Sitting of 17 November 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Disabled People
    Mr. Spring: What meetings she has recently held with (a) disabled people and (b) disability organisations.[14630]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): In the past six weeks Department of Social Security Ministers and I have met more than 40 organisations representing people with disability or health problems. We regard it as a crucial part of our work to meet disabled people and disability organisations so that they can help to shape our approach of helping to get people with health problems and disabilities into work and providing support for them to stay in work.
    Mr. Spring: May I tell the right hon. Lady that there is genuine anger and frustration among many disabled people and disability organisations at the perception that
    2
    the Government are not keeping to their pre-election promises, not least that of a direct Cabinet post? As for the consultations that are taking place, there is a feeling that those are leading to nothing and have no depth.
    Ms Harman: There is no question of our not keeping pre-election promises. Before the election and in our manifesto, we said that we would reform the welfare state around the work ethic and that we would comprehensively review Department of Social Security spending to ensure that it conformed with our priorities to help those who can work into work and support their staying in work and to ensure that those who cannot work have the right combination of care and cash in support.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Has my right hon. Friend given any further thought to the restoration of reduced earnings allowance to the disabled former miners, steelworkers and others who had the allowance taken from them? When in opposition, Labour said that it would take little money to compensate those people, so will she consider doing that, because it is an area in which the Labour Government could make a difference?
    Ms Harman: We were concerned about the taking away of the reduced earnings allowance, which the previous Government did without giving proper notice to people who were heading into retirement. We reviewed the reduced earnings allowance, but decided that we could not restore it to those from whom it had been taken and keep our manifesto commitment to stay within our departmental spending totals. However, as we move into a situation where those who are retired get retirement allowance rather than reduced earnings allowance, we have made certain that they are contacted by the Benefits Agency and made aware of what income they will receive when they retire.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State agree with her advisory committee that there appears to be a cliff edge in benefit entitlement between those judged to be incapable of all work and all others? Does she recognize

    3
    that there should be more of a continuum between capability and incapability? Might not that lead to a reform of the all-work test to enable those who are partially disabled to dip in and out of temporary, part-time or sporadic work in a way that does not prejudice their entitlement to benefit?
    Ms Harman: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point and with the point made by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is certainly true that the previous Government concentrated on people's incapacities rather than on their capacities; their disability rather than their ability and that the result was a growing number of people written off to a life on benefit. We are determined to turn that around and to ensure that if people have some capacity to work—even though they have fluctuating health problems or quite severe disabilities—our responsibility is to help them get into the mainstream and achieve a degree of financial independence by helping them to get work and supporting them in work. We are looking to reform the benefits system so as to provide that help into work, rather than simply a handout.
    Mr. Skinner: I was interested in my right hon. Friend's remark that the Department had to stay within its spending limit. I assume that she means that the Government have accepted the fact that they have to deal with this lousy Tory budget for the next two years—a wrong—headed decision in my opinion. The cuts in reduced earnings allowances often meant that people who had worked in heavy industry lost about £30 out of a £40-a-week allowance. May we therefore assume that after the two-year quarantine is over we will get back on the road of doing what we all said in opposition—Front Benchers and Back Benchers alike—which was that cutting the allowances was an evil act by the Tory Government which the Labour Government would put right?
    Ms Harman: My hon. Friend has asked about the first two years and thereafter. We said in the manifesto on which both he and I were elected that we would stay within the laid-down departmental spending totals for the first two years. Thereafter, we said, we would reform the welfare state around the work ethic so that we can invest more public money in opportunities and need to spend less on the costs of social and economic failure.
    The cut in the reduced earnings allowance was one of many such cuts made over 18 years by the Tory Government. We reviewed the situation but decided that to stay within our manifesto commitments we were not able to restore the cut.
    Mr. Llwyd: Will the right hon. Lady confirm how many written representations she has received on her recent social security review? Is she aware of the widespread unease about it on the part of disability organisations, which naturally feel that they are not being properly consulted? Can she reassure the House that there will be no radical changes to disability benefits until there has been full consultation with interested parties in the course of a full and formal review?
    Ms Harman: My Ministers and I are meeting the full range of organisations concerned with issues of disability on a regular and continuing basis. Not only are we discussing with them the issues that fall to us to review
    4
    but we are discussing with them how they will play a part in our pilot projects under the new deal for the long-term sick and disabled. We intend to work in partnership with the voluntary organisations to invest £195 million from the windfall levy in pioneering projects to help people into work. So not only are we talking to the organisations concerned with people with disabilities but we are working with them to shape and test our projects.

    Old-age Pension
    Mr. Wilkinson: If she plans to announce proposed changes to the state old-age pension system before the Christmas Adjournment. [14631]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): We have no such plans.
    The pensions review, announced on 17 July, is looking at the central areas of insecurity for elderly people, including all aspects of the basic state pension and its value. A key objective of the review is to ensure that pensioners have security and dignity in retirement, that they should share fairly in rising national prosperity and that public finances should be both sustainable and affordable.
    The first part of the review ended on 31 October and we are now carefully considering the 1,700 responses we have received.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful for that answer. Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the much trumpeted stakeholder pension was one of the central planks of his party's election manifesto? Will not the public be disappointed that there has been no concrete action to date? Since 2 May, have not the activities of the Department to which the Minister belongs been largely characterised by personality clashes, turf wars and a supine acquiescence in the dictates of the Treasury, which removed dividend interest tax relief, to the detriment of private and company pension holders?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The first phase of consultations on the pensions review has produced a consensus not just on the need for low-cost, value-for-money, flexible stakeholder pensions but on the possibility of introducing them—which the previous Government signally failed to achieve. We will consult shortly on the further details of the stakeholder pension, but the truth is that since the Government were elected, low-cost, value-for-money second pensions for people who cannot join employers' occupational schemes have moved from election policy to something that can be turned into concrete reality.
    Mr. Leslie: May I point out to my hon. Friend the need to raise awareness among the public at large of pension provision, especially in the private sector? Has much progress been made during the pensions review regarding a widespread education programme on pensions, especially for people at the start of their working lives?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is essential that we increase knowledge about and understanding of pensions and that individuals are

    5
    empowered to take the right decision for them about their pension provision. That is why we established a pensions education and awareness group, drawing on governmental representatives and the private sector, which will report in January on the best way for us to improve pensions knowledge.
    Mr. Rendel: How do the Government explain their double standards? Before the general election they promised pensioners that they would identify those who were losing out and ensure that they got everything to which they were entitled, yet now, apparently, part of the Government's plans for pensioners—who very often are the people who find it hardest to claim benefit—is to refuse to allow them to claim benefits, including income support, backdated by more than one month.
    Mr. Denham: We have already taken action to initiate research into why 1 million pensioners do not receive the income support to which they are entitled. We need to undertake that research so that we can modify and modernise the social security system to make it work more effectively. Equally, we must simplify and modernise the social security system so that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled at, or as close as possible to, the moment they can claim them. Allowing many people not to claim their benefits for a long time is not the way to run the system. We need to establish why pensioners are not claiming and to ensure that the system makes it easier for them to claim.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend believe that the review provides the chance to get rid of an anomaly—it is a problem that occurs year after year—regarding the non-index-linked parts of the pension, such as the £10 Christmas bonus and the 25p extra for 80-year-olds, that has existed for about 50 years? Does not the review give us the chance to remove those problems from the system permanently?
    Mr. Denham: The Christmas bonus and its future value is one of the topics that are under discussion with the national pensioners convention as part of the wider review of all the forms of income that pensioners receive.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Bob Russell: What assessment she has made of the impact of the single room rent rules for housing benefit for recipients aged under 25 years. [14633]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): We are currently gathering information from a wide variety of sources to assess the national impact of these changes which we inherited from the previous Government. We will keep them under review. We revoked the regulations laid by the previous Government, which would have extended the rules to people over 25 years of age.
    Mr. Russell: You have had six months now to do the review. How much longer is it going to go on? Will you accept from me that—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will speak through the Chair. It is not "you". He has been here six months now.
    Mr. Russell: Does the Minister agree that the Government have had six months to do the review?
    6
    How much longer will it go on? Does he accept that, every day, the homelessness problem for young people is getting worse? How does that fit in with the spirit and thrust of the welfare-to-work new deal proposals?
    Mr. Bradley: The Department has commissioned research on this matter and we are taking information from a sample of local authorities throughout the country. We are also receiving direct representations from a number of organisations and a number of reports have been commissioned on that aspect. We hope to be in a position to report on those matters early next year.
    Mr. Brazier: Why does the Minister think that the position of 26 and 27-year-olds is so different from that of those just under the age of 25? Specifically, does he believe that it is right that anyone should be supported on benefit in a better level of accommodation than their working counterparts on modest wages can afford, living on their own?
    Mr. Bradley: There is clearly a cost differential between the under-25 and over-25 age groups. We are determined not to extend the mean-minded measure put in place by the previous Government for people aged between 25 and 60. We are reviewing the position for those who are under 25 and will report on our findings early next year.

    Lone Parents
    Mr. Chope: What proposals her Department has to encourage lone parents to find employment. [14634]
    Ms Harman: In July, the Government launched the new deal for lone parents in eight areas of the country. It will be rolled out nationally in October next year. The new deal is a pioneering programme that recognises and backs lone parents' desire to work and it is the first step in our plans to reform the welfare state around the work ethic.
    Mr. Chope: Will the Secretary of State apologise for spinning a story about a one-in-four success rate in the pilot project for the new deal for lone parents whereas, as is revealed in today's The Times, the success rate was one in 20? Is she alarmed by the report from the United States that her policy is doomed to failure while that of the Minister of State is more likely to succeed?
    Ms Harman: I shall answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question first and then return to the first part.
    The Government's position on the new deal is clear. We are inviting lone mothers whose youngest child is five or over to come along for advice and information about seeking work. The previous Government simply told lone mothers to stay on benefit until their youngest child was 16. That policy did not work and resulted in a million lone mothers bringing up 2.2 million children on income support and never seeing the world of work. The previous Government then complained about the spiralling benefit bill. Instead of carping, the Opposition should back our approach to enabling lone mothers to be independent and return to work.

    7
    We reported the figures in our first three-months report on this pioneering and innovative programme. In the first eight areas, there is a total of 40,000 lone mothers. We did not expect all 40,000 to walk in the door on the first day. Had they done so, we could not have managed the programme. It is a phased programme and we expect to invite the 40,000 lone mothers in in the first year. Within the first three months, we have invited 8,000 to see their new deal personal advisers, told them that the advice is available and asked them to make an appointment. Within the first three months, 2,000 lone mothers have had appointments.
    The response of lone mothers has been to welcome the programme. Employers, too, have welcomed the programme and are offering jobs. The previous Government's approach was simply to leave lone mothers on benefit. Of the first 2,000 women who have been interviewed, four out of five want to continue actively seeking work. The previous Government told them to stay on benefit until their youngest child was 16. Of those who have seen their personal adviser, one in four has a job. Some of those women had been on benefit for 20 years until we offered them advice and support.
    That is a welfare-to-work programme in action. I would expect the Opposition to welcome the financial independence that it brings, the help that it offers the poorest children and the cut in the benefits bill.
    Ms Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Government's abject failure to enable lone parents to return to work was to the detriment not only of those families but of the nation's purse? For example, this year's £100 million housing benefit bill has been escalating. Does she further agree that, by helping lone parents into work, the new deal will release some resources for those in greatest need?
    Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was not just that the previous Government left lone mothers on benefit, written off to a life on benefit dependency; worse still, they stigmatised them and used them as scapegoats for all society's ills when they criticised them once a year at the Conservative party conference. The pioneering programme that we have established within six months of coming to office backs lone parents in their desire to work for a better standard of living for themselves and their children. They tell us that they do not want to depend on benefit but would rather work, which is why they welcome the hand up that we are giving them instead of simply a handout.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The welfare-to-work programme and the jobseeker's allowance—particularly the jobseeker's allowance, which is proving a success—have at their heart a compulsory element: they compel people to take up jobs. From recent reports in the press, we learn that that is even being considered for the new deal for lone parents. Will the right hon. Lady come to the Dispatch Box and confirm or deny those reports? Will she tell us whether compulsion will form any part of the new deal for lone parents during the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Ms Harman: Compulsion is not the issue for the new deal for lone parents. The hon. Gentleman is muddling up two things. We are clear that when young unemployed
    8
    people are offered—as they will be by this Government—a choice of high-quality training and work, they will be expected to take up those opportunities and that the option of a life of full dependence on benefit is not available to them. In respect of lone mothers, the hon. Gentleman need only read our manifesto, which says that we will invite lone mothers whose youngest child has started school to meet their new deal personal advisers. Compulsion is not the issue. Lone mothers are being invited in.
    Why does the hon. Gentleman raise the issue of compulsion rather than recognise that, after the previous Government left lone mothers on income support until their youngest child was 16, he is now calling for us to go further than inviting them in? I have made it clear: compulsion is not an issue in the new deal for lone mothers. We are inviting them in and the early results are very encouraging.

    Pension Provision Group
    Mr. Coaker: If she will make a statement on the role of the pension provision group. [14635]
    Mr. Denham: As part of our wide-ranging review of pensions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed the pension provision group to provide her with an independent analysis of the current state of pension provision in the United Kingdom and of likely future trends.
    The group is chaired by Tom Ross, vice-president of the National Association of Pension Funds. Its members are pensions experts from outside the Government who come from a wide range of backgrounds and interests. The group's report will advance our review by providing a valuable and independent analysis, on the basis of which we will shape our plans for a modern and fair pensions system for the future.
    Mr. Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the appointment of the pension provision group provides an opportunity to deal with the mess that we are in, with today's pensioners having inadequate resources and tomorrow's pensioners not saving adequately to meet their needs? Does he agree that we have the opportunity to provide for today's and tomorrow's pensioners in a way that will make real progress, rather than merely grab cheap headlines?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. One of the critical roles of the pension provision group will be to identify the groups that face retirement on low incomes because they are unable to build up an adequate pension. That is also why we hope that it will provide the essential background to take forward our case for value-for-money stakeholder pensions, to bring better value-for-money, flexible pensions to those who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme at present.
    Mr. Collins: In the new spirit of openness and contrition that affects the Government, will the Minister make it clear whether any members of the pension provision group have bought their place in it by donations to the Labour party?
    Mr. Denham: No.
    Ms Hewitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, when considering the work of the pension

    9
    provision group, to ensure that future pensions policy takes account of the rapid changes taking place in employment and family structures? Will he take this opportunity to condemn the providers of personal pension schemes who, while claiming greater flexibility for their product, are penalising their contributors who are subsequently offered the opportunity to join an occupational pension scheme?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend raises a number of important points. The world in which pensions have to be delivered for the future is changing rapidly. For example, the number of large employers offering final salary occupational schemes is declining and there is a need for better pension provision for those in the more modern and flexible work force. Pension mis-selling was a scandal, and I am extremely grateful for the measures being taken by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to clear up that matter. It is also clear that, in the future, people must have access to value-for-money, flexible pensions that do not penalise them if, for example, they change employment or must alter their pension provision after a relatively short time in a pension scheme.
    Mr. Webb: Does the Minister accept that, while the pension provision group is conducting its deliberations, many pensioners will be suffering from cold and inadequate heating this winter? Does he accept that it is perfectly obvious why most elderly pensioners do not claim benefit and that we do not need lengthy research to discover the reasons? Does he agree that immediate action, such as an increase in the addition to pensions for the over-80s, would be an immediate and constructive response that is guaranteed to reach pensioners in need?
    Mr. Denham: It is essential that we establish why a million pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled: we must have that information if we are to move forward. A series of measures—including the cut in VAT on fuel, the reduction in the gas levy and falling fuel prices—will enable vulnerable groups, including pensioners, to heat their homes this winter.
    Mr. Swinney: In his earlier answers, the Minister quite understandably attacked pension mis-selling and reiterated the importance of pension funds being sufficiently strong to guarantee the payment of earnings to retired people. Will the Minister send a message to Scottish local authorities which estimate that, in the next financial year, they will have to find £36 million in additional contributions to pension funds in order to compensate for the cut in tax credit on advance corporation tax introduced in the Budget in July?
    Mr. Denham: The tax change introduced in July was part of a series of measures designed to promote long-term investment in the British economy that will improve the future of British firms and, most important, generate the wealth from which future pensions can be paid. We shall consider the situation of local authorities at the appropriate time.
    Mrs. Gillan: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the operation of the pension provision group is of great concern to the women of this country. Therefore, can the Minister tell me what input into the workings of that
    10
    group will be made by the Minister for women who, since her belated appointment, has been conspicuous by her absence from the Dispatch Box—and is conspicuous by her absence again today? Is she part of the Department of Social Security team? Will she have any input into the pension provision group or any other policy area, or is she the invisible woman?
    Mr. Denham: I make it clear that three women serve on the pension provision group—Ruth Hancock, Joanne Segers and Anne Wood—and represent the wide range of experience and knowledge that will be brought to bear on the group. Women's pension rights are a central concern of the pensions review, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear when she launched the review in July. We have made it perfectly clear that closing the pensions gap between men and women is one of the fundamental challenges of the pensions review.

