill since 1979 and the first where the Government have been defeated on what the Government had declared to be their major policy of giving more freedom to a minority of schools to select more children. There are aspects of the Bill where the opposition parties have provided critical support in keeping with their existing policies: new measures on school discipline, parent partnership agreements, baseline assessment and the merging of SCAA and NCVQ.
Education is the beginning of the process of socialisation, particularly for the young child starting primary school. We believe that that process should occur within the neighbourhood. It should be inclusive rather than exclusive. It should offer opportunities for parents to place all their children in the same school whatever the individual child's talents, ability and aptitude. That is part of the process of people learning from an early age to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses and the needs and potential contributions of their neighbours and friends in their community. That is good comprehensive education. It is comprehensive in that it encompasses the best of what a child needs to learn to grow up in a caring society. We welcome these government amendments.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, in—rather unusually for both of us—giving a warm welcome to the amendments moved by the Minister today. I recall
926
that at the Second Reading debate I suggested to the Minister that the originally stated objective of Part I of the Bill—which was, apparently, to embarrass the Labour Party over selection—had already achieved its purpose because the Labour Party was at that time adequately embarrassing itself over selection, and that as it had achieved its purpose Part I of the Bill should then be withdrawn.
Unfortunately, the Minister, on that occasion as on so many, chose not to take my advice. I cannot help reflecting now that had he taken my advice on Second Reading and withdrawn that part of the Bill, we would all have saved ourselves an enormous amount of fruitless, wasted and frustrating time and might indeed have been able to spend more time in considering in more depth that part of the Bill which is now to pass, which I believe reflects broad agreement which we all share on the objectives of the Bill. Certainly we are pleased to support that part. Nevertheless, it could still have done with more detailed consideration and could still be improved further. We welcome today the improvements that have so far been made.
However, the commitment of the Liberal Democrats to education, to the provision of high standards and high quality in education is well known, and will become even better known over the next six weeks. We share objectives with noble Lords in all parts of the House. However, we shall be the only party in the coming weeks which will be prepared to say that we will pay for it, and how we shall pay for it. That still remains a fundamental issue. Many important measures need to be taken, but until and unless the chronic underfunding of our education system in this country is tackled many of those problems will remain unresolved.
Whatever the result of the general election in the weeks to come, I look forward to taking part in the debate on the next education Bill, whoever is standing at the Government Dispatch Box; and—who knows?—perhaps I shall be looking forward to it even more. In the meantime, I give my warm support to the amendments.
I have one regret. By agreement with my party, too, Clause 20 is not included in the amendments. Clause 20 extends the assisted places scheme to primary education. During previous debates, I have made clear that my party is opposed to the assisted places scheme and is opposed, therefore, to extending it to primary education. We have readily agreed not to include the deletion of that clause because we understand that commitments have been made to some 1,200 children who would participate in the assisted places scheme in primary education in the summer. I ask the Minister whether that is the case. If that is the case I wish to make clear that my party would honour commitments made, however much we disagree with the scheme. For that reason we keep the clause.
However, if those commitments have been made, how have they been made? Given that the Bill has not been passed, under what legal powers have they been made? If those commitments had not been made, I am sure that Clause 20 would be among the clauses to be deleted in these amendments.
Can the Minister give some explanation as to how commitments are made before a Bill has even completed its Report stage, let alone has passed through this House

927
and through another place? I hope that we can have an answer. However, we are advised that those commitments have been made and my party would wish to honour them. For that reason, and that reason alone, we accept that Clause 20 should remain part of the Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I imagine that the first part of the noble Lord's question was rhetorical. I cannot answer as to why his party or the party opposite made the decisions that they did in terms of negotiations about Clauses 1 to 19 and Clause 20.
As regards the numbers of those benefiting from the new provisions under the assisted places scheme, I cannot confirm the precise figures that the noble Lord gave. Nor can I say whether firm, legally binding commitments have been made. But there will be an expectation among a number of people that they will benefit. For that reason, it is right that they should be allowed to benefit. That is part of a commitment certainly made by the party opposite about the assisted places scheme generally. When the party opposite claims that it would like to phase out the scheme, it has always made it clear that it would do so gradually so that no one individual would suffer.
I hope that I have dealt with the noble Lord's questions to the best of my ability. If there is anything more that I can add, I would prefer to write. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Duty of governing body to review selective admission policy]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Objections on notification to proposals which do not need to be published]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 3.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Relaxation of controls on enlargement of premises]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Relaxation of controls on changes relating to selective admissions]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 5:
Leave out Clause 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Relaxation of controls on changes in age groups for admission etc.]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 6:
Leave out Clause 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Consultation and notification where proposals do not need to be published]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 7.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Schools requiring special measures]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 8:
Leave out Clause 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Duty of governing body to review selective admission policy]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 9:
Leave out Clause 9.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Alteration of admission numbers for grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 10.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Review of approved admission numbers]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Leave out Clause 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Notification of proposals in connection with Sex Discrimination Act 1975]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Secretary of State's reserved power to limit appropriate threshold]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:
Leave out Clause 13.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Sponsor governors]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 14:
Leave out Clause 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Extension of power of funding authority to establish grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 15:
Leave out Clause 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Grants to promoters of grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 16:
Leave out Clause 16.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Recovery from local funds of sums in respect of start-up grants]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Ballot observers]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 18:
Leave out Clause 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Provision of advice and assistance by funding authority]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 19:
Leave out Clause 19.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Corresponding provisions about admissions to grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 30, line 6, leave out from ("After") to ("Schedule") in line 8 and insert ("section 425 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
425A.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Schedule inserted after Schedule 5 to the Education Act 1996]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Schedule 1.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Sponsor governors]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 22:
Leave out Schedule 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 23 to 37:
Page 81, leave out lines 5 to 7.
Page 81. leave out lines 8 to 40.
Page 81, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 82.
Page 82. line 5, leave out ("the words from "the age" to "same age—) and insert (—the age of five"").
Page 82, leave out lines 7 to 9.
Page 82, leave out lines 10 to 13.
Page 82, line 15 at end insert—
(". In section 266(1)(b) of that Act (interpretation of Chapter VII of Part III), for "the age of five" substitute "compulsory school age".").
Page 82, leave out lines 16 to 20.
Page 83, leave out lines 40 and 41.
Page 84, leave out lines 8 to 10.
Page 84, leave out lines 15 to 17.
Page 84, line 18, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (2)").
Page 84, leave out lines 26 to 31.
Page 85, leave out lines 3 to 6.
Page 85, leave out lines 8 and 9.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 40:
Page 86, leave out lines 29 and 30.
Page 86, leave out lines 35 to 39.
Page 86, leave out lines 43 to 45.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, feels that some of the time spent on the Bill has been somewhat fruitless. I accept that another place has spent some 54 hours and 45 minutes debating the Bill through all its stages. In this House, even with a rather truncated Report stage, we have devoted some 35½ hours to the Bill. That is over 90 hours devoted to the Bill. I do not believe that the time spent even on those parts now deleted was fruitless or without purpose. I think that a useful exercise was performed in exercising our views. It will no doubt make it easier after the coming election to get the additional clauses back through Parliament because they will have been debated extensively and thoroughly.
It only remains for me to thank all those involved in the Bill. I shall not name all the individuals. I thank them for their politeness and kindness to me in particular in the long nights that we spent on the Bill. I believe that the debate has remained good humoured throughout the 35½ hours spent on the Bill in this House, even if, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will remember, sometimes a little after midnight the usual courtesies were not observed in quite the form they normally are. I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his party, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for their help on the Bill throughout its passage. I offer my thanks to all those on the Cross-Benches. In particular on my own Benches, I offer my thanks to my Whip, my noble friend Lady Miller for all she has done during the course of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, was it not Mr. Winston Churchill (as he then was) who said, "In victory, magnanimity, in defeat defiance"? We are happy to welcome the amendments that have been announced this afternoon. I for one receive those amendments in magnanimous silence.
At this point in the long march of any large Bill through your Lordships' House it is customary for us to obey the proposal of the old Hebrew writer who said,
"Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us",
and thank each other and thank ourselves and thank our fathers that begat us, not forgetting the Vicar for the use of the hall and the ladies for preparing the sandwiches.
I have people whom I wish to thank. I thank, first, my noble friends on these Benches who have borne the heat and burden of the day, and the cold and boredom of the night as well, with a fortitude and enthusiasm which would be hard to match in the annals of your Lordships' House. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady David, and Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell, Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and perhaps pre-eminently my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton whose energy is matched only by her perspicacity, and whose assiduity in her duties is only enhanced by her occasional desire for some of the lesser and legal stimulants like tannin and caffeine to keep her going at full throttle.

931
I wish also to thank my colleagues, if I may call them that, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their help and support. It is heartening and fortifying to realise that on education matters, if not on some other matters, there is no more than a pennyworth of difference between the policies of our two parties. There is virtually no difference between our policies and those of the Cross-Benches. So it is a great pleasure to me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I shall not easily forget the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, being virtually borne in upon a litter to cast a vote, which by sheer chance was one about which we had taken the trouble to warn him.
But none of this would have been possible without the work of the engine room, by which I mean those who have advised and assisted us in the organisation and presentation of our work and have kept us out of trouble and in order. It has often been remarked that a Government Minister is loyally supported by the entire Civil Service. I remind noble Lords that the Opposition is supported not by the whole Civil Service but by Robert, Clare and David. On this occasion I want to pay a special tribute to Mr. David Melhuish who only joined our researchers' office a few months ago and yet within weeks proved himself able to master all the skills necessary to power us through the Bill. It has been for him a fiery but triumphant baptism and he is to be congratulated on his remarkable achievement. From Mr. Damien Welfare of the AMA we have come to expect administrative and organisational brilliance of the very highest order, and on this occasion he has surpassed even his own high standards in preparing us for all the pitfalls, banana skins and elephant traps in our path. My only worry is that if 1st May proves fortunate for the Labour Party in the phrase so beloved of the classicists o albo dies notanda lapillo, (may the day be marked with a white stone), we may face the daunting prospect of seeing him advising our opponents.
That very word "opponent" brings me to the thanks that we all owe to the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Henley. It reminds me of the newly-elected Member of another place who was being shown around the Chamber by an older colleague. He was told:
"Your opponents sit over there; your enemies sit behind you."
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has not been troubled by that particular peril on this occasion. The Minister has been a formidable but scrupulously fair and courteous opponent. So far as he is concerned, I only hope that I may have achieved in his estimation the rank, title and status of "enemy in good standing".
Above all, everyone who has been concerned with this Bill has been able to trust everyone else; and when the Minister has assured me that something is going to happen, I have trusted him implicitly and have never been let down. That is important. Trust does not come
932
easily to a Welshman where Englishmen are concerned. There was an old professor of Welsh who once said to me:
"I am a South Walian born and bred. And at my mother's knee I learned that North Walians are not to be trusted. After 60 years, teaching in five countries and four continents, and meeting all sorts and conditions of men, I have learned one other thing … that North Walians are not the only people who are not to be trusted."
It has not been so with us, and I am grateful.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by responding to the Minister, who took me to task for saying that much of the time that we had spent on this Bill had been fruitless. What I was struggling to say and perhaps can now say better is that it would have been more fruitful had we been spending more time on the latter parts of the Bill—and had that been the case in the other place as well—to further improve what we broadly agree about, and rather less time on those parts of the Bill which have now fallen, about which, frankly, we were never going to agree, and which, I suspect, were always doomed.
I do not know what our debates have done for the education of the nation because views about that may differ; but they have certainly done something for my education. I pondered at an early stage whether I should come into the Chamber equipped with a dictionary of quotations and the complete works of Shakespeare in some vain attempt to keep up with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. However, I determined at a very early stage that such a thing would certainly have been a fruitless exercise and so I have not tried to do so. I must confess to one moment of alarm which occurred on the third day of the Committee stage, when we were heading through until some time after 3 o'clock in the morning. At around 1 o'clock in the morning the noble Lord, Lord Morris, came across and whispered to me, "I have got my second wind now". I must say that I had not noticed that his first wind was completely blown out at any stage and did wonder whether the coming of the second wind might indeed keep us in the Chamber until breakfast time. Fortunately that proved not to be the case.
I echo all that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, but with one small reservation. He said, if I quote him accurately, that there was not a penny's worth of difference between our policy and that of the Labour Party. "A penny's worth" is of course a very appropriate phrase because there was one important difference, and that is a penny's worth. However, let me say more particularly that it is comparatively easy to agree with what we are opposed to, whereas it is not always quite so easy to agree on measures which we favour. Should the general election turn out in favour of the Labour Party, I certainly look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, or whoever it may be, explaining to me exactly what the difference is between a grant-maintained school and a foundation school: but that is all in the future.
I echo very sincerely the thanks that the noble Lord gave all round, and particularly to those who advised me and my colleagues with equal favour as they did

933
the Opposition. The noble Lord has already mentioned Damien Welfare. I certainly wish to echo the thanks that have been expressed, and also to thank Chris Waterman at the Association of London Government, who, perhaps because I am a London member, has been particularly helpful to me as well.
I pay a very warm tribute to my two colleagues who have helped me very much on this Bill: my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood (who, as I previously explained, cannot be here this afternoon), and my noble friend Lord Addington, who is here at my side. They have been a tower of strength not only in their advice and support but also in keeping me awake at times when it was necessary. I should like to mention the support, help and guidance I have had on this Bill, and throughout my time as our party's education spokesman in your Lordships' House, from my colleague the honourable Member for Bath, Don Foster. He has given tireless support.
Next, and perhaps most important of all—because it is less visible—I want to pay a very warm tribute and say sincere thanks to Carolyn Rampton in our Whips' Office, who has kept me briefed phenomenally well, in addition to all her other duties in a very busy and understaffed office. She has always done so enormously efficiently, always cheerfully and apparently never under pressure, although I know that the opposite has often been the case.
I have also welcomed the interest and support of all Members in this House. It may be invidious to single out some, but I should like to mention, because others have not yet done so, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Ripon, to whom I think we owe the demise of QNCA, for which I think the nation will always be grateful. I do not think that any Member of your Lordships' House could have done that with greater delicacy than he achieved at the time. I also thank most sincerely the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, with whom we have worked closely and well.
Lastly, I should like to join again with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in thanking the Minister for the very helpful and courteous way in which he has dealt with this Bill, not only inside the House but also outside it, and the way he has kept us informed of his intentions. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the view that when the Minister said that something would happen, it did happen; and I have to say that equally when the Minister said that something will not happen, it does not happen. I think we should all pay tribute to the Minister's stamina. It cannot have been easy to have stood for hour upon hour at the Dispatch Box, even with the very able help of his Whip. It was, despite that help, he and he alone who has stood at the Dispatch Box, especially on that third day of the Committee stage which lasted for almost 12 hours. The noble Lord dealt with every amendment and on almost every one of them he had to say "No". It was a remarkable test of stamina. Although we may not always have agreed with what he was saying, we certainly recognised his formidable efforts in saying what he had to say. In the end—for perhaps different reasons—we are about to pass a Bill
934
which is very much better than the one which we started with in your Lordships' House. I pay tribute to all those who have helped to bring this about.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, in the earlier stages of our deliberations on this Bill, reference was made by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, to the curate's egg. I think many of us are relieved that the parts of the egg which, dare I say, were less palatable have now been consigned to the waste bin. I have to say that I share the view which has already been expressed that this is now a better Bill than it was when we first received it.
I detected a certain hint in one or two comments made by the Minister that he suspected, to use a mathematical term, that there was a certain correlation between the views expressed on the Bishops' Bench and those expressed on the Opposition Benches. Let me assure the noble Lord that if he looks at the meaning of "correlation", he will find that it does not mean "identity" and that on occasions there has been a good deal more than one pennyworth of difference between the views of this Bench and those of the Opposition Benches. Nevertheless, we have been glad to share with them our concerns on this Bill. I am particularly glad also to express my thanks to all who have shared in our debates.
I express thanks to the staff of my board and their legal advisers, whom we have to thank not only for saving the chief executive of the new QCA from embarrassment but also from the burden of having to carry an inaccurate title. I am glad that we have been able to make that contribution to the Bill. As others have done, I thank the Minister for his unfailing attention, courtesy and stamina, during the very long hours that we have spent on this Bill. I am relieved that he gave us the exact time, because I have been trying to say to my colleagues just how many hours we have actually spent on the Bill. I think by the time we have finished, it may have amounted to about 36 hours. I am grateful to him for that piece of information, and I am glad that we have been able to share those 36 hours to achieve such a profitable outcome.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should like very briefly to spoil this "love fest" by saying that there are many Members of your Lordships' House on these Benches and many members of my party outside this House who deeply regret the necessity of sacrificing so much of the Bill to the pressure of time. We hope and believe that this defeat for the accent placed in the original Bill on the need for excellence and for selection as the only method of creating excellence will come back and that when my party is again returned to government, another blow will be dealt against the mediocrity with which the comprehensive system has landed this country for so many years.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, a Bill which began in high seriousness in your Lordships' House last month has ended in an atmosphere which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, described at the beginning of this week as somewhat "surreal". Not even the powers of

935
intuition which enabled me, to the surprise of the noble Lord the Minister, to arrive in time for a vote on the first night of Committee were capable of predicting the course which this Bill would take in its later stages.
Naturally, I am pleased with the result. It bears saying one last time that no measure which impacts on neighbouring schools, measures such as selection or creating a sixth form, should be capable of being driven through without full consultation and, if need be, arbitration by some body which can hold the ring for those who might be disadvantaged. One of the truly sad features of the Government's educational reforms has been the way in which partnership has been eroded and local consensus and accountability discarded. At one point on Monday the noble Lord the Minister stated:
"We expect schools to act responsibly".
On that expectation, in the present competitive atmosphere, can hang and die the freedoms of others.
So, the prospect of secondary moderns in every town recedes and, with the Opposition parties, I am glad.
I do not wish to take up any more time at this stage of proceedings, but I should like to make one proposal which I believe I aired at the end of the Education Reform Bill in 1988. There are some 26,000 maintained schools in this country and by comparison a handful of independent schools. Your Lordships' House has more than one head teacher from the latter among its Members but none I believe who has come to this House by virtue of a headship from the maintained sector. I doubt whether party leaders comb the pages of Hansard for comments from your Lordships' House. I just wonder whether the party spokespeople present would agree that our education debates, which almost always are about the maintained sector, could be enriched in future by a well chosen appointment or two from that direction and, if so, whether they might drop a word in higher places. We are not short of lawyers, doctors or university academics here, but we could benefit from current mainstream educational experience.
It remains for me to join in thanking and congratulating all those who have played a far more active and consistent part in the passage of this Bill than I have, and in particular noble Lords on the Front Benches, who have been so thoroughly and admirably on top of their briefs, day in, day out, amendment after amendment. It took me years as an education officer in the thick of things to grasp the issues and know what I was doing. The noble Lord the Minister seems to achieve that effortlessly, as do the Opposition speakers, to whom I have listened with interest and much admiration.
So to what remains of this Bill I wish a fair wind but, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with the hope that we may be spared more education legislation for some time to come.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene so late in the proceedings of this Bill. However, I do not believe that the characteristically intemperate outburst of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, should be allowed to pass unnoticed. He may be
936
unaware of it but the Scottish secondary education system has been very largely comprehensive for a great many years. Indeed, I was at a comprehensive school before the war and did not realise that it was comprehensive until I came to London many years later. I thought that was what schools were like; and very good they were.
My point is that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, regards as a grave disadvantage—namely, having, broadly speaking, a comprehensive educational system—the Scots are not notably under-educated and can certainly hold their own in comparison with other persons in the United Kingdom who have had the disadvantage of a highly selective system for so many years.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Royal Assent
4.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act,

Finance Act,

Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Act,

Policyholders Protection Act,

Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Act,

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act,

Knives Act,

Architects Act,

Lieutenancies Act,

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act,

Justices of the Peace Act,

Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act,

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act,

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act,

Local Government and Rating Act,

Police (Property) Act.

Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
4.46 p.m.
Report received.
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Clause 1 [Imprisonment for life on further conviction for certain offences]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon) moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("opinion") to ("decline") in line 19 and insert ("that it would be in the interests of justice for it to pass a sentence other than the sentence which that subsection would require it to pass, it may").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 19 and 19A.
At the outset, it may assist our deliberations this afternoon if I inform your Lordships that, following discussions which have taken place over the past 48 hours and following reflections on the time that remains before Parliament is to be prorogued, the Government have decided to table amendments which they believe will command the support of your Lordships' House. If that belief turns out to be correct, it will enable an appropriate course to be followed to allow the Bill to reach the statute book and enable the Government's desire that the provisions that command widespread support should be on the statute book not to fall when Parliament is prorogued. The detail of the amendments will become apparent as we go through them on the Marshalled List.
I regret that the first group of amendments involves considering a number of complicated and inter-related amendments at a very late stage in the Bill's proceedings. But that need has arisen, as I said, in view of the state of play over the past few days. It might be simplest for me to deal first with Amendments Nos. 3 and 5.
Amendment No. 3 is a technical amendment designed to make the list of qualifying offences for the purposes of Clause I more comprehensible. It follows discussion at Committee stage when points were raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord McCluskey. I trust that it will prove acceptable to your Lordships.
Amendment No. 5 again is a minor technical amendment. It amends an inappropriate reference to a "qualifying" offence in Clause 2, which deals with a minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment for a third or subsequent Class A drug trafficking offence, by replacing it with a more accurate reference to a "Class A drug trafficking" offence. The phrase "qualifying offence" is relevant for the purposes of Clause 1, but not for Clause 2. That is why we tabled the amendment.
Now that Amendment No. 1 has not been moved, Amendment No. 2 is of importance. It is tabled in my name and seeks to replace the "exceptional circumstances" test in Clause 1 with a test based on the court's consideration of the interests of justice. In relation to Clause 2, Amendment No. 4 in my name would introduce an "interests of justice" test to that clause as well.
We are mindful of both the emphasis we have placed on the need for cross-Border consistency in sentencing for drugs and concerns expressed by your Lordships in relation to the desirability of such consistency. The amendment therefore seeks to replicate for Clause 2 the precise terms of the provisions in Amendment No. 1 relating to Clause 2. It therefore mirrors the terms of amendments already passed by your Lordships to the provisions for minimum mandatory sentences for drug traffickers which are to be found in the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
It may be helpful to noble Lords if I confirm now that I do not intend moving Amendment No. 4, but intend to commend manuscript Amendment No. 3A to your Lordships in its place. Likewise, Amendments Nos. 19 and 19A are to some extent alternative. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 19 but will move Amendment No. 19A instead, which makes for a simpler provision overall.
Lastly, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together provide essentially for the same effects as the effects to Clauses 1 and 2 of Amendment No. 18A tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I understand that the noble and learned Lord is sitting in court in Scotland today and for that reason cannot be with us. However, I trust that those amendments would have proved acceptable to him had he been present.
The question may arise as to where all that leaves us. It may not be helpful at this stage to say too much, but perhaps I can summarise it in these terms. If the amendments I have indicated I intend to move are accepted by your Lordships, Clauses 1 and 2 will require the courts to consider imposing a life sentence in the case of Clause 1 or a minimum sentence in the case of Clause 2 when the appropriate provisions apply. But the amendments will also ensure that the courts retain a discretion, which they presently have, not to impose such sentences in the interests of justice.
Clearly this is not as large a step as the Government were hoping to make. The reasons for that are obvious. I hope noble Lord on all sides will accept that the package of amendments put forward today is both an appropriate and a responsible way to proceed. We believe that in the broad scheme of things the Bill nevertheless involves a small step forward. It may be helpful to encourage those who sit as senators in the High Court constantly to have under review, as I am sure they normally do, their own sentencing practices. In particular it may serve to remind them of the existence of the power of the Appeal Court to issue sentencing guidelines and, if that power were to be used following the passage of this Bill, it would be beneficial to all concerned. It would also encourage the courts to send the right message to those who repeatedly commit serious sexual or violent offences or who repeatedly traffic in Class A drugs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("one party does") and insert ("the complainer, that is to say the person against whom the offence was committed, did").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved manuscript Amendment No. 3A:
Page 5, leave out lines 8 to 15 and insert—
("(3) The court shall not impose the sentence otherwise required by subsection (2) above where it is of the opinion that there are specific circumstances which—

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

(b) would make that sentence unjust.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, manuscript Amendment No. 3A was spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, manuscript amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Minimum sentence for third conviction of certain offences relating to drug trafficking]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("qualifying") and insert ("class A drug trafficking").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 was spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Imposition of supervised release orders on conviction of qualifying offence]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 11, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (11) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. The two amendments are intended to ensure that supervised release orders are used only in appropriate circumstances. Specifically it relates to the powers of the court to make supervised release orders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert—
("(10) For the purposes of this section "court" does not include a District Court except where constituted by a stipendiary magistrate.
(11) No court may impose a supervised release order for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment which that court may impose for a common law offence.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 was spoken to with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Restriction of liberty orders]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 28, after ("person") insert ("of 16 years of age or more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 and Amendment No. 16. These amendments have the effect of removing from the Bill a provision which was inserted into it at Committee stage in another place; that is, the extension of electronic tagging to persons aged 16 years of age and under.
It is fair to say that that was almost a last-minute addition to the Bill in the other place and was inserted after a limited amount of consultation. In so far as there was consultation, it was overwhelmingly hostile to the idea of electronic tagging being extended to those people aged under 16, mainly because a number of
940
people recognised that it was likely to be counter-productive as well as being ill-conceived in the first place.
The other great threat that many of us saw was that the proposal would erode the strength of the Scottish children's panel hearing system, which is recognised as one of the great advantages of the Scottish criminal justice system, especially in relation to juveniles. I am hopeful and pleased that the Government now feel able to accept these amendments. They significantly improve the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 in my name. They too are concerned with the removal of children from the remote monitoring system—"electronic tagging" as it has been nicknamed. I acknowledge that the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, go further than my amendments. That may well be appropriate, in that operational experience should be gained with the new community sentence by applying it to adults and young offenders rather than to children. Perhaps some element of monitoring by humans may be tried later.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are aimed at excluding children from the remote monitoring and will allow human monitoring. Amendment No. 15 is aimed at all offenders and not just children. Remote monitoring may well be a viable alternative to custody but I am keen that it be part and parcel with supervision, preferably through a probation order. I shall be interested to see how the pilot projects work out, especially with regard to the comparison between remote and supervised restriction of liberty orders.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, it may be helpful if I deal with the amendments separately. With regard to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the Government's view is that electronic tagging may in the future have a role to play in dealing with some of the small number of young offenders who come before the courts. As I think all noble Lords will appreciate, it was not proposed that electronic tagging should apply to offenders who are dealt with before the children's panel. Therefore we do not accept that this posed any threat to the valuable work which that body does. Nevertheless, the Government are aware that there is a degree of nervousness about the option of tagging offenders dealt with in the courts who are under 16 years of age. We are aware of the view that was expressed that this disposal should be piloted first with adult offenders before being piloted with young offenders. We have therefore taken the view that it is sensible to accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and no opposition is offered to them.
I turn to the amendments spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would have no effect if we agree, as I have already indicated we do, that child offenders should not be liable to receive any form of restriction of liberty order. Amendment No. 15 would remove discretion from the courts. In the courts' view, the courts ought to be left