    Lone Parents
    Mr. David Heath: What estimate she has made of the number of new claims by lone parents for income support in financial years (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [14636]
    The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Department estimates that there will be 350,000 awards in both years.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister for Public Health, who claimed that many poor women smoke because they feel that their lives are hopeless? Does he believe that the many lone parents who are unable to find work will feel more or less hopeless when their benefits are cut?
    Mr. Field: I am sure that all of them will feel more hopeful because this Government have a positive, proactive policy that is helping them back to work—unlike the previous regime.
    Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which to reduce the number of lone parents who are forced to claim income support is to provide available and affordable child care? What plans does he have to improve that provision as part of the new deal?
    Mr. Field: The Government are developing a national child care strategy, which will be implemented during the life of this Parliament. Each of the single parents coming forward for interviews is seeking that information and being given it.
    Mr. Burns: Can I press the Minister to confirm that, notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said, of the 8,600 letters that went out in the pilot scheme, 75 per cent. —about 6,600—of the people who received them did not bother to reply; and that, of the 1,600 people who went to see a personal adviser, only 433 have gone into a job, which is about 5 per cent. of all those who were contacted?
    I am particularly pleased that the Minister is here. Does he agree with Professor Lawrence Mead that there has to be a ground of compulsion for the new deal for lone

    11
    parents to work? Does the Minister agree that, if there is no compulsion, it will be a failure? Given that the jobseeker's allowance and welfare to work for young people rests on compulsion, are the Government preparing a U-turn to bring in compulsion for the new deal for lone parents? That is a question that the Secretary of State studiously refused to answer.
    Mr. Field: The answer to the first of a series of questions is that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Of the people who were invited to attend, three quarters responded and, of those who responded, a quarter are already in work. I thought that the Opposition would support that. My views vis-a-vis Lawrence Mead are made very plain in the document that the hon. Gentleman is holding.

    Benefits Advice
    Mr. MacShane: What steps she is taking to make benefit information and advice available (a) by telephone and (b) electronically. [14637]
    Ms Harman: Local offices are trying to improve their telephone services. We have advice lines for family credit, for pensioners and for sick and disabled people and their carers. We want to modernise the social security system, so we shall explore all possible ways to use new information technology to improve the speed, accuracy and accessibility of benefit advice.
    Mr. MacShane: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that the Conservative party lost the election of 1 May not simply because it consists of a bunch of sleazebags but because the Conservative Government were the architects of the dependency culture, which has left too many citizens in Britain without a sense of right and control over their own lives? If she tries to telephone some of the plethora of numbers that she has inherited, she will find that she will need a Ph.D in code breaking to understand them or get through. Will she consider setting up one 0800 freeline to cover all social security inquiries, and also consider a form of smartcard so that citizens, who have as much right in times of trouble to help from other citizens through the state benefit systems, have some control over their lives? We should break the dependency culture, which is the most wicked of all the wicked inheritances from the Conservative party.
    Ms Harman: Yes, I shall consider having a single benefit advice line. We need to modernise the delivery of services, and that means the right mix between telephone advice and face-to-face advice, and also advice that people can access without being face to face—through kiosks and computer software. One of the things that we shall also look at is how we can deliver information and benefits using new technology so that people do not have to go from pillar to post giving the same information five different times and then having to work out how all the different answers fit together. Modernisation of the delivery of social security is long overdue.
    Mr. Baldry: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most cost-effective ways of getting information to claimants is through citizens advice bureaux,
    12
    where volunteers give advice in a very professional way? However, very often citizens advice bureaux have to struggle year on year for funds, both core funding and funds to run themselves. Is it not in the interests of central Government to provide further assistance to citizens advice bureaux?
    Ms Harman: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Department of Social Security does not give grants to voluntary organisations. However, we are working in partnership with citizens advice bureaux on a pioneering project on how we can use new technology to share information between the Department and voluntary organisations. It is designed to ensure that those organisations that give advice to claimants have the most up-to-date information and can settle those claimants' queries. We believe that, whether such claimants turn up at a benefits office, citizens advice bureau or other advice centre, they are entitled to receive full, accurate advice promptly.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We would all welcome the modernisation of the forms that people are required to fill in and we would welcome any kind of modernisation that means that people can get accurate information quickly. However, will my right hon. Friend remember that many of our constituents still have the old-fashioned idea that speaking face to face to a human being is infinitely preferable even to the best organised kiosk with a computer in it? It will be a long time before the people whom my right hon. Friend is talking about will be happy if they do not receive personal service.
    Ms Harman: We want to ensure that everybody receives personal service, but the question is whether it is the right sort of service. We know that some people want face-to-face advice and information, and we are considering that option. Some people want to be able to talk to someone direct. Other people do not want to go into the benefits office or wait there to talk directly to someone because they would rather sort it out on the telephone. A third category wants neither to talk to anyone on the phone nor to see anyone face to face, but to access the system. The key to modernisation is a personalised service and flexibility. It is not a matter of considering the people about whom my hon. Friend or I am talking, but providing the right range of services so that people can receive the services that they want in order to get the advice that they need in a manner with which they feel most comfortable.
    Mr. Gorrie: Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the Secretary of State pay some attention to the variable quality of the personal advice given at different offices? I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience as me when constituents have complained that they have been to various offices several times and only on the fourth or fifth visit to a particular one have they been offered a constructive suggestion by someone which makes all the difference. Can we have some system whereby staff are encouraged to take a constructive attitude towards trying to help people? I am sure that many of them do so, but some do not.
    Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point which relates to a number of different issues.

    13
    First, it is important that an understanding is established throughout the Benefits Agency that people are entitled to the highest quality of service and politeness, whatever the circumstances of their case. That is absolutely essential. Secondly, people should not get different information from different people. Some people may be on five benefits and if they have to go to five different places to get the necessary information, they are lost by the time they get to the fifth one and they cannot work out how it all fits together. Thirdly, it is important to check the quality of advice and to ensure that there is a proper complaints system. The previous Government established some sort of charter for people who used the benefit advice services, but I warrant that no hon. Member has heard of it because no emphasis was given either to ensure that people knew about it or to enforce it. The need to back good-quality advice with the right training is high on our agenda and we expect to see results shortly.

    Social Security Harmonisation
    Dr. Michael Clark: What plans she has to move towards the harmonisation of the social security system of the UK with its European partners. [14638]
    Mr. Field: The Government have no such plans.
    Dr. Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the statement made by the Minister with responsibility for pensions that there is a need to integrate an efficient social protection system throughout Europe? If there are no such plans, what did that mean? If that statement is correct, does it mean that, if pensions were integrated throughout Europe, we might have to forgo our national pension fund, which is probably larger than the rest of the pension funds of Europe put together? Or would it mean that we would have to pay more to assist countries that had not made prudent pension provision, or even both? Would the right hon. Gentleman comment?
    Mr. Field: The Government have no plans for harmonisation. That does not mean that we do not consider carefully the evolving social security agenda to discover where the British interest lies and to advance it. We are giving particular attention to three areas. First, we want to ensure that, if pensioners move between countries, they are not put at a greater disadvantage vis-a-vis their occupational pension than they would have been if they remained in their own country. Secondly, we are examining the position of migrant workers to ensure that, as they move between two countries, they do not pay taxation and social security dues in both. Thirdly, we are interested in how the single market rules will operate for the transference of pension capital. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as I used to say when I was in opposition, this country has an enormous advantage in that area.

    Child Support Agency
    Mrs. Ewing: What is the current average response time by Child Support Agency offices to inquiries for reviews submitted by (a) individuals and (b) hon. Members on behalf of constituents. [14639]
    Mr. Keith Bradley: No figures are available on average response times but, in the current year, 86 per cent. of
    14
    reviews have been cleared within 13 weeks, and 99 per cent. within 26 weeks. We are not complacent about the state of the Child Support Agency. In June, the Government announced that we were looking closely at all areas of the child support system to ensure that the CSA is consistently fair and efficient. We aim to move forward with our final proposals on the CSA in the first half of next year.
    Mrs. Ewing: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he appreciate that Members of Parliament often have to request reviews on behalf of their constituents because the initial assessment is inaccurate? Will he give us the latest figures on the accuracy of first assessments?
    Mr. Bradley: I am unable to give the hon. Lady that figure today, but I shall write to her. We are not complacent about the accuracy of initial assessments. We have put extra money into the child support system to ensure a more efficient and effective service on behalf of all our constituents. I assure the hon. Lady that that will continue to be our resolve. We shall examine all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it works in the way that we expect it to, and in the interests of our constituents.
    Mr. Cunliffe: I welcome the Minister's enthusiastic efforts to improve the system that was introduced by the previous Government, which many of us believe is administered incompetently. It is a cock-up. Does he agree with many hon. Members that the Child Support Act 1991 is the most infamous, iniquitous Act that has gone on the statute book since the poll tax legislation? Administrative incompetence, together with the injustice in the system, adds insult to injury for thousands of conscientious parents, and brings financial distress to many second families throughout the country.
    Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend, because I know that he has taken a great interest in these matters throughout the period that the Child Support Agency has been in existence. We are reviewing all aspects of the agency, and we shall publish our plans for it early next year. I hope that the problems that my hon. Friend has identified will be addressed as a result of those proposals.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that, when a review has been successfully concluded and it is deemed that an overpayment has been made, that money should be reimbursed in a short time? Does he accept that three months is too long before that money is repaid? Does he agree that overtime should not be included in an assessment, especially when it is seasonal?
    Mr. Bradley: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I should point out that a third of absent parents are still not paying, and we must ensure that those payments are made. However, I have noted the hon. Lady's comments and I recognise their force. I assure her that we want an efficient organisation of the Child Support Agency, so that such overpayments are repaid in the time that she suggested.

    Pensions
    Mr. Corbyn: What assessment she has made of the benefits of calculating future pension increases on the basis of the rise in average earnings. [14640]
    Mr. Denham: We are committed to increasing the basic state pension at least in line with prices. Pensioners

    15
    can be reassured that, for 1998, we are meeting that commitment. The basic state pension—including its value—the state earnings-related pension scheme and other issues of concern to pensioners are being considered as part of our pensions review, which will report in the first half of next year.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the great achievements of the last Labour Government was the linking of pensions with either prices or earnings, whichever was rising faster? As a result, pensioners enjoyed a much higher standard of living under that Government. The last Tory Government cut the link, thus robbing every pensioner of more than £1,000 a year. Does my hon. Friend accept that a high basic state pension, linked to earnings, is cheap to administer, is fair, and will do a great deal to eliminate the disgraceful levels of poverty that many older people have to endure?
    Mr. Denham: As we said in our manifesto, we want all pensioners to share fairly in rising national prosperity. We must take into account all the sources of income that enable pensioners to share in national prosperity—pensions from the state, pensions from non-state sources, benefits, savings and other forms of pensioner income—and we will do that in the review.
    The basic state pension is the foundation stone of pension planning for retirement, but it is also important for us to enable people to complement it with a second pension—an occupational, personal or stakeholder pension—to ensure that they can enjoy security in retirement.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the Minister confirm that the review will consider re-establishing the link, either partially or wholly—possibly for all pensioners, or even just for those who start receiving pensions after the review is complete? What will be the range of the review in that context?
    Mr. Denham: Our manifesto makes it clear that all aspects of the basic state pension—including its value—will be considered in the review.

    Appeals
    Mr. Blizzard: What plans she has to ensure that appeals by benefit claimants are dealt with more speedily. [14641]
    Mrs. Mahon: If she will make a statement on ways of improving social security appeals. [14645]
    Mr. Keith Bradley: We are determined to reduce the current delays and complexities in the appeals system. On 9 July, we introduced the Social Security Bill, which paves the way for the creation of an active, modern social security system. The Bill includes several measures that will enable us to provide a quicker, simpler and more efficient appeals service for customers. The Secretary of State will take personal responsibility for the administration of the appeals system, will set and publish demanding targets to shorten the time that it takes for appeals to be heard, and will report on the results.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the social security benefits system
    16
    inherited from the last Government is in crisis? Does he further agree that the sheer number of people who depend on benefits and the harshness of the regime introduced by the last Government are resulting in too many appeals, long waits and the clogging up of the independent tribunals service?
    In particular, will my hon. Friend examine the disability living allowance? Because of the 32-page all-work test and the frequent consequent reduction in benefits, many disabled people are making appeals, and both they and their carers resent the long wait that they are having to undergo.
    Finally, when is the review of the disability living allowance likely to be completed?
    Mr. Bradley: The disability review will be completed early next year.
    The whole purpose of the Social Security Bill is to streamline the administration of benefits, and to make it simpler and more efficient for customers. The Bill contains provisions that will enable corrections and other changes to be made at an early point in the administration of benefits, so that customers' difficulties can be put right and they need not go to appeal. That is the best way in which to ensure that people receive their entitlement at the point at which they need it. I believe that the Bill will greatly benefit a vast number of claimants.
    Mrs. Mahon: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to improving the appeals system. It is indeed slow and inefficient and causes a great deal of distress, not least to the staff who must administer that inherited system. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with staff and their representatives, and how soon will they be reassured and involved in the system?
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the concerns that she has expressed on behalf of staff. I share those concerns because, during modernisation of the social security system, there are always anxieties about the way forward, but I assure her that I shall continue to have constructive discussions with trade unions and staff representatives as our plans for streamlining and modernising the social security system unfold.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Mr. Viggers: What is the comparative administrative cost of distributing (a) means—tested benefits and (b) benefits which are not means-tested. [14642]
    Mr. Field: The administrative cost of income-related benefits is 7 per cent. of benefit expenditure. The administrative cost of all other benefits is 2.5 per cent. of benefit expenditure.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, superficially, means-tested benefits are attractive because, from a Treasury point of view, globally, they cost less money? However, there is a trap within every means-tested benefit as there is no incentive for the individual to escape from that means test. Does he agree that, in the longer term, it would be good to phase out as many means-tested benefits as possible?
    Mr. Field: Yes.

    Pension Sharing
    Mr. Hope: If she will make a statement on the Government's plans for pension sharing. [14643]
    Mr. Denham: Pension sharing recognises the contribution that both women and men make to a marriage. The Government are committed to introducing pension sharing for divorcing couples from April 2000. We are working in partnership with the pensions industry, family lawyers and others, and plan to publish a draft Bill for consultation. That is an important step in our programme of modernising the pension system to improve the income of women in retirement.
    Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and particularly welcome the announcement that the Government are honouring their commitment, made in opposition, to introduce legislation on pension sharing. Is he aware that many women experience much discrimination with regard to pensions? For example, women are less likely than men to have a good second pension and they are more likely than men to be poor in retirement.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is correct. Introducing pension sharing is one measure that the Government intend to take to improve the position of women in retirement. The development of stakeholder pensions will enable women who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme to have access to a better value, funded second-tier pension. We are also exploring the possibility of introducing a citizenship pension to enable people, particularly carers—who are most likely to be women—to gain additional pension rights to reflect the fact that they are unable to contribute to a funded pension because of their caring responsibilities.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Kidney: What changes she proposes to make to child maintenance assessments by the Child Support Agency; and over what time scale. [14644]
    Mr. Keith Bradley: The Government believe that all children are entitled to the support of both parents, whether or not they live together. The Child Support Agency was established to ensure that absent parents meet and fulfil their responsibilities. Although there is some sign that the agency's performance may have improved
    18
    since its early days, there is still a very long way to go before public confidence in it reaches an acceptable level. We are therefore examining all aspects of the agency's work, with a view to ensuring that it provides a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients. As I have already said, we aim to come forward with our proposals on the CSA in the first half of next year.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, today, child assessments are much more realistic than some were in the early days of the CSA? Nevertheless, does he agree that disappointment among both parents with care and parents without care is still high, mainly because of the slow speed and inaccuracy of assessments, and that the feeling among parents is that their individual circumstances are not taken into account? I welcome the review, which I hope will result in changes, but they will clearly take some time. Cannot guidance be given now to try to iron out at least some of the major inconsistencies in terms of speed and inaccurate assessments?
    Mr. Bradley: Clearly, the change in the form, which was introduced some time ago, is having an impact and is being welcomed by both parents with care and absent parents. I have noted carefully my hon. Friend's comments on the way forward for our review. In the meantime, we continue to work closely with CSA staff and the chief executive to ensure that delays, inaccuracies and inefficiencies are addressed. Work will continue to restore public confidence in the CSA.
    Mr. Robathan: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems faced by the CSA is that incorrect information is given to it, particularly by absent parents? That information is often fraudulent to avoid proper payment. Three parents with care came to see me at the weekend about exactly that. When he is reviewing the agency, will the Minister consider creating some offence whereby avoiding payment by a fraudulent statement is prosecutable?
    Mr. Bradley: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. No one would condone misinformation being supplied to the Child Support Agency or the taking into account of fraudulent acts during the process. I shall look carefully at the way in which the process operates and shall ensure that, when we present our proposals for reform, the interests of the child, which are the most important part of the CSA's work, and the method of ensuring that maintenance is paid for the benefit of the child are properly taken into account.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to raise an important matter relating to my constituency, of which I have given you notice. It is the report on the front page of the business section of The Observer, which suggests that a decision has been reached that P and O and Stena should be allowed to merge.
I am surprised, first, that not only the decision but detailed considerations should be announced in a Sunday newspaper, when I and other hon. Members, including Labour Members, have shown a substantial interest in the matter since May and have asked to be kept informed of details. Is this not discourtesy to the House, if indeed it is a Government leak? Would it be possible to arrange for a statement by other methods, so that hon. Members with constituency interests could discuss this matter?
Madam Speaker: The House knows how much I deprecate such matters appearing in newspapers. I know that the hon. Gentleman has shown great interest in the matter, because he has questions on the Order Paper.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he tries to frame a parliamentary question seeking information about why and how this information appeared. That would be helpful to me in what I am regularly trying to do.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to the Prime Minister's interview yesterday in "On the Record" with John Humphrys, is it not now essential that he should be required to go on the record with a statement to the House on the whole saga of "fags for favours", so that the reality can be clarified? I seek your maternal guidance on this important matter. The whole saga of concealment and the errors of judgment by the Prime Minister should be debated and exposed in the House, the Parliament of the people.
Madam Speaker: The Opposition have days on which they can put down a motion, and if they wish they can do
20
so on this subject. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if he seeks to catch my eye on Wednesday when the Prime Minister is here for half an hour answering questions, he might be lucky: who knows?
Mr. Tim Collins: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There is nothing further to that point of order. I have dealt with it.
Mr. Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is similar to the one raised about the prospective merger of P and O and Stena. About two weeks ago, I was told by local journalists that the coastguard station in my constituency was to be closed. Therefore, I tabled a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who passed it to the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency. The latter wrote me a long letter spelling out what the coastguard service was in the south of England. That did not answer my question, so I wrote to the chief executive of the agency asking him to confirm that the coastguard service would remain as originally stated.
I hear today that the coastguard station in my constituency is to be closed, despite the fact that I tabled questions two weeks ago trying to elicit information. That is a poor way for the Government to behave. Can you give me any guidance on how I can ensure that it does not happen again?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member. I cannot give guidance on how to prevent it from happening again, but I deprecate the fact that the information with which he has been supplied is not as accurate as it might be.
I will look favourably on an application for an Adjournment debate if the hon. Gentleman would like to seek one. He could then find out precisely where the information came from and about the inaccurate information with which he has been supplied. I select the subjects for Adjournment debates on Thursday evenings, and I shall look favourably on an application from the hon. Gentleman.

Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Public Services
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.34 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that Britain's key public services, in particular education, health and social care, have been underfunded and undermined by 18 years of Conservative rule; condemns the Government for continuing Conservative spending plans and council-capping and for spending less in the present year in real terms on education, health and social services; expresses alarm at the effect of the last budget inflation forecast, which will reduce the real value of government spending plans for next year by around £5.3 billion; believes that the cumulative effects of government policies will be larger classes, longer waiting times, and less care and treatment, when what the public services need is to be rescued from the vicious circle of cost shunting and crisis management, with sufficient resources to allow the raising of quality and standards for all; and calls on the Government urgently to put the necessary resources into public services, by such measures as switching monies from other departments and by limited but targeted and earmarked increases in taxation.
  It is a great pleasure to move this motion in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. When my party last had the choice of subject for debate, it was in a Parliament where 20 Liberal Democrats had been returned at the previous general election. This is our first opportunity to choose the subject following May's general election, when 46 Liberal Democrats were returned. We may not be Her Majesty's official Opposition, but we have made our position clear—we are the people's constructive opposition, and the people's credible opposition.
  On an issue such as public services and their financing, the Conservative party will never be a credible opposition, which is why we are not only proud to have tabled the motion, but determined to hold the Government to account. After six months, they show much verbal commitment to public services, but less action and finance to back up those services.
  Over the past six months, the Government have tried to reconcile two different commitments to the electorate. They came to power on the back of a clearly underfunded set of public services. We acknowledge that, and we share their concern about it.
  However, from 1 May it was the Government's responsibility to rescue Britain from that position. Instead, sadly, they have held to—at least in theory—the spending programme to which the Conservative Government had committed the country. The Government have also held to their commitment that they would not raise income tax.
  The result is that this year and next year, public services will be not only less well funded than they should be, but this year they will be less well funded than even the Tories had planned them to be, and next year they will be less well funded than they would have to be if there are not to be huge difficulties in health, education, social care, police, the fire service and so on.
  22
  Three sorts of spending restrictions are hampering the Government in each day of their new Administration. First, there are the planned Tory spending cuts, under which budgets are planned to fall in real terms—for example, local authority budgets this year and next year, and the budgets for further and higher education. Secondly, there are real cuts to the original planned education and health budgets this year, because the Government have had to contend with higher inflation, but have not made up for the money lost, because inflation has risen from an estimated 2 per cent. to 2.8 per cent. Thirdly, there will be real cuts to almost every other planned budget across public services.
  We know that the Tories left a very tight ship—so tight that the outgoing Chancellor of the Exchequer described his spending plans as "for the birds". The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) knew that it was impossible to sustain that level of public spending. Of course, there were lots of things that he did not predict or plan for, such as the issue that has been attracting growing interest in the House: how we will find the money to put computers in order in time for the millennium, at an estimated cost of £7 million. That is not yet provided for, and it will make things especially difficult for the health service and the Ministry of Defence.
  The Chancellor had two opportunities to do something, and he has fluffed both of them. In July's Budget, he could have improved the situation for public services, but he left it worse. Independent work by the Library's statisticians and economists and the Budget's inflation forecast have shown that, next year, there will be £5.3 billion less for public services. That will be a real cut of £5.3 billion. Later in the debate, other Liberal Democrat Members and I will address the practical issues of the cut, but I say now that an enormous burden will be placed on public services in every constituency if those clearly announced reductions are not dealt with.
  Tomorrow, when Health Ministers announce the new health service waiting lists, it will not be surprising if they rise considerably again. It will not be surprising, either, if reports show that secondary school class sizes continue to rise. We will also hear reports that police forces will have fewer officers on the beat. We know also that, not only this winter but next spring and next year, not only in the capital city but elsewhere, the fire service and, even more crucially, social services—about which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will catch your eye, Madam Speaker—will be under exceptional difficulty.
  Yesterday, I travelled from Southwark and Bermondsey to Winchester. The two constituencies have three things in common. First, they both have cathedrals. Secondly, last month, they both had a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Thirdly, next month, they will both have a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Otherwise, as hon. Members will be well aware, they are very different places. Nevertheless, they share some common problems.
  The Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority, for example, is hugely in deficit; and Winchester's local health trust says that, next year, it too will be in deficit, by £500,000. In inner London, education budgets are being reduced; in apparently affluent Hampshire, the local authority is under similar pressures in meeting education demands.

  23
  The health service is in the worst position it has been in since the beginning of the decade. The figures published last week show that, when the Government took office, 97 per cent. of England's health authorities were in deficit—to the tune of £238 million—and that 32 per cent. of health trusts were in deficit, by £51 million. There has never been a worse legacy in health service funding. A more significant response, in commitment and funding, has never been needed more.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. John Bercow: I am rather surprised by the sheer richness of the hon. Gentleman's reference to Hampshire. Will he take this opportunity to confirm the truth of the following statements? When in control of Hampshire county council, the Liberal party had a planned underspend on education for 1997–98. Since the Conservatives took over control of that county council, they have increased this year's planned expenditure by £2.8 million.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will deal with those points in more detail— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will deal with the points, but my hon. Friend will deal with them in more detail—if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) really wants the House to concentrate on education funding.
  In Hampshire, we overspent the assessment. The hon. Gentlemen well knows that, in education, local authorities have only two choices left to them: rob Peter to pay Paul, by taking money from social services and spending it on education; or take on the Government—whether the previous Government or this Government—and try to have capping limits lifted. The previous Government would not agree to that, and nor will the new Government. The reality is that if money cannot be raised locally, it has to be provided centrally. If the outgoing Tory Government and the incoming Labour Government will not provide the funds, they have to carry the can.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. Gentleman mentioned underfunding in the health service. Will he concede that, in my area, the East Lancashire health authority received an extra £600,000 this financial year, and will receive £12.24 million next year, a real-terms increase higher than any increase over the past five years?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to take me on over the health service too, because I am going to make a specific allegation. I am afraid that, when Ministers announced the allocation to the health service in England about two weeks ago—there were many planted oral questions to the Prime Minister about it last week—they did not tell the whole story.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Not for the first time.
  Mr. Hughes: Indeed. It is an old trick. Tory Secretaries of State for Health did the same, and news management is now becoming a regular feature of the new Government, too.
  Mr. Prentice: Are the figures wrong?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, they are wrong, and I shall explain why.
  Ministers announced that the allocations to local health authorities in England were the highest for five years. That is true: they were 0.01 per cent. higher than last year. It is true, but not by much—an increased figure only just squeaked home.
  The health service in England gets money in two ways: the initial funding comes from the local health authority, and additional moneys are either bid for or distributed centrally. In the past, the two sums were added together, but the Government did not do that this time.
  Why not? It was for the obvious reason that, if the two sums are added together, it is clear that the allocation for the health service in England next year represents not the highest percentage real growth increase for five years but the lowest percentage growth for five years. The increase is 1.7 per cent., the lowest for five years, while, in their 18 years in office, the Tories managed an average of more than 3 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) may say that health authorities have more money, but if he believes that the average 1.7 per cent extra across the country will meet the demands of the health service, he has another think coming. No one else believes that it will meet the needs of the health service in the north-west, the south-east or anywhere in between.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: What does the hon. Gentleman think about the extra £1.6 million that Calderdale and Kirklees health authority received to help us through the winter? Is that not real money? Will it not translate into more beds to help us meet the winter crisis? Have I been lied to by the chief executive, the nurses and the local unions, who have assured me that they will not—thank goodness—have to put people on trolleys this year?
  Mr. Hughes: I respect the hon. Lady for her commitment to and understanding of the health service. She has touched on a good point. So that the House understands, I should explain that the Government realised that they did not want people on trolleys this year—
  Mrs. Mahon: Is that not a good thing?
  Mr. Hughes: Of course it is a good thing. Originally, the Government said that they would not transfer money from one Department to another. Indeed, the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that it could not be done, but in September the Chancellor did it.
  The Government allocated £269 million extra, which was raided from money allocated to defence and trade and industry, to the health service this year. That is correct. It will stop people being put on trolleys, which I welcome, but it will not be used to stop waiting lists rising, nor will it deal with the hidden crisis in the health service. It will do nothing to speed up cataract operations.