941
with discretion in this area at least until such time as we have received the results of the proposed pilot schemes. If those results were to indicate that discretion was not being exercised appropriately, the issue would require to be looked at again. However, at this stage, I believe it would be premature to assume that the courts cannot be trusted with the discretion which Clause 5 makes available to them. For that reason, the noble Earl's amendment is unacceptable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 12:
Page 8, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert ("for any period up to 12 months.").
Page 8, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 9.
Page 9, line 38, leave out ("or (4)").
Page 10, leave out lines 1 to 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("or, as the case may be, (4)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Increase in sentences available to sheriff and district courts]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I call manuscript Amendment No. 16A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has sent me a message asking me to apologise on his behalf for his inability to be present due to his sitting in court in Edinburgh.
[Manuscript Amendment No. 16A not moved.]
[Manuscript Amendments Nos. 16B to 16G not moved. ]
Clause 15 [Driving disqualifications]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 21, line 44, at end insert—
("(4) A court shall not order an offender to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle under this section unless it has obtained a report as to the circumstances and character of the offender.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 18. These amendments are aimed at ensuring that the courts have a full appraisal of their intended sentencees' circumstances. This will enable them to understand the implications of such a sentence and so to understand the severity of such a sentence. There is nothing new in the idea of the courts seeking suitability reports. This happens with probation, community service, intensive probation and other programmes such as domestic violence projects. The reason for seeking suitability reports is obvious. These sentences need to be
942
accurately imposed. Since I am known to be in favour of effective community-based sentences, I am bound to argue for the accurate targeting of this new community sentence. I believe it to be limited in its application but worth exploring carefully. I understand that the Government have been giving further thought to the administration of this disqualification measure. I am looking forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate telling the House about these reconsiderations and new considerations. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the appropriateness of this new disposal and when the court will use it or could use it have been discussed at some length during the earlier stages of the Bill both in your Lordships' House and in another place. As I have previously explained, the court can already call for whatever reports it requires to reach a conclusion about how to deal with any offender. In cases of fine default, the court will inquire into the offender's means before deciding how he or she is to be dealt with. That is well-established practice. I can see no reason why the court will not adopt the same approach when contemplating the use of this new disposal.
It is an innovative step and we want to be sure that the new arrangements have the desired positive effect. That is why we have provided for trials of the new measure first through pilot schemes before consideration is given to its more widespread introduction. We shall consult fully on the proposals for pilot schemes before any action is taken. Equally, when the results of the pilot schemes become known, those, too, will be available for public discussion.
I have given a full explanation of what will be involved in the pilot schemes. On that basis I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied that it would he wrong at this stage to alter what is proposed. If the need for that arises at a later stage, it can certainly be addressed then. On that assurance I trust that he will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assurance that the courts will approach this matter seriously. It sounds to me as though suitability reports will be very much part of the pilot projects. I hope that that will end up in the guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
[Manuscript Amendment No. 18A not moved.]
Clause 18 [Automatic sentences: jurisdiction and appeals]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved manuscript Amendment No. 19ZA:
Page 26, line 12, leave out from ("decision") to end of line 14.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Manuscript Amendment No. 19A not moved.]
Clause 20 [Transfer of rights of appeal of deceased person]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I call Amendment No. 20 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before we go any further, as we are cheerfully agreeing to a number of manuscript amendments and as a number of us do not have the good fortune to have them in front of us, it would be desirable for us as a revising Chamber at least to know what we are talking about.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I hope we are aware of what we are talking about. Printed versions of the manuscript amendments are available to noble Lords. I know that a number of noble Lords have them. If they do not all have them, that is a matter of regret. But I think they have been available for some time, albeit that they became available this morning, which is of the very nature of manuscript amendments. I can certainly assure the noble Lord that manuscript amendments in my name were sent, and physically delivered, to the office of the noble Lord and his colleagues.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the point is that if we are to have any more manuscript amendments, it would be extremely helpful if the noble and learned Lord could tell us what their effect will be.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, the manuscript amendments are in the Printed Paper Office. They have been available for some time, but not necessarily at either end of this House.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("must") and insert ("may").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 21. These two amendments would allow the High Court to grant a person authorisation at any time to institute or commence an appeal in respect of a deceased person if cause for that course of action can be shown. These amendments follow from the commitment which I gave to the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Sewel, when this Bill was in Committee on 10th March, in response to their own amendment. I stated then that I would be happy to take the amendment away, giving a clear commitment that the Government would come forward with an amendment which took account of certain technical, drafting concerns. That is what these amendments do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 28, line 32, at end insert ("or at such later time as the Court may, on cause shown, allow.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with the previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 28, line 33, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Commission").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 26, 43, 45 to 47, 50 to 53 and 55.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Government have been of the view that the need for a commission to review allegations of miscarriages of justice in Scotland, of the type recently set up in England, had not been clearly established. The evidence which the Sutherland Committee had received on this matter was divided and there was no clear evidence that the present appeal system and the procedure for the Secretary of State to refer cases to the Court of Appeal was failing. The committee's main concerns were with the appeals criteria. We believed that our acceptance of virtually all of the recommendations on appeals criteria would effectively address the main concerns of those interested and concerned about alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland.
We believed that the terms of the committee's report on whether there should be an independent review body did not demonstrate any overwhelming pressure or compelling case for this to be set up. We accepted, like the committee itself, that
"the arguments for and against change seemed fairly evenly balanced".
Ultimately, we came down on one side on this issue whilst the committee came down on the other.
After further consideration and taking account of the views expressed in your Lordships' House at Committee stage, we are prepared to accept that an independent body to review alleged miscarriages of justice should be set up, replacing the current statutory involvement of the Secretary of State.
This group of amendments and in particular Amendment No. 26 provide for that. In general they are based on the recommendations put forward by the Sutherland Committee, but some of the detail and mechanics of what is proposed correspond to some of the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which established the Criminal Cases Review Commission in England and Wales. These have required to be adjusted, where appropriate, for the Scottish context. I am not sure that it is necessary to go through these in detail. I shall be happy to answer any points raised by noble Lords in speaking to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 28, line 34, leave out ("124(3)") and insert ("194B").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 30. leave out lines 41 to 44 and insert—
("60A.—(1) This section applies where the court, in respect of a person charged or brought before it, has made—

(a) an order under any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) of section 57 of this Act or such a decision as is mentioned in paragraph (e) of that subsection; or

(b) a hospital order, guardianship order, restriction order or a hospital direction.

(2) Where this section applies, the prosecutor may appeal against any such order, decision or direction as is mentioned in subsection (1) above—")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 49 and 54. Clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill make provision for rights of appeal by the prosecutor. All possible disposals following conviction, including mental health disposals, are now covered by these two clauses. However, on closer examination it has been appreciated that the provisions do not cover disposals following a finding of insanity of the accused. The purpose of these amendments is to correct that anomaly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 30, line 45, after ("order") insert (", decision").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with the previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
(".—(1) After Part X of the 1995 Act there shall be inserted the following new Part—

PART XA

  SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
  The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
  194A.—(1) There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (in this Act referred to as "the Commission").
  (2) The Commission shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the Commission's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
  946
  (3) The Commission shall consist of not fewer than three members.
  (4) The members of the Commission shall be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.
  (5) At least one third of the members of the Commission shall be persons who are legally qualified; and for this purpose a person is legally qualified if he is an advocate or solicitor of at least ten years' standing.
  (6) At least two thirds of the members of the Commission shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge or experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system; and for the purposes of this subsection the criminal justice system includes, in particular, the investigation of offences and the treatment of offenders.
  (7) Schedule 9A to this Act, which makes further provision as to the Commission, shall have effect.
  References to High Court.
  Cases dealt with on indictment.
  194B.—(1) The Commission on the consideration of any conviction of a person or of the sentence (other than sentence of death) passed on a person who has been convicted on indictment may, if they think fit, at any time, and whether or not an appeal against such conviction or sentence has previously been heard and determined by the High Court, refer the whole case to the High Court and the case shall be heard and determined, subject to any directions the High Court may make, as if it were an appeal under Part VIII of this Act.
  (2) The power of the Commission under this section to refer to the High Court the case of a person convicted shall be exercisable whether or not that person has petitioned for the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative of mercy.
  (3) This section shall apply in relation to a finding under section 55(2) and an order under section 57(2) of this Act as it applies, respectively, in relation to a conviction and a sentence.
  (4) For the purposes of this section "person" includes a person who is deceased.
  Grounds for reference.
  194C. The grounds upon which the Commission may refer a case to the High Court are that they believe—

  (a) that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred; and

  (b) that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made.

  Further provision as to references.
  194D.—(1) A reference of a conviction, sentence or finding may be made under section 194B of this Act whether or not an application has been made by or on behalf of the person to whom it relates.
  (2) In considering whether to make a reference the Commission shall have regard to—

  (a) any application or representations made to the Commission by or on behalf of the person to whom it relates;

  (b) any other representations made to the Commission in relation to it: and

  (c) any other matters which appear to the Commission to be relevant.

  (3) In considering whether to make a reference the Commission may at any time refer to the High Court for the Court's opinion any point on which they desire the Court's assistance; and on a reference under this subsection the High Court shall consider the point referred and furnish the Commission with their opinion on the point.
  (4) Where the Commission make a reference to the High Court under section 194B of this Act they shall—

  (a) give to the Court a statement of their reasons for making the reference; and

  (b) send a copy of the statement to every person who appears to them to be likely to be a party to any proceedings on the appeal arising from the reference.

  947
  (5) In every case in which—

  (a) an application has been made to the Commission by or on behalf of any person for the reference by them of any conviction, sentence or finding; but

  (b) the Commission decide not to make a reference of the conviction, sentence or finding,

  they shall give a statement of the reasons for their decision to the person who made the application.
  Extension of Commission's remit to summary cases.
  194E.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for this Part of this Act to apply in relation to convictions, sentences and findings made in summary proceedings as they apply in relation to convictions, sentences and findings made in solemn proceedings, and may for that purpose make in such an order such amendments to the provisions of this Part as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
  (2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and shall not have effect unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  Further powers.
  194F. The Commission may take any steps which they consider appropriate for assisting them in the exercise of any of their functions and may, in particular—

  (a) themselves undertake inquiries and obtain statements, opinions or reports; or

  (b) request the Lord Advocate or any other person to undertake such inquiries or obtain such statements, opinions and reports.

  Supplementary provision.
  194G.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such incidental, consequential. transitional or supplementary provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing this Part of this Act into operation, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, of dealing with any cases being considered by him under section 124 of this Act at the time when this Part come into force, and an order under this section may make different provision in relation to different cases or classes of case.
  (2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Powers of investigation of Commission.
  Power to request precognition on oath.
  194H.—(1) Where it appears to the Commission that a person may have information which they require for the purposes of carrying out their functions, and the person refuses to make any statement to them, they may apply to the sheriff under this section.
  (2) On an application made by the Commission under this section, the sheriff may, if he is satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances, grant warrant to cite the person concerned to appear before the sheriff in chambers at such time or place as shall be specified in the citation, for precognition on oath by a member of the Commission or a person appointed by them to act in that regard.
  (3) Any person who, having been duly cited to attend for precognition under subsection (2) above and having been given at least 48 hours notice, fails without reasonable excuse to attend shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 21 days; and the court may issue a warrant for the apprehension of the person concerned ordering him to be brought before a sheriff for precognition on oath.
  (4) Any person who, having been duly cited to attend for precognition under subsection (2) above, attends but—

  (a) refuses to give information within his knowledge or to produce evidence in his possession; or

  (b) prevaricates in his evidence,

  shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to be summarily subjected to a tine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 21 days.
  1941.—(1) Where the Commission believe that a person or a public body has possession or control of a document or other material which may assist them in the exercise of any of their functions, they may apply to the High Court for an order requiring that person or body—

  (a) to produce the document or other material to the Commission or to give the Commission access to it; and

  (b) to allow the Commission to take away the document or other material or to make and take away a copy of it in such form as they think appropriate.

  and such an order may direct that the document or other material must not be destroyed, damaged or altered before the direction is withdrawn by the Court.
  (2) The duty to comply with an order under this section is not affected by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by or by virtue of any enactment) which would otherwise prevent the production of the document or other material to the Commission or the giving of access to it to the Commission.
  (3) The documents and other material covered by this section include, in particular, any document or other material obtained or created during any investigation or proceedings relating to—

  (a) the case in relation to which the Commission's function is being or may be exercised; or

  (b) any other case which may be in any way connected with that case (whether or not any function of the Commission could be exercised in relation to that other case).

  (4) In this section—
  "Minister" means a Minister of the Crown as defined by section 8 of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
  "police force" means any police force maintained for a local government area under section 1(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and references to a chief constable are references to the chief constable of such a force within the meaning of that Act; and
  "public body" means

  (a) any police force;

  (b) any government department, local authority or other body constituted for the purposes of the public service, local government or the administration of justice; or

  (c) any other body whose members are appointed by Her Majesty, any Minister or any government department or whose revenues consist wholly or mainly of money provided by Parliament.

  Disclosure of information.
  Offence of disclosure.
  194J.—(1) A person who is or has been a member or employee of the Commission shall not disclose any information obtained by the Commission in the exercise of any of their functions unless the disclosure of the information is excepted from this section by section 194K of this Act.
  (2) A member of the Commission shall not authorise the disclosure by an employee of the Commission of any information obtained by the Commission in the exercise of any of their functions unless the authorisation of the disclosure of the information is excepted from this section by section 194K of this Act.
  (3) A person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
  Exceptions from obligations of non-disclosure.
  194K.—(1) The disclosure of information, or the authorisation of the disclosure of information, is excepted from section 194J of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed, or is authorised to be disclosed—

  (a) for the purposes of any criminal, disciplinary or civil proceedings;

  (b) in order to assist in dealing with an application made to the Secretary of State for compensation for a miscarriage of justice;

  (c) by a person who is a member or an employee of the Commission to another person who is a member or an employee of the Commission;

  (d) in any statement or report required by this Act;

  (e) in or in connection with the exercise of any function under this Act; or

  (f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the Secretary of State.

  (2) The disclosure of information is also excepted from section 194J of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed by an employee of the Commission who is authorised to disclose the information by a member of the Commission.
  (3) The disclosure of information, or the authorisation of the disclosure of information, is also excepted from section 194J of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed, or is authorised to he disclosed, for the purposes of—

  (a) the investigation of an offence; or

  (b) deciding whether to prosecute a person for an offence,

  unless the disclosure is or would be prevented by an obligation or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.
  (4) Where the disclosure of information is excepted from section 194J of this Act by subsection (1) or (2) above, the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by. under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.
  (5) The power to make an order under subsection (1)(f) above is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Consent to disclosure.
  194L.—(1) Where a person or body is required by an order under section 1941 of this Act to produce or allow access to a document or other material to the Commission and notifies them that any information contained in the document or other material to which the order relates is not to be disclosed by the Commission without his or its prior consent, the Commission shall not disclose the information without such consent.
  (2) Such consent may not be withheld unless—

  (a) (apart from section 1941 of this Act) the person would have been prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure from disclosing the information without such consent; and

  (b) it is reasonable for the person to withhold his consent to disclosure of the information by the Commission.

  (3) An obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure which applies to a person only where disclosure is not authorised by another person shall not be taken for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above to prevent the disclosure by the person of information to the Commission unless—

  (a) reasonable steps have been taken to obtain the authorisation of the other person; or

  (b) such authorisation could not reasonably be expected to be obtained.".

  (2) After Schedule 9 of the 1995 Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 9A

  THE COMMISSION: FURTHER PROVISIONS
  Membership
  1. Her Majesty shall, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, appoint one of the members of the Commission to be the chairman of the Commission.
  2.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as a member of the Commission, or as chairman of the Commission, in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  (2) An appointment as a member of the Commission may be full-time or part-time.
  (3) The appointment of a person as a member of the Commission, or as chairman of the Commission, shall be for a fixed period of not longer than five years.
  (4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, a person whose term of appointment as a member of the Commission, or as chairman of the Commission, expires shall be eligible for re-appointment.
  (5) No person may hold office as a member of the Commission for a continuous period which is longer than ten years.
  (6) A person may at any time resign his office as a member of the Commission, or as chairman of the Commission, by notice in writing addressed to Her Majesty.
  (7) Her Majesty may at any time remove a person from office as a member of the Commission if satisfied—

  (a) that he has without reasonable excuse failed to discharge his functions as a member for a continuous period of three months beginning not earlier than six months before that time;

  (b) that he has been convicted of a criminal offence;

  (c) that a bankruptcy order has been made against him, or his estate has been sequestrated, or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors; or

  (d) that he is unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a member.

  (8) If the chairman of the Commission ceases to be a member of the Commission he shall also cease to be chairman.
  Members and employees
  3.—(1) The Commission shall—

  (a) pay to members of the Commission such remuneration;

  (b) pay to or in respect of members of the Commission any such allowances, fees, expenses and gratuities; and

  (c) pay towards the provisions of pensions to or in respect of members of the Commission any such sums,

  as the Commission are required to pay by or in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State.
  (2) Where a member of the Commission was, immediately before becoming a member, a participant in a scheme under section I of the Superannuation Act 1972, the Minister for the Civil Service may determine that his term of office as a member shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as if it were service in the employment or office by reference to which he was a participant in the scheme; and his rights under the scheme shall not he affected by sub-paragraph (1)(c) above.
  (3) Where—

  (a) a person ceases to hold office as a member of the Commission otherwise than on the expiry of his term of appointment; and

  (b) it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for him to receive compensation,

  951
  the Secretary of State may direct the Commission to make to him a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.
  4.—(1) The Commission may appoint a chief executive and such other employees as the Commission think fit, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State as to their number and terms and conditions of service.
  (2) The Commission shall—

  (a) pay to employees of the Commission such remuneration; and

  (b) pay to or in respect of employees of the Commission any such allowances, fees, expenses and gratuities,

  as the Commission may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, determine.
  (3) Employment by the Commission shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 may apply.
  5. The Commission shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to paragraph 3(2) or 4(3) above in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
  Procedure
  6.—(1) The arrangements for the procedure of the Commission (including the quorum for meetings) shall be such as the Commission may determine.
  (2) The arrangements may provide for the discharge, under the general direction of the Commission, of any function of the Commission—

  (a) in the case of the function specified in sub-paragraph (3) below, by a committee consisting of not fewer than three members of the Commission; and

  (b) in any other case, by any committee of, or by one or more of the members or employees of, the Commission.

  (3) The function referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above is making a reference to the High Court under section 194B of this Act.
  (4) The validity of any proceedings of the Commission (or of any committee of the Commission) shall not be affected by—

  (a) any vacancy among the members of the Commission or in the office of chairman of the Commission; or

  (b) any defect in the appointment of any person as a member of the Commission or as chairman of the Commission.

  (5) Where—

  (a) a document or other material has been produced to the Commission under section 1941 of this Act, or they have been given access to a document or other material under that section, and the Commission have taken away the document or other material (or a copy of it); and

  (b) the person who produced the document or other material to the Commission, or gave them access to it. has notified the Commission that he considers that its disclosure to others may be contrary to the interests of national security,

  the Commission shall, after consulting that person, deal with the document or material (or copy) in a manner appropriate for safeguarding the interests of national security.
  Evidence
  7. A document purporting to be—

  (a) duly executed under the seal of the Commission; or

  (b) signed on behalf of the Commission,

  shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, taken to be so executed or signed.
  Annual reports and accounts
  8.—(1) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year of the Commission, the Commission shall send to the Secretary of State a report on the discharge of their functions during that year.
  (2) Such a report may include an account of the working of the provisions of Part XA of this Act and recommendations relating to any of those provisions.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament. and cause to be published, a copy of every report sent to him under sub-paragraph (1).
  9.—(l) The Commission shall—

  (a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts; and

  (b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year of the Commission.

  (2) The statement of accounts shall contain such information and shall be in such form as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, direct.
  (3) The Commission shall send a copy of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates as the Secretary of State may direct.
  (4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

  (a) examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts; and

  (b) lay a copy of the statement of accounts and of his report before each House of Parliament.

  10. For the purposes of this Schedule the Commission's financial year shall be the period of twelve months ending with 31st March; but the first financial year of the Commission shall he the period beginning with the date of establishment of the Commission and ending with the first 31st March which falls at least six months after that date.
  Expenses
  11. The Secretary of State shall defray the expenses of the Commission up to such amount as may be approved by him.".")
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, 1 spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 22. 1 beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Evidence of vulnerable persons: special provisions]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 36, line 44, at end insert—
  ("(iv) who would be unable to give evidence in open court:7).
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 28 is aimed at extending the range of people who can be accepted as being vulnerable. At Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that the list in the Bill was being kept tight because objective criteria were needed for ease of operation. While I certainly understand his point, I am keen that the Bill should be made to address the whole problem. The tight criteria of the Bill will certainly be operable, but it will also lead to many witnesses suffering unnecessarily and, even worse, not giving evidence.
  This failure to address the whole problem will not assist in the achievement of justice. I believe that the courts will want to experiment with my wider description of vulnerable people. I believe that many citizens are terrified of the judicial process and that

  953
  serious efforts must be made to explore how far vulnerable people can be enabled to give evidence. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend replies, what happens if somebody is unable to speak and wishes to give evidence in writing? Is that possible in court? I really do not know.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the short answer is that that is correct. Indeed, I have some personal recollection of that happening. Before it could occur, the judge would have to be satisfied that the witness could understand the questions that he or she would be asked and that he or she was unable to communicate his or her thoughts, except in writing, and before that could be established it may be necessary for the court to take evidence (whether orally or by way of a report from someone who knows the witness in everyday life and who is able to assure the court that the witness is fully qualified to follow the proceedings of the court). I have some recollection of seeing that done. Indeed, it happens frequently when there is some concern about a witness's address. The witness can be asked to write down his or her address, which is then shown to the judge and the lawyers but is not read out in open court. I am satisfied, therefore, that our existing court procedures fully meet the concerns of my noble friend.
  The noble Earl's amendment would have the effect of providing for any category of person to give evidence on commission by means of live television link or behind screens. It could apply, for example, to someone who, for a variety of reasons, is unable to be present in court. Perhaps I may take some fairly extreme examples to illustrate the point. Someone could be physically absent from the jurisdiction on a pre-arranged business trip, because of a holiday or for a variety of other reasons. Clearly, it would be wrong to put on the face of the statute a provision which could be construed on that basis.
  There are already provisions for dealing with vulnerable witnesses, and we have already covered those. There are already provisions for taking evidence on commission.
  This amendment comes rather late in the day and has potentially undesirable consequences. Therefore, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw it. From what I said in Committee, I hope it is clear that the Government are aware of the problems of vulnerable witnesses. Some progress has been made and, in the light of experience during the next few years, it may be possible to take that further. However, I believe that we have gone far enough for the moment and that the right approach is to bring these provisions into force, to see how they work and, if there is cause for extending them, to look at the matter again.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may ask him one question. Obviously, we shall not press the amendment, but what is the position of a woman who is alleged to have been raped? Can
  954
  arrangements be made to have her screened off from the assailant? I ask this not having followed the details of the previous argument, but because I believe that it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could explain the matter.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, not purely arising from the fact that she is the victim of a rape or alleged rape—"the complainer" as we would call her in Scotland or, if the lady is under 16, a child—such provisions would already apply. If the lady were to fall under the new provisions extending the definition of "vulnerable witnesses", such arrangements would apply if the appropriate application was made to the court. However, if we are dealing with a lady of mature years who does not fall within the category of "vulnerable witnesses" as defined in the Bill, there is no provision in Scotland at the moment which would allow that to happen.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lord, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I repeat that we shall not be pressing the matter but I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could look into this. He will be aware that many women—of mature years, I might add—find extremely alarming the idea of being confronted in court by a man who may have subjected them to a violent attack and humiliation. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could consider the matter not in relation to the Bill, but as a general principle.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am happy to give the assurance that the Crown in Scotland will keep that and other matters under close review.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I accept that my amendment was much too wide. I accept also that the Bill makes some progress in the direction in which we should be moving. I suppose that I am giving notice to whomsoever will be responsible for the next Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that I shall be back with this type of amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 32 [Continuity of sentencing]:
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 28:
  Leave out Clause 32.
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 32, which the amendment seeks to delete, is a new clause which was tabled in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It sought to introduce into the Bill a clause which for all practical purposes was identical to Clause 23 of the Crime (Sentences) Bill. It was inserted into the Bill against the wishes of the Government and against the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I understand that the Government are not the only people to have been reflecting on the contents of this Bill during the past few days. I understand that there is a wide measure of support for the view that it would be undesirable for this provision to form part of the

  955
  law of Scotland. For that reason, and without going into any great detail, I trust that the amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Application of provisions with respect to early release]:
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 39, line 41, after ("1993 Act") insert (", and the amendments made to the 1995 Act by paragraph 17(3) of Schedule Ito this Act").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a technical drafting amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Early release]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 41, line 9, at end insert ("and "prescribed minimum standard" means that the prisoner has not been charged with a disciplinary offence or been placed on report").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 31 and 44 have been grouped with this amendment. They take us back to prison and focus again on the subject of the assessment criteria for good behaviour. In Committee, it was established that the criterion specified in my earlier amendments, which stated that the "prescribed minimum standard" was achieved by not having an offence against the Prison (Scotland) Rules proved, was too low. I have now raised that criterion. This time, being charged and placed on report becomes the criterion. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate told us in Committee that the minimum prescribed standard was effectively floating above my objective standard of a proven offence against the prison rules.
  I am still trying to find objective criteria that can be set down in the Bill and understood by the prisoners and prison officers who have to live with the rules. I believe that we can do it. I believe that we can introduce a specification into the Bill which describes what we really mean.
  Perhaps I may move on to Amendment No. 31, which tries to establish who can sort out the assessments of good behaviour. If the scheme is to work, prison officers and prisoners will need to have confidence in it. In Committee, several amendments were proposed which called for outside agencies to carry out the assessment procedures. All those amendments were rejected. We were told that the task was to be carried out by the Scottish Prison Service. This amendment therefore clarifies the point and states that the function should be carried out by senior members of the prison staff. They are the people who are expected to carry out executive functions on a day-to-day basis within a prison. It is perfectly normal for staff at governor grade to convene meetings and to achieve decisions based on the reports of prison officers. I do not understand why the Bill is so imprecise and I do not believe that that is necessary.
  Finally, I turn to my Amendment No. 44, which seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State does not implement the early release scheme until the Scottish Prison
  956
  Service is capable of withstanding the substantial change involved. With the differing provision in regard to the desirability of sentence reduction, sentences in Scotland will become longer. The increased prison population will be a major burden to shoulder without the imposition of a new liberation scheme that will be a hard sell to prisoners. I look for reassurance on this matter. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 seeks to define the prescribed minimum standard for the purposes of the early release provisions as meaning that the prisoner has not been charged with a disciplinary offence or placed on report. The result, which I am sure the noble Earl does not intend, would be that the mere suspicion of misconduct would mean that a prisoner had not reached the prescribed standard, even if he were subsequently acquitted of the charge. Even if this technical problem were dealt with and the minimum standard were to be defined as an absence of proved misconduct reports, we do not believe that the amendment would be desirable.
  The earning of early release should be about more than simply not breaching prison discipline. Prisoners should be required to demonstrate positive good behaviour and that they are making constructive use of their time in prison in order to address their offending behaviour. As appropriate, that might mean participating in a programme on drug addiction or anger management, as well as working productively in the prison workshops. We therefore intend to set out in the prison rules a wider definition of the prescribed minimum standard. That will provide a real incentive to prisoners to make a positive effort to co-operate with the prison regime and tackle their problems.
  Amendment No. 31 seeks to define the prescribed person in relation to assessments for early release as a person of governor grade. The Government have no problem with the spirit of this amendment, in that they envisage that these assessments will be made by a board chaired by a senior manager. The problem is a technical one, in that since April 1995 some of the senior managers in prisons are no longer described as governor grades but have the job description "managers". I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment if I assure him that the prison rules, which are required to be in place before these provisions have effect, shall provide for assessments to be made by a governor or a senior manager after an assessment board has met to consider the case.
  I turn to Amendment No. 44 which I believe is also grouped with manuscript Amendment No. 43B that may or may not be moved. The Government have always been open about the likelihood that substantial numbers of additional prison places will be needed as a consequence of their proposals on honesty in sentencing. That was a matter discussed in some detail at the Committee stage of the Bill. The financial memorandum states that these may amount to as many as 2,200 five years after implementation, depending on how the courts sentence under the provisions set out in the Bill and the effect on the behaviour of offenders.