  25
  It will not allow the people needing hip replacements to be operated on. If the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) believes that that amount of money will rescue the health service in Calderdale, Winchester, Beckenham or anywhere else, she is wrong.
  Mr. Andy King: It is a start.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: A false start.
  Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friend says, it is a false start.
  Even with the extra allocation, the health service will, because of inflation, get less this year from this Government than it was planned to receive from the previous Government.
  Is the hon. Member for Halifax, as a socialist, pleased that her Government are delivering less to the health service than the Tories had planned? If she is not, I suggest that she takes it up with her Front-Bench colleagues. The Tories would have spent £160 million more this year than the Government. I am embarrassed for the hon. Lady, but I am troubled not by the embarrassment of hon. Members, but by the thought of those people outside who will be affected directly.
  The health service has lost £430 million because of inflation. Over the Government's first two years, there will barely be an increase for the health service over what the Tories planned. When the hon. Member for Halifax and her hon. Friends were in opposition in years gone by, they said how greatly underfunded the health service was, but the Labour Government have provided the health service with the lowest increase for five years.
  Patients waiting for operations, doctors and nurses will not be satisfied. [HON. MEMBERS: "What would you do?"] I am being asked by Government Front Benchers what we would have done. We made it clear that the health service needed at least £0.5 billion this year, and the same amount next year, of real, new money. Even if we accept what the Government have said—that that money should not come from income tax—there are other ways in which we could raise it.
  We could take some money from tobacco tax—5p on a packet of 20 would raise £200 million. Increasing employers' national insurance contributions could raise about £350 million a year of additional money. When the Government abolished tax relief on private medical insurance—raising £120 million-they could have put that money into the health service. Because of inflation, tax revenues have gone up by £350 million this year, and will increase by £750 million over two years—money that could have gone into the health service. That could have provided £1 billion of real money.
  The reality is that no new, real growth has been provided. The Government are condemning the people who depend on the health service to struggling, to waiting, in many cases to growing more ill, and, in some cases, potentially to dying.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: What has happened to the extra 1p on income tax proposed by the Liberal Democrats "if necessary"? How would that 1p extra pay for all the hon. Gentleman wants in the health service and education, as well as pensions, student grants and tuition
  26
  fees? Is not the magic penny, as I call it, one of the most dishonest pieces of political propaganda that we have seen in a long time?
  Mr. Hughes: I will not misrepresent the Labour party's position, and I ask the hon. Gentleman not to misrepresent ours. We went into the general election saying clearly that the education service needed at least £2 billion more. That was equivalent to 1p on income tax, and all that money would have gone to education—not health. We made it clear that our priority was schools, and that we did not think that students should pay tuition fees. Unlike the hon. Gentleman's party, we have not changed our position.
  We made commitments to the health service—additional commitments funded through tobacco tax and national insurance. If the Government have been trapped by their own dogma into saying that there will be no income tax increases, if they believe that people earning £17 million a year should not pay a higher rate of tax, and if socialists, Labour party members, Labour Back Benchers and Labour Ministers think that it is justifiable for nobody to pay any more, they will have to look for other taxes.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No.
  We say that the tax revenues are there, that there are fair and reasonable taxes, and that the public services will not survive without them.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Hughes: No.
  I have two last points to make on the health service. There are six health authorities that, even with the money allocated around the country a couple of weeks ago, will still be in deficit this year—some by as much as £8 million. Those include areas such as Surrey, part of which is represented by a former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley).
  It is no good believing that the Government will straightforwardly say that they made only one pledge on the health service—one early pledge, that they would cut waiting lists, but—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Over five years.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that that was over five years. If an early pledge is over five years, the English language is understood differently in Bolsover than in the rest of the country.
  Mr. Skinner: As one of those who went into the Lobby when the Liberals voted against the cut in income tax, I can speak from a position of authority; but I find it odd that we are hearing this spin-doctoring statement today, even though spin doctoring was invented by Liberal "Focus" leaflets.
  On that night, I voted against the Tory Government along with the Liberals, but later on that night, there were several other Budget propositions—the airport tax and so

  27
  on—and, oddly enough, the Liberals went into the Lobby and spent the money, or at least a lot of it. Yet now they have the cheek to tell us that they would spend it on health, education, student fees and all the rest of it. At least when I voted against the income tax cut, I was not daft enough to go into the Lobby later and spend it—I wanted money spent on health and education, but the Liberals spent it that night.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is raising an old argument in trying to deal with two embarrassments afflicting him and his colleagues. The first embarrassment is that the Liberal Democrats had a costed manifesto, while Labour did not—the figures did not add up. One cannot defend public services or
  "save the NHS in 14 days"
  without raising the money to do it. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do, and his voters know that as well as ours.
  The second embarrassment, which the hon. Member for Bolsover cannot cover, is that those on his Front Bench spend more time on news management than on health service management. They manage the figures on allocations to health authorities, and they will try to manage tomorrow's figures on the waiting lists so as to pretend that they are not going up as much as they would have done, but actually have come down a bit—although that is only because of summer. Their attempt at news management has not worked well over the past few weeks over tobacco, and it is not working well on anything else in the health service.
  Mr. Skinner: Your "Focus" leaflets are full of lies.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman and the rest of his colleagues know that the public services are funded from taxation raised by Government and spent by Government. Until his Government understand that they cannot make promises without asking people fairly to pay, it will be his side that is in increasing difficulty, not ours. We said the same thing before the election, during the election and after the election, and, in the by-elections being fought this week, people will know that that is the truth.
  The Labour amendment asks us to be grateful for the money that has gone into these services—of course we are grateful for it. It is right to put extra money into the health service; but the much trumpeted £1.5 billion amounts, after inflation, to only £400 million. For the person waiting for an operation, that means a much longer wait—if he ever gets to have one at all. The capital building programme under Labour is the same as it was under the Tories: there has been no increase in public money at all.
  It amounts to £1.3 billion this year of public money—
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hughes: I am talking about public money for which the Government are responsible. If the Minister of State is saying that public money does not count, he had better come clean and tell the public that they will henceforth be paying out private money for the NHS, for education, and for social services.
  28
  My party stands for public investment in public services. We do not believe it right to tell people that, if they cannot pay for something, they must go without.
  As for the Conservative amendment, the Conservatives say that my party cannot hold the Government to account, because we are in effect in a coalition with them. The Conservative amendment is notable for the absence of a single word about health. I wonder whether the voters of Winchester will be interested in that; given the candidate there, it might indeed be wiser to say nothing. Nor is there a word in the amendment about social services.
  We are willing to engage in partnership politics. Indeed, we were willing to engage in that when the Conservatives were in office, on issues such as Ireland, Europe and the middle east.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Hard choices.
  Mr. Hughes: We are quite willing to make hard choices, and we have trooped through the Lobbies in the past when hard choices had to be made. We are happy to engage in partnership politics when it comes to cleaning up politics, dealing with sleaze, recording donations and so on.
  We do not, however, want partnership politics when the Government go in to the election saying that they will ban tobacco advertising, when they then say that they will ban tobacco sponsorship, and when they then suddenly take formula one off the agenda. As I have told the Secretary of State, there can be partnership politics for the future of the NHS. We want it to be secure beyond party politics; but we will be merciless in our attacks on the Government when they claim to want to save the NHS, but do not come up with the goods to enable them to do so.
  We are in favour of partnership politics when it comes to constitutional reform, but we will be very determined on issues such as fair voting, to ensure that Labour does not perpetuate a con. If we are to have reform, it must result in a fair, not a rigged, system.
  The Tories ask people to look at the Liberal Democrats' record in local government. We are proud of that record. That is why our colleagues in councils throughout the country win awards as the most popular local authorities, and gain satisfaction ratings of 80, 85 and even 89 per cent. That is why we are now the second party in local government, having overtaken the Tories. We are willing to go back to the electorate, and fight for our local services.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
  Mr. Bercow rose
  Mr. Hughes: I will not give way. We are not involved in simplistic calls for higher taxation. We believe in fair taxation and sufficient taxation. When there is a crisis in the public services, we believe that it needs a crisis response. The public services in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—ask any councillor or employee in the public service—are clearly under threat.
  New Labour promised much, but is not delivering. We do not trust the rhetoric: we look at the figures and the facts. Public services are the common bloodstream of our people—they keep the heart of the nation beating. They

  29
  are the very activities that preserve the common wealth. Without public services, there can be no private success. Unlike some people in the House, therefore, we do not believe that there is no such thing as society. We believe that there is such a thing, and that it is held together by decent, properly funded public services.
  We therefore say to the Government, "You are on trial. So far, you have let the people down. So far, you have promised much but delivered less. So far, you have asked the people to believe you, but you have not delivered the goods."
  The Tories are incredible. The Labour party is rapidly becoming less credible. We say to the people in Beckenham, Winchester and every constituency in the country, "If you want people to fight for the public services and argue for the money to be put in them, we are here to do that, and we will hold the Government to account today and every day."
  4.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the extra £1.5 billion the new Government has made available to the National Health Service since taking office; notes that this is more than the Liberal Democrats promised in their Election Manifesto; further welcomes the £100 million shifted this year out of NHS red tape and into frontline patient care, including £10 million for breast cancer treatment and £5 million for children's intensive care; further welcomes the £1.3 billion hospital building programme announced since the election; welcomes the £2.3 billion extra over Conservative spending plans announced in the Budget for education, including £1.3 billion to tackle the backlog of repairs in schools and to bring further improvements for education in the future; further welcomes the public/private partnership approach adopted in education which will increase that sum further to £2 billion by 2002; welcomes the start that has been made on achieving the Government's pledge to reduce infant class sizes and to phase out the assisted places scheme; welcomes the enormous strides that have begun in improving standards in schools; and congratulates the Government on the commitment that has been thus shown to the public services, in particular in education, health and social services.".
  The problem with the motion moved by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats is that it is plain wrong. It says that the Government will spend less on the national health service than did their predecessor. That is untrue. This year, we have found an extra £300 million to help with the winter pressures.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: It is not in real terms.
  Mr. Dobson: We hear a cry from the Liberal Democrat Benches, "It is not real money." I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the doctors think it is real money, the nurses think it is real money, and it will be a real benefit to—
  Mr. Hancock: The spin doctors.
  Mr. Dobson: Not the spin doctors—the doctors and nurses working in hospitals. They welcomed that announcement because they have a bit of common sense, which is more than can be said for many Liberal Democrat Members.
  30
  We are finding an extra £10 million to treat breast cancer this year. That is real money, bringing real benefit to women suffering from breast cancer. We are finding an extra £5 million for children's intensive care. That will bring real benefit to real children who need children's intensive care.
  Next year, we are finding an extra £1.2 billion—£1,200 million—for the national health service. On top of that, with the agreement of the Chancellor, we can keep any money that we save on prescription fraud and any money that we save on the preposterous spending on insurance that was introduced under the Tory system. We shall be able to keep all the money that we raise under the Road Traffic Act 1988 when we have changed the law so that we get in the money that was supposed to be collected over the years.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has invented a new way of measuring the money that goes to the health service—the NHS current account. That is not a good measure of what gets to hospitals, because that figure, NHS current, includes the running costs of the Department of Health, including my civil servants, and that certainly has not increased, because we have cut spending on the Department's running costs by 2.7 per cent. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a good cut.
  The hon. Gentleman should also know that that budget, NHS current, includes family health services, the stuff people get when they visit the general practitioner's surgery, and we have increased that, not by 1.9 per cent., but by 4.7 per cent. That is money going where people want it—into primary care, which is what they receive when they visit their doctor or the practice nurse.
  It is not true that the increase in that current account is the smallest for five years. Our increase was the same as last year and it is higher than that in the previous year, even on the measure that the Liberal Democrats have chosen. Then they shift to saying that the growth is less than an average of 3.1 per cent. That is not true: it has not been 3.1 per cent. in the past five years, but has averaged 1.7 per cent. during the past five years.
  The Liberal Democrats are asking the House to believe that the extra money that we have provided for the national health service will not go as far as the smaller sum that the Tories provided. That may make statistical sense to a statistician, but it makes none to a human being.
  The Liberal Democrats are comparing the Tories' November 1996 Budget, using the 2 per cent. gross domestic product deflator, with our July 1997 Budget, using the honest 2.75 per cent. GDP deflator. They are therefore not comparing like with like, but are giving the Tory Budget the benefit of 2 per cent. deflation and judging us against 2.75 per cent. They must apply one deflator or the other.
  Let me explain. To meet the cost of the Tory Government's plan in 1998–99, taking account of the new, higher, honest deflator would have cost £258 million. That amounts to just 14 per cent. of our planned increase of £1.8 billion for the national health service next year. In July, Labour's Budget gave the NHS in England £1 billion extra, an increase of 2.35 per cent. in real terms using the tougher deflator of 2.75 per cent. The Tories' November Budget allocated £33.5 billion for 1998–99 at 1996–97 prices. Now the health budget will be almost £34.5 billion, an increase of £1 billion.

  31
  To put it another way, if we had applied the Tories' 2 per cent. deflator, that would have resulted in an increase of just 0.25 per cent. next year. Applying the 2 per cent. deflator to our plans would have resulted in a 3 per cent. increase next year. Applying the realistic deflator of 2.7 per cent. to the Tories' plans would have resulted next year in a cut of 0.5 per cent., and applying a more realistic deflator to our plans produces a genuine real-terms increase of 2.35 per cent. That is what is happening, and it will be real money. It will go to real doctors, nurses and hospitals, and will bring real benefits.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that, even if the Secretary of State does not. Let me put two simple questions to him. First, should the Government be working on the inflation figure of 2.8 per cent.? If so, why do they not make up for inflation? Secondly, does the Secretary of State accept the Library figures, which show that next year's total spend—allocations and current—on the health service in England will result in the lowest real growth for five years?
  Mr. Dobson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is no. On his first question, we shall spend more next year than the Tories intended to spend—a substantial real-terms increase of 2.35 per cent. I should have thought that Liberal Democrat Members would have noticed that their constituents have done well from the Labour Government's spending decisions on the health service. They should know that, because I generously sent details to hon. Members from all parties.
  To help with the winter pressures, areas with Liberal Democrat Members will receive an extra £42 million, which is nearly a million quid a constituency. This year, those areas are receiving an extra £2.25 million for breast cancer and an extra £1.5 million for children's intensive care. I have checked and found that that is more than their entitlement on the basis of the number of Liberal Democrats in the House. They are not getting proportional representation—they are getting more than they are entitled to. Next year, under our plans, Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament will be getting an extra £257 million for their areas. If they do not think that that is real, and if they do not want it, I am sure that there are dozens of hon. Members representing other constituencies who would be more than willing to take it.
  Let me give so me individual examples. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will get an extra £3.9 million this winter, £235,000 extra for breast cancer, £700,000 extra for children's intensive care, and next year £19.8 million extra. He ought to be grateful, but he shows no sign of it. The other leading health spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), is getting £3.3 million extra for this winter, £112,000 for breast cancer, £275,000 for children's intensive care, and £11 million extra next year.
  Dr. Evan Harrisrose—
  Mr. Dobson: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman saying thank you.
  Dr. Harris: May I bring the Secretary of State back to his early pledge on waiting lists, which is what the people
  32
  in Oxford, West and Abingdon, who are now waiting up to 15 months for hip operations, want to know about? They are even less interested in the Secretary of State's figures than are we on the Liberal Democrat Benches. When will the Government implement their early pledge to reduce waiting lists by 100,000 as a first step? The answer had better not be, "In five years." That is not early action, and it is not a first step.
  Mr. Dobson: I shall deal with waiting lists in a moment.
  It is perhaps unfair, on a Liberal Democrat motion, to compare our funding with the previous Government's. After all, it is not a Conservative motion. The Liberal Democrats have put forward their own proposals. They said that they would add £250 million to the £300 million that we put in this year—presumably, the £250 million coming from them would be real, whereas ours was unreal—which would make £550 million. Then they said that they would put in another £550 million next year. That totals £1.1 billion, which the Liberal Democrats say they would put in over a two—year period. We are putting in £1.5 billion, so they are actually proposing a reduction on our spending plans.
  The Liberal Democrats are very good at local campaigns, and they have been campaigning in Cornwall, for instance. The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority has proposed closing four cottage hospitals. The Liberal Democrats told the people of Cornwall that that was because the Labour Government were underfunding the health service in Cornwall. That is not true. The chief executive of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority admitted on television that he would try to close those four cottage hospitals, no matter how much money was available.
  Mr. Andrew George rose—
  Ms Candy Atherton rose—
  Mr. Dobson: It is not a shortage of funds that threatens those cottage hospitals, but I do not suppose that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) will apologise to the people of Cornwall—that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton)—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State. Hon. Members seeking to catch the eye of the hon. Member who is speaking must establish whether they are going to be allowed to come in. If they are not, they must sit down.
  Mr. Dobson: The Liberal Democrats should apologise for their misleading campaign.
  In response to representations that we have received from people all over the country, we have added a new factor to be taken into account in the allocation of funds, to allow for the special problems of rural areas. That will help Cornwall, among others. In the coming year, Cornwall will get an extra £10 million from the Labour Government. That is in the allocations for next year. It is

  33
  not some theory—we are getting on with it, but I suppose that it is too much to expect the Liberal Democrats to get up and thank us.
  Ms Atherton rose—
  Mr. Andy King rose—
  Mr. Andrew George rose—
  Mr. Dobson: I give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to whom he is giving way?
  Mr. Dobson: I give way to the hon. Member for St. Ives.
  Mr. George: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Has his Department asked the chief executive of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority whether his alleged words—that he would close those services anyway—were true? In a conversation with me today, he denied that he made that statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority is facing a year-on-year cut of £5 million, which will result in the biggest cuts in the health service that Cornwall has experienced since the inception of the NHS? Does he agree that that is not acceptable, especially in an area that has suffered enough?
  Mr. Dobson: Apparently we are now talking about unreal words. I have seen the transcript of the chief executive's comments to Westcountry Television, and he said that he would close the hospitals even if he had enough money to keep them open—or words to that effect. If he did not mean that, Lord knows what he meant to say—but one never knows.
  Ms Atherton: I inform my right hon. Friend that, at a meeting with Liberal Democrat Members from Cornwall, the chief executive and the chairman reiterated that they would close the hospitals, regardless of funding. There is much concern about those issues in Cornwall. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a Conservative Government would have allocated only £4 million extra to Cornwall next year, while the new Labour Government will allocate more than £10 million?
  Mr. Dobson: I can give my hon. Friend that confirmation. On top of what we have provided by way of extra revenue, we have set in train a large hospital building programme. Some 15 hospitals are promised under the private finance initiative. Work started at Dartford a few weeks ago and—if you will excuse the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the first sod was turned today for the hospital in Carlisle. Schemes are expected to proceed in south Manchester, Hereford, Bromley, Swindon, Worcester, Norfolk and Norwich, Halifax, Durham, Bishop Auckland, Greenwich, south Tees, Wellhouse in Barnet and in south Buckinghamshire. In addition, within the past two weeks we announced two new hospitals in Sheffield and in Reading. However, apparently they do not count: they are not new hospitals, but a figment of the imagination.
  Mr. Andy King: I am amazed by some of the comments from Liberal Democrat Members: they clearly
  34
  do not speak to hospital staff in their constituencies. Staff have thanked me for the extra allocation to the health service. They have said, "Thank you for helping us this winter. This is the first time in our memory that there has been proper planning for a winter crisis before it happens instead of everyone running around like headless chickens after the event."
  I thank my right hon. Friend for the £1.47 million that Warwickshire health authority will receive this winter. I thank him also for next year's allocation. It is not just a matter of one-off payments: we must sustain our support. A Conservative Government would have given £3.7 million extra next year, but this Government will allocate £8.6 million extra in order to enhance—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, he should relate it to his right hon. Friend. He should not make a speech that he hopes to deliver later in the debate.
  Mr. Dobson: In order to save time, I shall not comment at length on my hon. Friend's excellent and accurate intervention.
  Mrs. Mahon: As my right hon. Friend has said, Halifax is to get a new hospital after 30 years—thanks to this Government. Is he aware that local Liberal Democrats—there are no Liberal Democrats on Halifax council, just a defector from the Tories—have opposed the new hospital root and branch, even though they know that it is in the health interests of the people of Calderdale, Halifax and Calder valley? Those people need that new hospital, but the Liberal Democrats have fought it tooth and nail.
  Mr. Dobson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's efforts in that area over the years. She has been joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) in her attempts to ensure that a new hospital, which is desperately needed, is built in Halifax. No hospital was forthcoming, except under the private finance initiative. It is perfectly legitimate for the Liberal Democrats to express doubts about the PFI—which will raise £1.3 billion for hospital building programmes—but it is also legitimate for me to ask: where would the Liberal Democrats get that £1.3 billion to pay for those hospitals?
  Mr. Richard Allan rose—
  Mr. Dobson: I give way to the hon. Gentleman with the beard.
  Mr. Allan: I am glad to see that some of us still uphold these venerable traditions.
  I should like to record my thanks on behalf of the people of Sheffield for the proposal for a women's hospital in Sheffield and for getting on with it. The Government have taken great steps to sort out some of the mess caused by the previous Government's dallying over the PFI, but our gratitude for the capital investment in the proposed Sheffield hospital does not detract from our principal argument about year-on-year revenue funding of the NHS.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman rather spoiled his intervention towards the end.

  35
  We have introduced measures to end two-tierism, with its unfairness and inequality. We have started to tackle the problem of assaults on staff. We have switched money from bureaucracy to patient care. We have started to overhaul the breast and cervical cancer screening systems, which have scandalously let women down in some parts of the country. We have opened up the NHS appointments system to every elected Member of the House. We have opened up trust meetings to the public.
  We face major problems in the health service. The 1 million people who work so hard in it day in, day out every hour of the working day face problems. We have inherited waiting lists—the highest ever, rising faster than ever before. As I have said, waiting lists are rather like a supertanker. It will take time to slow them down, to stop them, to turn them round, but turn them round we will. Tomorrow I shall announce further measures to tackle waiting lists. They will include a task force in each national health service region to target attention on hospitals with special problems, trying to bring the worst performers up to the standard of the best by getting the best people to give them the best advice. Those measures will draw on local experience and will depend on the expertise and enthusiasm of local professionals. I believe that we shall manage that.
  As well as getting on with the practical job of turning round the waiting lists, the regional task forces will provide solid information on which to base sound and achievable targets for future reductions, and those reductions will come about.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I do not know whether the Secretary of State recalls—I certainly do—that, during the general election campaign, Labour opponents such as mine had five little cards, which they kept next to their heart. One said, "Cut waiting lists". It was an absolute pledge. I saw mugs with various pledges on them on sale at the Labour party conference, and "Cut waiting lists" had been replaced by "Treat more patients".
  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is straight out of a scene from "Nineteen Eighty-Four"? This is a pledge that the Labour party clearly could not make, but instead of honestly admitting it, it is now trying to change history.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman must be a mug if he is going round trying to find out what is written on mugs at Labour party conferences. The fact is that we promised that we will cut waiting lists, and we will.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dobson: Not any more.
  All the measures that I have talked about deal with problems that we inherited. We inherited the problem of winter pressures. We are addressing that. The Under—Secretary of State for Health has been going round the country, ensuring that social service departments and the national health service work together this winter, getting down the Berlin wall between the two services to ensure that people are properly dealt with.
  36
  As a result of the very hard work of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), we shall shortly publish our White Paper on the new national health service, spelling out what we are doing—not just to end the unfairness and bureaucracy of the competitive system so stupidly introduced by the Conservatives. We shall go much further than that. We are committed to raising the quality, reliability and fairness of the national health service; spreading best practice, clinical and managerial, in partnership with the staff, who are dedicated to quality, reliability and fairness. We shall ensure, with their help and in partnership with them, that we enter the new century with a modern and dependable health service that will provide the best services for all, that is the best for all. We shall ensure quality and equality. That is the basis on which the Labour party founded the national health service, and it is the basis on which we shall renew it.
  Mr. Norman Baker: While we are talking about the origins of the NHS, I should just like to mention that Beveridge was a Liberal.
  The Secretary of State has spoken about his inheritance from the Conservatives—the mess in which they left the national health service—and the fact that the NHS is in crisis. We agree about that, so, in those circumstances, why has he decided that the budget that the Conservatives left is suitable for the new Government? The spending targets that have been identified by the Chancellor are those which the Conservatives put in place before the election. Given the crisis in the national health service, why has it been deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State and the Government to keep to the previous Government's budget levels?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I try to regularise matters? First, that intervention was far too long and, secondly, the Secretary of State surprised the hon. Gentleman and surprised the Chair by finishing and sitting down, but perhaps he might care to respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Dobson: I would do anything to help whoever is in the Chair—I may be dependent on your good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at some time in the future. —
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) made the same point, admittedly more briefly and cogently, as his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and I offer the same reply. We have found £300 million extra for this winter and £1.2 billion extra for next winter. That is not what the Tories were going to spend—it is an awful lot more.
  4.31 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: The speech of the Secretary of State was such fun.
  Two weeks ago, I took part in a television debate with the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, whom I am pleased to see in his place this afternoon. He invited the audience to take note of the influence that his party has had on the Labour Government since 1 May. It therefore comes as no surprise that, having formed an alliance with the Labour Government, marked by the announcement on 23 July this year of the formation of a joint Cabinet Committee, Liberal Democrats in Parliament are rightly seeking influence with the Government.

  37
  Last year, on "Breakfast with Frost", the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), when asked whether his party would join a formal coalition, said:
  "Of course. If the mathematics said that, if the policies were agreed between us, if they were putting into practice the things that we believe in, that's a possibility."
  Of course, they have done just that. Yesterday—
  Mr. Bob Russell: Where is my card?
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman has just heard about the pay-off from the Secretary of State, who spoke about how many of his hon. Friends are mentioned in dispatches and receiving preferential treatment in the health service.
  Mr. John Burnett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I will give way in a moment.
  Yesterday the leader of the Liberal Democrats appeared again on "Breakfast with Frost", as he does quite regularly, and was asked specifically about his coalition with the Labour Government. This time, the right hon. Gentleman peered into the middle distance, squinted his eyes and quoted from Kipling. One was reminded immediately of another line from Kipling which advises:
  "don't look too good, nor talk too wise"
  Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman did not look too good because of the obvious embarrassment that he and his party now feel about the close coalition in which they are linked and because they must now answer for their judgment in joining it.
  Given that the Prime Minister was forced to go in front of the television cameras yesterday lunchtime to explain the actions of his Government, and given the saga that has unfolded in the past 10 days, the Liberal Democrats must be getting a little uncomfortable about having joined a coalition with the Labour Government. Despite the impassioned pleas and the representations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), this debate is not about public services, health, education and social services: it is an attempt by Liberal Democrats to put distance between their party and the Labour party now that the Labour honeymoon is clearly over. The union between those two parties is now well and truly consummated, for better or worse, and the Liberal Democrats are stuck with it. That is what has prompted this debate.
  Mr. Burnett: May I take the hon. Lady back three or four minutes—before the consummation? Does not part of her constituency fall within the North and East Devon health authority, as does my constituency?
  Mrs. Browning: Yes, of course it does. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a point to make, although he is being somewhat obtuse about it. I shall touch on health matters in the North and East Devon area in a moment.
  Let us examine the motion. I shall come to health later, but first I will deal with education. The Liberal Democrats and Labour are natural bedfellows on the subject of education: a consummation "Devoutly to be wish'd", as Shakespeare said. One of the first measures that the
  38
  Labour Government introduced after 1 May was the abolition of the assisted places scheme—a policy to which the Liberal Democrats had been pledged for a long time. That was done on the bogus assumption that class sizes would be reduced as a result. Given the Government's lack of preparation prior to being elected, it is clear that they are unlikely to achieve anything like a result in reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds by abolishing the assisted places scheme—a vindicative little policy affecting the least well-off families.
  Mr. Andy King: We like it.
  Mrs. Browning: That is fine. Of course Labour Members like it: they have to like it, and they would not say anything other than that they like it. It should be a matter of some concern to Liberal Democrat Members who represent rural constituencies, however, that it is clear from the responses given at the Dispatch Box by the Minister for School Standards that the Government have not yet worked out how they will deliver the reduction in rural areas. They will have either to fill up empty places in other schools away from the area of choice and away from where it is convenient for infant children to be transported, especially first thing in the morning, or to increase the number of children in primary school classes above the age of eight. The policy will not work, but there is little difference between the Liberal Democrats and Labour.
  The Liberal Democrats and Labour are also bedfellows on the abolition of grant-maintained schools—or the supposed abolition: we have noted the wording carefully. Liberal Democrats have long opposed and campaigned against grant-maintained schools and it does not worry them that substantial changes to the financing of grant-maintained schools in the future—which is how their demise will be overseen—will have an effect on teachers' jobs in those schools. A Liberal Democrat chair of education recently wrote to The Times Educational Supplement saying that teachers' jobs in grant-maintained schools would go, but that that was a price that he was prepared to pay.
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Lady is absolutely right in saying that Liberal Democrats are opposed to grant-maintained status and concerned that the Labour party is not intending to abolish grant-maintained schools totally. Does she admit that under the Conservative Government grant-maintained schools received additional money, over and above that received by local education authority schools? That is the implication of what she has just said.
  Mrs. Browning: What the grant-maintained schools were given was the opportunity to manage their own budget rather than county hall managing it for them.
  I noted the hon. Gentleman's not surprising implication that he shares the Labour Government's view. He need not be too disappointed, however. The Labour Government may not say in so many words that they intend to abolish grant-maintained schools—it would be difficult for them to do that because too many of their children already attend such schools—but they will change the funding formula so that the schools will no longer have the flexibility to manage such a high proportion of their budget. That will, in effect, bring about

  39
  the demise of grant-maintained schools. So the hon. Gentleman need not be too worried: his coalition partners across the Chamber will not let him down in the end. He need not waste too much time over that pledge, for they will undoubtedly fulfil it.
  The same applies to grammar schools. Liberal Democrats who are present this afternoon have grammar schools in their constituencies. They must surely know that the parents of children who go to those schools choose to send them there and want the schools to continue. I am looking at the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) because I know that he has an interest in the matter. Liberal Democrats will have to explain to their constituents—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she should be looking at the Chair.
  Mrs. Browning: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman wore such an engaging smile that I was momentarily distracted.
  As for policies affecting older children, we have seen that the Labour Government intend to introduce tuition fees, thus depriving children from less well-off families of a university education. The Liberal Democrats say that they oppose that. This will be a marvellous test for them to demonstrate clearly the influence that they have around the Cabinet table. In some ways, we Conservatives look to them to exercise that influence, and to show us just how much influence they will bring to bear on behalf of young people seeking higher education.
  It has already been said this afternoon that the Liberal Democrats went into the general election with a policy that they have had for some time—to put a penny in the pound on income tax specifically to fund education. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has demonstrated today that raising money through taxation for hypothecated purposes is still a fundamental Liberal Democrat policy. On Tuesday 23 September, The Times stated—in an article by its chief political correspondent, reporting on the Liberal Democrat party conference in Eastbourne—
  "The Liberal Democrats are preparing to drop their flagship policy of raising income tax by a penny to boost education spending. The change is seen as an attempt to bring policy in line with Labour's."
  We should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey would refute that.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Our position has always been clear. We are talking about the money that is needed to fund the education service. We estimated that it needed at least £2 billion, which is approximately the amount that would be raised by an extra penny in revenue—by putting a penny in the pound on the basic income tax rate. That is the amount that we committed at the last election. If in a year's time we find that we do not need to raise the amount through income tax, we will assess the position and give our answer in a costed budget next year as we did this year.
  Mrs. Browning: Having seen quite a lot of Liberal Democrat literature at the last general election, and having
  40
  read some of the famous "Focus" leaflets that have already been mentioned, I cannot honestly say that for the general public the clarity of that policy is as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. As his party prides itself on integrity and so forth, when the general public are told, "Just another penny on income tax"—usually the slogan is not even "a penny in the pound" but "Just a penny on income tax", which will apparently cover all that the party claims that it will provide for education—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be a little more honest and explain, as he has today, that this is a moveable feast.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Who wrote this?
  Mrs. Browning: I wrote it all myself. Hon. Members should not worry about that.
  It is not very honest for the Liberal Democrats to pose—as they have today—as an independent party seeking to distance itself from its coalition partners across the Chamber. They have responsibility, and we see that responsibility in practice in the council chamber. Increasingly, we see that Liberal Democrat councils cost people more. There is no mention of caveats such as that given today by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the need to raise taxation being dependent on an annual budget. Raising taxes at local government level is the Liberal Democrats' stock in trade.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Has the hon. Lady not realised that when the Labour Government introduce Liberal Democrat policies we support them, and that when they do not we oppose them? That is surely the responsible position of a constructive Opposition party.
  Mrs. Browning: Given the power that the Liberal Democrats now have at the Cabinet table, they have every opportunity to ensure that the subjects that we are debating today are put on the agenda for the next Cabinet meeting that they attend. We shall be interested to learn what progress is made. The Liberal Democrats are not bound by collective Cabinet responsibility, but the right hon. Member for Yeovil and four of his colleagues sit around the Cabinet table with Labour. I take it from the intervention of the hon. Member for Torbay that we can expect health, education, social services and local government expenditure to be part of the programme of issues that the Liberal Democrats consider important, and on which they can influence their Labour Cabinet colleagues.
  In 1996–97, Liberal Democrat-controlled councils charged nearly 30 per cent. more on average in council tax than Conservative-controlled councils. For a band D home, that meant £139 more tax than under the average Conservative council—more than £2.50 a week. The slavish policy whereby they say, "Yes, tax more, tax more for local services," would be a little more intellectually justifiable if in areas controlled by Liberal Democrats and with increased taxes the provision of services was better than, or even comparable with, that of Conservative councils. Up and down the country, however—in Essex, Kent, Waltham Forest, Cambridge, Mid-Suffolk, the Vale of White Horse, Windsor and Maidenhead—Conservative councils have proposed alternative budgets.
  My constituency contains two district councils, East Devon and Mid-Devon. Mid-Devon, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, imposes higher taxes and