  957
  The Government have consistently said—your Lordships were reminded of it yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—that they do not intend to bring these provisions into effect until additional places are available. Clearly, that is unlikely to be before the end of the century. The Scottish Prison Service is already planning ahead to accommodate whatever the future may hold. The service will clearly be closely involved with all the decisions regarding the implementation of these provisions. Its involvement is an administrative matter with which we believe it would be inappropriate to deal on the face of the Bill as proposed by Amendment No. 44.
  For similar reasons we also consider that it would be inappropriate to make the provision proposed by Amendment No. 43B. The relationship between the design capacity of the prisons and the prison population over the past three months is one factor to be considered before commencing the provisions, but it is not the only one. The number of new places that are about to come on stream will be even more important. The Government shall set themselves a tougher test than is proposed by this amendment as far as concerns the early release provisions.
  For the benefit of noble Lords who do not have a list of the manuscript amendments, manuscript Amendment No. 43B proposes that the following words be inserted:
  "No statutory instrument made under [Section 65] shall be made bringing into force [certain specified sections] … unless—

  (a) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the average daily prison population in Her Majesty's Prisons in Scotland has not exceeded the current design capacity of those prisons by more than 10 per cent. at any time during a continuous period of three months, and

  (b) Her Majesty's Government has published the appropriate statistics as to the average daily prison population and the current design capacity and placed them in the library of [another place]".

  The terms of that amendment illustrate our concerns. For that reason, we find all of these amendments unacceptable. I hope that they will not be pressed.
  Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may put a question. If the capacity runs at the 10 per cent. level of which he speaks for a period of three months and then the provisions in the statutory instrument are initiated, where do these prisoners sleep—on mattresses in corridors and so on?
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, where they sleep is a matter for the governor of a particular institution. It is an unhappy fact of life that there has been overcrowding in prisons. It has reduced but it remains a problem. Undoubtedly, in some institutions more prisoners sleep in cells than was originally intended. No doubt on occasions the facilities leave something to be desired. But to suggest that people regularly sleep on mattresses in prison corridors is not an accurate description of the state of the prison estate in Scotland. There is a measure of overcrowding and it is being addressed.
  I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance—which I am sure will be received with sympathy by noble Lords on all sides of the House—that these
  958
  provisions will not be introduced until any increased prison population that may result can be accommodated by the estate. One hopes that as slow but steady progress is made in dealing with the overcrowding that presently afflicts our prisons, by the year 2000, whenever, if in the past there had been occasions when people slept on mattresses in corridors that would not occur at that stage.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his answers. I am disappointed by his reluctance to define "minimum prescribed standards of behaviour". That will have to be worked out somewhere else eventually. In regard to the amendment dealing with governors, the noble and learned Lord is quite right. My terminology is slightly out of date in regard to prison staff. I have been visiting prisons for a while, and I still visit prisons. I will make certain about that in future.
  Referring to the final amendment dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, one knows that there are plans to build a private prison in Kilmarnock. That suggests that there will be an increase in prison places. One notes that at present the prisons in Scotland are full so perhaps judges are doing the business. I suspect that the measures introduced by this Bill which provide other ways of dealing with fine defaulters and may be implemented sooner than some other measures, will remove a large number of fine defaulters from prison and help to reduce overcrowding. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
  [Manuscript Amendment No. 31A not moved.]
  Clause 49 [Criminal Legal Assistance]:
  [Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
  Clause 50 [Employment of solicitors in relation to criminal legal assistance]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 66, line 23, leave out ("require") and insert ("give the opportunity to").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. The amendment has been suggested to me by the Glasgow Bar Association. Here we are talking about changes in legal aid. It seeks to soften the impact of the Bill in respect of ordering accused persons to go to the proposed Legal Aid Board employed solicitors. I can see the general idea that the board's salaried solicitors should be fully employed. That is generally sensible, but there are bound to be occasions when accused persons do not get on with, or do not have faith in, certain solicitors. We all recognise that. It happens already. It will happen in the future. Amendment No. 34 meets the problem head on and supplies a solution.
  Amendment No. 35 was, again, suggested by the Glasgow Bar Association. I recognised the concept of a standard fee being offered for legal aid work. The administrative merits stare us in the face. But there will also be occasions when the standard fee will be woefully

  959
  inadequate. I recognise that a busy office doing a great deal of legal aid work will enjoy the swings and roundabouts effect, but that will not be true of the office which does little criminal legal aid work or the new firms which are just starting up, and have cashflow problems. The amendment lives within the strictures of the fixed payment scheme. It seeks to clarify the position regarding disproportionately extensive and expensive cases. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, Amendment No. 34 is unacceptable. The Government have already explained in some detail the necessity for the Secretary of State to be able to give the board power to direct applicants for criminal legal assistance to directly employed solicitors. Given that the pilot scheme provided for in Clause 50 must be evaluated within three years, it will be essential to ensure an adequate build up of business in the initial stages. That cannot be done without a power of direction. The amendment would remove such a power.
  The noble Earl raises on behalf of the Glasgow Bar Association a practical problem which is one of the issues that will be looked at in any pilot scheme. I have no doubt that given good will and common sense on all sides, particularly by solicitors employed in the pilot scheme, the staff—both legally qualified and others—of the Legal Aid Board, other members of the profession, and indeed the accused himself, if the particular problem adverted to arises it can and will be responsibly addressed.
  Amendment No. 35, too, is unacceptable. The whole point of fixed fees is to ensure that, overall, solicitors are fairly rewarded for work necessarily and reasonably done with due regard to economy. It is also undesirable because it removes from Clause 51 the provision enabling the solicitor to be reimbursed for outlays not included in the prescribed fixed payment. For those different reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am certain that my advisers from the Glasgow Bar Association will be interested to read the noble and learned Lord's answers. It sounds as though the issues will come up in the pilot projects. We look forward to dealing with this matter at some time in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 51 [Fixed Payments]:
  [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
  Clause 52 [Contracts for the provision of criminal legal assistance]:
  [Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
  Clause 53 [Power of investigation of Scottish Legal Aid Board]:
  [Amendments No. 37 and 38 not moved.]
  Clause 60 [Grants for forensic medical services]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 75, line 24, leave out first ("person") and insert ("public body").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 40. I tabled these amendments because I believe, in principle, that the courts and their ancillary services belong in the public sector. When a citizen's liberty is at stake, I am keen that the state should supply the scientific evidence.
  I understand that there are four forensic laboratories in Scotland, all of which are in the public sector. They work within the Strathclyde, Lothian and Borders, Tayside and Grampian police forces. I believe that there are no private forensic laboratories in Scotland. It seems to me that the clause is an unnecessary enabling clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, these amendments seek to ensure that grants for forensic medical services can be made only to public bodies. At present the Crown Office in my department provides grant-in-aid to the four Scottish universities with departments of forensic medicine. I give a clear undertaking that there are no plans to change that arrangement. However, it would be wrong to restrict the Lord Advocate's freedom to obtain forensic medicine services from whichever body or person was willing and able to provide those services.
  If one or more of the universities chose not to provide such services, or for some technical reason in the hospital within which they work that proved impossible on a short-term basis, the Lord Advocate of the day would require to look elsewhere. There clearly would not be time to come to Parliament to obtain authority to start funding another body. I do not envisage that happening, because the universities concerned are of long standing and have served the Crown in Scotland well. I believe—I say this not just in my capacity as Lord Advocate, but with my experience in the Crown Office at present and earlier in the 1980s—it would be wrong to restrict the statute in the way proposed. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's answer was better than I had expected, I have to say.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I take it that that was a compliment?
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, yes, that constituted a compliment. I had not appreciated that the forensic medical services came from the universities. I was thinking more in terms of the police laboratories. The noble and learned Lord said that there was no one yet from whom he could obtain such services. So broadly speaking he agreed with my last remark that the clause at present was an unnecessary enabling clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
  Clause 61 [Confiscation of alcohol from persons under 18]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 75, line 33, at end insert ("but it shall not be an offence to fail to comply with any such requirement.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords I speak also to Amendment No. 42. These amendments relate to the clause providing for the confiscation of alcohol in public places. They were tabled to clarify the situation. In the event of compliance with the police request, no offence is committed. Since tabling the amendments two things have occurred. First, I received a helpful letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—another compliment—explaining that it was not an offence under the 1976 Act, but he went on:
  "It may he an offence against the local by-laws".
  I found that interesting to note. These local by-laws operate mainly in cities. My favourite local authority, the Clackmannanshire Council, is developing a by-law prohibiting drinking in public outdoor places by people of all ages. Other authorities may follow the lead.
  That brings me to the most serious and new point. The Bill deals with the possession of alcoholic liquor but not with its consumption. I am sure that it is intended to be aimed at youngsters drinking in public and being a nuisance while doing so, but it does not say so. The Bill allows the police to confiscate unopened cans of beer, alcopops or whatever, which may be in a shopping bag being transported between the child's home and the grandparents' home, being consumed or in a picnic basket and possibly even supervised by a parent. I wonder whether that is the intention of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, the amendment seriously weakens the powers of the police. I do not believe that that is the kind of thing we want to do.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for taking the words out of my mouth. I understand why the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, brings the matter forward, but, unfortunately, the amendments are entirely at odds with the provisions in subsection (3)—
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for the wording of the amendments. It was my intention that they should read:
  "but it shall not be an offence to comply with any such requirement".
  I appreciate that the wording in the Marshalled List is entirely wrong.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, if it is entirely wrong, I compliment the noble Earl for acknowledging that and I trust that he will not press the matter. Clearly, the purpose of the provision is not to give people criminal convictions unnecessarily, but to give the police power to deal with a few children who brazenly refuse to comply with requirements, which
  962
  I believe have the vast support of the majority of the population who are concerned about drinking in public on repeated occasions. For whatever reason, I hope that I have persuaded the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, having tabled the wrong amendment, I certainly am persuaded to withdraw it. However, I remain concerned that there will be an issue about unopened bottles of drink if a zealous policeman were pursuing that. I put that forward as a problem for the future and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
  Clause 63 [Financial provisions]:
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 76, line 31, at end insert—
  ("() Part XA of the 1995 Act (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) (as inserted by section 24A of this Act);").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Manuscript Amendments Nos. 43A and 43B not moved.]
  Clause 65 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  [Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 47:
  Page 78, line 3, at end insert—
  ("The Public Records Act 1958 (c.51)
  . In the First Schedule to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), in Part II of the Table at the end of paragraph 3, at the appropriate place insert—
  "Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.".").
  Page 78, line 31, at end insert—
  ("The Superannuation Act 1972 (c.11)
  . In Schedule I to the Superannuation Act 1972 (kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of that Act may apply), at the end of the list of "Royal Commissions and other Commissions" insert—
  "Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission."
  The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c.24)
  . In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in Part II of Schedule 1 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), at the appropriate place insert—
  "The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.".").
  Page 78, line 37, at end insert—
  ("The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 (c.55)
  . In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 (persons ineligible for jury service), in Group B, after paragraph (w) insert—
  "(wa) members and employees of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission;".").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 89, line 5, at end insert—
  ("() In section 46 (presumption and determination of age of child)—

  (a) in subsection (1), after the word "offence" there shall be inserted the words ", whose age is not specified in the indictment or complaint in relation to that offence,";

  (b) in subsection (3) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Without prejudice to section 255A of this Act,".").

  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 89, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
  ("() In section 63 (appeals by prosecutor in cases involving insanity)—

  (a) in subsection (I), paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect;

  (b) in subsection (2)(b)(ii), the words "or (d)" shall cease to have effect; and

  (c) in subsection (5)(b)—

  (i) for the words "or order", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "order or disposal"; and

  (ii) for the words "or order", in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "or acquittal".").

  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 53:
  Page 90, line 23, at end insert—
  ("() In section 113(2)(c) (recipients of copy of judge's report) for the words "section 124(3) of this Act, to the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "Part XA of this Act. to the Commission".").
  Page 90, leave out lines 29 to 31 and insert—

  ("(16) In section 124 (finality of proceedings and Secretary of State's reference)

  (a) in subsection (1), after "this Part" there shall be inserted the words "or Part XA";

  (b) in subsection (2), for the words "subsection (3) below" there shall be substituted the words "Part XA of this Act"; and

  (c) subsections (3) to (5) shall cease to have effect.").

  Page 91, leave out lines 47 and 48 and insert—
  ("() In section 298 (trial judge's report)—

  (a) in subsection (1)(a), after the words "108" there shall be inserted the words 108A"; and

  964

  (b) in subsection (2), for the words "section 124(3) of this Act, the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "Part XA of this Act, the Commission".

  Page 91, line 49, after ("(interpretation)") insert ("—
  (a) after the definition of "Clerk of Justiciary" insert—
  "the Commission" has the meaning given by section 194A(1) of this Act;"; and.
  (b)")
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 54:
  Page 97, line 5, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section 63, subsection (1)(d) and in subsection (2)(b)(ii) the words "or (d)".")
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 55:
  Page 97, line 16, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section 124, subsections (3) to (5).")
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In speaking to that Motion, I hasten to assure your Lordships that I do not intend to speak for 52 minutes, which was one of the longer contributions during the Bill's Committee stage.
  Obviously, your Lordships have given careful scrutiny to the Bill, albeit that the Report stage lasted a shorter period than might otherwise have proved to be the case. The Government believe—and I believe—that the Bill contains many useful provisions, some of which have perhaps attracted more attention during your Lordships' deliberations. We believe that they offer much protection and reassurance to the people of Scotland and that in many respects they will further improve the administration of Scotland's criminal justice system.
  I wish to acknowledge and offer considerable personal thanks to noble Lords who have contributed to our deliberations. The consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House followed upon and to some extent ran in tandem with consideration of the Crime (Sentences)

  965
  Bill. There was some similarity between certain of the provisions. Nevertheless, noble Lords who took part contributed much and I am grateful to them.
  On my own Benches, I thank my noble friends, in particular Lady Carnegy and Lord Balfour. I personally enjoyed the exchanges over the Dispatch Box with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and my colleague in the Faculty of Advocates, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I regret that he cannot be with us today. I enjoyed my exchanges with my former colleague on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. During the past three months he has been on a steep learning curve about the law of Scotland, but I hasten to assure him that it is not as steep as the learning curve I have been on in respect of the law of England. However, I have certainly enjoyed and much appreciated the contributions made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, whom I am pleased to see in his place.
  I said on Second Reading that I welcome the contribution which noble and learned Lords can make to the deliberations of your Lordships' House. It would be wrong for me to suggest that I have always agreed with them. But it is quite obvious that the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord McCluskey and Lord Clyde, have put a great deal of thought and preparation into the speeches which they made. I am sure that they have proved to be of benefit to us all.
  I am grateful to the Whips who have supported me; in particular, my noble friend Lord Courtown. He has been involved with many other major Bills in this current Session. He has constantly had to be in touch with my officials, who are also due considerable thanks.
  It is unfortunate that the timetable for the Bill has to some extent been restricted. However, there can be no doubt that your Lordships' House has performed a very valuable role in giving detailed scrutiny to this very important piece of legislation.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, this has not been a particularly easy Bill, especially for those of us who are not lawyers. We have listened to the lawyers and have benefited from their contributions.
  There have been a number of magic moments in our discussions and debates, not least the recent one when the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, drew our attention to the problem of unopened bottles of drink. I must tell the noble Earl that I have a solution for that problem and I am quite happy to share it with him afterwards.
  We have undoubtedly improved this Bill as we have considered it in this House. It is a much improved Bill from that which we received from the other place. During our discussions, we have been indebted to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his continuing patience and courtesy to all of us who have participated in the debate. Indeed, he has been painless—I was going to say painful—in the length of
  966
  his explanations on occasion. In fact, on some occasions it seemed that it was not so much Drumadoon as the full text of "Brigadoon" which we were hearing.
  It is customary on these occasions, and rightly, to thank those who have contributed to the work of the Opposition Benches. Our researcher, Robert McGeachy, has been outstanding in giving us the support which we clearly needed. I should like to thank also Mr. Michael Clancy of the Law Society and representatives of CoSLA, who have made us aware of its concerns. As I say, we have improved the Bill and it is now in a position to make a contribution to the criminal justice system in Scotland.
  6.3 p.m.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, on these Benches we are extremely grateful for the Sutherland Committee Report which has led to the establishment in the Bill of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. We are also extremely grateful for Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 on today's Marshalled List.
  I too should like to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, everyone on the Treasury Bench and, undoubtedly, all their advisers for handling all my amendments, which were designed to put up markers for the future as much as anything else. It was a trial to have two major criminal justice Bills running in parallel, particularly as they were not the same despite the fact that they were often referred to as being so.
  I believe genuinely that this Bill continues the search for effective community sentences, and I certainly welcome that. I have to say that this may be the last Scottish criminal justice Bill to be discussed in this Parliament. That depends on the outcome of the election on 1st May and possibly a number of referenda.
  I came to this Report Stage regretting the lack of opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. But I am now satisfied with the issues which were concerning me. I understand why we are in this position and, again, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for answering all my points.
  6.5 p.m.
  Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I should like to add my words of thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the constructive way in which he has approached the remaining stages of the Bill. Some parts of the Bill will remain controversial but there is no doubt that, as the noble and learned Lord said, the Bill contains a number of very important and useful provisions.
  I am glad to see the provisions in Part II pass through this House. Those deal in particular with the problem of miscarriages of justice. We must remember that those provisions are not retrospective and clearly it is important that they be brought into force as soon as possible. It is perhaps moving rather quickly to look ahead to the commencement order but there are certainly provisions in the Bill which deserve to be part of the

  967
  law of Scotland without delay. For that reason alone, I look back with gratitude at what the noble and learned Lord has been able to achieve.
  I am grateful also for the care which the noble and learned Lord has taken in responding to one or two suggestions which I made in relation to both this Bill and the English Bill. Overall, I am quite sure that this is a much-improved Bill from that which reached this House from another place. For that, much of the thanks must go to the noble and learned Lord and those who have advised him.
  6.7 p.m.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for the many letters which he has answered about technical questions which I have asked. I wish that that I had had more time to study every single word in the Bill. It was not an easy Bill to follow because, for the most part, it amended other legislation. I find that, therefore, it takes a long time to read the Bill. However, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for taking on a great measure of work on the Bill. Perhaps I may say as a Scottish Peer, that that is a sign of co-operation between Scotland and Wales which is not always evident. I should also like to thank my colleague, my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, for doing a great deal of the work.
  6.8 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should quite simply like to say that the way in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has conducted the Bill has been quite remarkable. He has shown the most astonishing stamina. Moreover, at times he has been subjected to a good deal of difficult argument. Sometimes his temper must have been severely tested. But he passed the test and I believe that the whole House will agree with me that he has acquitted himself admirably on this occasion.
  On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Building Societies Bill
  6.9 P.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  It gives me great pleasure to propose that the Building Societies Bill be read a second time this evening. The Bill has strong support from societies themselves, and from their representative organisation, the Building Societies Association. I am pleased to say, too, that in another place Opposition parties co-operated fully to ensure its successful passage through all its stages on 10th March, and again on Monday of this week.
  968
  It is vital for the long-term viability and competitiveness of building societies that this measure completes its passage through both Houses before the election. So I am sure that all those who support building societies—and I know that there are many in your Lordships' House who do that actively as well as passively—will wish to facilitate its passage here so that societies can enjoy the benefits which it brings as soon as possible.
  As noble Lords will know, the Bill has three objectives. The first is to increase societies' commercial freedom, so that they will be able to compete more effectively in providing a wide range of retail financial services, giving customers more choice. At the moment, societies' boards spend a lot of time examining with their lawyers whether a new service or product which they want to provide falls within their current powers. The new permissive approach that the Bill introduces will make such difficulties unnecessary.
  Societies will no longer be in danger of finding themselves unable to participate in new developments in the areas where they operate. For example, the Bill will sweep away the qualified asset holdings regime which places stricter limits on smaller societies. Societies will also be able to conduct, in their own name, a range of commercial activities which at present require them to set up subsidiaries. The scope of a building society's principal purpose will also be extended so that lending to finance rented housing will, in future, be regarded as part of core business.
  The second objective of the Bill is to update the prudential supervision powers of the Building Societies Commission, so that the reputation for safety and security that building societies rightly enjoy as the home for the savings of millions of members can be maintained in the new, more permissive regime that will exist in the future. Examples of the commission's new powers include the ability to require societies to restructure their business profile if, for example, considerable growth in one area begins to push it outside even the more generously defined limits in the new Bill. The commission will also be able to direct a society to merge or be taken over in extreme circumstances if that becomes necessary in order to protect savers' funds.
  The Bill's third objective is to bring societies even closer to their customers by underlining their mutual identity and making it easy for ordinary members to play a full part in their affairs. Many building society customers appreciate their position as members and the extra relationship that that brings. One of the virtues of mutuality is that members count. They, and they alone, are the people for whom a society is run. But time moves on, and the Bill gives us the chance to identify new ways in which that relationship can be further improved by increasing the availability of information and enhancing members' ability to have a say in what their society does and how it does it. Under the Bill, borrowing members will be given broadly similar rights to investing members in deciding how a society is run. Members will receive a statutory right to call a special general meeting; there will be tiered and, in a number of cases, lower limits on the number of backers required by someone standing for election to the board, and the

  969
  period when a would-be director may submit a nomination has been extended. Any proposal to expend more than 15 per cent. of a society's own funds on a new business outside its core activity will also need members' approval.
  This Bill is urgently needed. It has been the subject of extensive consultation with the industry, consumer groups and other interested parties. The Bill before your Lordships today fully reflects that. I believe that it is a balanced Bill. It leaves with societies and their members decisions about whether or not they want to remain mutuals—but, if they do, it gives them the freedom to extend their operations in new and exciting ways to their benefit and that of their customers. For those societies that have already decided to convert to PLCs, it offers relief from the costly requirements of the priority liquidation distribution right provisions in the 1986 Act and continues to give them five years' protection from takeover unless they choose to give it up either by a vote of 75 per cent. of their shareholders or, if they enter the takeover business themselves, by acquiring another authorised financial institution operating in the United Kingdom.
  Building societies have a glorious past. The Bill gives them an assured future. With it, they will be able to carry into the next century those traditions of self-help and mutual support out of which the movement grew in this century. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
  6.14 p.m.
  Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for introducing the Building Societies Bill and to assure him that from these Benches we welcome the legislation. We regret that the Government did not see fit to introduce such an important measure earlier in the parliamentary Session; for this Bill affects the financial affairs of 17 million building societies members, and it affects the future of the building societies industry as a whole which has, without doubt, been one of the success stories of post-war Britain.
  Home ownership has become a fundamental part of British democracy. There can be no doubt at all that it has been the mutual building societies which have played the predominant role in the growth of our property-owning democracy. It is a growth which the Labour Party enthusiastically applauds. I said that the Labour Party regrets that the Bill has appeared so late in the parliamentary Session. It is indeed regrettable that noble Lords will not have an opportunity to give such an important financial measure the careful and detailed scrutiny which it deserves.
  Having got that gripe out of the way, perhaps I may emphasise the commitment of the Labour Party to do everything possible to support and strengthen the mutual sector. As organisations owned by both borrowing and depositing members, building societies can provide highly competitive financial services to their members. This Bill gives them the freedom to do just that. The removal of the prescriptive regime of the 1986 Act, and
  970
  its replacement by a permissive structure (suitably buttressed by the requirements on lending for house purchase, and the requirements on the acquisition of finance and by the regulatory regime, outlined by the Minister) provides a new secure base from which building societies can compete.
  I must express some disappointment that the Government have not seen fit to enforce the two-year rule. There is a considerable danger of the building societies' movement being destabilised by speculative flows of capital in search of likely candidates for conversion. It is not good for building societies or for the financial services industry as a whole that that situation should pertain. I would be grateful if the Minister would reassure us that adequate safeguards are in place, and that new speculating members will not overwhelm older members who want their society to remain as a mutual.
  The Labour Party enthusiastically supports the building societies' movement. The Labour Party also enthusiastically supports the extension of competition and choice in financial services. For those reasons, we are happy to support the Bill.
  6.16 p.m.
  Lord Kimball: My Lords, one of the first public functions that I ever attended was when my father represented the Loughborough division of Leicestershire in another place. In 1943 I accompanied him to Loughborough for the opening of the first office that the Leicester Permanent Building Society opened outside the City of Leicester. On that occasion I was given one of the first numbered accounts that were available. I should tell noble Lords that it was an account which failed to stand up to the pressures of undergraduate life at Cambridge, and was soon emptied. Therefore, I have no real interest to declare beyond the fact that, as a Leicestershire Peer, I realise what a major player in the financial field the Alliance & Leicester Building Society is now. I also realise what an important and historic role the whole movement has played. I am sure that the Bill will strengthen the movement and will help building societies, as we know them today, to achieve a secure future. In that way, the Bill is helpful. I fully understand the Government's good intentions and the support of the Opposition in that respect.
  However, I believe that an amendment to the Bill is necessary but, before discussing its substance, I should like, first, to raise a number of points relating to the legislation. My noble friend the Minister said that the Bill was urgently needed, but it has been lying about for some considerable time. Indeed, there was no reason why it could not have been brought forward at a sensible time so that we had a proper opportunity to look at all its clauses and the schedules attached to it.
  In fact, the Bill has been lying about for over 10 years and we have now reached a situation where this important legislation is being rushed through all its stages. I should like to be assured that we will not make the mistakes that were made in the 1986 Act. One might have thought that the priority for all concerned this time would be to see the Bill through and ensure that we get

  971
  everything right. How are we to know that, when the Bill is being pushed through in this extraordinary manner, or are we about to inflict some more unsatisfactory legislation on the industry? I ask your Lordships to consider this carefully.
  In addition there is another great failing in this Bill in that I believe certain aspects of it represent that thoroughly reprehensible principle of retrospective legislation. On Monday night this Bill of 47 clauses and nine schedules—none of which will receive detailed consideration—was pressed through another place. I believe that it is our duty to scrutinise this legislation properly. I do not see how we shall be able to do that today. If this Bill is so important, surely more time could be found for it after the general election. Both sides of the House agree that this is an important Bill. Whoever wins the general election, there is always a slack period from the opening of Parliament until a new government—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Kimball: My Lords, there may not be, but I think your Lordships will agree that usually there is a period when people may even introduce mischievous legislation. I hope that after further consideration my noble friend will agree that the sensible thing to do is to withdraw the Bill now and come to an agreement that, after the opening of Parliament, and before other Bills are ready, we should get down to a month's sensible consideration of this Bill in all its aspects.
  Shortly my noble friend Lord Brabazon and I will move an important amendment. However, the real reason for asking for this Second Reading debate is that we should realise that there is a certain amount of unhappiness in certain sections of the building society industry as regards this Bill. My noble friend will say that there was massive consultation before the Bill was brought forward. However, despite that, no agreement was reached on the particular points put forward by the Alliance & Leicester Building Society.
  With those words of warning, I hope that if other objections are raised my noble friend will seriously consider whether it is right to push on with such haste on a Bill that could well be given proper and due consideration in May.
  6.23 p.m.
  The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, in taking part in this Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill I should first declare an interest in that I have the honour to be a director of the Woolwich. I speak of course in a personal capacity and am not putting forward any Woolwich policy. I add that I fully supported its decision to go down the plc route, which recently received overwhelming approval from its members and, I believe, offers an exciting future.
  Times have changed dramatically over the past few years in the financial services market. Banks, building societies and insurance companies are all competing as never before to maintain or to gain their market share,
  972
  largely to the benefit of consumers. Almost every week one sees a new and innovative financial product being launched, and the industry becomes almost as bewildering as the air travel fares jungle if one wishes to fly abroad. One thing appears certain; namely, that the financial services industry will contract in significant numbers in the future through either friendly or hostile mergers or takeovers. Mutual building societies or mutual insurance companies are not immune from that competitive world. One could cite the Scottish Amicable in that regard.
  Building societies are valuable targets for banks or financial institutions with their large membership and often considerable spread of branch offices. A great deal of profitable cross-selling can be achieved with new financial products from their large base of members. All of us, I am sure—as we have already heard—have admired the valuable role that mutual building societies have played over the past 150 years not only in providing mortgages for millions of members and helping to increase home ownership, but also in providing a safe haven for their precious savings. It is a special movement and has played a most valuable role in our society. No investing member has ever lost a single penny through investing in a building society. One cannot claim the same for other financial institutions. One might ask why that is. The answer is that if a society runs into difficulties the movement generally will stand behind it and perhaps a large society will take over the problem. The Woolwich has had a proud record of such action in the past. This valuable movement, caught up in a highly competitive and changing market-place, deserves in my view—as my noble friend Lord Kimball said—the most careful parliamentary scrutiny as regards any new framework that is designed for societies to operate in during the next decade.
  I regret very much this poor procedure today, just before an election, which reduces this important Bill to being treated like some unattractive horse deal to be whistled through this House in one day. One has to ask what is the urgent rush. My noble friend asked exactly the same question. Why could not both main parties give an undertaking to introduce a Bill giving Parliament a right to scrutinise the new powers?
  I appreciate that the provisions of the Bill have been thoroughly discussed, as my noble friend said in his introductory speech. They have been thoroughly discussed within the industry. I pay tribute to the Building Societies Association for the work it has done in that regard. Nevertheless not all opinion is unanimous, as my noble friend said and as those of us who have received briefings from the Alliance & Leicester can see.
  I support the general tenor of the Bill. It seeks to modernise the operational envelope within which the mutual building societies can operate in the future. That largely meets the current criticism of the limitations of the 1986 Act and will no doubt help societies to compete in tough financial markets. I have no quarrel with that. My quarrel concerns the future, and the danger that a contracting industry is faced with as regards hungry predators jockeying for position to snap up societies.

  973
  Those predators are likely to be banks and insurance companies rather than building societies—because, of course, building societies fit so well into their plans.
  My honourable friend the Minister in another place gave some assurances last Monday that the mutual building societies are not sitting ducks waiting to be snapped up by City predators. I must say that I do not share her confidence. We could have added to the Bill some additional defence to enable the genuine mutual societies to operate with stability. The problem she did not address is how one counters a leaked bid from a large predator which is immediately taken up in dramatic form by the media, which list in detail the benefits to members. The bid will probably value the society way above its existing performance in the form of a knock-out bid. It would take a very skilful board and advisers to counter such tactics, to remain credible, and to keep the confidence and support of members. The evidence does not support any complacency on the part of mutual societies that they are immune from the market-place.
  I find unfortunate the timing of the announcement by my honourable friend the Minister of a change in the protection clause for those societies already declared to be proceeding down the plc route. First, to confirm last March that there would be no change in the protection clause when aware of the four societies moving down the plc route, and then to change the rule at virtually the last minute, was somewhat confusing. I am not sure that this move will have much effect in deterring carpet baggers.
  Certain reasonable compromise amendments were put forward in another place and rejected on the ground of lack of parliamentary time. I think that such a parliamentary pickle is a poor reflection on the need to provide the best possible framework that building societies deserve to take them safely into the next century.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. It was only after considerable thought within the final hours of this Parliament that I decided to speak in the debate, and to do so from a starting-point of considerable sympathy with and support for the objectives of the Bill and the efforts of the Government to complete their legislative goals with time pressing.
  I come to this issue having had some experience in a former existence as a Treasury spokesman. I took the Building Societies Act 1986 through this House. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Stewartby in his place. He was the Treasury Minister with responsibility for that Bill at that time; and we worked well together, if I may say so.
  There was recognition then that building societies needed greater commercial freedom within defined limits to be able to compete more effectively in the increasingly competitive financial services market. I am pleased to see that the Bill necessarily updates and improves on that job.
  974
  As has been said, building societies are an extraordinary creation founded on the collective savings of individuals and families of often modest means. In the last century few would have predicted that they would become the central part of the financial service providers that they are today, with the most distinctive brand names on the high street among their number.
  Quite rightly, the Bill seeks to broaden the financial scope of building societies while maintaining their fundamental character. As a result of the Bill we should see greater accountability to members and the removal of some of the restrictions imposed by the 1986 Act, while the fundamental purpose and character of mutual building societies are maintained. To that extent, the Bill is the product of diligence, consultation and not a little good fortune with the legislative timetable.
  Perhaps the Bill is an apt demonstration that, however much consultation a Bill may go through, changes introduced at the eleventh hour may upset the good work undertaken and have adverse consequences.
  I stress that the Bill, which is in many ways one for the industry and ultimately for the good of the consumer, must be based on consensus. It is not a flagship Bill defining the Government's mission. It is not, I believe, an electorally sensitive Bill. It therefore falls on all our shoulders to ensure that the Bill contains consensus measures, particularly given the shortage of time, to iron out any wrinkles.
  To a large degree, the Minister can claim great credit. The Bill has been seriously canvassed since 1994. A draft Bill was published in March 1996. Comments on the contents were submitted from many parties including many building societies; and there was a good deal of disappointment when the Bill did not appear in the Queen's Speech.
  Having said that, we now have before us a Bill of 47 clauses and 9 schedules which we shall take through all its stages this evening. It was introduced into this House only yesterday, having received a three-hour Second Reading in the Commons on 10th March, with Committee and remaining stages taking place only two days ago, on 17th March, again in under three hours.
  I was alerted to a potential cause for concern by representatives of the Alliance & Leicester building society; and for the avoidance of doubt I should emphasise that I have no connection with any building society and am neither a borrower nor a lender with one. I shall expand on that cause for concern at Committee stage, but should point out that I met them only last Thursday. I have also had the opportunity to speak on the point to my honourable friend the Economic Secretary, for which I am grateful. But there has been little time for building societies or other financial institutions to make their points to noble Lords. It is all very well having lengthy consultation with the industry—that is good, but not at the expense of leaving Parliament out of it. I must ask my noble friend the Minister, as did my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Kinnoull, whether it is really necessary to rush this Bill through at the speed with which it is being taken. I remind my noble friend that when I took the Building Societies Act through this House in 1986 in Committee

  975
  we had to have something like 200 drafting amendments before the Bill was in the right shape. Some of those amendments were moved by me for the Government, and some by one of my noble friends on behalf of the Building Societies Association. Altogether the amendments amounted to some 200 before the Bill was right. I only hope that my noble friend can assure the House that this Bill is really well drafted and will not lead to the kinds of problems that would have resulted had the previous Bill been rushed through. With those words of caution, I welcome the general principles of the Bill.
  6.36 p.m.
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, I had submitted my name for inclusion on the list of speakers but for some reason it was not included. It has been suggested that I speak in the gap. I do so briefly.
  I make it clear from these Benches, that we, too, support the thrust of the Bill. We think it timely and important. We fully support the mutual movement. We think that the changes which the Bill proposes to make the regime more permissive, rather than the prescriptive regime of the 1986 Act, are wholly desirable. We believe that if the mutual societies feel, with the support of their members that they want to demutualise they should be able to do so. Broadly, therefore, we are in agreement with the Bill.
  However, there are two issues on which I hope the noble Lord will comment when he replies. Both have already been mentioned. First, I refer to the two year rule. That led to considerable discussion in another place at Committee stage. There is the feeling—to some degree I share it—that the handouts which have been proffered as a result of demutualisation have led to a good deal of speculative movement in the membership of the mutual societies which is contrary to the spirit in which those societies were originally established. The two year rule was intended to limit that but in practice the arrangements appear now to be that each society decides for itself the limits that it places on the handing out of the benefits arising from demutualisation. I should have thought that it was a situation which requires clarification. I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on the subject.
  Secondly, I sympathise with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on the modification of the protection clause. While I agree with the modifications proposed, there is a retrospective element about them. That is causing, I think rightly, concern among certain societies. Those societies decided, on the basis of the existing protection clauses, to demutualise. This now puts them in a difficult position. I know that some are pondering seriously what they should do next. I very much hope that in dealing with the amendment to be introduced later at Committee stage the Government will be able to suggest some way in which at least the retrospective element in the proposal, which is otherwise acceptable, can be introduced. Apart from those two comments, I support the Bill.
  6.40 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have spoken for the general level of support for this Bill. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara mentioned the time it took for the 1986 Bill. When I was thinking about what I might have to do in this Session of Parliament I reckoned that perhaps if this Bill was introduced at the beginning of the Session I might get a few more hours of parliamentary time under my belt and another large notch, if I can so describe it, on my gunbelt, to use the jargon of the western. Instead, I suspect I shall only be able to make a very tiny notch there. However, perhaps your Lordships might be relieved at that because some of your Lordships might feel that I already spend more than enough time at the Dispatch Box—and certainly may feel that the clan does, if today is anything to go by.
  Can I start by answering a question put by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull: what is the rush? I believe that that was also a point put by my noble friends Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Kimball. The reason for the rush is that there has been extensive consultation, to which I shall refer later; but the Building Societies Association was very keen for the Bill to go ahead now. They did not wish us to wait until after the next election.
  This is one of the first Bills to be published as a draft in advance, and is part of our initiative towards better legislation. The very fact that it has been published in draft means that there has been quite a long time in which to discuss and amend it. I hope that that goes some way towards explaining to my noble friend Lord Brabazon why, unlike some other Bills, this Bill is probably less in need of detailed scrutiny and amendment than some others that have been brought before to your Lordships' House.
  The Bill was announced in 1994, in the review of the Building Societies Act. It was stated that the Government were contemplating a Bill of this nature. That was followed by consultations on the framework. The draft Bill, which I have already mentioned, was published for consultation in 1996 and the revised Bill was published in December 1996. We introduced it as soon as we possibly could. As your Lordships may recall, back in the autumn there was speculation about this Bill forming part of the Queen's Speech. Unfortunately, it did not manage to achieve its place in the main timetable, so to speak. However, I think that my honourable friend Mrs. Angela Knight made it clear that we would seek any opportunity to introduce the Bill and try to get it through in this Session, if that was possible. That indeed has been made possible with the agreement of both Opposition parties in this House and in another place.
  We have received very useful and thoughtful comments over quite a long period of time from the building societies themselves, private individuals, professional organisations and a number of legal practices. We are very grateful to all those who responded for devoting time and resources to consider a Bill which at the time was actually not assured of a slot in the parliamentary timetable. They raised new issues

  977
  and brought a range of different perspectives to bear on the legislation, and we are indeed very grateful to them for their help.
  Perhaps I may now deal with one or two matters and leave the point about the five-year protection until the Committee stage when we deal with the amendments, if that is agreeable to my noble friends, rather than repeating an argument in a very short period of time.
  My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked how a building society resisted a leaked bid from a predator. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked what safeguards there were for societies against speculators. The primary safeguard is that only the board of a society has the ability to put transfer proposals to the members. If the board intends to remain mutual, neither speculators nor would-be purchasers can compel it to act against that decision. I hope that that explains the defensive position of a building society.
  The main point that was mentioned concerned the two-year rule, and perhaps I may say just a few words about that. The 1986 Act forbade the distribution of cash bonuses to share-holding members who had been shareholders for less than two years and to borrowers; but it has been held by the courts not to rule out certain flat rate distributions of free shares to less than two-year members. The societies and others have asked Parliament to go back and change this rule, which is what we are addressing at this moment. There are a number of reasons, but perhaps I can give two of them. The first is that a society which wishes to convert or to be taken over already has the discretion, by choosing a qualifying date for bonuses, to rule out recently arrived members if it chooses. I do not think it is for government to dictate to a society which members it should rule in or rule out. I think the societies should have the freedom to make that decision.
  The second point I wish to make is that the law, as it has been interpreted by the courts, has now stood for something like eight years. During that time we have seen a number of societies convert or be taken over. Indeed, in terms of the number of members, it has been a very much bigger shift than any we are likely to see in the future. I think that a change made now regarding possible future mergers or takeovers would be seen to be unfair and incomprehensible by that society's members and indeed by the wider public, when we compare this situation with what has happened in the round of conversions that we are already seeing coming to an end.
  I suspect that if the Government had decided to rule out any distribution to a member of less than two years, then, should another society decide to convert, the Government would be immediately under pressure to bring those people in by means of a change of rule. We should not forget that people open building society accounts and take mortgages from building societies in quite considerable numbers. Either they are looking for a new home for themselves or for their savings. I understand that there is quite a lot of movement between building societies and with new people opening accounts. If I read the newspaper advertisements correctly, the building societies
  978
  themselves indulge in very aggressive campaigns to persuade us to shift our savings from one building society to another, or indeed to shift our savings into the building societies from some other place. And of course they also advertise their services as people who are prepared to lend money. I am not sure whether or not at the beginning I should have declared a small interest, as a very small and very modest person who will perhaps gain a little from the Halifax conversion. However, unfortunately, it will not keep me in a life of luxury. We all know that building societies are keen to attract new members and I do not think that there is any evidence that people have joined building societies on a sort of speculative venture that they might shortly thereafter gain from any conversion.
  I said earlier that I would leave the question of Clause 41 and the five-year protection to the debate we shall be having on the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will feel that that is a sensible way to proceed in the circumstances.
  I should like to say that it is pleasant, in the last debate of this Session, where the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and I are exchanging compliments, to say that I agree with the point he made on the importance of the mutual building societies and the important role they have played in extending home ownership in this country, and equally the important role they have played in providing many millions of people with a savings haven in which they can invest their money safely, whether for special events or indeed for retirement. I am very pleased that I have been able to come forward with a Bill which has met, apart from one or two problems that I have addressed already and the ones we shall address at the Committee stage, with such support from all sides of the House and especially from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
  It is not usually my fate, as your Lordships will know, to find such universal support from all sides of the House for legislation I bring before your Lordships. However, in this case, if I may say so, I think the building societies have thoroughly merited the support that your Lordships have given to them. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Then Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March):
  6.50 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD ELLIOTT OF MORPETH in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41 [Protective provisions for specially formed successors]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 58, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—
  ("(a) a company or a subsidiary undertaking of the company acquires the whole, or substantially the whole, of the business of a mutual financial institution;").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and myself, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2.
  This matter was referred to at Second Reading. The problem with the changes to the five-year protection rule caused some degree of consternation among the converting building societies when the Minister announced the plans to change them. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will confirm that there was no mention of changes to the five-year protection in the draft Bill of March 1996. No mention was made until my honourable friend the Economic Secretary answered a Question for Written Answer on 5th November last. In the meantime, societies such as the Alliance and Leicester had long since announced their plans to recommend conversion to their members, which is a lengthy and costly process. The society was advised to encapsulate the proposals in a transfer document to be sent to its voting members. That document was scrutinised by the Bulding Societies Commission before release to ensure that there were no inaccuracies or falsehoods in that most important prospectus.
  That document recognised that the society would be given protection from takeovers for five years after conversion. Only then, well after the document was sent to members and votes were being cast, did the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announce a fundamental turnround. It cannot be reasonable that we in this Chamber are willing to legislate in a way that leaves 2.4 million people to take the consequences of having voted on a financial proposal which we have made invalid.
  The Alliance and Leicester, like other converters, will have to diversify, alter its structure and acquire other financial services companies in order to grow and survive after conversion. This Bill will fundamentally alter the terms of that conversion after a decision has already been taken by its members. That is what the Alliance and Leicester means by the impact of this Bill being retrospective in effect. After close examination, I concur with that view.
  I remind noble Lords that we introduce retrospective legislation with the greatest foreboding. We have a double responsibility to ensure, if we are to pass legislation which on other occasions would be given more consideration, that we do not make rash decisions in haste. I draw noble Lords' attention to the problems of over-hasty legislation. We have passed anti-terrorism legislation swiftly out of urgency but that should be a rare occurrence required in extreme circumstances. One only has to look to another place to see a dangerous dogs Bill going through its remaining stages, a Bill which seeks to rectify failings of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that was passed with undue haste.
  The amendment that my noble friend Lord Kimball and I propose rightly strikes a balance. After all, the Bill, with great support from all sides of the Chamber, seeks to protect and enhance mutuality. That is a fitting objective. But the constraints imposed by Clause 41 go further than protecting the mutual building societies. They impose a straitjacket on the commercial freedom of converted societies with no obvious merit. These amendments protect mutual building societies, friendly societies and mutual insurers. They seek a consensual way out of the problems created by Clause 41 without upsetting or affecting the central thrust of the Bill.
  Therefore, I urge the Minister and the Committee to support the amendment and indeed to welcome the compromise. Without it, we take away rights from the companies that are converting without an opportunity for them to adjust their plans so late in the day. I hope that by accepting this amendment we shall spare future governments the task of revisiting this area of policy again in the near future. I beg to move.
  Lord Stewartby: I begin by declaring an interest as a non-executive director of the Portman Building Society, which has no intention of converting itself into a public limited company. Also, and more relevantly to what I want to say now, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon reminded the Committee, I was the Minister responsible for the 1986 Act. It is in that former capacity that I should like to make a few remarks on these amendments.
  Perhaps I might also be permitted one or two introductory remarks about the nature of the legislation, which is specifically relevant to this amendment. I did not speak at Second Reading as I should have had to repeat myself on two occasions during the progress of the Bill. When the legislation was introduced in 1985, I was very worried that it might not last even 10 years because of the pace of change in financial markets. I am quite pleased that it has in fact, although becoming progressively more out of date in the past few years, enabled a very remarkable change in the building society movement to take place during that time.
  We need to remember that before that Act, building societies were in a very much more primitive condition, largely depending on Victorian legislation. So Section 101 of the 1986 Act, which is the nearest equivalent to Clause 41 of the present Bill, was a very necessary protection for societies which wished to convert. Up to that time they had not had any opportunity of diversifying their activities or becoming more competitive over a range of financial services, which would enable them to stand on their own feet. If they had become public companies without the five-year protection which we built in at that stage, it would have been a turkey shoot. They would not have been sufficiently diversified or had sufficient experience of the competitive market place in a wide range of areas to ensure their independence for very long.
  Therefore, the 1986 Act brought in a considerable range of additional permitted activities for building societies. But the difference between that Act and the present Bill is that the 1986 Act was a prescriptive piece of legislation. It laid down what building societies could

  981
  do in addition to what they had previously been able to do, whereas the new Bill is substantially a permissive piece of legislation which places some constraints but does not try to specify all the individual activities that a building society can undertake. That is a very big difference in the nature of the two Bills. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that it is one of the reasons why the previous legislation was so complicated and needed so much attention in this Chamber.
  But I must ask myself, if I were now the Minister responsible for a new building societies Bill 12 years later, whether that five-year protection provision would still be necessary at all, whether or not it was qualified; because during the intervening time, building societies have been able to take advantage of the provisions of the 1986 Act to become much more widely based financial organisations, which are themselves rather competitive, even if they retain their mutual status. So the point made by the Alliance and Leicester about this clause has to be seen against that background.
  If there is a need for protection now, I believe that that need is much less than it was 12 years ago. I am not entirely convinced that it is still a need at all. But my main concern about this amendment is that it would produce an asymmetrical situation for converting societies. They would be in a position where they could he predators but nobody could take them over. We have to look beyond the building society movement and ask whether that is the kind of structure that we want to build into the regime for substantial quoted companies. I am not persuaded that it is. On those grounds alone I would oppose Amendment No. 1 I do not say that the Alliance and Leicester does not have a point; it has something of a point for the reasons raised by my noble friend. But my judgment, having been through the whole process in great detail 12 years ago and having considered all these issues of protection and vulnerability, is that the case is not strong enough to override the distortion which it would bring into the market place as a whole.
  In respect of the retrospective argument, it is not really true that a provision which is not yet in force and will only come into force after the passage of the Bill, when it is enacted, can be regarded as being retrospective. If a Bill had been brought forward, say early in the next Parliament, which contained provisions of a similar kind to those in the Bill before us today, it would have been perfectly in order for Parliament to amend it or, indeed, for Ministers to include in it provisions of this kind. But it would still have been within the five-year period from the flotation of the Alliance and Leicester. One specific society could not reasonably argue that there was an embargo for five years on this House or another place introducing a measure in the form in which it is drafted in the Bill. The amendment therefore ought not to proceed, quite apart from the situation of the Bill itself; that is, that there is a general view for it to proceed and the passing of amendments would put that at risk. I hope that the Bill will succeed. The Committee would be wise not to accept the amendments.
  982
  Perhaps I can conclude by saying that I am pleased to note the general support for the Bill from my noble friend Lord Eatwell, and other Members of the Committee who have spoken. I have a great respect for the building society industry. It has made a major contribution to British life over a period of more than a century. I did my best 12 years ago to enable it to go through a rapid period of transition and change. I am pleased to have the opportunity to be here at the initiation of what I hope will be another successful period in its existence.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Kimball: I rise to support Amendment No. 1 and I hope my noble friend will find it possible to accept it. It protects mutuality; it will better treat converters, and better serve the interests of the savers.
  If the architects of the 1986 Act supported the concept of a five-year protection period as being necessary for the converters, it seems illogical to change the vision so radically now. The protection is necessary for converters to reach a critical mass in the market place. That is because building societies have been legally restricted in their activities.
  The part of the Bill that proposes to remove protection from a converting society, should it take over an authorised institution, goes too far. Even the Building Societies Association did not propose such a wide-ranging clause when it made its original submission in June 1996. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a sympathetic reply to the amendment.
  Lord Ezra: At Second Reading I spoke briefly about this issue. I said that I had nothing against Clause 41 as now drafted; but I was concerned about the element of retrospection. Certain societies took the effective decision to convert under the assumption that the existing protection rules would continue. This is something that raises doubts in our minds and I shall be glad if the noble Lord, in replying, will take that into account.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In addition to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, who took the 1986 Bill through this Chamber, I am now faced by my noble friend Lord Stewartby who had to look after it in those days in his capacity at the Treasury in another place. I am delighted that they both believe the 1986 Bill needs updating and changing, otherwise I might have a rather difficult feeling going up and down my spine with the two authors of the 1986 Act, which I am changing so radically, sitting behind me. I am glad for their support in general and turn to Amendment No. 1 and the issue of the five-year protection rule.
  The converting societies knew that we planned to introduce a Bill. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara pointed out that initially the five-year protection point was not contained in it. They were able to see all the non-confidential responses to the consultation process which we held last year and it was clear early on in the process that the five-year protection was a matter of concern. The Alliance and Leicester was represented at

  983
  the meeting of the Building Societies Association Council held last June when the BSA response calling for changes to the five-year protection rule was finalised. The converting societies therefore knew last June that the Building Societies Association Council was calling on us to make the changes that I am now presenting to the Committee.
  With that as the background perhaps I can say that the clause as it stands, unamended, will give a converted society the five-year protection in which it may consolidate its position, and may grow by acquisition of assets—such as mortgage books—and by acquisition of companies which are not authorised financial institutions, without any effect on that protection. The protection will lapse only if the new bank carries through an acquisition of an authorised institution, or if a high proportion of shareholders support a resolution to waive the protection.
  Amendment No. 1 would let the new bank mount unlimited acquisitions of its immediate competitors—other Plcs in the financial sector—provided it did not bid for mutual institutions. For example, this bank could take over a former mutual insurer, which would have no protection following conversion, but such an insurer would be forbidden by law from making a bid for the new bank. Moreover, despite recent developments, takeovers of mutual institutions are very rare indeed. The vast majority of takeovers are of Plc structures as, no doubt, are the majority of takeovers that a new bank would undertake. So the effect of this amendment on the new bank would be that it could more or less carry on as planned, fully protected for five years. The umbrella of that protection would be widened to cover all the institutions acquired as well.
  The amendment would therefore perpetuate the unfair advantage the five-year protection confers. As my noble friend Lord Stewartby said, the five-year protection was initially included in appreciation of the fact that at that time the building societies had not yet had an opportunity to widen their base, to bring new products into the range and to become conditioned to the more competitive market place prior to any conversion. They therefore needed time to learn and adapt. Now the building societies operate in a much more competitive market place and some of the powers in the Bill will help to improve their competitiveness in the market place.
  My noble friends and, indeed, the Alliance and Leicester itself, made much of the retrospective nature, as they claim, of the Bill. I understand the point that is being made but, strictly speaking, it is not retrospective. It will be enacted after the Bill passes. My understanding of retrospective legislation is that it is legislation which takes effect prior to the passage of a Bill. In fact therefore it is not retrospective.
  In any case, even for a society like the Alliance and Leicester which is going through its conversion—in fact it made an announcement today about the next step—the loss of the five-year protection is in its own hands. It can only be triggered by the successor company's
  984
  decision either to make an acquisition or by 75 per cent. of all shareholders agreeing to support a resolution to drop the protection.
  I do not believe the changes are unfair. I think it would be unfair to leave the converted societies—some are actually banks in the FTSE 100 and are powerful institutions—in this very privileged position. I understand the point my noble friends are making about the Bill being retrospective. But, strictly speaking, as we all understand it, it is not retrospective. Indeed, if one were to take the view that one could not do anything after the date of a new Bill being enacted that affected decisions which had previously been taken, it would be hard for a Government to make any changes in the financial sector because they could always be claimed to be affecting decisions which people had already taken; "and if they had known at the time, would they have taken them?". I suspect that even if the Alliance & Leicester had known at the time, it would probably still have taken them. Who am I to judge that? But certainly the vote it got to make the move was fairly substantial.
  Perhaps I may put it this way and name terms to your Lordships. Under the amendment the Alliance & Leicester or any other plc would be discouraged from, for example, taking over the Airdrie Savings Bank, which is one of the few of that kind left, because it would lose protection. However, it could look at the Airdrie Saving Bank's bigger brother in Edinburgh and attempt to take over the Royal Bank of Scotland and yet retain its protection. In those circumstances, the Royal Bank of Scotland would be forbidden from mounting a counter bid. That is a serious distortion of everyday competition among the financial service providers. Put like that, I hope my noble friends will see that it is quite unfair that major institutions should be ring-fenced in a one-way ring-fence. They can do things out the way but no one can do things in the way.
  While I understand the argument my noble friends have made, when one looks at the new scene, it would be quite unfair in the circumstances I have put for the Airdrie Savings Bank to be safe and the Royal Bank of Scotland not to be safe. There does not seem to be too much logic in that, especially when the Royal Bank of Scotland could not counter bid or put in a bid for any of the new converting building societies—now banks. It is not the intention of the clause to expose them necessarily and immediately to competition or to a bid. The protection is still there. If they do not bid, no one can bid for them. That is a reasonable protection which they will have to take into account if they decide to make a bid for any other financial institution. In addition to that, if someone suggested that they might bid and the shareholders themselves, by an overwhelming majority—75 per cent. of them voting—agreed to drop their protected status, that is wholly reasonable as well.
  I appreciate that we would have liked a longer Committee stage in order to look at other aspects of the Bill. However, I know that this is one aspect, along with the two-year rule, which I hope I have explained, that has concerned at least two of the building societies which are converting and has concerned some of my noble friends and some Members of another place. I particularly think that the example I gave was a

  985
  graphic one. I hope that explains why I believe the amendment would not be sensible. We should leave the Bill as it is. There is limited protection for a converting building society. If it wishes to drop that protection, it must make a positive decision either to do it by a vote of the shareholders or to drop the protection by bidding to take over another financial institution.
  I hope that explains the position to my noble friends. I thought that my noble friend Lord Stewartby clearly explained the same case from the experience he had in 1986 and what he has seen develop since. I trust therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply and I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for taking part in the debate. As my noble friend Lord Stewartby said, this is a change to the protection which was offered originally. It is natural that if a building society converts and if it is to progress its business, it will have to make changes to the way it operates. One of those changes may be to make a bid for a financial institution. My noble friend made a comparison between a small savings bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland. As far as I see it, the operation of Clause 41 will not even allow it to take over the tiniest financial institution without losing its protection.
  My noble friend said in his speech in reply to the Second Reading debate that the Bill was warmly supported on all sides of the House, including by my noble friends on this side of the House. It is indeed true that the Bill is warmly supported. What we are criticising is the speed with which it has been brought forward. It will have spent under three weeks in both Houses. I should certainly qualify my support for the principles of the Bill and I would have been much happier if it had been brought forward at a more leisurely pace so that both Houses could have examined it a good deal more closely. It has been pointed out to me that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House has looked at the Bill and has found that it contains no fewer than 10 Henry VIII clauses. It has let that go. Nevertheless, it is a point that might be made.
  However, the purpose of the amendment was to protect the other mutual societies—whether building societies, mutual insurance companies or whatever. I have listened carefully to my noble friend's reply. I certainly do not propose to divide the Committee on the amendment at this stage of the Parliament, especially as I have had no indication from the party opposite of its views on the amendment. I do not know where it stands on the amendment. I can only assume that it does not support the amendment; otherwise it would have said so. On the other hand, nor did it say that it opposed the amendment. Never mind. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clauses 42 to 47 agreed to.
  Schedules 1 to 9 agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
  Report received; Bill read a third time.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, perhaps I may thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I appreciate the points made by my noble friends about the shortness of the debate and I thank them for their understanding. This also gives me an opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Ezra, not only for their co-operation on this Bill but for their interesting views—I would not go so far as to say co-operation—on some of the other Bills and in some of the other debates on economic matters.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has had a distinguished career in British industry and I have always listened with some care to all the points that he has made and attempted to answer them as best I could. In matters of economics I have occasionally felt, facing the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, something like the enthusiastic amateur facing the professional. I have learnt a lot, not just from the noble Lord in his capacity as an economist, but also from the team of academic economists who are usually ranged behind him when I stand at the Dispatch Box to answer debates and pilot financial matters through your Lordships' House. I shall not ask noble Lords even to tempt me to say which of the academic Lords opposite I prefer when it comes to proffering advice on economic matters. At this stage of the Parliament that would be far too divisive.
  My task is to say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, how much I have appreciated the debates that we have had. Not much quarter has been given in them, but they have been conducted in a good-humoured debating spirit. I am not entirely sure whether translating economists from academia and putting them in charge of the real economy would be a sensible move for the British public, but that is something they will have to decide on 1st May. Sufficient for today is my gratitude to both noble Lords for the part they have played in the debates we have held in this House. Speaking for all three of us, I hope that we have educated, amused and stimulated your Lordships, at least on some occasions.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
  On Question, Bill passed.

  Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill
  7.22 p.m.
  The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The VISCOUNT OF OXFUIRD in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Confiscation of intoxicating liquor]:
  Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (IA) below,").
  The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 2 to which Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment. At Second Reading I pointed out that, as drafted, the provisions of the Bill, which allow for people who are innocent of any criminal offence to be challenged and, in certain circumstances, their goods confiscated, could embarrass, annoy and inconvenience respectable families with teenage children, including foreign tourists, who happen to be having a picnic which included beer, cider, wine or even Pimms, for example, on a public beach or at a public beauty spot.
  The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, replied in effect that that was certainly not the intention of the Bill and that the police would be urged to be extremely tactful in their application of the new law. They should not bother, let alone target, such family groups. The trouble is that once one gives the police or anybody else, particularly in uniform, excessively wide-ranging powers in any area, sooner or later they are bound to be misused. Such is human nature. That creates bad blood. One remembers the "sus" laws and the random use of the breathalyser. That is bad for the community at large and for the long-term and medium-term interests of the police themselves.
  This pair of amendments is designed to obviate that by providing that police powers should not operate when teenagers are accompanied by their parents or guardians—not only their legal guardians, but their de facto guardians like uncles and aunts, godparents or even a brother or sister who happens to be in his or her late 20s or early 30s. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Kinnoull: My noble friend Lord Monson will be surprised, I believe, that I am grateful to him for putting down these amendments. They give an opportunity to explain again the benefits of this small Bill and to try to answer and allay some of the fears and worries that he expressed at Second Reading.
  One has to remember that this small Bill is designed specifically to tackle the problem of the drinking of alcohol by young people on our streets. It has been drafted to cover adults who may be in their company and whom the police believe are holding, supplying and encouraging drinking by young people. The noble Lord quite rightly raised his worry at Second Reading about the family picnic. I am advised that the Home Office guideline. which I know worries the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will refer specifically to the parliamentary concerns of these powers and also give advice as to how they should be interpreted.
  With this power the police officer tackling young people will perhaps be able to nip in the bud a problem before the young people cause an offence. It is a most imaginative power because it will allow a young person to receive a severe ticking off without being arrested or becoming a criminal. I have been very struck by the
  988
  evidence I have received as a result of ringing around the police, local authorities and schools and anyone who is in touch with this problem. There is not one person who has not warmly welcomed the powers that this Bill will give.
  The amendment which the noble Lord puts before us, as presently drafted, is technically defective, because it does not define "guardian". That will have to be defined in this Bill. The other practical problem is how a police officer could possibly identify among young people, with perhaps a 25 year-old adult, who is a parent and who is a guardian. It has been cited to me that one could have a situation of a police officer finding a group of youngsters drinking outside a bus shelter, following complaints about their behaviour. He decides that the powers contained in this Bill are just what he needs because he will be able to take away the drink, pour it down the drain, tick the youngsters off and probably notify their parents. But one of the lads, who looks about 24 years of age, claims to be the father of one of the youngsters who looks about 13. The officer will not know for certain whether that is or is not the case. He might consider that it is highly unlikely, but he will not be able to establish with certainty on the spot that it is not the case. The two boys might be brothers and perhaps they can produce the same form of identification with the same name. It would not prove their relationship, but the officer would be deprived of the useful power. The youngsters will quickly learn that all they have to do to frustrate the powers of this Bill is to claim that the oldest person in their midst is the parent of one of the others. That is a practical example of why, on reflection, one is unable to advise the Committee to accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, can accept what I have said.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise to speak in the absence of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey who, as the Committee knows, dealt with the matter on Second Reading. My noble friend has asked me to say that he supports the Bill and its intentions, but that he takes the view that, although there is some sense in some of the amendments and he has sympathy with them, in view of the timetable he feels that the Committee should not accept them.
  Much as my noble friend would like to debate the matter at greater length—indeed, on Second Reading, he made particular reference to the exclusion of low alcohol wine and lager—he feels that given the parliamentary timetable it would be pointless for such amendments to be passed because of the danger of losing the Bill. As I have said, my noble friend supports the Bill but, in general, is unable to support amendments to it because of the matters that I have just raised.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: I believe that most of us accept the Bill and the desirability of having a Bill on this subject. What worries me and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—I know that on this matter I can speak with his full agreement—is that we have now had a clutch of Bills, supposedly private Member's Bills, which are in reality government Bills, being

  989
  presented to your Lordships in the last few weeks before Prorogation. Somebody who is far better at statistics than I am has calculated that in the present Session there have been 28 Home Office Bills, the overwhelming majority in the names of private Members. Any department that produces 28 Bills, even when they aim to deal with real problems, really is pushing its luck.
  Having said that, although I am certainly not of a mind to try to obstruct the Bill, what worries me is the reference to "Home Office guidelines", which means "Home Office circulars", I presume. As a Minister at the Home Office, I was involved in agreeing Home Office circulars on a whole series of matters, but I am far more worried about publishing circulars which attempt to interpret an Act of Parliament. If the matter ever came before a judge, it would not help a great deal to say, "The real intentions of Parliament were explained in a circular" because the judge could perfectly reasonably say that Acts of Parliament, not Home Office circulars, are what explain Parliament's intentions. I do not propose to go on about this, but merely say to my old department that I hope that no future Home Secretary will ever be inclined to produce quite so many Bills in such a short period of time.
  The Earl of Courtown: I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on his response to this group of amendments. Perhaps I may pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich and say that I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is equally concerned about guidance notes and Home Office circulars, and that that concern is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. As I understand it, when the Secretary of State issues guidance to the police, he naturally expects chief police officers to take account of it. It is therefore unnecessary to have such a provision on the face of the Bill.
  In the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill, we shall be speaking about closing down businesses which are possibly worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Noble Lords considered that they wanted to reinforce the necessity for local authorities to take account of the detailed guidance on the circumstances in which that could happen. In the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill, we are talking about taking a can of lager away from a young person. The scale is slightly different, as all noble Lords are aware. I suggest to the Committee that it is therefore unnecessary to give the same emphasis to guidance on the face of the Bill. Indeed, to do so might even suggest that the police need not take account of guidance where the legislation does not specify that they should.
  Turning now to Amendment No. 1, I should point out that it does not disapply the power only in respect of parents, but of guardians also. As my noble friend said, the amendment does not define what constitutes a guardian. I presume that the noble Lord means a guardian who has been appointed by a court, but that is not specified. I am concerned that that would cause serious trouble in practice and I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Monson: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord
  990
  Harris of Greenwich, who raised an important point about Home Office guidance and the possible difficulties that could arise with interpretation. That point was answered to my partial satisfaction by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, but not to my entire satisfaction.
  The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, spoke of the danger of losing the Bill if any amendments are accepted. That is not so because no fewer than 19 amendments have been tabled to the next Bill that we are to consider and nobody is suggesting that there is any danger of that Bill being lost.
  The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, cited the practical problem of how the police can judge who is a parent or a guardian. True, but one might as well ask the noble Earl how a police constable can judge who is 17 (and can therefore be caught by the provisions of the Bill) and who is 18 (and therefore cannot be so caught but who might be able to take some legal action against the police if he was unjustly detained, even temporarily, as a consequence of a police constable mistaking his age). We have had a fairly good run on this group of amendments, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
  Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("and shall give a written receipt for the intoxicating liquor so surrendered if he does not dispose of it forthwith.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment provides that if the confiscated drink is not disposed of straightaway in front of the person from whom it was confiscated by, for example, being poured down a drain or on to the grass, the constable must give a written receipt. If the constable removes the drink for later disposal, the suspicion (doubtless mainly unjust) will inevitably take root among young people—and not necessarily only among young people—that the drinks are being removed only to be consumed later, surreptitiously or otherwise, by the police themselves. That would, of course, be a disciplinary offence, but it would be very difficult to prove in the circumstances. The obligation to give a receipt would help to allay such suspicions, which I repeat would largely be unjust, thereby fostering improved relations between the police and the public, and particularly younger members of the public, to the great benefit of the community as a whole. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support this amendment. I am concerned that this Bill, and the similar provisions in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, refer to the "possession" of intoxicating liquor rather than to its "consumption". That suggests to me that we could see over-zealous policemen taking unopened cans and bottles from people who may only be transporting them. Perhaps I may present an easy scenario: young people may be taking the cans from their own home to the home of their grandparents. I hope that whichever noble Earl replies to this amendment will assure the Committee that the intention

  991
  of the Bill is only to remove intoxicating liquor that is being consumed rather than intoxicating liquor that is still in an unopened bottle and is merely being transported between two places.
  The Earl of Kinnoull: There is some confusion as to who should be guiding the Committee. Perhaps my noble friend will guide us further following my reply. I appreciate the reason for the amendment but not its merit. As to the merit, one must remember that a police officer is using his commonsense in these situations. Equally, the police officer will know that it is a very serious disciplinary offence for him to take confiscated alcohol for his own use. I believe it is unthinkable that any officer would risk his career in such a way.
  Regulations made under the Police (Property) Act 1897 provide that if the chief officer is satisfied that the nature of the property is such that it is not in the public interest for it to be sold, it shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in accordance with his directions. It is such a serious matter for a police officer to go astray in this way that the last thing he will do is risk his career in that way.
  As for giving a receipt for something that will be poured away anyway, he can hardly give a receipt because there is nothing to come back. I appreciate the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. He spoke well on the powers in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill earlier this afternoon. I shall leave my noble friend to explain this with his great guidance. I do not believe that it is a problem.
  The Earl of Courtown: First, I should like to deal with the point relating to unopened bottles and cans raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The Bill makes no distinction between open cans of alcohol and those which are closed. I would expect the police to act sensibly in this matter. If an officer found a group of youngsters drinking in public he might pour away the contents of the open can and tell the youngsters to take the rest away or, depending on the age of the youngsters, take the cans and the young people home to their parents. If a large amount of alcohol were involved, the police would almost certainly wish to investigate it further. It might be stolen. A supplier might be illegally selling it to young people. In such circumstances it is more likely that the cans or bottles would be taken back to the police station as potential evidence in respect of an entirely different offence. These are operational matters. As such, they are best left to the police. However, as I have made clear, property taken back to the police station could be disposed of only under the regulations made under the Police (Property) Act 1897.
  The noble Earl also painted the scenario of a youngster taking cans of beer from one member of a family to another. As I understand it, this would fall outside the scope of the Bill as far as concerns guidance to the police. I apologise for using the word "guidance"
  992
  again. For a good part of this, how the police will behave in such circumstances will be an operational matter and a matter of police training.
  Lord Monson: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the Minister. As I said in my introduction, it is a disciplinary offence for a police constable to purloin a can of drink that is confiscated to drink himself on his way home, but it is a matter that is extremely difficult to prove. I suggest that it requires only one rogue officer to go astray briefly for the whole law to be brought into disrepute. One can visualise what a field day the tabloids would have in such circumstances. But I believe that we have gone as far as we can on this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("save that for the purposes of this section, products containing less than 1.2 per cent. alcohol by volume shall not be deemed to constitute "intoxicating liquor".").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is designed to remove very low alcohol beers and lagers from the scope of the Bill. These low alcohol beers and lagers—ranging from 0.5 per cent. in the case of most low alcohol lagers to just over 1 per cent. in the case of the average low alcohol beer—are considered so innocuous that they can be sold quite legally to minors. As I understand it, they can also be sold at motorway service stations. However, they had not been invented when the 1964 Act, which is referred to in Clause 1(7), was framed. Therefore, no exemption was provided for those products in the original Act, which I have checked. I beg to move the amendment.
  The Earl of Kinnoull: I am grateful to the noble Earl for tabling this amendment. I am, however, advised that it is not necessary because the point is already covered by Clause 1(7) under which "intoxicating liquor" has the same meaning as in the Licensing Act 1964. I suggest to the noble Lord that it is not necessary.
  Lord Monson: I have checked the Licensing Act 1964. As originally drafted, the Bill does not do what the noble Earl suggests. I give way to the Minister.
  The Earl of Courtown: Perhaps I may seek to assist the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I understand that as far as concerns this clause the Licensing Act 1964, as amended, provides in its definition that:
  "'intoxicating liquor' means spirits, wine, beer, cider and any other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor, but does not include any liquor which, whether made on the premises of a brewer for sale or elsewhere, is found on analysis of a sample thereof at any time to be of an original gravity not exceeding 1016" and of a strength not exceeding 1.2 per cent.".
  The definition goes on to include perfumes, flavouring essences and medications. I will let the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have a copy of that definition.
  Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Earl for clarifying the matter. It is quite clear from what he says

  993
  that the original Act of 1964 has been updated by subsequent legislation which has the effect of excluding low alcohol beers and lagers. That is a very satisfactory state of affairs. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  House resumed; Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time.
  The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the proceedings on this Bill. I am sure we all hope that this Bill achieves what is intended.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
  On Question, Bill passed.

  Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill
  7.50 p.m.
  Report received.
  Clause 1 [Licensing outside Greater London]:
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 16, leave out ("or near the place") and insert ("the place or at any place nearby which is controlled by the holder of the licence").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13. I see from the grouping that Amendment No. 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is included.
  The amendments return the House to the topic which was raised at previous stages of the Bill; that is, whether the licence holder should be vulnerable to the loss of his licence if the drug misuse is going on at a place near the licensed premises, over which he has no control. I, and several other noble Lords, have already expressed the view that that should not be the position. The licence holder should be vulnerable to the drastic provisions of the Bill only in respect of premises over which he has some control.
  The arguments have been fully rehearsed at all previous stages of the Bill. The problem, in part at least, is the lack of definition of the expression "near the place" within the Bill as it is presently drafted. There is a vagueness about it which means that, in theory at least, the licence holder could be held responsible for a car park or something similar some distance away from his licensed premises.
  More fundamentally, as presently drafted, the Bill would make the licence holder vulnerable to the misuse of premises over which he has no responsibility whatsoever. It is wrong that someone should lose his
  994
  licence and his livelihood, and the livelihood of a considerable number of employees, if premises over which he has no power or authority are being used, and he can do nothing about it. Even if the licence holder himself is acting responsibly, and taking all possible precautions at the premises—in other words, it may well be that the licence holder is doing his best, or can be made to do his best, to put in place proper security at the door and proper surveillance within the licensed premises—he may still be vulnerable to the Bill's drastic provisions.
  It has to be remembered that the Bill is drastic. It provides for the closing down of clubs. It must be remembered that in some of these situations closing the club will not necessarily deal with the drug pushers. It will merely transfer the problem elsewhere. If the problem is outside the control of the club owner, he should not be vulnerable, and so I propose the amendment. If there is a problem nearby over which the licence holder has realistically no control whatsoever, it is not for him to deal with it; it is for the police to deal with it, and the police can deal with it under their existing powers. I beg to move.
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, before I address the amendment, I make the declaration of interest, as I have on previous occasions, as I am a director of Rank Leisure Limited. At previous stages of the Bill, it has been made clear that without an amendment such as the one just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, there would be a serious risk that the requirements of natural justice might not have been met. I hope that my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns will look kindly upon this series of amendments. I am glad to say that she nods her head, so that is good news.
  In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, stressed how a wide interpretation of the phrase "or near" could destroy someone's business, possibly even a small business, on the basis of a police report. I have to agree with that. That is the concern which has worried the Committee and now worries the House.
  The amendment affords some protection to the licence holder with a well-run club from losing his public entertainments licence through no fault of his own. That is the crux of the matter. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay, because she has been most anxious to see that this small piece of legislation can be properly interpreted by local authorities in an even-handed way across the country. The amendment she moved in Committee, and will move on Report, has gone a long way towards assisting that. I support the amendment.
  Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, in Committee I spoke against an amendment which was designed to remove the words "or near the place", and was chastised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for so doing. I still hold the view that I expressed then. I believe that the amendment weakens the Bill considerably. We shall still have problems with drug dealing in places nearby, in areas adjacent to discos, nightclubs, or raves which are not under the control of the licence holder.

  995
  I gave the example before of problems in car parks owned by local authorities and car parks which are privately owned. We know that goes on. Drug dealing goes on in those car parks because of the nearby place of entertainment that has been licensed. However, the police will have to deal with that problem. I repeat that I believe the amendment considerably weakens the Bill, but in the interests of getting the Bill on to the statute book I reluctantly acquiesce.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question relating to the car parks. I was under the impression that if the car park belonged to the club it would be covered. I support the amendments because the insurance for a member of staff who might be beaten up at a bus stop might be complicated. Who would be responsible for that member of staff's insurance if they were off the premises? Therefore I believe that the amendments are an advantage.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall be brief, because I know that others want to move on to other business. I am glad that we have managed to reach an agreement with the noble Baroness. My noble friend and I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with her, and with the Bill's sponsor from the other place. I believe that she will indicate her support for the amendments.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is right. If the car park is owned or controlled by the licence holder, he can be caught by the Bill. So that deals with the problem. If it is a municipal car park, he would not be. As a matter of common sense, he should not be. Because how can the proprietor of a club protect himself from the activities of drugs dealers in a car park which he neither manages nor controls? It would be most unjust—to put it mildly—for there to be such an outcome. I very much agree with the noble Viscount: I believe that the amendments substantially improve the Bill. I and my noble friend believe that they remove many of the anxieties that we expressed on a previous occasion.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I am glad to support these important amendments which were explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. They echo amendments similar to those which I backed previously and which accord with natural justice, as pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. I very much hope that they will be accepted.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I recognise that for some noble Lords the concept in the Bill as it stands of "near the place" and how that might be defined by local authorities has caused some difficulty. I am also aware of the concern expressed by some noble Lords that innocent club owners will be penalised for problems that occur in locations not directly under their control.
  I understand those concerns, but I believe that tonight we must remind ourselves of the nature and scale of the problem that we are seeking to address. Drugs are posing a threat to the lives and well-being of a whole generation
  996
  of young people. It is our young people who are being targeted by the drug dealers. Like it or not, clubs and similar venues where youngsters go to enjoy themselves act as a magnet for the drug dealers. Let us not delude ourselves about the grim consequences of a club becoming a focus for drugs.
  Recently, a Channel 4 programme in the "Dispatches" series set out graphically how a club in Basildon, where corrupt door staff were actively managing drug dealing on the premises, seemingly without any intervention by the management became a central feature of a drugs and crime wave in the town. That was the club where the ecstasy which killed Leah Betts was purchased.
  Local authorities need to have tough powers to deal with problems when they reach such proportions. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, says tonight and I understand his comments with regard to these amendments. I sympathise with the principles behind his comments, but I appreciate that I must be realistic. I accept the amendments as the way forward for this Bill. However, I feel sure that both noble Lords whose names were put to the amendments will join me in recognising that the club trade has responsibility to play its part in society's struggle against illegal drugs and the criminals who peddle them. I hope that the Home Office, in the consultations due to take place on the draft guidance on the new powers, will encourage further co-operation between the club owners, the police and the local authorities to deal with the drug problems on club premises and wherever else club staff observe such problems occurring.
  Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to the fact that I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. It does no more than Amendment No. 12 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Harris of Greenwich. It clarifies in respect of the powers of the court to revoke a licence that "premises" and "place" have the same meaning in both Acts with which we are concerned; namely, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and the London Government Act 1963.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. The serious problem that drug misuse poses to young people is there for all to see. The Government want to see this Bill make progress and hope that these amendments will be accepted by the House.
  Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I understand the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, and the point that such clubs are magnetic to drug pushers. The fact is that clubs are responsible for what goes on there and what goes into them through the front door. It is the responsibility of clubs to protect their customers from drug dealers at those points. However, they cannot be responsible for what goes on in areas outside the clubs over which they have no control. That is the responsibility of the police. It is not an answer simply to move the problem elsewhere by closing the club. I am grateful for the support and I commend the amendment to the House.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
  ("(6) The authority shall have regard in exercising their functions under this paragraph to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State."").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 11. We have discussed the status and content of the circular that is to be issued before these new powers come into effect. We have seen an early draft of the guidance and we have been given assurances that the key players involved—namely, the local authorities, the police and the club trade—will be consulted on the contents of the final version to be published before the new powers come into effect.
  I hold firmly to the view that the circular should not be prescriptive. It should not be binding on local authorities because that would merely stifle the co-operation and development of local solutions to local problems, which must be the best way forward. However, I see merit in providing a marker in the Bill of advice that is available, particularly for those local authorities which have infrequent dealing with the club scene and in requiring the local authorities to have regard to it. I beg to move.
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the amendment. In Committee, a great deal of attention was paid to the draft circular of guidance notes. Since then, matters have changed and they are already out of date. Of course, they will be further out of date after the passing of amendments here tonight.
  However, I believe that without the amendment the guidance notes would have no status. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said in Committee, they do not even have the statutory status of the Highway Code. They should be given greater status on the face of the Bill.
  The amendment recognises the fears expressed by many noble Lords and I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing it tonight. In Committee, I spent some time indicating how the guidance notes deal with the police report and the hearings, and how that will improve the consistent way in which local authorities should apply this legislation. I do not intend to repeat what I said at this late hour, but I would make one point. Perhaps the most important step is that the Home Office should undertake a further consultation process with the local authority associations, the Association of Chief Police Officers and representatives of the club trade so that the guidance note can be tightened up. That was recognised all around the Committee. Whether they should become more prescriptive can be dealt with in those consultations and I do not seek to comment on that now.
  The British Entertainment and Discotheque Association, BEDA, has communicated its continued worries to me about the draft circular. Now is the time to address those worries and perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Courtown to assure the House that
  998
  BEDA'sviews, among others, will he seriously considered now that so many amendments have been made to the Bill in further consultation.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I echo what was said by the noble Viscount. I agree with him entirely. The measure is appropriate and I hope that the Minister will agree that the trade and all the other interests concerned should be consulted before the circular is issued, particularly in the light of the amendments that have been agreed.
  Lord Meston: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the amendment. Guidance is genuinely needed. I wish to say more on the extent to which it is to be prescriptive in relation to Amendment No. 16.
  I wish to emphasise the point that consultation is important. If I have learnt nothing else about the club trade as a result of this Bill, I have learnt that there is an extraordinarily large number of different trade organisations and associations, all with bewildering acronyms. I have no doubt that they would all wish to be consulted and quite properly they ought to be.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I assure all noble Lords who have raised the matter that the Government have given an undertaking to consult interested parties such as BEDA, the local authorities and other trade associations on the terms of the guidance to be issued in connection with those new powers. The final version of the circular will be issued before the new powers come into effect. Therefore, consultation will take place on the Bill as amended.
  The Government fully support the noble Baroness's amendment and hope that it will be accepted by the House.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 2, line 14, leave out ("or near the place") and insert ("the place or at any place nearby which is controlled by the holder of the licence").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  ("(5) The authority shall have regard in exercising their functions under this paragraph to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 2, line 39, leave out ("or near the place") and insert ("the place or at any place nearby which is controlled by the holder of the licence").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
  ("(7B) An authority which refuses to renew or revokes a licence under paragraph 6A or 11A above may order that the licence shall remain in force (subject to such terms, conditions and restrictions as may be imposed)—

  (a) until the time for bringing an appeal against the refusal to renew or revocation has expired; and

  (b) if such an appeal is duly brought, until the determination or abandonment of the appeal,

  and if such an order is made any special hours certificate granted under section 77 of the Licensing Act 1964 shall also remain in force for the same period.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment replicates an amendment which I moved in Committee to draw attention to what appeared to be an anomaly on the face of the Bill which was explained by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, on Second Reading; namely, if the court revokes a licence, it has power to direct that a licence may remain in force pending appeal but a local authority, licensing authority or council does not have that same power. For that reason, I return to the matter now.
  It is an anomaly. The noble Earl was kind enough to write to me on the subject and explain that the difference is that the courts are not empowered to impose or vary conditions of the licence in the same way as a licensing authority is empowered to do under the provisions of the Bill.
  I understand that that difference exists, but I wonder whether it is a difference sufficient to justify that anomaly. For that reason, I bring the matter back and I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, finds it anomalous that the courts have the power to order that a club can stay open pending an appeal while local authorities are not similarly empowered. In fact, that power has been given to the courts to give them a degree of compatibility with the options already available to local authorities.
  By now noble Lords will be familiar with the courses of action open to local authorities proposed in this Bill. First, the local authority has to apply the two-stage test of establishing that there is a serious drugs problem; and then, whether action by the authority will assist significantly in dealing with the problem.
  After due consideration, a local authority may then decide that neither of the tests is satisfied and so take no further action. But at the other end of the scale, the local authority may decide that the nature and seriousness of the problem is such that the licence should be revoked. The licence holder then has established avenues of appeal to the courts which this Bill does not disturb in any way.
  1000
  However, a local authority can opt to take a middle course. It might decide, perhaps on the basis of the representations made by the licence holder, that the drug problem can be addressed properly by, for example, changes in the management of the door staff or by the adoption of other security measures. In such cases, it may be sufficient simply to impose new terms or to vary existing conditions of the licence in order to assist significantly in dealing with the problem.
  The courts are not empowered to impose or vary licence conditions in that way. Therefore, bearing in mind the sort of circumstances to which I referred earlier where a local authority might impose or vary conditions, I believe that it is right that the courts should be able to order that a licence should remain in force pending appeal.
  Tacking on a further stage in a local authority's consideration of a case is unnecessary. I remain convinced that local authorities are more than capable of reaching a decision in the light of all the evidence and/or the options open to them at that stage. I hope that in the circumstances, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, when this amendment was debated in Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Monson. queried why the Bill did not give local authorities the same powers as it gives to the courts; namely, to order that a licence should remain in force after revocation pending appeal.
  At the time I undertook to write to the noble Lord setting out the position, which I have done. As my noble friend Lady Anelay said, the options available to a local authority, after hearing all the evidence of a serious problem concerning drugs, are that it may take no action, impose terms and conditions or revoke the licence where doing so would assist in dealing with the problem.
  The courts are not so empowered and for that reason a provision has been included in the Bill to enable them to grant a stay in revoking the licence until the time for bringing an appeal against revocation has expired or until an appeal has been determined or abandoned.
  I agree with my noble friend that granting a similar power to local authorities is unnecessary. In any event, the issues surrounding the revocation are addressed in the first draft of the Home Office circular. The seriousness of the consequences of non-renewal or revocation—that the licensees will not be able to operate the club pending the hearing of any appeal—are referred to in the circular. No doubt the advice in the circular on that and other issues will be refined further in the course of the consultation process which we have agreed to undertake. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
  Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation both from the noble Baroness and the Minister. It seems to me that that makes it all the more important that the guidance should provide for a sufficient hearing before the licensing committee which enables the licence holder to state his case fully and properly.