  41
  provides less good services for those who live in my patch. By their actions the Liberal Democrats can be judged. Increasingly, we find that theirs is simply a knee-jerk reaction: they are constantly wringing their hands and constantly begging for more money; yet when they have the authority, the way in which they use the money can be called into question.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: If Liberal Democrat councils are so inefficient and think that the solution to every problem is to raise taxes, why are the Liberal Democrats running so many more councils than the Conservative party, and why has the Conservative approach to local government been in retreat in the United Kingdom for the past 10 years?
  Mrs. Browning: That is not what we have found recently. We have found that in local government by-elections Conservatives are winning seats. Council seats that Liberal Democrats considered safe are either being lost or being run extremely close.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman will find, now that he is in coalition with Labour, that where there is a partnership between Labour and Liberal Democrats—as well as where the Liberal Democrats control a council themselves—they must expect more disappointments in the future. I hope that the salvation for people will be that in local government by-elections the trend will increase—as it has since 1 May—for Liberal Democrat councillors to be rejected in favour of Conservatives.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Lady talked about an average among Conservative authorities. As there was only one Conservative local education authority last year, it is not difficult to find an average. Does she agree that when local education authorities such as mine in Somerset wanted to spend more, and to put it into education to produce decent services for our people, we were told no by the Conservative Government and we have been told no by the Labour Government?
  Mrs. Browning: Those at the Cabinet table will just have to try harder.
  Mr. Bercow: Did my hon. Friend notice the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) flailing in a pitiful fashion when challenged on the subject of Hampshire education finance? He could not deny that £2.8 million more is being spent under a Conservative-controlled county council than was spent when his party was in office. Would it not be good if the Liberal Democrat party were capable of practising partnership politics within its own ranks?
  Mrs. Browning: Indeed—and that brings me to the subject of health. The Liberal Democrats want to apply the same expertise to health care as they do in county halls. It is Liberal Democrat policy to put more councillors in control of health authorities—a policy which, on analysis, they have stated is barmy. It fills me with horror that the way in which bureaucracy and
  42
  mismanagement lend themselves to Liberal Democrat thinking at county hall should become the way in which our health authorities and health trusts are run.
  Dr. Peter Brand: Is it the hon. Lady's experience in May that makes her so distrustful of the democratic process? Should there not be some democratic accountability at local level in the health service?
  Mrs. Browning: There are many ways in which local people can make their views known on health matters—for instance, through community health councils. The wider consultation conducted by trusts, with public meetings, is right and proper—local people should have input in that way. However, if the Liberal Democrats' only health policy is that they want more money, as they do in local government—without defining how they would use the extra money or minimise bureaucracy—more money will go simply into administration and less will go in at the sharp end.
  Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have an opportunity to expand on his thesis later.
  We have already heard that there is anxiety about the way in which the Labour Government are managing the health service. Many of us share that concern. I listened with interest to the point that even the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey conceded: in real terms—I re-emphasise that—the present Government are not spending what the Conservative Government spent or pledged to spend. Indeed, during our tenure in office we not only increased health service spending in real terms but pledged, again at the last general election, to continue to increase spending in real terms.
  That is what has caught the Secretary of State off balance because since 1 May inflation has increased—the interest rate rises from the Bank of England are testimony to that. Figures are bandied about by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but I repeat to him: it is spending in real terms that matters to patients, because that is what provides additional treatment and underpins existing provision. Where there is a shortfall, as there is this year because of inflation—the figures for next year do not look too encouraging either—it is incumbent on the Secretary of State, if he is to claim that the health service is safe in his hands, to increase funding in real terms.
  Mr. Blizzard: Is the hon. Lady aware that this year, North and East Devon health authority has already had £157,000 extra to treat breast cancer, is receiving £1.8 million more to see it through the winter and will receive nearly £9 million more next year, which is £5 million more than was provided for in the Conservative budget?
  Mrs. Browning: I am fully appraised of the position in North and East Devon health authority because on Friday I attended a one-day conference in which it participated and where the whole region was discussed, not just that part appertaining to my constituency. The Secretary of

  43
  State washes his hands of community hospitals. It is all very well for the Government to say, "We will take the credit and thank you very much when a new one is built, but we do not think that it is our responsibility when one is closed," but that is not responsible government. In my constituency, the community hospitals help to alleviate peak demand in winter when elderly bronchitic patients often need to leave the general hospital and go into their community hospital.
  Mr. Blizzard: Is the hon. Lady not grateful for the money?
  Mrs. Browning: The hospitals in my constituency are not under threat, but hospitals in other parts of the health region are. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that that has nothing to do with him. If under the health service budget community hospitals in the south-west are being threatened, and no doubt other Members will make their case for their constituents, no one in the south-west will view that as an improvement in health care under this Government.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Lady withhold her judgment of my views of what is happening in Devon and Cornwall until any proposals for hospital closures come to me? After all, the propositions which will eventually have to come to me are being made by the trust and health authority boards, which were appointed by the previous Government.
  Mrs. Browning: I am encouraged by that comment as it seems to show that, whatever the decision of the health authority in the west country, the Secretary of State, who has the final say, will take a sympathetic view. I simply thank the Secretary of State if he is tonight pre-empting the health authority's decision. We shall all be grateful, but that was not what he indicated when he mentioned community hospitals in the south-west earlier.
  Mr. Dobson: I am sorry to interrupt for the second time. The point that I made was that the threat to close the four community hospitals in Cornwall apparently sprang not from any shortage of funds but from the plans of the health authority and trust boards, which were appointed by the previous Government. The boards apparently want to close the hospitals, whether the money is available or not.
  Mrs. Browning: If the Secretary of State is saying that the future of those hospitals is secured, I repeat that Conservative Members will support that. I assume that Liberal Democrat Members whose constituents are personally affected by the matter will make their representations during the debate, but this is not satisfactory when we are given figures about impending problems during the winter months and when we know that community hospitals can help to alleviate those problems, among others.
  We know from their track record in local government, at both county and district levels, that Labour and Liberal Democrats do not disagree with one another about much, so this debate is somewhat bogus. The Liberal Democrats have taken fright that somehow they might be seen out there—perception is all these days in politics—to be too closely aligned with the Labour Government and their
  44
  difficulties. However, it bears recalling that since 1 May young parents can forget about having a choice for their children in schools because both the Liberal Democrats and Labour agree that parents should be denied that choice. A young person who wishes to go to university should try to be born Scottish or German as it will cost less than being from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Above all, young persons should try to be born to well-off families; then they will not have to pay so much back.
  Elderly people should not bother to make provision for independent health care because people who had independent health care can now simply join the longer waiting lists for knee, hip and cataract operations. The Labour Government, supported by the Liberal Democrats, have ensured that independent health care will not be an option for elderly people.
  People in receipt of disability benefit can wait for the knock on the door because the Government are having yet another review to see if that benefit should be taxed or even handed over to local authorities so that socialist Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors can decide on those people's behalf how the benefit is to be spent.
  Many Liberal Democrat authorities will want more money from ratepayers and from the Government. However, people should take heart and remember that that should not be a problem because the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties are now, to use their own words in the debate, in partnership.
  It is a sad tale when the most star-crossed party in history has to initiate such a debate. The debate is full of serious issues, but its sole purpose is for the benefit of the people of Beckenham and Winchester—two constituencies mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
  Mr. Willis: I will mention them again.
  Mrs. Browning: I shall also mention them again to maintain the status quo. The Liberal Democrats have taken fright that the electorates in Winchester and Beckenham will be worried about the coalition from which the Liberal Democrats cannot extricate themselves and in which they have little influence on issues that matter to people. That is what has motivated the debate.
  Liberal Democrat romantic dreams, from the Lib-Lab pact of the 1970s to the flirtation with the gang of four and the liaisons dangereuses with Dr. Owen and the SDP, always end in tears. Just when Liberal Democrats thought that Mr. Right had come along they suddenly found that they had thrown in their lot with a Prime Minister and a party who are likely to let them down. If education, health and welfare mean anything to them, they should bring those subjects up at the next Cabinet Committee meeting. We look for a pledge from them that the subjects that they have raised in the debate will be on the agenda for that meeting.
  At his party conference in September, the right hon. Member for Yeovil said:
  "Yes, sometimes it is easier to shout than to talk: to trade insults than to shake hands: to confront than to converse. But if we are to make a new start in Britain, we must tread the more difficult path. If the Prime Minister is serious, as I believe he is, about changing the culture of politics, I will work with him on that. Because that is the way we can make a difference, just as we said we would."
  We await that difference with bated breath.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: I rise to defend the Labour Government and to congratulate them on what they have achieved in their first few months. We do not live in the Shangri-la that has been described by the Liberal Democrats, in which we can spend two, three, four or five times an amount of money. They want to bid it up and spend a few hundred million here and there. The Government live in the real world and they are determined to create priorities.
  We were elected because we said to people that we would deliver on our promises. That is in contrast to the Conservative Government, who undermined and attacked public services to the extent that people decided that they had had enough. Those who oppose the Government propound the myth that they are doing nothing to extend and deliver public services. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats are trying to perpetuate that myth. Instead of discussing what could or may happen, let us look at some of what the Government have done in their first few months. That will dispel the myth.
  Yes, we accepted the Tory spending plans for the first two years. That is because they give us the structure and the tightness that are needed for a proper economic structure. In the Government's first few months, £3.5 billion has been put into the welfare-to-work programme to put young people and those who have been unemployed for a long time back to work. That will give them hope and opportunity and enable them to have fulfilling lives. Liberal Democrats voted against the windfall tax which provided that £3.5 billion.
  We are told that the Labour Government have done nothing about education. In their first few months, £2.3 billion of additional money is going to education. Teachers and head teachers say that that is not enough and I and everybody else agree, but people also say, "It is nice to know that the Government are starting to address the problems of underfunding that have existed for years." The Opposition say that that money could be doubled, that education could be given £5 billion or £6 billion, but that is not the real world. We have delivered an additional amount that will provide more books and more teachers and will help to reduce class sizes. That is the real world and teachers and head teachers appreciate that.
  We have put more money into improving school buildings over the life of the Parliament. We shall hear the cry, with which I agree, that that is not enough, but I am proud to be part of a Government who have started to help kids who still use outside toilets and sit in classrooms with leaking roofs. This year, six months after a Labour Government took power, and following years of neglect, two schools in my constituency are carrying out roof repairs and replacing temporary classrooms. That is not all. Next year, the authority in Nottingham and others hope to spend additional money on school buildings, and every hon. Member will be able to bid for some of that for his constituency. Of course it is not enough, but we are starting to address the problem of 18 years of neglect.
  We are told that an additional £300 million for the health service is not enough. I have spoken to the chairman of Nottingham health authority and to the chairmen of other health authorities and to doctors and nurses in the health service. They are pleased that the Government are supplying an additional £300 million this winter because it will help them to tackle some problems.
  46
  Of course it is not enough, but it is a start. As we live in the real world, we cannot promise everything to everybody. The Liberal Democrats have told us that that is not real money, but people in Nottingham health authority are delighted to have £2.3 million because it will enable them to start to tackle bed blocking, a problem that faces all trusts and hospitals. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, if we can begin to break down the Berlin wall between health authorities and social services departments, we shall start to move on.
  Not only this winter but next year the Government will put extra money into health authorities. The Secretary of State has been in office for only six months and has provided an additional £1 billion to be spent next year. For my health authority in Nottingham, that will mean an extra £14.2 million. People are pleased about that because it will improve the quality of care and patient provision.
  A few weeks ago, I visited the breast cancer unit at Nottingham city hospital. It is one of the finest units in the country. Because of the reforms introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the unit has now received £145,000 in additional funding—which has enabled it to reduce waiting times from three to two weeks. That unit and its patients are not complaining about the Government neglecting public services; they are pleased that the Government are trying to deal with the problems. Of course the unit still has problems with accommodation and other provision. Of course it needs more money. However, I am sure that, when the resources are available, that money will be provided.
  My last point, which is crucial, is that my right hon. Friend has announced more than £1 billion for new hospital buildings, and he listed the hospitals that will be built. The Liberal Democrats say that they do not want that because it was private money. My constituents want new hospitals and they do not care whether the funding is private or public, provided that it is all part of the national health service and there is access for all. Within six months of the election, my right hon. Friend has managed to unblock funds and release £1 billion for the hospital building programme, yet the Liberal Democrats say that the Government do not care about public services.
  One point that has not been mentioned is the Government's decision to allow councils to use capital receipts to provide housing in their areas. That will help to restore the social fabric of the country. In my constituency, which includes most of Gedling borough, that means that £600,000 can be spent on new windows, insulation, repairs and other improvements. Is that the action of a Government who do not care about public services?
  The Government have put billions of pounds of additional money into supporting public services because they are determined to repair the damage done by 18 years of Tory government. Instead of making political points, the Liberal Democrats should join us in the real world and the real economy. They should help us in our attempts to improve public services for the benefit of everybody. Together, we can find even more money for schools, hospitals and a range of other public services. The Government will provide additional public services, but within the context of the real world in which we live.
  5.12 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Conservative party does not need to spend too long debating the question of funding because, under

  47
  successive Tory Governments, resources for the health service rose from £7.5 billion to £34.5 billion. That is a substantial increase.
  It is disappointing that, so far in the debate, there has been a lack of serious consideration of how to manage public services, make them more accountable, achieve value for money, and get the traditional staff in schools and hospitals to work more flexibly to provide better education and better health care.
  As it happens, the Conservative Government spent rather more than other countries on our education service, although we do not yet have the standards that we want. The Conservative Government increased by one percentage point the amount of gross domestic product spent on health, at a time when virtually every other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country was reducing its percentage of GDP.
  Dr. Brand: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Conservative Government's GDP expenditure on health still made Britain second from the bottom in the western world?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman—whom I know extremely well—is aware that the figures are not clear because we do not know whether the table takes into account Government spending on health, private sector spending on health or the link with social services and the care of the elderly. His party's debate is about the volume of resources—Liberal Democrats are not interested in anything else. They have effectively demolished the Government's position. I do not need to do that because I do not want to deal only with the volume of resources. I entirely endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Unfortunately, I live in an area where there is a Liberal Democrat council which has raised council tax by 30 per cent. more than the average under the Conservatives. It is spending money on empire building, locality offices and, in particular, consultants' reports when all else fails.
  I want to talk about the more serious issues surrounding public services. If the Government cannot take a more serious long-term attitude to public services in their first year of government, it bodes ill for the future. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the national health service, and as we want to increase participation and achievement in education, we must address the serious issues. I take great pride in the role of the citizens charter in making public services more accountable, in providing more information and in making services more sensitive to their users. I worked in the public sector before I entered Parliament, so I know only too well how remote, monolithic and municipal were housing, health and education services in the past. My memory of the Lib-Lab pact is that it was the only time ever that real spending on the health service was cut, so the present regime offers little hope or encouragement.
  I enjoy seeing the Secretary of State in his role, especially when he cites Department of Health statistics. I used to be a past master at citing statistics, until I was told that, the more statistics I cited, the less people
  48
  believed me. That was disappointing for me, as a social scientist, who had always been told that we had to supply the hard evidence and that comment was not good enough. I congratulate those who have drawn up examples of new hospitals and developments in health care. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the questions that are important to millions of people across the country, especially those 1 million people in the NHS—
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does the right hon. Lady accept that one of the statistics that she might enjoy, but that others in the House would not, is that, when she left office, 97 out of 100 health authorities were running a deficit? Is there not a gap between what she says and what she practises?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's statistics as I was Secretary of State for National Heritage when I left office. However, I can tell him that, when I went to the Department of Health, 213,000 people had been on the waiting list for a year. When I left, there were only 30,000. When I went to the Department, the hours worked by junior doctors were very much longer than when I left. The number of deficits fell substantially during my six years at the Department. I can send the hon. Gentleman the figures if he would like them.
  I always felt that it was important to deliver a health service managed by objectives. I am concerned that the Secretary of State is already ducking and weaving and changing the objectives, which makes matters difficult for those in the NHS. He said that he would reduce hospital waiting lists, but already the words are being massaged. Like everybody else, I appreciate the additional money that is going to my health authority, but the right hon. Gentleman has created an appalling precedent. In every year until the next general election, the NHS will require its mid-year crisis intervention. I regret to say that the Secretary of State will recreate the old system—in which the more people howled, the more likely there was to be a mid-year bail out. That is not good for long-term health care planning.
  I should like to feel that the Secretary of State will take a serious view on priorities. I should like to feel that the objectives that he has set were not simply those fed back by focus groups but those that were necessary for health gains and the long-term well-being of patients and of the British people.
  I commend some announcements made by the Secretary of State. Today, I have decided—because, on every occasion on which I have asked him a question, he has subjected me to personal abuse and political invective—to try a different tactic. I will commend some of his actions, to see whether he might be lured into providing answers to some of the questions that I keep asking him.
  Mr. Andy King: She likes beards.
  Mrs. Bottomley: No, she does not like beards.
  I commend the way in which the Secretary of State has continued with prevention. He will probably be aware that, when I introduced "The Health of the Nation" strategy, not every Conservative Member was particularly supportive of the preventive approach, which was thought to be a little nannying. Nevertheless, I think that it is right for the NHS to continue to take prevention seriously.