  1001
  However, I accept the further point made by the noble Baroness that under the machinery of the Bill as it now remains, there is the further stage of ability to make representations after the event which, in a sense, is a form of appeal. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 [Licensing in Greater London]:
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 3, line 34, leave out ("or near the premises") and insert ("the premises or at any premises nearby which are controlled by the holder of the licence").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  8.15 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
  ("(6) The Council shall have regard in exercising their functions under this paragraph to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State.'").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
  Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
  ("() In this paragraph "premises" includes any place."").
  Page 4, line 14, leave out ("or near the premises") and insert ("the premises or at any premises nearby which are controlled by the holder of the licence").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 4, line 33, at end insert—
  ("(5) The Council shall have regard in exercising their functions under this paragraph to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
  Page 4, line 33, at end insert—
  ("() In this paragraph "premises" includes any place.").
  Page 4, line 40, leave out ("or near the premises") and insert ("the premises or at any premises nearby which are controlled by the holder of the licence").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 4, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert—
  ("(4B) The standard of proof for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4A) of this paragraph is that applicable in civil proceedings and in that sub-paragraph "premises" includes any place.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 16:
  Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  GUIDANCE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
  (" . The Secretary of State may issue guidance providing (among other matters)—

  (a) that, except in an emergency, the licensing authority or Council shall not revoke or refuse to renew or transfer a licence or impose terms, conditions or restrictions thereon unless satisfied that the owners or managers of the place have been informed by the police of their concerns about the supply or use of controlled drugs at or near the place and have had a reasonable opportunity to meet those concerns;

  (b) that any report by the police to the licensing authority or Council shall summarise previous exchanges between the police and the licence holder, owners or managers of the place about their concerns about the supply or use of controlled drugs at or near the place;

  (c) that, except in an emergency, the licensing authority or Council shall not revoke or refuse to renew or transfer a licence or impose terms, conditions or restrictions thereon without first affording the licence holder an opportunity of being heard by the authority or Council and of making representations to them;

  (d) that, in considering whether action by the licensing authority or Committee will significantly assist in dealing with a serious problem relating to the supply or use of controlled drugs near the place, the authority or Council shall also consider what control the licence holder, owners or managers have over any place outside the licensed premises, what security and surveillance measures are, or will be in force at the licensed premises and what other powers the police could exercise apart from under this Act; and

  (e) explanations of what may constitute a "serious problem" and of what is meant by "will significantly assist in dealing with the problem.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have progressed considerably with this Bill in that on the face of the Bill there is provision for there to be guidance and I suggest that that is a considerable improvement. But it must be remembered that guidance is only guidance and we are legislating in a field in which at present, there are no uniform procedures as between different licensing authorities. For that reason, I suggest in this amendment that certain minimum provisions should appear in the guidance and I have set those out in the amendment.
  Those provisions are familiar topics in the context of the discussions that we have had while the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House. First, "except in an emergency", a licence should not be revoked or terms be imposed unless the police have informed the owners or managers of the place of their concerns and those people have had a reasonable opportunity to meet such concerns. Secondly, the amendment provides that any report by the police should summarise previous exchanges between the police and the licence holders, and others. I have shamelessly lifted that from the first draft of the guidance. I hope, therefore, that it will not be controversial.
  Thirdly, the amendment provides that, except in an emergency, the licensing authority should not exercise its powers to revoke, and so on, without giving the licence holder the opportunity to be heard and to make representations. The fourth provision which I seek to

  1003
  introduce is, I suspect, now otiose, because it is covered by the amendments which have already been accepted relating to the removal of the expression "near the place". Nevertheless, I hope that the point that I am trying to make is a good one; namely, that if the operation of the Bill is to be fair, and is seen to be fair to all concerned, there ought to be some minimum provision to ensure fair procedures on the face of the Bill, and provided for within the guidance. At the very least, I hope that the Government can give an assurance that all of these matters will be adequately covered within the guidance. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, a clear undertaking has been given to produce a circular in consultation with local authorities, the police and the club trade with advice on all the issues covered by the amendments. There is a first draft which the Home Office will use as the basis for the consultation process. I am sure that the points raised during our debates in this House will be taken into account at that stage.
  The guidance in the circular cannot, and I believe should not, he prescriptive. It is designed to extend and develop the many examples across England and Wales where the police, local authorities and club owners are already working together and where local procedures have been devised to counter the threat posed locally by drugs. I do not believe that we should include such detail on the face of the Bill. It would complicate the issue and could hamper the very process of developing the co-operation and flexibility for which we should be looking. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I agree with the point made by my noble friend. As I said earlier, the Government have given a clear undertaking to consult all interested parties on the circular. All the issues covered by the amendments will be addressed in the guidance. Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree not to press his amendment.
  Lord Meston: My Lords, I am both reassured and grateful. I have qualified most of the provisions within the amendment with the expression, "except in an emergency". The only point that I should like to add is that I hope the guidance will recognise that there must be very few emergencies so great as to preclude some warning to the licence holder of the concerns of the police and some warning, even if it is a matter of a few minutes or a few hours, of the imminent meeting of the relevant licensing authority. As I said, I am reassured, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Consequential provision for special hours certificates]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("of') to second ("reinstated") in line 42 and insert ("—

  (a) an application for the renewal of a licence being refused under paragraph 6A(2) of Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 or
  1004
  paragraph 2A(2) of Schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963, or

  (b) a licence being revoked under paragraph 11 A(2) or 12(5) of Schedule 1 or paragraph 9A(2) or 10(4A) of Schedule 12,

  the certificate shall be reinstated if the licence is subsequently renewed under paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 or paragraph 19 of Schedule 12 or if the licence is subsequently").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I recognise that we need to look again at the provisions for safeguarding the special hours certificates in the event of a local authority accepting representations against revocation or a successful appeal in the courts. I suggest that my amendment now covers both those eventualities. However, I am not sure that the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord would quite fulfil that purpose. I also question whether the reference in that amendment to the circumstance of a licence transfer is appropriate as refusal to transfer an entertainments licence does not in itself mean that the licence comes to an end. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that my amendment deals adequately with the issue and that he will agree not to press his amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Meston: My Lords, I can assure the House that drafting Amendment No. 18 was a painful process. However, I am quite prepared to accept that Amendment No. 17 is much better.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, further consideration has been given to ensure that club owners whose representations or appeals are successful would not be disadvantaged if they then had to wait while their application for a special hours certificate was being processed. My noble friend's amendment gives further safeguards and is supported by the Government.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
  Clause 4 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 6, line 4, after ("appoint") insert ("after the issue by the Secretary of State of guidance under sections (Guidance by the Secretary of State").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment simply seeks to provide that the legislation shall not come into force until the issue by the Secretary of State of the guidance which has already been provided for within the body of the Bill as it now stands amended. I hope that it is consistent with an indication given at an earlier stage by the Government. On that basis, I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my comments on this amendment refer back to what I said

  1005
  when responding to Amendment No. 16. For the reasons that I expressed then, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I concur with my noble friend. I also spoke to the amendment when responding to Amendment No. 16.
  Lord Meston: My Lords, I am, therefore, hopeful that the spirit of the amendment will be observed. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Given the amount of business yet to pass through this House tonight, I hope that noble Lords will understand if I cut short the usual courtesies in expressing my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the proceedings on the Bill from Second Reading onwards. I am most grateful to all those who have underlined their commitment to the principles behind the legislation.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for the sterling work that she has undertaken during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. There have been some concessions to the Bill, so I hope that the public entertainment industry will do all that it can to eliminate drug use at premises where many young people go to enjoy themselves.
  As I said at Second Reading, I hope that the health and safety regulations will be put in place as soon as possible. That should be done before the hot summer. It should not be too difficult as Scotland already has them. It really is inhuman to turn off the water so that desperately thirsty young people who have been dancing for long periods are forced to buy expensive bottles of drink. The country was alerted to the very difficult problems of the drug culture by the Daily Express campaign last week. I hope this Bill will send a positive message to clubs and local authorities that they have to take this matter seriously.
  Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I wish briefly from these Benches to congratulate my noble friend—I must be careful about this—Lady Anelay of St Johns—on carrying through this Bill which I think has been described as a small Bill. However, it is an important weapon in the fight against drugs dealing and drugs misuse in this country. I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on the work that she has done. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for his co-operation and help as this Bill has proceeded.
  Lord Meston: My Lords, I, too, warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her conduct of this Bill through
  1006
  your Lordships' House. It was important that this Bill had some scrutiny in your Lordships' House, particularly as it received only a Second Reading in another place. That has enabled us to look at this Bill and to improve it somewhat. It is perhaps fortunate that most of the improvements were foreshadowed by debates which we were able to have at a more leisurely pace than during the accelerated procedures of recent days. I thank the noble Baroness and the Minister for their responsiveness to the suggestions which have been made at various stages. I certainly hope that this Bill achieves all that it sets out to achieve.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I can probably agree with everything that has been said, in particular as regards my admiration for my noble friend and the way she has handled the Bill. It has not been an easy process. When I came to this House I presented a Private Member's Bill before I joined the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, smiles. That Bill was debated and it went to Committee stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, has said, this Bill is an important weapon and we wish it well.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill
  Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

  Contract (Scotland) Bill
  8.32 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: 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 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 Mackay of Drumadoon.)
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will realise that because of the unnatural nature of our Sitting tonight we have not really had any time to receive anything from our normal sources in Scotland in terms of an examination of the Bill. However, we trust in the good faith of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and we have no comments to make on the Bill as it stands.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March):
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. This Bill is the result of careful work by the Scottish Law

  1007
  Commission whose proposals for the reform of the three bad rules of contract law received virtually unanimous approval. This is a technical provision but it nevertheless removes the risk of injustice and confusion. I hope that it is accepted as being a valuable and much needed reform. I strongly commend it to the House.
  Bill read a third time, and passed.

  Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland Bill
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: 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 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 Mackay of Drumadoon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March):
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  The Bill will increase and clarify the powers of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and will strengthen the powers of the Commissioner for Local Administration. The additional powers will bring the Scottish ombudsman broadly in line with counterparts in England and Wales. It is appropriate that I deal briefly with two points which were raised at Second Reading, about which I wrote separately to the noble Lords involved.
  First of all, there was a concern about the ombudsman's powers to require the production of relevant documents and information. I have now considered this matter further and I am satisfied that the ombudsman's powers are appropriate. It is very much in the public interest that the ombudsman should have access to all relevant information and documents even if these would otherwise be confidential. I should, however, stress that the ombudsman can only require information or documents of relevance to his investigation of how a professional organisation such as the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates has handled a complaint.
  The second point raised at Second Reading concerned what would happen if professional organisations refused to provide the ombudsman with documents and information. These organisations are already under a statutory duty to comply with the ombudsman's requirements and there have been no difficulties over compliance in the past, nor any suggestion that there would be in the future. I am satisfied that the strengthened powers, such as those proposed for the Scottish Legal Aid Board in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, are neither necessary nor appropriate. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
  On Question, Bill read a third time.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
  On Question, Bill passed.

  Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill
  8.37 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): 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 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.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  I am pleased to say that this uncontroversial but important piece of legislation has moved quickly to this final stage before Royal Assent. I am grateful to noble Lords for their co-operation in allowing such speedy progress.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
  On Question, Bill passed.

  Welsh Development Agency Bill
  Lord Lucas: 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 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 Lucas.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

  Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Bill
  Baroness Berners: 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 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.—(Baroness Berners.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

  Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill
  Read a third time.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I should like to thank all noble Lords who participated in the Bill, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his interest and support.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Byford.)
  On Question, Bill passed.

  Pensions Measure
  8.41 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Bristol The Lord Bishop of Bristol rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
  The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  If in the 1950s you were to ask any clergy wife what she most feared, she would have answered, the death of her husband while in service. Living in a tied house with limited pension provision, her fears were very real. In 1954 the Church Commissioners undertook the whole cost of clergy pensions on a pay-as-you-go basis. There was no lump sum on retirement. A pension consisted of approximately half the average clergy stipend. With the introduction of compulsory retirement of clergy at the age of 70 in 1976, the issue of retirement benefits came into sharper focus. Today a full service clergy pension stands at £8,533 per annum; the lump sum payment is £25,600 towards the cost of retirement housing. That is thought by many to be adequate but not princely.
  There are now nearly as many pensioners as clergy in active ministry and so the calls on the Church Commissioners' income to pay pensions on a pay-as-you-go basis are increasing year by year. In 1955 pensions accounted for 7 per cent. of the commissioners' income. In 1990 it was 35 per cent. In the year 2010 it could absorb 90 per cent. of the commissioners' income. There are no doubt those in
  1010
  your Lordships' House who will make a connection between this situation and the poor performance of the commissioners' property investments in the late 1980s. It certainly exacerbated the problem, but the roots lie in the policy of pay-as-you-go which had the potential to present problems when clergy were forced to retire from stipendiary ministry at the age of 70.
  If something is not done now, then the historic trusts of the commissioners will not be able to support the ministry of the clergy in needy parishes and dioceses as well as their statutory obligations to bishops and cathedrals from whom much of the present assets of the commissioners derive. The primary role of the Church Commissioners is to support and maintain a nationwide parochial ministry, a role which the Church of England is anxious to continue.
  It is against this background that I present the Pensions Measure to your Lordships' House. This Measure, after long consultation with diocesan boards of finance, dioceses, the General Synod, and consultation with parliamentarians in the wake of the reports of the Social Security Committee on financing clergy pensions, was passed by the General Synod in November last year with only three votes cast against it. That is as near unanimous a vote as one is likely to get, given the nature of the Church of England. The Ecclesiastical Committee unanimously declared the Measure to be expedient.
  The essence of the Measure is to be found in Clause 1. It is proposed to reconstitute the pensions board which will be responsible for the payment, out of the Church of England's pension fund, of pensions to clergy, their dependants and others. The clergy will receive their pensions from two schemes, both administered by the pensions board: one called the Church of England Pensions Scheme, which relates to past service to which the Church Commissioners will from time to time transfer sums made up of capital and income on a pay-as-you-go basis; and the other called the Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme which relates to present and future service and will in the main be funded by contributions from dioceses. There are two schemes, one fund, one cheque.
  In Clauses 3 and 4 the Measure describes the funded scheme. This is a new scheme for future service pensions under a separate trust to be operated under rules similar to those of a normal occupational pension scheme but varied to take account of the fact that the employer-employee relationship is absent because most clergy are office holders not employees. Contributions to that scheme will be made by dioceses from money raised in the parishes and by other organisations which employ clergy. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware of the concerns expressed as to whether or not dioceses would be able to raise what in effect would be a 16 per cent. increase in income. After some hesitation, dioceses were convinced that with the transitional help, about which I shall say more later, they will be able to meet this target. All dioceses have already signalled their ability to do so.
  In Clauses 5 to 7 the Measure sets out the role of the Church Commissioners. The commissioners, in continuing to meet the cost of past service pensions, will

  1011
  also be empowered to use both capital and income for transitional payments; that is, to assist dioceses and perhaps others—for example, missionary societies—to make their contributions on behalf of their members to the pensions fund for present and future liabilities. The period envisaged in the Measure is for up to seven years. This will be a significant sum, in the region, it is estimated, of some £60 million. And there is every sign that the transitional period is likely to be between five and six years and not the whole seven.
  By allowing the commissioners to pay for past service on a need-to-pay basis, using both capital and income, the commissioners will be able to invest their monies so that the best return can be made and the most efficient use made of resources under their control. Before the seven years elapse, during which time the commissioners would have the authority of Parliament to use both capital and income, the Church will need to frame new proposals to Parliament to facilitate the commissioners' continuing responsibility for past service pension liabilities. Such proposals will need to show that the proposed arrangements are working well and command the confidence of both Church and Parliament. By this time transitional payments will have ceased.
  The final clauses deal with the reconstitution of the pensions board and the taking and using of actuarial advice both by the commissioners and the new pensions board.
  There were some who expressed a wish that there be the possibility of a money purchase approach through a group personal pension arrangement. It was, however the overwhelming wish of the Church of England, not least among the clergy, to support the proposed scheme which provides uniformity and equity whether one ministers in a rich or a poor parish, within a rich or a poor diocese. The proposals I bring to your Lordships' House command, as I have indicated the widest possible support.
  The effect of the Measure is to put the costs of ministry on a more secure and more sustainable basis. The clergy and their dependants will be clear that their pensions are fully protected. The Church Commissioners will have the capacity to honour their historic trusts and support the maintenance of a nationwide parochial ministry. The dioceses are ready to meet the demands that the measure will make on their giving. To delay implementation would undermine much of what has been achieved in the past five years. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol for introducing this resolution. As the right reverend Prelate will know, I am a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee and discussed this Measure at some length when it came before us.
  I have two questions to put to the right reverend Prelate. Given a funded pension scheme—I think we all agree that that would be right—let us suppose that the investments
  1012
  are unfortunate. The market can go up and it can go down. Judging from the record of the previous Church Commissioners, one would estimate reasonably enough that the market might go down on their investment. What happens then? Is that another burden on the parishes of the Church of England?
  The second question is, while I accept absolutely that the Ecclesiastical Committee deemed this measure to be expedient and certainly it is a realistic approach to the future of clergy pensions, what then happens if, within the time period before the guaranteed period, existing clergy who retire under the existing scheme have not yet built up any fund under the measure? What happens to them? Are they to be excluded from this new scheme?
  The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the time which has been given. I will try to answer the two very pertinent questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The first is hypothetical but is nevertheless well asked. I think it would be true to say that the cover that the Church Commissioners' present assets provide in relation to any demands that could be made in the future over a very large number of years is, in fact, twice as much as is asked for. If the hypothetical state suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, came about, I suspect that not only the Church Commissioners and the pension scheme but everybody else would be in trouble. I believe that the cover presently given to past service liability is more than adequate to allow for any fluctuations in the market—other than in the event of a total disaster in the market, in which case everybody would be in the same situation.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the right reverend Prelate. There was a disaster, and the Church Commissioners did invest in what many people would regard as an unwise manner. They lost what was by any standards a very great deal of money. What guarantee do the clergy have that such behaviour will not recur?
  The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I believe that the Church Commissioners, were they present to defend themselves, would say that they have learnt from their past experience and have put into place the kind of support and oversight which will avoid that happening again. If in fact it were to happen, which is highly unlikely, and given the cover that is presently available—that is, 2:1, which is more than anybody else would have—then I believe that the Church as a whole would be able to respond. It may take time and there may have to be a lot of talking, but I believe that we are responsible for our clergy and we accept that responsibility.
  With regard to the second question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, if I understand him correctly, those who have received a pension on the basis of past liability that is guaranteed by the Church Commissioners on a pay-as-you-go basis, and those who are for their present and future liabilities dependent upon dioceses contributing sums to the funded scheme, there is every indication—and the House will remember that the Church of England has had to go through a dramatic change in its financial organisation—that the majority of

  1013
  dioceses already have an excess of income over expenditure despite the diminution of income from the Church Commissioners which was annually theirs. There is a commitment on the whole of the Church of England in its two promises: that we stand together and support each other whatever happens in the future. Therefore I believe that we can say with some confidence that, if there is any shortfall in those incomes in dioceses in the future, we will stand alongside each other. I have already shown that our giving levels have increased significantly and can continue to do so to meet the needs of the clergy, which by and large parishioners see as their responsibility.
  I thank the House for having listened to me and for providing the time. I commend the measure to the House.
  Lord Thurlow: My Lords, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I should like to emphasise the unanimity with which the committee agreed that this measure was expedient. We were entirely satisfied, after discussion; and while an element of hypothesis is inevitably attached to some of the figures that may eventuate in five or six years' time, I entirely accept the right reverend Prelate's view, the view of the Synod and the Church as a whole, that the future can be faced with confidence and that we need not fear the kind of dreadful contingencies that were mentioned. Anything is possible, but is not, to any informed view, likely. I support the Motion.
  The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support and for the comments he has made.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working and Mineral Waste Depositing) Regulations 1997
  8.56 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations simply update, replace and simplify the existing regulations, which date from 1985. The regulations and the associated draft guidance have been the subject of full consultation with the minerals industry, mineral planning authorities, environmental and amenity bodies and other professional groups. A summary of the main points that they raised, together with the Government's response, was placed in the Library on 17th February.
  As the regulations are technical and as they were discussed with the industry, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were not to go into a great deal of explanatory technical detail but to move the regulations formally. Of course if any of your Lordships has a problem relating to them I shall be only too glad to enter into the detail. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th February be approved. [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for introducing these regulations. Could he perhaps define further the reference in paragraphs 3 and 4 to "working rights"? What does the phrase mean?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the rights to work minerals.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does that not infringe on certain agreements which may be entered into between people who work minerals and people who do not work minerals—employers, employees? Is this not a matter on which the noble Earl might wish to take advice?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot think what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is worried about. It is all set out in Regulation No. 2.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Deregulation (Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907) Order 1997
  8.59 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers rose Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, at present boat owners who want to take their boat down a river which is managed by British Waterways need a licence from it. British Waterways is a navigation authority for over 2,000 miles of canals and navigable rivers across Britain. Local authorities also have a power to license pleasure boats under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act of 1907.
  The draft order before your Lordships will remove the local authority's powers where there is already provision for British Waterways to issue licences. No protection which is currently provided by the local authorities will be lost. The deregulation order will not prevent a local authority from exercising its licensing powers where necessary on waters which are not owned or managed by British Waterways.
  It makes no sense for two public authorities to license the same pleasure boats. It clearly imposes an unfair burden on hire boat businesses. I am satisfied that there will be no adverse effect on public safety. If approved by your Lordships, the regulations will come into effect on 1st January 1998. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the order.