  49
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue also to give priority to mental health—an NHS sphere that is all too easily overlooked. He talks about the popular issues, such as breast cancer and paediatric care, but could he, please, also remember unfashionable health care issues—among which mental illness is perhaps the most important?
  I commend the right hon. Gentleman also for floating the idea of a national institute of clinical effectiveness. If we are to have an NHS of the 21st century, examining effectiveness will be enormously important. Effectiveness is at least as important as the volume of resources that are invested in the health service, and necessary health gains will be delivered only if money is spent wisely and well on effective treatments.
  I commend the right hon. Gentleman for having talked about being a good employer. He will know that the previous Government joined Opportunity 2000, issued new guidance for ethnic minorities in the NHS, and, in many ways, treated NHS staff well, so that they could better do their job. Such action is a fundamental part of his role, and I have been pleased to hear him making comments on the matter.
  I have not been so happy, however, about the right hon. Gentleman's persistent attack on what he calls NHS bureaucrats. Although the Secretary of State has softened his line, the Prime Minister, at last week's Prime Minister's Question Time—as on every occasion when the Prime Minister mentions the NHS—gratuitously attacked NHS managers.
  The NHS is a tribal organisation. Doctors have their agenda, nurses have their agenda and professions allied to medicine have their agenda. NHS managers, however, have the difficult task of bringing together the different tribes and of delivering objectives. It would be absolutely deplorable if the Secretary of State and, particularly, the Prime Minister were gratuitously to attack NHS managers on every occasion.
  In my new approach of being more emollient—in trying to get answers from the Secretary of State—I commend the Labour party and the Prime Minister for giving a life peerage to Philip Hunt. Philip Hunt, of the national health service confederation, is an outstanding example of an NHS manager. I hope that, in future, he will have great influence.
  Although—as I said—I should like to elicit a favourable response from the Secretary of State, it is difficult for me to address my comments in a positive frame of mind when dealing with the matter of the huge number of non-executives who have entered the NHS, adding their skills and leadership to health authorities or trusts. There is despair over the total shambles in the NHS appointments system. A vast number were due to— [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) like to say something?
  Mr. Andy King: I hope that we shall soon put right the matter of Tory placepeople, who are still in the health service, doing a great disservice to the health service.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Lady continues her speech, I should like to tell the
  50
  hon. Gentleman that he has now seen a demonstration of how easy it is to intervene properly, and not from a sedentary position.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has also intervened as I thought that he might. He might like to read Lord Nolan's report. Lord Nolan said that there was no evidence of widespread political appointments— [Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he was a member of a health authority or trust?
  Mr. King: I do wish that the right hon. Lady would come to Rugby, where I live, because it was rife with Tory placepeople. When the trust was established, every single person who was not a Tory placeperson was immediately dismissed from the trust—or proposed trust. The fiasco ended with the trust crumbling, just before the general election. The chairman, chief executive and everyone else resigned, because they had let the people down. The situation was totally unviable.
  Mrs. Bottomley rose—
  Mr. King: Shall I continue?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already heard my statements on the need for brevity in interventions on an hon. Member who has the Floor. The right hon. Lady has perhaps seen how awkward it can sometimes be to give way.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I have learned my lesson, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, however, I am trying a more emollient style, and I thought that it was only courteous to give way.
  I cannot comment on the example given by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth because I do not know of its veracity. I know what Lord Nolan said. He dismissed ideas that there were widespread political appointments, and he not only commended the changes that have been introduced but proposed changes to make the matter even more open.
  I can tell both the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and Liberal Democrat Members that people such as Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Dean, Baroness Neuberger and Baroness Thomas all served in NHS appointments. I do not know whether, under the previous Government, serving on the board of an NHS trust or health authority was a prerequisite to becoming a life peeress. It is extremely important, however, for the Secretary of State urgently to examine the matter of appointments.
  The Secretary of State will know that his predecessor, the late Lord Ennals, dismissed about 150 health authority leaders when he came to office. It would be a grave error and misjudgment if the Secretary of State were to behave in a similar manner.
  Currently, the despair is that nothing is known about appointments. It was said, for example, that anyone who used private health care would not be appointed to an NHS trust or authority. Labour Members are nodding and showing their approval of such statements. It makes one wonder why Greg Dyke was appointed as the guru of the patients charter. Although I greatly applaud Greg Dyke's activities in the media world, it seems as if the Labour party believes that a media guru is the answer to every

  51
  problem. The millennium company has been filled with media gurus, and Greg Dyke—excellent man though he is—has been put in charge of the patients charter. Labour Members have not said much about that appointment.
  I urge the Secretary of State to respond at the earliest opportunity to people's concerns over appointments.
  Mr. Dobson: Mr. Greg Dyke was appointed because the Government wanted someone to take a fresh look at the matter. Last week, he had a day-long meeting with people who work in the health service, people from community health councils and people who advise on producing better health service publications. So far as I know, all those who turned up—there were about 30 of them—thought that it was a most excellent start to Mr. Dyke's review. We need someone who takes a fresh look. We cannot keep going to the usual suspects, as the previous Government did.
  Mrs. Bottomley: If his job is to examine NHS communications and publications, I am sure that he will do a better job than Mr. Joe McCrea. Providing authoritative information for people in the NHS and for those using it is certainly a laudable goal, but it is not one in which the Secretary of State has given people much confidence so far. My point was that, if the use of private care was a disqualification, the Secretary of State must have had great difficulty with the man who was, presumably, imposed on him to take responsibility for the patients charter, excellent man though he is.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The right hon. Lady is in danger of straying from her new emollient style. That would be a tragedy because she was doing so well in praising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for a number of initiatives. Perhaps I might suggest a new emollient track for her. Will she apologise to the House for failing to open up NHS trust boards and for allowing some of the people she appointed to take decisions on NHS matters behind closed doors?
  Mrs. Bottomley: Whether NHS trusts should sit in public is a vexed and difficult question because confidential matters need to be debated privately by a small group of people. The danger of trust boards meeting in public is that such meetings could become artificial—controversial or ambiguous information is kept separately, and boards or authorities might have separate meetings to deal with it.
  Having said that, in many cases it will essentially be a matter of evolution. My personal view is that the NHS should be as open as possible, subject to the fact that patient material is confidential. Staff issues are often highly sensitive and confidential, too. I do not really take issue with the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on that matter, but I believe that public meetings may lead to a certain artificiality. There are other ways to communicate with the public, and communication should be the aim.
  Valerie Davey: Might I suggest that it is the financial aspects of health authority trusts that have been kept most secret? Indeed, it is the competitiveness between the trusts that has caused the difficulty. Surely
  52
  the right hon. Lady welcomes the fact that the two-tier system is going to be abolished under the new Labour Government and that that will bring the necessary openness. Such a move will bring to an end the secretiveness of the old trusts.
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is a great shame that neither the Secretary of State nor the Liberal Democrat spokesman dealt with precisely that issue. Many commentators have described GP fundholding as the real engine for change and innovation in the NHS. It is important that all GPs should have the opportunity to become fundholders, but the current worry is that the Secretary of State's soundbites give the impression of levelling down, just as with Labour's plans to get rid of assisted places in schools.
  One of the challenges in the public services has been to allow diversity and to allow people to improve, innovate and change. Fundholders who were able to spend their money more cautiously and then invest in various services found that there was a virtuous cycle of reward, instead of the vicious cycle of disincentives which was so pervasive in the past. We are all looking forward to hearing from the Secretary of State whether he is introducing change for change's sake in a service that has seen great improvements. Is he suggesting talking shops? There have been leaks in the press about the changes but, as is typical of the Labour party, the right hon. Gentleman does not inform the House. The press are informed first, and the House is told only in the fulness of time. We are all getting used to his doing business that way.
  Mr. Dobson: I deplore the leak of an early draft of our White Paper on the NHS, which is why I have ordered a full leak inquiry with the support of the head of the civil service. I hope that the log showing every telephone call made from the Department of Health will be examined in an effort to track down the people responsible. I believe that the House has a right to hear about things first—I believed that in opposition and I believe it now that we are in government.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, the Secretary of State has a very different way of doing business from No. 10, but I appreciate his point. Nevertheless, the House wishes to hear his thoughts. It is important to know whether there is simply going to be a talking shop with more layers of bureaucracy and consensus management whereby difficult decisions are never taken.
  It is clear that the challenges facing our education service, health service and other public services are linked not only to the volume of resources and the interests of those who work within them, important though they are. Those services have to go through further changes to deliver a better quality of care and research excellence and to meet the needs of an aging population with increasingly high expectations.
  So far, we have heard nothing from the Secretary of State, and certainly not from the Liberal Democrats, about how they are going to exercise stewardship of this great national service. Their irresponsibility in opposition in failing seriously to consider the underlying problems is well understood, but people working in the NHS and, indeed, people across the country are becoming extremely impatient waiting for decent answers and more thoughtful comments than we have heard today as to how the 50th

  53
  anniversary of the NHS is to be marked. They want to hear about levelling up, not levelling down, and they want courageous long-term decisions to be made.
  5.36 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I have some difficulty with this debate because in my experience there is a considerable gulf between the lectures that we have heard from the Liberal Democrats and what that party does when attempting to get into power and trying to run or gain power in local authorities.
  This afternoon, we have heard a panoply of sea-green rectitude and determination to spend more and raise more taxes to pay for public services. One might expect that approach to percolate down to the people running the Liberal Democrat campaigns across the country—we might expect those working in support of their party to be saying the same things, but, unfortunately, that is very far from being so.
  Let me take the House to the battlefront of the Winchester by-election. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats could not have failed to see the coincidence in having this debate today and the fact that the by-election is approaching. However, in case they had not noticed, I am happy to point out that coincidence. Their candidate, Mr. Mark Oaten, is allegedly fighting for local health services. A big notice on the front of his campaign headquarters in Winchester says just that. The "Focus" leaflets published on his behalf say, for example:
  "Give Winchester hospitals the V, million they need"
  to get them through this winter, and claim that the Government have failed to act.
  The Liberal Democrats always bid up any amount of money that is being suggested—we have seen an example of that this afternoon—so one might expect that the Government are providing perhaps £200,000, £300,000 or even £400,000 to get the health services in north and mid-Hampshire through the winter. The actual figure is £1.52 million—three times that which the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Winchester by-election claims is needed. Liberal Democrat literature contains not a word about what the Government are doing in terms of health care in this country.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that there are two issues here. I think that he understands that, but he must not misrepresent the issues. We are talking about the allocation announced two weeks ago for the health authorities, several of which cover Hampshire, and the separate budgets for the trusts. When I was in Winchester yesterday, I heard the chief executive of the trust say on television that the trust was £500,000 short this year. That was the chief executive—not a politician or party candidate.
  Dr. Whitehead: The words I mentioned were:
  "Give Winchester hospitals the £½ million they need"
  to avoid a crisis this winter. That was written in a Liberal Democrat campaign leaflet, the implication of which was clear—winter payments that were needed were not forthcoming. The Liberal Democrat candidate mentioned that in a public debate, but that is far from the case.
  Next year, the North and Mid-Hampshire health authority will receive an increase of £8.566 million, which compares readily with the £3.74 million which would
  54
  have been allocated had we stuck with the Conservatives' proposals—proposals which have been endorsed by the Conservative candidate in Winchester, Mr. Gerry Malone. The Liberal Democrats cannot be taken seriously as partners in government, as claimed by the Conservatives, or as a serious Opposition party, as they claim themselves, because of the enormous gulf between what they say here and what they do elsewhere.
  I wish to talk about the Liberal Democrats in local government, and there are many examples that one could give. My charge against them is that they misrepresent public services by systematically simplifying them in the eyes of local government electors. A "Focus" leaflet I received recently showed a picture of a Liberal Democrat councillor pointing at a fence. The leaflet said that the councillor had noticed that a fence by the B and Q store had fallen down, and that she had reported it. That was the main thrust of a leaflet about local government services. The public are led to believe that local government services are smaller and more simple than they are in real life.
  The local authority next to mine—while putting out similar leaflets—failed to notice that the direct labour organisation had lost £3.5 million and had to be closed down. The authority put out a leaflet saying, "We are sorry that we did not notice, but we are only councillors; it is the fault of the officers."
  The House ought to know that there is an airport in the middle of the borough of Eastleigh which—unfortunately for Eastleigh—is called Southampton international airport. The authority put out a leaflet in the north of the borough, demanding that planes take off from the south of the airport. The authority also put out a leaflet in the south of the borough, demanding that planes take off from the north of the airport.
  In the country as a whole—although not necessarily in this Chamber—the Liberal Democrats are a franchise party; the McLiberal Democrats, or the Chicken McNuggets party. Whoever happens to have control of the local duplicator gets to decide the local policy of the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Willis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has read every single "Focus" leaflet that we have produced. That goes to show how effective the campaign has been. In terms of franchising, could he say which version of the Labour party the Prime Minister was franchised to when he told the Evening Standard that Labour had no plans to introduce tuition fees?
  Dr. Whitehead: The Prime Minister set out a proposal that the Government were considering. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the processes of government mean that one must take decisions on what one finds when one gets into power. The Dearing committee, instituted before the Government took power, made a number of recommendations that the Government took seriously. It is a part of government to take seriously the issues with which one is presented, and that underlines my point. Liberal Democrats in local government often fail to be remotely consistent with the local authority next door or their party in Parliament. They do what the fancy takes them to obtain power.
  Mr. Bercow: As I think the House will have recognised, the hon. Gentleman was visibly stumped by