  1015
  For the benefit of the House, can he explain what is the British Waterways Board? Who are the members? Are they paid or unpaid?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the British Waterways Board is a board which is responsible for running such things as canals, waterways and so forth. They are paid members and they do their job with remarkable expedition and efficiency.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Social Security (Incapacity for Work and Severe Disablement Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1997
  9 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: The main purpose of the proposed changes is to simplify existing medical test arrangements for applicants for severe disablement allowance and incapacity benefit. In the case of severe disablement allowance they also target resources more closely on people who are most severely disabled, for whom the benefit has, of course, always primarily been intended.
  To be entitled to severe disablement allowance, claimants must pass the all work test of incapacity and, where incapacity began after the age of 20, they must also pass an 80 per cent. disablement test. To simplify arrangements, we propose that those who satisfy the 80 per cent. disablement test would be automatically deemed to satisfy the all work test. We also propose to deem those assessed as at least 80 per cent. disabled for the purposes of industrial injuries and war disablement pension as satisfying the all work test.
  We have looked closely at the passporting criteria, under which people can be automatically treated as satisfying the 80 per cent. disablement test. These provisions were introduced as an administrative easement based on the principle that people should not require a medical examination if it is clear that they would be found 80 per cent. disabled.
  The latest medical advice, which is supported by operational experience, is that some of the passporting criteria can no longer be regarded as adequate measures of 80 per cent. disablement. We propose therefore to limit the passporting criteria to those which are. It is only right that where the evidence is not so clear-cut, people should be expected to undergo the same scrutiny as the majority of severe disablement allowance applicants. Those people who will no longer be automatically passported can still undergo the test and can still be accepted for severe disablement allowance if they pass that test.
  I believe that these regulations introduce some important improvements. I commend them to the House.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for moving these regulations. We welcome any moves to simplify the complex medical arrangements for benefits, especially where those medicals overlap, which, I understand, is the principal aim of the regulations. We also welcome the continuation of higher rate DLA care component as a passport to the benefit.
  However, we should like to make a few comments about some aspects of the regulations. We would ask that the middle rate DLA care be kept under review, especially as classes of people in receipt of middle rate are often on it because drugs or other treatment may sedate them, preventing them from qualifying for the night condition. We would also suggest that there may be a need for a review in future for some categories of disabled people. We are also not convinced of the need to remove the mobility higher rate. It is an extremely difficult benefit to claim. Two thirds of all claims are determined after some form of medical report and more than 25 per cent. after a medical examination. The toughness of the benefit application should be self-evident and should qualify as a pass for the all work test.
  Evidence from the RNIB highlights its concern about proposals within these regulations on ending automatic passporting to be regarded as 80 per cent. of disabled and above for certain groups for severe disablement allowance. In particular, the RNIB is completely opposed to ending the automatic passporting of registered partially sighted people. One suggestion is that the reason for it is that it relates to the uncertainty that people who could be registered as partially sighted would be found to be 80 per cent. disabled. However, we ask why the Government have decided to end automatic passporting for certain groups.
  We understand that the DSS bases the changes on the assumption that 50 per cent. of those currently passported through the medical test would fail it if medically examined. Again, we ask the basis for that assumption. We know from the estimates that were made on incapacity benefit savings, for instance, that that figure is probably overstated.
  Regulation 4 deals with transitional protection for those undertaking therapeutic work. Can the Minister give us an assurance and endorsement that claimants of severe disablement allowance who undertake work deemed to be therapeutic will remain in receipt of the benefit? I also add that to stop the partially sighted and others being automatically passported to that benefit for a saving of £5 million in two years' time seems to be unnecessary and not worth the effort.
  Nevertheless, having said that, I repeat that we welcome any moves that are made to simplify the complex medical arrangements for benefits.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has had a small timing problem with these regulations. They are to come

  1017
  into force on April Fool's Day, which is in the very near future. So they come within the squeeze which has entered into the business of the past few days.
  When we reach the end of a Parliament, there is a problem of arranging the business of regulation, just as there is of arranging the business of legislation. Perhaps 1 may ask first why it was necessary to proceed with these regulations before the end of this Parliament; and secondly, whether any consultation took place within the usual channels plus those tributaries to them which in this House are necessary, in order to reach an agreement on which regulatory material should be brought forward and which should not? That is something which might well be considered at the end of a future Parliament.
  With these regulations, I accept that the Department of Social Security had a problem. It does not necessarily follow that the department has the solution. We have two separate tests of unfitness to work: the test for severe disablement allowance and the all-work test for incapacity benefit. There was a partial system of passporting which exempted some people from those tests. Therefore we have a system of double testing which is necessarily confusing and expensive.
  I understand fully why the department wished to take action. As I understand it, it discovered that all people qualifying for severe disablement allowance were found to be incapable of work under the all-work test, but not all people found incapable of work under the all-work test were found to qualify for the severe disablement allowance. That is the problem. I accept that something had to be done about it; the question is whether the department has got it right.
  The department has confined the passporting (which takes people through the all-work test and confers an exception) to those thought to reach the standard of the severe disablement allowance. It is a solution which has considerable virtue in logic and is probably not quite so easy in practice. We are facing the same problem as we were facing in the Crime (Sentences) Bill when dealing with the sentence which the judge would have passed under a previous system. Indeed, when one looks at Appendix 2 of the regulations it looks remarkably like a Fahrenheit-centigrade conversion table—we all know the problems that that causes for most of us.
  It is estimated that the effect of the regulation will be to bring in 3,500 extra medical examinations per annum. The question is whether or not the extra work and the extra anxiety involved are to good purpose. It is thought—this is necessarily conjectural and that is not disputed—that there may be a saving of £5 million. One is reminded of Sir Alan Herbert's epitaph on an archbishop:
  "My predecessors, fighting sin,
  Did their best to bring men in.
  But I was best without a doubt
  At keeping the unworthy out.-
  So when I died, the church was one, and that was me".
  That sometimes seems to be the motto of the Department of Social Security. It is trying, by having fewer passports to severe disablement allowance, to funnel people through into the all-work test, and it has run into one or two problems as a result. The Social Security Advisory Committee, in its usual excellent
  1018
  report, drew attention to some of them. I should perhaps pay tribute to the work of Sir Thomas Boyd-Carpenter as chairman of that committee. He fully maintained the high standards of Sir Peter Barclay whom he succeeded.
  It pointed out in paragraphs 42 and 43 that there is a problem because severe disablement allowance is a non-contributory benefit whereas incapacity benefit is a contributory allowance. That means of course that a much smaller proportion of women qualify for incapacity benefit than would have done for severe disablement allowance. The committee says—not at all to my surprise—
  "we draw the Department's attention to the view expressed to us that the proposal is contrary to equal treatment legislation in the European Union".
  I should like to know whether the Minister has legal advice on that point; whether he has a law officer's opinion on it. What is the department's main source of advice on European law? If it believes, as I presume it does, that that view is mistaken, on what grounds does it believe it? I hope it is right.
  My next point concerns the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, in regard to partially sighted people. There is also considerable doubt about the department's view on what actually constitutes meeting the standard of severe disablement allowance. The department took the view that medical advice is that it cannot be assumed from some of the current passporting criteria that a claimant is necessarily 80 per cent. disabled. The committee points out that the department presented no evidence in its note to the committee for that assertion. The department says it had medical advice. Can the Minister tell us what advice? From whom did it come? In what words was it expressed? How wide a range did it meet?
  One cannot altogether deal with the issue by looking simply at the number of people who fail the all-work test. I will not repeat my views on that; the Minister knows them perfectly well. But I will point out that the success rate of appeals against that test is 47 per cent. That is remarkably high. Subject to some allowance for the appeals being a pre-selected sample, it gets quite near the view that with a 50 per cent. success rate on appeal, the accuracy of the test would prove to be nearly completely random. That is just about the opinion I have always had of that test. I am interested to find so much confirmation of it.
  On the point about people who are partially sighted, it must be understood that partial sightedness is registered—these are the direct words in paragraph 33 of the committee's report—
  "only after an examination by an ophthalmic consultant who certifies that the person is 'substantially and permanently handicapped as a result of defective vision caused by congenital defect, illness or injury—.
  One would have thought that that finding would have been treated with some respect. Subjecting these people to all the anxiety involved in extra and perhaps unnecessary medical examinations is something that requires some justification. The Royal National Institute for the Blind described this as "a senseless change".

  1019
  Those are strong words. I hope the Minister can give the House some reason for believing that those words are not justified.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for their welcome of the first part of the regulations which will prevent the double testing between SDA and the all-work test. Those are sensible provisions and will mean that around 8,500 people will not require to go through the double test.
  The noble Earl asked about consultation. In some ways he answered his own question because he read from the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We have, as always, consulted the committee. I was asked whether the debate on the regulations this evening was arranged through the usual channels. I suspect that I would not be standing here if it had not been. Whether it has been done through the tributaries is, I suspect, part of the trickle up or the trickle down process, but I do not know much about that.
  The noble Baroness and the noble Earl were less happy about the second part of the regulations. We have arrived at these conclusions because the latest medical advice which is supported by operational experience is that some of the current passporting criteria can no longer be regarded as adequate measures of the 80 per cent. disablement. We thought it was right and fair to limit the passporting criteria to what they are really intended to do; namely, to those tests which give a clear indication of the 80 per cent. disablement and thereby reflect the original policy.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He tells us what we know. But can he tell us what was the source of that medical advice?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I understand it, it was the doctors of the Benefits Agency Medical Service who worked on these issues plus a little survey we carried out. As the numbers were small enough, we were able to track back clerically and look at the small sample that was taken. It was a small sample but we are talking about small numbers of people. We believe that the second part will mean that around 3,500 people will have to take the additional test. While the whole package will still reduce the number of people who have to take two tests, there is a netting off of the additional test on the second half of the regulations against the gains in the first half.
  I think I ought to say—and I think I said it in my opening remarks—that those people who will no longer automatically be passported through the 80 per cent. test are not being denied severe disablement allowance. They are simply being required to satisfy the test in the same way as other claimants. Such people will require a medical examination only if the adjudicating medical authority is not satisfied on the paper evidence that they are 80 per cent. disabled.
  1020
  The noble Baroness and the noble Earl asked me about the assumptions. Those are the assumptions we have made. We believe, based on the assumptions we have made, that around £5 million of savings will be achieved by 1999–2000. We shall monitor the effect of these changes and we shall certainly review the issue in the light of the savings that are made and the data we collect on the tests themselves.
  The noble Baroness asked me a personal question about therapeutic work. I can assure her that SDA claimants who are deemed to be undertaking therapeutic work will remain in receipt of the benefit.
  Both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness asked me about partially sighted people. We are removing this passport because we cannot be sure that those people who could be registered as partially sighted would necessarily be found to be 80 per cent. disabled. The current statutory definition of blindness is:
  "A person should be so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential".
  Partial sightedness is not defined in legislation but must, by inference, be something less disabling than the definition I have read out. The criteria for partial sightedness is set out in guidance to certifying ophthalmic medical practitioners. To be registered as partially sighted the requirement is either vision of 6–60ths or worse, in both eyes—that approximates to 80 per cent. disablement—or visual acuity between 6–0ths and normal, but with restricted visual fields, which often does not equate with 80 per cent. disablement, as may be found, for example, in glaucoma or the eye complications of diabetes mellitus. These criteria are widely drawn and the ophthalmic consultants use considerable clinical discretion when applying them. It does not therefore follow that such people will inevitably satisfy the 80 per cent. disablement test.
  Neither does it follow that such people would need to be examined if the adjudicating medical authority is satisfied on the paper evidence that they would indeed meet the 80 per cent. disablement test. So the removal of the passport means that each case can be medically assessed by the adjudicating medical authority on the specific medical circumstances which pertain to that individual. I underline the point that if the adjudicating officer is satisfied, then he does not need to go to the next step which is to have a medical test.
  We are making these changes in order to ensure, as I have said, that only those with disability clearly equating to 80 per cent. are passported through the severe disablement allowance 80 per cent. disablement test. It is important to remember, as I say, not just for the partially sighted, but for all those who will no longer have automatic passports, that they are not being denied this allowance, but they are going to be treated in the same way as other applicants who are not passported. As I say, they may well not even need a medical test if the evidence satisfies the adjudicating medical authority.
  I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, about the mobility component of the disability living allowance. I say to her that the disability living allowance mobility component, which is a successor to the mobility allowance, is one where the recipients had

  1021
  to pass a medical examination which was considered to equate to 80 per cent. disablement. However, since the introduction of DLA some higher rate mobility component beneficiaries will have been awarded benefit following self-assessment rather than a medical assessment. While we may have considered that recipients of the old mobility allowance could be considered 80 per cent. disabled and carried this through its successor, the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance can no longer be sustained with self-assessment coming in.
  The noble Earl asked me about the changes and whether they would adversely affect women disproportionately and hence we may be in breach of our EU obligations. I say to him that we have no reason to believe that there is a greater proportion of women in the group who will no longer be automatically passported onto the severe disablement allowance. It is the departmental solicitors we look to to give us advice on whether legislation is discriminatory. In this case their advice is that it is not.
  I believe that I have answered this before, but the noble Earl asked me. I mentioned the BAMS people. The department's chief medical adviser and his medical experts were also involved in that medical advice. I hope that I have answered all the various points put to me by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. I commend this regulation to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Felixstowe: Rail Links
  9.24 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the context of their desire to reverse the decline in rail's share of the freight market as stated in Transport—The Way Fonvard (Cm. 3234), whether the rail links to and from the Port of Felixstowe are adequate for the purpose of carrying freight and to respond to the growth of container traffic on Britain's trunk roads.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for being with us tonight. I know that it is at some inconvenience to him personally and so I particularly appreciate it. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is going to make his maiden speech tonight. He is an old and very dear friend of my family, as indeed was his remarkable father.
  Ports are a crucial part of our economic infrastructure. To understand the situation which I wish to draw to the attention of the House and the Government tonight, I should briefly set out the historical context.
  The history of industrial relations in British ports is tragic. In the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century, there were some callous and sometimes brutal port employers and the consequence was the 1946 dock labour scheme which was intended to replace the undoubted evils of casual employment, but which itself became an obstacle to containerisation and other
  modernisations. It was rather like the print workers who later resisted computer typesetting. Eventually the scheme cost many dockers their jobs.
  Felixstowe is a product of the frustration of shippers in those days. Effectively, it is a greenfield site. Indeed, Felixstowe is sometimes known as "the port without a city"—a rare phenomenon—and that is one of the reasons for its problems with inadequate rail links. Its first container terminal opened in 1967. It is all based on what had been a tiny provincial port and seaside resort whose main claim to fame was to be the sunniest place in Britain. In 1957 I started my working life in Felixstowe with Fisons, the chemical company, which then had its head office in the old Felix Hotel where, amazingly, before the First World War, the Kaiser apparently used to spend part of his summer holidays. I went back to Felixstowe on Monday and, frankly the port is totally unrecognisable from what it was 40 years ago.
  By 1975, Felixstowe was taking 200,000 containers a year. It and the other independent ports were beginning to threaten the security of dockers in the big labour scheme ports. By that time, there had been two major dock strikes—in 1970 and 1972—with further strife in 1975. By then we had a Labour Government whose priority was industrial peace at any price rather than an efficient port system. To buy that peace, the then Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Michael Foot, in February 1976 introduced his notorious Dock Work Regulation Bill, which sought to give registered dock workers a monopoly on all cargo handling at every port and at any installation within five miles of the sea or any major inland waterway. Yesterday I read the Second Reading debate on that Bill in another place when Mr. Foot admitted that,
  "the introduction of the scheme could cause problems at some non-scheme ports".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/76; col. 263.]
  That must have been the understatement of the year. It would have killed Felixstowe stone dead! Fortunately, even Labour MPs of the time found the proposals too much to stomach and the five-mile provision never reached the statute book. The whole wretched cabouche was finally repealed by the Dock Work Act 1989 and since then our ports, and Felixstowe in particular, have never looked back.
  Today Felixstowe is Britain's biggest container port. In 1996 it handled 2 million containers (or to use the jargon TEUs which are equivalent to 20ft containers) so the total number of actual boxes was about 1.5 million. It is the fourth biggest port in Europe (after Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp). It is the 12th biggest in the world.
  Since 1991 the Port of Felixstowe has belonged to the giant Hutchison Wampoa group of Hong Kong, the home of the biggest container port in the world. So there is first-class management, state of the art technology, plenty of overseas capital for expansion and excellent labour relations. Indeed, it is one of the great success stories of the restructuring of Britain over the past 20 years.
  So what is the problem? Why are we debating this triumph at this late hour on practically the last day of this Parliament?
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: That's right! Why?
  Lord Marlesford: Wait a moment, and I shall try to explain.
  My Lords, the answer is that a port is only a part of a nation's transport system. The problem is in the rest of that system. The simple fact is that at present of the million containers which arrive at or depart from Felixstowe each year by land the great majority, over 80 per cent., do so by road. The basic link to Felixstowe is the recently completed A.14 which provides links to the M.1 and the M.6 and, through the A.12, to the M.25. However, already the A.14 is becoming hopelessly congested with Felixstowe's container traffic.
  I have been involved with transport policy since 1963 when as a very junior fonctionnaire for the Conservative Party I carried the bag for Ernest Marples, who was probably the most innovative and certainly the most entrepreneurial Minister of Transport that this country has ever had. It was what I learned from him that put me on the track that led to my having the very great privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House. Since then all governments have expressed a desire to move freight from road to rail. Usually this is no more than a pious hope. Yet in 1997 the rail link between Felixstowe and the outside world is still a single track with (literally) a 19th century physical token system to allow trains to use that line. There are two junctions on it: Trimley and Westerfield Junction. I have travelled on the Lowestoft line that goes through Westerfield all my life. An outsider viewing them would believe that he was on the stage set of an early Western movie.
  How can it be that our greatest container port is so constrained and handicapped? One answer is that until very recently our railways were a nationalised industry with all that that meant. First, there was never sufficient capital for investment. All of it had to come from the Treasury and therefore it had to compete with other social priorities. Secondly, and partly consequently, there was a remarkably low standard of management. I speak from experience, since from 1988 to 1992 I was on the board of British Rail Anglia. Frankly, it was one of the most frustrating and unsatisfactory experiences of my life. In the four years that I was associated with BR I met only one senior executive who I would myself have unhesitatingly employed. That was Mr. Peter Trewin, the secretary of the British Rail main board.
  Another answer is that the Department of Transport failed in its duty to recognise and deal with the problem of the rail link. When at a meeting last year with the Secretary of State I asked a group of his senior officials why they had allowed this situation to develop. They shuffled their feet and eventually one replied, "We had not realised that Felixstowe would be such a success". Need I say more?
  Now, of course, our railways are privatised, although not perhaps in the way that I would have wished. I would have preferred to keep track and services
  1024
  together. The divided responsibility between the two is, I believe, one of the causes of the problems at Felixstowe, but at least it now has access to the world's capital markets. However, I have felt it necessary to press for this debate because I have been much concerned by the suggestion of the Government that somehow now the railways are privatised they have no responsibility. There are two reasons why this is simply not true. First, the Government are responsible for seeing that we have a first class transport system, and by that I mean one that is both economically efficient and environmentally sustainable. The Government still have to make decisions on, for example, road building and truck licensing, which have a most direct impact on our transport system and the road/rail equation. The Government state their wish in the Green Paper, to which my Question specifically refers, for a shift of freight from road to rail. Secondly, the Government have a regulatory role. As a Tory I believe passionately that a crucial role of the state is to protect employees, consumers, investors and the environment from abuse or exploitation. I believe that it can do so much more effectively when it does not also own what it has to regulate; otherwise, legitimate regulation becomes convenient tinkering. We all remember the endless interference with purchasing, pricing, investment, employment and the other activities of the nationalised industries—interference which made it so hard for such industries to attract and keep good management.
  At this point I highlight the threat to the rail freight industry which would result from an increase in lorry weights to 44 tonnes. This would certainly cause a shift from rail to road which is not only contrary to the Government's aspirations but would be environmentally damaging. There is no requirement under European legislation to do so. There is no way that such giant vehicles could be kept off small roads, and the quality of life, especially of those whose communities are already bisected by trunk roads, would be made even more intolerable than it already is. The Government slashed nearly 100 motorway and trunk road projects from their road programme on 26th November last year. It is therefore most unlikely that any government over the next decade would be able to afford to build roads to cope with these monsters. Nor do I believe they should do so. How much more cost effective and environmentally sustainable to encourage, indeed require, the railways to provide adequate freight facilities.
  Finally, I must of course say that I welcome the limited investment programme of £6 million announced last month by Railtrack for upgrading the Felixstowe line. It is of course too little (the Port of Felixstowe has just completed a £45 million Trinity III terminal which will provide for forecast container growth at least until 2001 and Trinity IV (for which Parliament has given authority) is already at an advanced stage of operational evaluation, and it is too late. Only some 5 per cent. of Felixstowe's container traffic is local, some 60 per cent. is to the Midlands and Scotland and 30 per cent. to the south east and Greater London.

  1025
  The Felixstowe/Ipswich passenger services, which are little shunter trains, are given priority over the freight trains. There is a lack of understanding that with a modern, large-scale container operation it is crucial that container trains have priority to minimise the length of time needed for loading and unloading at the ports. That is an important point.
  Ipswich itself is still a bottleneck. Only some 20 trains per day can enter and leave Felixstowe, most of which have to be routed through the North London Line to get onto the West Coast Main Line. Felixstowe knows from its client studies that by the year 2005 there will be a need for at least 500,000 containers to move by rail. That is nearly three times the 1996 total of 176,000. The situation is archaic.
  Finally, I remember the first time I went to the Port of London. It was in 1964. I watched with amazement the dockers loading a ship's cargo hold with cardboard boxes containing 24 tins of Heinz baked beans, and wedging them with motor car tyres. Shipping and port operations have moved a long way since then. So it is crucial that we have a proper rail freight system for Britain.
  My only regret is that I have to temper my tribute to 18 years of Conservative Government for creating the right economic conditions for the success of the Port of Felixstowe with a warning of the gravity of the matter I have raised. I trust my noble friend will accept both the tribute and the warning.
  9.38 p.m.
  Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for initiating the debate. In making what I take to be the last of the maiden speeches of this Parliament at this very late hour, I now perceive the truth of the heraldic motto of my noble kinsman the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, which is, "Late but in time".
  In extending my thanks to all those Members and officials who have treated me with the courtesy for which your Lordships' House is so universally renowned, I pay tribute also to the memory of my father who so regularly attended this Chamber for 35 years—a span which would not in itself be remarkable were it not that he began it only after his retirement from the Foreign Service at the age of 60.
  My peripheral qualifications for speaking in this debate are that for many years I worked in air transport—at one time specifically in the development of air freight—and I have also written extensively about the English countryside, including the County of Suffolk where I live.
  As a historian of Suffolk, I am struck by the similarity of the issues today with the situation 500 years ago. At that time, trade with the continent was also thriving and Ipswich was second only to London as the major English port. And the great industry of Suffolk was the manufacture of woollen clothing, organised by wool brokers known as clothiers, who had broken free from the restrictive practices of the town craft guilds and had set up a sort of cottage industry in which the processing of the wool in separate stages involved constant carriage
  1026
  by pack horse. What we are faced with today is a realignment of trade with Europe, and a diversification of manufacture and distribution away from the old factories and the wharfs, in which Suffolk has come into its own again, having fallen, like the Sleeping Beauty, into a deep slumber in between.
  One of the many unusual features of the Felixstowe container port is that it is so far from our major national conurbations; Ipswich, its home town, is comparatively irrelevant to its trade. So it relies all the more on the quality of the transport infrastructure which links it to the industrial areas of the Midlands and the north. The A.14 serves its purpose, even though it is not a motorway. But the rail link is woefully inadequate. It is good news that Railtrack is about to improve the line from the port to Ipswich. But use of the line that leads on from Ipswich to the Midlands via Peterborough involves an awkward switch of direction at Ipswich, and the whole route anyway needs signalling upgrading. As the noble Lord said, of the 20 trains each working day which now enter or leave the Port of Felixstowe only four go by this route, and the rest have to deviate via the North London Line, which is itself severely constricted. The operators of the port have made it clear that the modest percentage of containers carried by rail could be almost doubled within five years if the rail system were improved, which might be done in the context of a trans-European route across to the Irish Sea ports. Meanwhile, an alarming flow of lorries drives in and out of Felixstowe, like ants scurrying on complex travel patterns. Most of them convey container loads, others are trailers, but together I calculate that on working days there are nearly two of them rushing across the Orwell Bridge in each direction each minute of the day and night, and rising.
  Turning to the second part of the subject of this debate, asking the Government to respond to the growth of container traffic on Britain's trunk roads, the broader questions of transport policy are raised. Everyone agrees that in the carriage of long-distance freight, the trunk roads are used too much, and the railways too little. The decline in the rail share has been dramatic. The Government believe that the newly privatised rail industry will of itself be able at least to reverse this trend, assisted by special grants. But it is hard to see how any significant shift can be achieved within the present rules of the game, other than by ever more severe congestion on the trunk roads, with traffic chronically seized up over long stretches. But no one wishes to see such a catastrophic solution, and so one suspects that a future government may be impelled to introduce further inducements towards the use of rail for containers, such as stiffer vehicle taxes, or journey taxes, or motorway charges, as well as assistance in much improved intermodal transfer facilities.
  In conclusion, I feel it is appropriate that I should refer to my distinguished ancestors, the engineers Brunel. Marc Isambard Brunel, my great great grandfather, constructed the original Thames Tunnel, the specific purpose of which was to relieve the traffic congestion around the then busy port of London. I suppose that one could call it the Felixstowe of its day. As it so happens, next week I shall be attending a

  1027
  dinner inside that famous tunnel to celebrate its concrete relining by Taylor Woodrow on behalf of London Transport, which I am happy to say reflects sensitively the original architecture.
  His son, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, built the Great Western Railway in order to provide rapid and efficient transport between the metropolis and the Port of Bristol. I regret to say that Brunel was altogether unconcerned about the pollution caused by the filthy emissions of soot which gushed from his steam engines or, indeed, by the fumes of his ostentatious cigar. But I think that he can qualify as an environmentalist due to his experimental "atmospheric railway" in Devon by which the trains were hauled by a fixed line vacuum, anticipating in some ways the as yet undiscovered power of electric currents. Indeed, unforeseen inventions have often proved to be the answer to seemingly intractable problems.
  It is a sobering thought but as a mode of transport, the magnificent roads of the 20th century are in danger of choking to death and we should turn once again for help to that great backbone of the 19th century—the railway.
  9.46 p.m.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on an excellent maiden speech. I also have very happy memories of his very distinguished father, and if ever there was an example of someone making an immensely worthwhile contribution in his ninth decade, he was one.
  While making inquiries about his son, the present noble Lord, everyone I spoke to gave me the same answer: such a nice man. I feel that that is a great compliment. He is an environmental author of great distinction and clearly is a great lover of the countryside and particularly Suffolk, where he lives. I enjoyed the noble Lord's speech enormously and look forward to his regular contributions in your Lordships' House.
  At this late hour, I fear that I should follow the advice of President Teddy Roosevelt, to his son, on speech making: be sincere; be brief; be seated.
  I congratulate my noble friend Lord Marlesford on giving us an opportunity to discuss this important subject. I enjoyed his speech and agreed with most of what he said. However, I cannot agree that the Government feel that they have no responsibility for ensuring that the railways provide adequate freight links with Felixstowe or, indeed, elsewhere. Certainly the Government should be congratulated on putting in place the framework for a successful privatised railway and particularly in the context of this debate, a successful rail freight business.
  Talking to Railfreight, Freightliner and English, Welsh and Scottish Railway, I have been struck by their enthusiasm and commitment to invest in the future. Their "can do" attitude is a breath of fresh air after the frustrations associated with British Rail and its inflexible bureaucracy.
  1028
  Railtrack has been in existence for less than a year but already there have been enormous improvements to the rail infrastructure. From my discussions with Railtrack, I believe that it is committed to getting freight on to rail. The Government are continuing to encourage that switch through grants and have increased the lorry mileage rate from 5p to 20p per lorry mile avoided on motorways in order to attract further freight on to the railways. In total, the Government have awarded 160 rail freight grants since 1979, securing the transfer of traffic to rail of more than 300 lorry journeys per year. In 1994, about 12 per cent. of all freight moved by rail in the United Kingdom had, at some time, received assistance from the Government freight grant.
  The sale of BR's rail freight business is a major boost to that process since those businesses will be able to develop new ways of encouraging freight to use rail. The decision by EWS Railway to buy 250 new locomotives at £1 million each over the next 10 years demonstrates its belief in the future of rail freight. The company plans to treble its rail freight business in the next 10 years. It has plans in place, using the port of Felixstowe, to develop the onward movement by train of huge amounts of timber from Scandinavia and Russia; at present, that is done by lorries only. It also has plans to move heavy fuel oil and car components by rail.
  The announcement by Railtrack that it is to invest in upgrading the Ipswich to Felixstowe branch is welcomed by the Port of Felixstowe, the largest freight generator in the country, and the local community, particularly bearing in mind speed restrictions on the A.14 as a result of road works to correct wear and tear due to heavy use. The port has been a long-term proponent of increasing the percentage of cargo moving to and from Felixstowe by rail. In tandem with the train operator, Freightliner, it plans to increase rail volumes by 50 per cent. over the next five years, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford, said. It is believed that that could rise to over half a million units annually during the next decade. However, that will only be achieved if the rail option can match the road alternative in terms of speed, price and efficiency.
  Rail's competitiveness overroad inherently improves with distance and the trains from Felixstowe serve the longer-distance locations, such as the north west, the north east and Scotland. While door-stop improvements by Railtrack are beneficial, it is vital that the rail infrastructure across the network can cope with increasing demand and match road's speed and flexibility. Currently, 80 per cent. of Felixstowe's trains are routed via London to gain access to the West Coast main line and inland depots in the north west, the Midlands and Scotland. That means using the North London line to traverse the capital. I am told that that route is already congested and likely to become more so as Eurostar Channel Tunnel business grows.
  I am delighted to hear from Railtrack that, in the short term, it has plans to eliminate potential bottlenecks on that route to allow the freight business to grow. It is also seriously considering a more direct route from Felixstowe to the Midlands and the north. Although at the feasibility stage only, the head of freight at Railtrack has confirmed to me the importance that is attached to

  1029
  this, especially given the expectations of growth in rail freight. That might entail routing Felixstowe's rail business across country to join the West Coast main line, via Peterborough and Nuneaton. This would not only free up capacity on the North London line, but speed up transit times, given the shorter distances involved, to the new freight terminals being built in the Midlands.
  I understand that Jaguar is looking seriously at Felixstowe for US component imports for the new X200 to be built at Castle Bromwich. It is considering the feasibility of rail linking Felixstowe with Castle Bromwich, to move freight from point of entry by train; volumes would be high—up to 230 containers each week. Grants would be available in principle towards the capital cost of freight facilities and the Government might also assist through the track access grant which, from Felixstowe to the Midlands, would be worth about £28 per container. Even allowing for those grants, the cost will be high and I know that the Government will give Jaguar every encouragement. The alternative is movement by road—an environmental and congestion disaster.
  Interestingly, in the light of what my noble friend Lord Marlesford said about the dock labour scheme, Ford imports components from the USA to Felixstowe and then takes them by train to Halewood. Halewood is near Liverpool. But for the dock labour scheme, these imports might well have been going through Liverpool docks with its excellent rail links. But, sadly, its appalling reputation for labour relations still scares off most businesses.
  Rail's share of the freight market has been in decline since the 1920s. Privatisation has laid the foundation for the future success of the freight market. I am confident the new private sector owners have the incentives and freedom to find out what services customers want, and to provide them at prices which can tempt business away from road haulage.
  9.55 p.m.
  Lord Bridges: My Lords, I should like to begin by picking up a point made in the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Gladwyn when he referred to the origins of the foreign trade in Ipswich and the surrounding country in the Middle Ages in wool. The underlying factor which makes this subject so difficult is that we have seen in our lifetimes a complete change in the direction of the foreign trade of this country. When I was at school all our exports—or the large majority of them—went from the west coast ports of Liverpool, Glasgow and Bristol, across the oceans of the world to the world markets which took such a large percentage of our production.
  Now, as a result of our membership of the European Community, 60 per cent. of our trade goes to Europe, and much of that goes from east coast ports. Although we have built the A.14 to carry road traffic from the Midlands to our number one container port, we have not made the necessary investment in upgrading the rail connection. I do not think it is the fault of Her Majesty's present Government that this should have happened.
  1030
  However, it was a failure on the part of the country to see that we needed to match the switch in our foreign trade with all the transport facilities which were required to back it. That, I think, is the origin of the difficulty we are facing today.
  Since this matter was last discussed in the House we have read the important announcement by Railtrack of its decision to make a significant investment in the single track railway between Felixstowe and Ipswich by installing modern signalling and by extending an existing passing loop. Together these will undoubtedly increase the capacity of the line and enable it to carry a higher percentage of the containers passing through the port of Felixstowe. It is welcome news. But I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for his persistence in asking this Question because the announcement leaves some important questions unanswered. Like him, I, too, am grateful to the noble Viscount for his presence here this evening, given his responsibility for these matters in the Department of Transport.
  The first question is whether the increase in capacity will enable the railway to carry all the traffic on offer in transit to and from the port. We know that the number of containers in transit at Felixstowe is expected to rise considerably over the next few years, and that a growing number of shippers have indicated their preference for carriage to and from the port by rail. The question is whether the rail link as extended—it will be in the next two years—will have the necessary capacity to carry this increase in the number of containers on offer. I believe that the port of Felixstowe has already circulated estimates of the number of containers that it expects will arise. Clearly the railway will be able to carry more, but the question is, will it be able to carry all the containers which the shippers wish to send, and for how long?
  The subsequent question is, can the rail operators transport the containers to the desired destination beyond Ipswich? The investment announced by Railtrack will facilitate the movement along perhaps the first 20 miles of the railway as far as Ipswich goods yard. However, as has been pointed out, at present most of these inward bound containers are destined for the Midlands and the North and they are dispatched from Ipswich to Stratford, and thence on the North London line, before moving onto the northbound trunk routes from the main London termini. As has been pointed out—I have heard the same—the North London line is nearing its capacity. Are there any plans for upgrading the capacity of alternative routes before this difficulty is reached on the North London line?
  One plan to deal with that difficulty has been identified by the European Community in its proposal to improve selected European key rail routes through the scheme known as Trans European Rail Networks (TENs). The TENs include a proposal for a through freight route from Felixstowe to ports on the Irish Sea—Holyhead and Stranraer. Last year as a representative of your Lordships' Select Committee on the EC I attended a meeting of the Transport Committee of the European Parliament in Brussels where the matter was discussed. It was obvious that there was widespread support in the Parliament and its Transport Committee for the TENs

  1031
  and I believe that the proposal has now been adopted by the European Community. It would provide financial support for the railways covered from Community funds provided that matching funding is contributed by member states. Our own Government have said that the available funds are already fully committed to building the Channel Tunnel link and improving the West Coast Main Line. Perhaps the noble Viscount could tell us how the matter stands after the creation of Railtrack and the transfer of many departmental responsibilities to it.
  This raises the broad question which puzzles me. Who is now responsible for policy decisions in this area? From what the Minister has told us in the past, it appears that Railtrack will have the prime responsibility—perhaps the sole responsibility—in deciding how to invest the resources now available to it. But I would hope that there is some mechanism between Railtrack and the department to address policy decisions of that kind. I should be reluctant to believe that the Government have simply transferred the whole responsibility to Railtrack since they will doubtless wish to ensure that the policy statements which the Government have made—they have been referred to in the text of the Question—about transferring freight movement from road to rail are rendered possible by appropriate and timely investment.
  It is a matter on which we shall await the Minister's response with much interest and some apprehension.
  10.2 p.m.
  Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for raising this interesting point and for giving a most authoritative survey of the problem in Felixstowe and further afield based on personal experience over many years. There is little more that needs to be said on that front. I must also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on his speech. Due to the lateness of the hour, I shall confine my remarks to one word: "illuminating", and well spoken.
  It used to be said that East Anglia was surrounded on three sides by the North Sea and cut off from the rest of England by the Great Eastern Railway. Noble Lords may recall that that was built by that famous crook, George Hudson, who invented the branch line trick for swindling shareholders. He subsequently went to prison and, I understand, committed suicide. There is nothing new in that. It was perpetrated 20 years ago in Fife by the Royal Victoria Sausage Company—but that is by the way.
  As we have heard, Felixstowe is the largest container port in the UK because, as my noble friend said, it is not a scheme port. Its rail infrastructure is purely that which was originally intended in George Hudson's day to provide for holiday traffic. The branch is single track. The distance has been mentioned, but I thought it might be useful to attempt to describe its length. Thirteen miles, or thereabouts, is a difficult distance to visualise even if one walks it. If one sets out from King's Cross on a stopping train, one has travelled about 13 miles when one reaches Potters Bar. I am unable to illustrate
  1032
  what happens in Potters Bar; the Library was defeated. However, I understand that there was a battle nearby in 1472.
  If one imagines 13 miles of single track, with a single passing loop which is not long enough to take a full size freightliner train, one can imagine the difficulties. Couple that with archaic signalling. The token system, with respect to my noble friend, is extremely safe but it is not quick. One can understand the difficulties which face the importers and exporters of goods who wish to use the rail link to Felixstowe. It is high time that it was modernised, and modernised thoroughly. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked whether the single track plus modernised signalling will be sufficient. My guess is that it probably will not be, but that may well give rise to considerable difficulties in the shorter and medium term over land acquisition. However, that must be faced.
  The point that really needs to be explored is: how on earth did we get into this mess? I suppose one has to blame that well-known whipping boy, which I have assailed in this House before your Lordships from time to time—the Treasury—for mismanagement inflicted on British Rail over a period of some 48 years since it was nationalised until mercifully, by privatisation we released it from such bondage. The Treasury did not see the need to take opportunities. It is perhaps worth recalling that when the late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was at the Board of Trade it was considered that the entire container traffic in Great Britain could be handled by four container cranes. Perhaps someone will tell me at some point how many there are at Felixstowe: I should think it is a great many more than that.
  That shows the essential failure of imagination when need is not driven by the opportunity of profit. I use that word deliberately. "Gain" is inadequate in that context. Railtrack will, I believe, seek to maximise its profits, though it must have a remit which balances that essential driving force—tempers it perhaps—with social responsibilities which have long been recognised as part of the transport system in this country, and a very necessary part too.
  I am very glad that Railtrack, Freightliner and the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company are now co-operating to improve matters. It is perhaps a pity that it has taken about 24 months. That is slower than one would otherwise have wished. Certainly problems on the North London Railway are extremely severe and it, in turn, may need to be made into four-track—a very considerable operation—if it is to carry the Eurostar routes; otherwise there is nothing for it but to modernise the cross-country routes towards Peterborough and avoid that notorious bottleneck.
  The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, interested me greatly by referring to the Brunels, father and son, who were the most famous and ingenious of engineers. Perhaps it may interest him to know that my grandmother, who was born in 1850, described to me in graphic detail how Brunel's atmospheric railway did not work terribly well because the rats ate all the sealing leather and so it leaked and, no matter how much they huffed and puffed, it did not actually go. Curiously, the only one that ever worked properly was in Ireland, but I do not know why that was.

  1033
  We have passed on from the awful situation of stagnation—"the time is not right" and all that kind of thing—with which the Treasury for 48 years maladministered our railways. I always thought that the one conversation stopper for the Minister of Transport, when he complained about the inefficiency of the railways, was to say, "Well, who has been running them for the last so many years?"—to which there is no convincing answer which does not leave one standing perhaps a little on one leg. I am sure that things are now set up so that they can get better. They need to get better, and 1 look forward to seeing things get better.
  10.9 p.m.
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence for this very short intervention. I worked in the shipping industry in the 1960s and had first-hand experience of the Dock Labour Scheme ports of London, Liverpool and elsewhere. Even in those days the port of Felixstowe stood out as a beacon of efficient working practices and flexible labour relations.
  This problem of success is not new, as it would appear that the British Rail staff told my noble friend Lord Marlesford. Over the past 30 years the problem has been ducked by successive governments, I fear. I very much hope that this Government in the next Parliament will take a very close interest, especially in the post-privatisation era so eloquently referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
  May I now just turn to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. It was informative, lucid and, if I may say so, polished. He has brought his knowledge of transportation together with a deep affection and knowledge of East Anglia, and Suffolk in particular. I hope that we shall hear many more of his contributions in your Lordships' House.
  10.10 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am now in a quandary. I was told that there was very little time for this debate but fortunately many noble Lords spoke well within the time that was allowed. Noble Lords will notice that my name is not on the list of speakers. That was entirely an internal mistake. These things will happen.
  The Minister and other noble Lords will remember that on 4th February a Question was asked on this very subject. As has been said, the main problem at Felixstowe is that the route is bad. Railtrack wants passenger trains on it rather than goods trains—whether they pay better, I do not know. I was given advice and made a modest suggestion that at least for a period it would alleviate congestion to put in loops and a new signalling system. That would have allowed for higher use of the line. That suggestion was pooh-poohed by Railtrack. However, at the time, it did not put up any better scheme. Things were just allowed to drag on.
  I become concerned about people who make too many criticisms of the old system. Of course the old system was bad and there were a lot of faults. But I should not dare to suggest that I know more about the Dock Labour Scheme than the noble Viscount, Lord
  1034
  Bridgeman, who knows all about it. But I knew the Glasgow Docks and the conditions there were appalling. Men had to fight to get a card for a ship which would give them the chance to earn two or three days' wages a week. Such bitterness cannot be wiped out overnight. People are suspicious. I know that the noble Viscount has experienced such problems himself and knows all about the things of which I am speaking. Perhaps he would like to come in at this point. I was thinking of the Govan Docks and the Anderson, the Prince's and the Queen's Dock. The corruption among the stevedores was also extremely high. But we are talking as though things were going so much better because of privatisation. Certainly, I shall not say that everything on the railways was good before that; indeed, a great many things were not.
  But the Government's record of getting more freight onto rail is quite shameful. Rail accounts for only 6 per cent of freight traffic in the United Kingdom. That is down from 11 per cent. less than 20 years ago. All the people to whom I have spoken who are involved in trying to get better conditions for running the railways—the rail companies themselves, such as the English, Welsh and Scottish Railway—say that Railtrack charges notoriously high track access charges for freight and do nothing to encourage more freight to go by rail. Railtrack charges 30 per cent. of English, Welsh and Scottish's revenues in track access charges. I understand that that is twice as much as many of the American companies are paying for access to their railtrack. Therefore, one cannot just say that it is the operators who are having difficulties. In some cases, track access charges are up to 60 per cent. of the revenues of some of the companies who are running the freight. Those are figures that I have been given. English, Welsh and Scottish pays Railtrack £120 million a year in track access charges.
  The National Audit Office report on the Freight Facilities Grant showed that the Department of Transport had only given £32 million of the budgeted £70 million of grant between April 1985 and March 1996. Last year freight operators were allotted only £4 million out of a total £14 million budget for that grant. Private freight operators have slammed Railtrack's excessive track access charges and the bureaucratic hurdles which stand in the way of getting more freight on to the railways.
  The chairman of English, Welsh and Scottish—Mr. Ed Burkhardt—which transports more than 80 per cent. of UK freight, complained of,
  "delays and excessive pricing levels",
  for allowing freight trains access to railway lines. He said,
  "We have lost customers since we bought the freight business here. The major thing that has stood in the way has been Railtrack being very slow to give a quote and then wanting to charge a new high".
  David Mann is the property manager of Powergen, which tried to build freight terminals but was almost prevented by Railtrack's "intransigent" treatment, demanding large sums just to bridge a line. As a good and responsible industrialist, he considered the delays

  1035
  and the type of treatment they received to be quite ridiculous. Mr. Mann said that such treatment from Railtrack would,
  "stop future rail terminals being constructed [and make] it more and more difficult [for projects to get under way]. People will revert to road".
  We have had many problems on the railways, but we shall have many more on the roads with the up to 44-tonne vehicles that are planned. They will cause chaos on the roads. Nevertheless, this has been an interesting debate, not least because of the informative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. The speech was not only well constructed, it was also extremely elegant—of which I am most envious. I was also impressed by the great knowledge that people had of the transport industry.
  It must be remembered that we are still paying big subsidies to Railtrack. Some of the suggestions being put forward for new improvements were always tied up with the amount of subsidy to be given for the new improvements. We were always told that when an entity went into the private sector, that is when the money would flow. It would go into the market and be able to do all kinds of fancy things. We learnt a great deal from the difficulties experienced with the big nationalised industries. It is not just a matter of saying what the privatised industries can do. We must stop looking at the bottom line and seriously take into consideration the environment. The environment has only one chance of improvement. An example of the chaos is when I tried to drive through London the other day. There was an accident at Westminster and a burst water main, and it took about one hour to get from Waterloo Bridge to Hammersmith Bridge and to the House of Commons, chugging along. That situation can only get worse.
  I am keen to use the railways much more. We have a unique railway network, if only we could get it into the right shape. That can only be done by a combination of private enterprise and a great deal of government help. Private enterprise is not all that keen on taking too many risks and the situation will need a combination of both public and private money. If that is done, within the next 10 or 20 years we may begin to see a railway system that is a lot better than it is at present. And perhaps we shall obtain a bit more peace on the roads as well.
  10.19 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting debate at this late stage in the Parliament. I thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford for giving us the opportunity to discuss rail freight issues. My noble friend has been a persistent questioner on this important subject. Since he originally asked some of his Unstarred Questions with regard to rail freight issues and Felixstowe in particular, the situation has changed considerably.
  I wish to start my remarks by warmly welcoming the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was not aware of his descent from the great engineering family. That was one of the
  1036
  important facts I learnt this evening. I also learnt that the grandmother of my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults was born in 1850. That fact was not included in my brief and so I shall be chastising my officials accordingly for not including that information. I was also not aware that my noble friend Lord Marlesford had been so closely associated with British Rail Anglia. I scoured his entry in Dod and I failed to discover that. I was very interested to hear from him about that experience of his career. I understood very well the frustration he felt with the old-style British Rail, with the old-style management and with the inflexibility of the funding arrangements. I am sure that has contributed to his interest in this important subject.
  The wide-ranging nature of the debate has led to a variety of issues being raised. We have moved from just the freight issues into a number of other areas. The Question relates to two specific points: first, the position at Felixstowe, the line that takes us to Felixstowe and the capacity of that line to take additional traffic. The second point concerns a more wide-ranging analysis of the effect of government policy on the railways in terms of our ability to get more freight on to the railways. That is an aim which all parties share. I believe that the bold initiative of privatising the railways and of liberating more investment has already proved to be successful—we have seen the bold investment plans of Railtrack—and will continue to be so. We must recall that Railtrack as a private enterprise has been in existence for less than a year. Already it has contributed to addressing one of the problems mentioned by my noble friend—the line to Felixstowe.
  I certainly welcome my noble friend's recognition of the importance of the port of Felixstowe not only to the ports and shipping industry but to the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. It has been a considerable success. Our policies for the commercial ports have reflected our policy of pursuing efficiency by encouraging choice and competition. As far as possible, we have allowed ports to operate in an unrestricted market with intervention limited to issues of safety and the environment. We have encouraged privatisation and abolished the restrictive practices of the former dock labour scheme, leading to increased productivity and investment.
  I listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in his recollections of the port industry as it used to be, with the inefficiencies and difficulties which restrictive labour practices caused. When I travel in Europe now and talk to fellow shipping Ministers across the Community I find that the efficiencies of our industry have been recognised. The achievements of ports like Felixstowe in competing on a very efficient basis in comparison with sometimes heavily subsidised ports on the Continent are impressive indeed. I had the opportunity to visit Felixstowe and to climb to the top of one of its immensely tall cranes. It was certainly an edifying and indeed terrifying experience to be up there in a high wind. One certainly got an impression of the scale of the operation, of the number of boxes that are being moved around at the port and of the efficiency with which that is done.

  1037
  I should like to address the fundamental point that has been raised in the debate by underlining at the outset that, while the development of the railway network is in the first instance a commercial matter for Railtrack, the Government retain a clear strategic responsibility for ensuring that the rail network meets Britain's transport needs. For example, the Government continue to provide grant to OPRAF in support of socially necessary passenger services and we operate a freight grant scheme which helps to secure freight to rail, which would otherwise go by road. We have seen the new operators of what were formerly publicly-owned utilities, particularly in the transport sector, doing very well indeed, building on the efficiencies that they have managed to produce. The Government do not seek to tell them how best to invest their money; nor do we do that within the rail network. We attempt to put a partnership in place using such devices as the freight facilities grant to bridge the gap where there might not be a commercial case for a particular level of investment. We firmly believe that that is the correct approach.
  Perhaps I may go on to address the specific situation with regard to this railway line. As my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults said, the Felixstowe branch line currently suffers from out-dated signalling equipment which is prone to failure and is time-consuming to maintain. Moreover, the branch line is predominantly single-track with restricted passing facilities which do not allow two freight trains to pass each other. Consequently, at present Railtrack believes that there is capacity on the route for 11 container freight trains a day in each direction via the port.
  The capacity of the branch line has not so far been the principal factor determining the use of rail for freight traffic via the port. I understand that Freightliners, the rail freight company which operates services to the port, moved 176,000 containers through Felixstowe in 1996 compared with 133,000 in 1991. That equates to a growth in rail freight traffic on this branch of around one-third in just five years. I am sure that we would all be happy if such a trend could be repeated on the rest of the rail network.
  Nevertheless, I certainly acknowledge the point made by a number of noble Lords around the Chamber this evening that rail has just a 17 per cent. market share of containers moved by land via Felixstowe. Therefore, the port, freight operators and Railtrack believe that there is scope for a further increase in rail's share of Felixstowe container traffic. To move the current volumes, Freightliners currently operates nine trains a day in each direction on the branch line and is looking to operate more trains in order to move yet more traffic through the port.
  My noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults, asked me whether I could visualise a distance of 13 miles. He wanted to put that into the context of Potters Bar. I am not able to do that, but I was going to tell him that 13 miles was about half a marathon. As a responsible Minister of the Crown standing at the Dispatch Box, I thought that I should take advice from the Table on
  1038
  that point. I am very pleased that I did because I was advised that I was incorrect and that in fact a marathon consists of 26 miles 385 yards.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, everybody knows that!
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I also understand that it was 26 miles until the London Olympics in 1908 when the 385 yards were added so that the finish could be in front of the Royal Box. That illustrates the importance of taking accurate advice; otherwise personal statements are required to correct any misleading of the House, which would be quite inappropriate.
  In Railtrack's view, the existing network could accommodate an extra two trains a day in each direction, and there is almost certainly scope, if necessary, to operate more trains at weekends. Indeed, my eye was caught by a recent article in Lloyd's List, the shipping paper, which reported that, in the first two months of 1997, rail traffic via the port has increased by 30 per cent. compared to the same period last year. This clearly shows that there is capacity in the railway network for growth, and that the port, Railtrack and Freightliners are co-operating effectively to maximise the potential of rail freight. Nonetheless, to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, Freightliners would clearly have difficulty in the longer term if the port of Felixstowe's forecasts for ever-increasing numbers of containers are accurate.
  Freightliners, Railtrack, the port and the local authority have been discussing this issue for some time, and when my noble friend Lord Marlesford first asked a Starred Question with regard to this issue, discussions had been underway for some time. Towards the end of February, Railtrack decided that a commercial case existed for a programme of improvements to the Felixstowe branch line. The company announced towards the end of February that it is to upgrade the line, investing around £6 million in a modern signalling system and a track extension. I welcome the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever in a very concise speech about the rail freight industry when he said that that investment will be of considerable importance and will produce considerable benefits for the track and for the amount of container traffic that will be able to utilise it.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister may not come to this, but I referred to a number of complaints from Railtrack's users about high prices, inefficiency and delays due to "improvements". I wonder whether the Minister had heard any such complaints; or have I been misinformed?
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is of great importance to get the balance of the charging structure right. We want to ensure that we have a framework whereby Railtrack makes a return. Track access charges are clearly a major part of that. The independent regulator has a strong role to play in this and I firmly believe that in a privatised monopoly, such as Railtrack,

  1039
  the importance of independent regulation cannot be over-estimated, particularly with regard to the important issue of track access charges.
  The new signalling system will use the latest fibre-optic technology and will be designed greatly to improve service reliability. This work will be carried out in conjunction with an extension to a passing loop on the route which will enable freight trains to pass each other on the branch.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before my noble friend, in his most helpful and encouraging speech, leaves the point, I mentioned one matter with which he has not yet dealt, although perhaps he was about to come to it. I refer to the question of the 44-tonne lorries. There is a danger that, if the Government gave permission for 44-tonne lorries, that would totally unbalance the equation between rail freight and road freight.
  Frankly, I cannot envisage that any government, whether this Government—this Government having been re-elected as obviously I hope will happen—or another government (should there be a change) will find it possible to provide the expenditure on roads that will be necessary to accommodate 44-tonne lorries. I know that the Government still have the matter under consideration, so it may well be premature and unreasonable to ask my noble friend to reveal the Government's thinking on this, but I believe that this is a serious point which is very relevant to the equation between road freight and rail freight.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend was quite right to raise the issue of 44-tonne lorries, to which I will turn. There has been a consultation exercise but no decision has yet been reached. I understand the point that he makes. My noble friend will be aware that in the consultation document the various arguments for and against any such move are carefully weighed. We have no doubt that his comments are relevant to this important issue, particularly when we have an interest in getting the balance right.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, it appears that the argument for the adoption of 44-tonne lorries is unsurmountable in environmental terms. If it is assumed that eventually 44-tonners will be adopted, is it not a good idea to maintain the differential in aid of intermodal operation so that there is always an advantage to rail freight in having an even higher gross train weight for such operations?
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly recognise my noble friend's experience in the field of heavy transport. I believe that his words carry considerable weight in your Lordships' House. I recognise that there are environmental arguments both for and against such a move. I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to comment further on that issue.
  Perhaps I may detail the design work that will begin imminently. Railtrack expects to begin work in the spring of 1998, with the work taking about 12 months
  1040
  to complete. Having said that, Railtrack believes that there may be scope for accelerating the works if Freightliners wish, although this will be a matter for discussion between the two companies.
  On the wider question of investment in rail infrastructure, Railtrack has recently published its network management statement outlining its spending plans over the next 10 years. Railtrack plans to spend some £10 billion on the maintenance, renewal and development of the rail network between 1995 and 2001, which I understand represents a very considerable investment.
  Looking forward, Railtrack's spending on the rail network, excluding day-to-day maintenance, is expected to average some £1 billion a year over the next 10 years. This includes more than £1.5 billion on renewing and upgrading the West Coast Main Line, allowing the introduction of high speed tilting trains and £600 million on Thameslink 2000.
  The Government have consistently provided carefully targeted support for the rail freight industry through the freight grants regime. The scheme was introduced in 1974. Since then the Government have continually renewed its effectiveness and have introduced enhancements to the regime on several occasions since 1979, as my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever correctly noted. In particular, recent changes have made the scheme more accessible for intermodal freight, culminating in a track access grant to Freightliners that may be worth up to £75 million over five years.
  Since 1979 over 150 grants have helped to secure the movement of freight by rail which would otherwise have moved by road. It is estimated that freight carried using facilities funded by grants amounts to about 12 per cent. by volume of all rail freight in Britain. All told, we believe that the freight grants scheme is responsible for removing about three million lorry movements from our roads every year.
  It is important to provide the necessary conditions to allow the rail freight business to flourish. However, in the case of Felixstowe rail links, it is particularly pleasing to see that Railtrack is taking appropriate steps to improve the infrastructure.
  A particular point was raised in relation to EWS and Railtrack. I understand that they are talking about negotiating a new track access charging deal which may attract freight to rail. However, any new deal would have to be approved by the rail regulator, as I said in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. So I cannot comment in definitive detail in advance about such an arrangement, save to say that any such arrangement would have to be agreed by the independent regulator.
  During the course of this Parliament we have had the most vigorous political debate on the issue of rail privatisation. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and I have clashed swords on a number of occasions since the introduction of the Railways Bill in 1993. Those debates engendered considerable heat, but I believe that we have seen considerable progress. That

  1041
  bold policy which represents the biggest structural change in the railways for decades has already been shown to work, and will prove to be the saviour of that vital transport mode. I leave the last word to the editorial in The Times of 12th February last, which was headed, "The Right Track". It was subtitled simply:
  1042
  "Privatisation has made the trains run on time".

  Imperial College Bill
  Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  US Ballistic Missile Defence: Deployment
  US Ballistic Missile Defence: Deployment
  A.90 Road Conversion Plan
  A.90 Road Conversion Plan
  Defence Estate Organisation
  Defence Estate Organisation
  Army Training Land
  Army Training Land
  Royal Auxiliary Air Force Squadrons
  Royal Auxiliary Air Force Squadrons
  Government Business: Conduct Guidance
  Government Business: Conduct Guidance
  Remploy: Performance Targets
  Remploy: Performance Targets
  Abnormal Loads: Notifications to Highway Authorities
  Abnormal Loads: Notifications to Highway Authorities
  Porpoises: Protection
  Porpoises: Protection
  Water Abstraction: Licence Information
  Water Abstraction: Licence Information
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  ECSC Products: Anti-Dumping Duties Review
  ECSC Products: Anti-Dumping Duties Review
  Cotton Greycloth: Anti-Dumping Duties Review
  Cotton Greycloth: Anti-Dumping Duties Review
  Health Service: Recruitment and Retention
  Health Service: Recruitment and Retention
  Parking on Horse Guards Parade and Mall North Horseride
  Parking on Horse Guards Parade and Mall North Horseride
  Asylum Seekers: Application Forms
  Asylum Seekers: Application Forms
  Asylum Seekers: Prison Detention
  Asylum Seekers: Prison Detention
  Asylum Seekers in Detention: Bail Applications
  Asylum Seekers in Detention: Bail Applications
  Asylum Seekers: Campsfield House
  Asylum Seekers: Campsfield House
  Mistakes of Law and Restitution: Report
  Mistakes of Law and Restitution: Report
  Law Courts: Computerisation
  Law Courts: Computerisation
  Law Courts: Statistics
  Law Courts: Statistics