  55
  the intervention from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Will he call to mind the specific wording of the statement on 14 April in the Evening Standard—
  "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees in higher education"?
  Will he acknowledge the U-turn and apologise for it?
  Dr. Whitehead: If continuing to speak while being on one's feet is a sign of being "visibly stumped", then I was.
  The Government must, of necessity, take decisions in relation to the consistency of a long-term programme in government to make sure the funds add up. In this case, we must make sure that we expand student numbers and overcome the stop-start policies of the previous Government, who marketised higher education and brought all sorts of new students into higher education without providing the funds. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will know, funding per student over the past few years has dropped by 25 per cent.
  In panic, the previous Government put a cap on student numbers. The hon. Member for Buckingham is presumably expecting us to reduce student numbers back to the level of a few years ago, when only those from a relatively privileged background could get into higher education. He is no doubt proposing that as a solution to the funding crisis in higher education, rather than attempting to find the money to carry on funding higher education, so that more people—particularly those from less privileged backgrounds—have the opportunity to get the higher education that they deserve.
  Our decision is consistent and honourable, and will ensure that a long-term policy of this party—wider access to higher eduction—is maintained. It was a hard decision, but it was consistent with our long-term plans for government, and it will ensure that those plans are carried out.
  The charge I am making is that the Liberal Democrats have no such consistency. My difficulty with the debate is that, although the Liberal Democrats bring their policies and principles into this Chamber and offer them to the party in government, they have a sorry record of campaigning on half-truths and smears, which seriously mislead the public at local level. I will not embarrass and burden them with the sorry story of Tower Hamlets, as that would be too painful for them to contemplate. All I would say is that the right thing for the Liberal Democrats to do now is to go back to their constituencies and prepare for consistency.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: It will soon be the time of year when many of us take part in the sending and receiving of Christmas cards and gifts. Unfortunately, not everyone welcomes that Christmas mail: up and down the country are people for whom Christmas cheer is sadly lacking.
  Who are these people and what makes them regard December with such foreboding? They are local authority treasurers, for it is they who have to translate the spin of local government settlements, both past and present, into the cold reality of local council budgets. It is their job to
  56
  be the bearers of bad news for local councillors, for council staff and, above all, for the people who rely on local services.
  For the past 18 years, the arrival of the brown envelope from Marsham street or Marsham towers has been greeted in town halls of all persuasions and all political colours with growing despair and anger. For the past 18 years, the Conservatives have turned the screws on local services, forcing local councils to cut, cut and cut again, and denying councils and the communities that elected them the right to take a view about the level of council tax and local services.
  The result has been a steady erosion of local services. At the same time, Parliament has shown an incredible ability to pass laws that impose new duties and give powers to local authorities—but although this place wills the ends, it has not always willed the means to allow local authorities to do the job.
  The question is, will the Labour Government be any different? Judging by their rhetoric in opposition, there is every reason to expect a much better deal for local services, but will the Government make a difference? Do they trust local government, much of which they control? The answer to both of those questions is no, and I shall explain why.
  The Government will not make a difference, because they are sticking to the Tories' spending plans for local government. For many, the news will be bleak: more cuts in local services, and tough choices about which services to protect and which to sacrifice—not so much a case of new Labour as of hard labour.
  As for trust, as long as capping remains in place, there can be no trust. Over the past 18 years, the Conservative party has developed a unique relationship with local government: one based on distrust, a belief that Whitehall knows best, and universal rules to stamp out the crimes and misdemeanours of a few high-profile councils. That relationship was blind to the fact that, outside the spotlight, there was and still is much that is good, excellent and innovative in local government. The Conservatives paid the price of that relationship: year after year, the party lost seat after seat and council after council, and now the Conservative party is the third party of local government.
  It is time to start undoing the damage done by the Tories; that is why capping must end, and end now. With the cap and Tory spending plans, the Labour Government will be rightly condemned for delivering the very Tory cuts that Labour campaigned against. Next year, even after efficiency savings, local services will be short-changed to the tune of £1.1 billion. That is not the result of local government profligacy, but the cost of Tory neglect.
  Let me give some examples: more frail elderly people and fewer NHS beds are increasing demands on social services; the legacy of rising crime requires more police officers to stem the tide; and increasing pupil numbers require more teachers simply to keep class sizes as they are. Those pressures will not go away, but will continue to increase, and failing to invest in those services now is a false economy that will lead to short-term decisions with long-term consequences.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the new Labour

  57
  Government have already made available an additional £1.3 billion for education; that they have already taken steps to reduce class sizes in infant schools; that they have already made available more capital receipts to enable more public housing to be developed; and that they have financed that through the windfall tax—a great redistributive tax, which he should welcome?
  Mr. Burstow: I am sure that, with her long and distinguished career in local government, the hon. Lady will understand the heartache experienced every year by council leaders when they receive the detailed figures from the Government, and will accept that this year will be no different. The reality is—
  Mrs. Jackie Ballard: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Burstow: Let me finish with this intervention before moving on to another.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) will accept the Local Government Association's figures, which clearly show that, in order to put the extra money she mentions into education, councils will have to allocate money away from other services—in other words, there will have to be cuts elsewhere.
  Mrs. Ballard: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that seven out of 10 social services authorities say that they will have to tighten eligibility criteria for care in the community if the Government continue the Tory spending plans for local authorities?
  Mr. Burstow: I do indeed, and that brings me to my next point.
  The problems facing social services can be summed up by three Fs: funding, fragmentation and false economy. In funding terms, local authorities are battling against Whitehall. I lay the blame for that not specifically at the Government's door, but at the door of a system which underestimates the actual cost of delivering community care.
  This year, the average local authority social services department is spending 9 per cent. more than its standard spending assessment on social services. I sometimes wonder what would happen if every local authority social services department in this country spent down to its SSA—I suspect that the results would be devastating to many people.
  Even the extra money the Government have promised to help social services and social work departments this winter seems far from certain to reach its destination. Written answers from Health Ministers suggest that far too many ifs and buts litter the path of funds from the Treasury to front-line care, so I hope that Ministers will offer an assurance this evening that the money will reach its destination and not be used to reduce NHS deficits, of which we know there are many.
  Funding is not the only problem—fragmentation also plays a part. First, there is a lack of symmetry between the benefits system and social services. The objectives of the two conflict, to the disadvantage of the vulnerable in our society, and put barriers in the way of greater independence.
  58
  Secondly, the interface between health and social care is not clear. The concept of a seamless service between health care and social care is a myth—the reality is better described as pass the parcel, and the price is expressed not only financially, but in terms of the individual's loss of dignity. Thirdly, there is fragmentation in legislation and case law governing the delivery of social care. Judgments like those involving Gloucestershire and Sefton have exposed the stark reality—that community care is not needs-led, but is about resource-led rationing.
  It is now time for Parliament to address those issues, which is precisely why I have taken up Jack Ashley's Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill. The House must debate how we can make progress with comprehensive reform of community care law, and the Government should give a wider remit to their royal commission on long-term care, so that we can tackle the issues raised by fragmentation.
  Taken together, the problems of funding and fragmentation lead to false economy. Evidence gathered by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux shows how the original objectives of community care have been distorted. Although targeting of support is a clear aim of community care, the reality for many people is that of care rationing—longer waits for assessment and care provision, tightening eligibility criteria and more and increasing charges, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) described
  The consequences represent a false economy for society. As the NACAB report, "Rationing Community Care" states:
  "Excessive targeting of scarce resources on those in greatest need is leading to inadequate preventative measures in terms of support services in the community for both carers and care users, which may result in more costly institutional remedies becoming necessary".
  It is a false economy when one agency manages its budget by simply shunting its costs on to another, either directly or by storing up costs for the future, in education, housing, health and the criminal justice system. Increasingly, that is what is happening in an underfunded public service.
  Unless the Government act now, the vicious circle of crisis management will not be broken, and those who put their faith in a Labour Government will be betrayed. We Liberal Democrats have our plans for raising extra resources, but the Government set the fiscal reality in which we must live, and it is in that context that I challenge them to invest a little extra money now, so as to avoid wasting far more later. There is nothing shameful about relaxing Tory spending restrictions, which even their Conservative architect dismissed as "for the birds".
  Why will the Government not make use of the extra tax revenues their Budget will generate? The country can afford it, and the Treasury can afford it. Why not redirect some of the £5 billion tax windfall? Why not rechannel some of the £25 billion that will accrue to the Treasury as a result of the abolition of the pension funds tax credit? Why not invest some of these resources to protect local services now? Failure to do so will cost more in the long run.
  The public will not thank the Government when they announce a spending bonanza in a few years' time, if the human costs continue to mount now. The social damage has been done, and service infrastructure and assets have been so undermined that they can no longer deliver—
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the record of

  59
  Cornwall county council, which I understand is Liberal Democrat-controlled, which underspends its SSA on education, and which last year cut its adult education provision by half? How does that compare with the record that he has just been describing? Will he further comment on the fact that 47 per cent. of three and four-year-olds are found places in Liberal Democrat nursery education provision, compared with an average of 70 per cent. in Labour-controlled authorities?
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman might like to comment on the record of Devon county council, also Liberal Democrat-controlled, in whose area I heard Bradley Rowe infant school—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not make a speech; she must remember that she is making an intervention and be brief.
  Mr. Burstow: I have not been to that primary school, but I can deal with the hon. Lady's other points. Cornwall had a glowing Office for Standards in Education report for the excellence of its education. Secondly, I hope that later this year the hon. Lady will go through the Lobbies with me to vote against capping, because it was capping that led to the cuts that she has described.
  Thirdly, head teachers and others in Cornwall accept that it was the LEA in Cornwall—as she rightly says, it is Liberal Democrat-led—which managed to minimise the damage done by the Conservative Government with their capping policies. So I am proud to be associated with the work that Cornwall does. The hon. Lady should take a closer look at the record before intervening next time.
  Rather like Ebenezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol", the Government, I hope, have now seen Christmas past: they have rightly condemned Tory spending cuts. Now we are approaching Christmas present, and the Government are about to implement those Tory spending cuts. But there is still Christmas yet to come. Will it be a bleak one, with rundown, impoverished public services; or will the Government, like Scrooge, heed the warning signs, and act now before it is too late?
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: It is certainly true that until 1 May this year all local authorities and public services faced considerable financial pressures. Moreover, morale in many of the public services was falling and standards were under intense pressure. Had this debate taken place before 1 May, many of the points that we have heard Liberal Democrats make today would have been apposite.
  The problem with this debate is the Liberal Democrats' failure to recognise the progress that the Government have made in tackling the problems that faced the public services when we came to office. They have wasted their opportunity to look at how we can move the Government's agenda forward to improve education, the health service, social services and policing.
  It is worth recounting some of the additional resources that the Government have provided for the public services. They have given an extra £1.3 billion for schools revenue spending this year; and £1.2 billion more for the capital works needed to restore so many of our crumbling
  60
  schools. The tragedy is that the Liberal Democrats have failed to deal with the other important education issues that require attention—it is not just a question of resources. We must also consider the standards attained by the education service.
  The Liberal Democrats have failed to support the Government's White Paper on standards; nor have they offered any praise for the Government's commitment to additional support for head teachers and to improving the qualifications of teachers and head teachers alike. The Liberal Democrats have offered no commitment to support the Government's work on establishing a general teaching council, nor have they praised the Government's requirement that local education authorities prepare education development plans for schools and their local partners.
  I have heard no praise from the Liberal Democrats for our guarantee of a nursery place for every four-year-old, nor for the fact that we have begun the task of providing a place for every three-year-old. They have given us no praise for abolishing the assisted places scheme and using the released resources to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. There has been no praise for the campaign for literacy launched in the summer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
  Mr. David Heath: Is the hon. Gentleman worried by the fact that another 55,000 students are set to increase secondary school class sizes next year, at the same time as teachers continue to lose their jobs?
  Mr. Thomas: That is precisely why the hon. Gentleman should commend the Government for giving schools an extra £1.3 billion. The mealy-mouthed nature of that and other Liberal Democrat contributions bears testimony to the short-term, narrow-minded focus of their party on Beckenham and Winchester, where they are desperately trying to hold on to their seat. If they continue making interventions like that, I suspect that they will struggle to do so.
  The Liberal Democrats have failed to praise the requirement to establish early-years plans and early excellence centres.
  When I made my maiden speech, I acknowledged the enormous pressures under which hospital staff and GPs were working. My health authority was one of those in deficit at the end of March this year, and two of the trusts that serve my constituents were also in deficit at that time. The Government have given the NHS in my area more resources; the same applies to the areas of all other hon. Members. This year the NHS will receive an extra £1.2 billion, and the commitment for next year is to real-terms growth in funding for my area's NHS. The Government have allocated another £9 million to Brent and Harrow health authority for next year. Under the spending plans of the previous Government, that would have been only £4 million—so we have doubled the available resources. Yet we hear no praise for the Government's initiative from the Liberal Democrats.
  The Liberal Democrats have also failed to consider the structural problems in the NHS: the internal market and the enormous bureaucracy caused by the previous Government's reforms. Until 1 May we were spending an extra £4 million a day on bureaucracy. That is why I am

  61
  surprised that the Liberal Democrats have not welcomed the additional money, found from cutting bureaucracy, for the breast cancer initiative and for children's intensive care. In my area, £97,000 has been found for breast cancer work. That will reduce waiting times for appointments from four weeks to two. It is odd that the Liberal Democrats have not welcomed that initiative.
  Globally speaking, we have already saved £100 million in the management costs of the NHS internal market—
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unnecessary bureaucracy, why did his party vote against the abolition of regional health authorities, which resulted in 1,500 fewer managers?
  Mr. Thomas: I am surprised that the right hon. Lady is unwilling to praise this Government's efforts to tackle NHS management costs. One hundred million pounds saved in management costs; the abolition of the eighth wave of GP fundholding and stopping that process in its tracks, saving £20 million—I am surprised that the right hon. Lady has not welcomed those savings. When so many problems in the national health service were caused by the internal market of which the right hon. Lady was an enthusiastic supporter, it is no good for the Conservative party not to praise those savings in bureaucracy.
  I draw attention to the £1.4 million that has been made available to Brent and Harrow health authority, to enable it to cope with the additional pressures that winter always brings to the national health service. As a result of that money, extra resources will be put into the discharge services that are provided in our area. Elective surgery will now be maintained over the winter at our local hospital. There will be additional community care placements. Additional resources will go to the very social services department that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was talking about, providing additional community care and additional support for the elderly in our borough.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made a pertinent point—it is a pity that other Liberal Democrat Members did not, because it might have led to a useful debate—about his concern about the fragmentation in health and social care and the artificial division that exists between health and social care boundaries. However, the hon. Gentleman did not praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for his work and the pressure that he has brought to bear to reduce those boundaries further. The hon. Gentleman is being mealy-mouthed in not acknowledging the work that is being done.
  Several other measures have been taken to improve public services. In my intervention on the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), I mentioned the welcome opening up of trust board meetings, which will make the national health service more accountable to the patients and users, who demand that openness and who should be entitled to know what is going on. Decisions should not be taken behind closed doors, as in the past.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned the capital receipts initiative and the additional support that will be
  62
  provided to housing. That is welcome news for people in my constituency: Harrow has benefited to the tune of about £620,000.
  Mr. Sanders rose—
  Mr. Thomas: I have given way a couple of times and I should like to move on.
  Considerably more resources will be allocated next year. They will be spent on helping to tackle the problems of an estate represented by Liberal Democrat councillors, who have taken absolutely no action in the past 10 years to try to solve the problems there.
  I am one of those unfortunate Members of Parliament who has to cope with a Liberal Democrat-run council. It may be worth asking Liberal Democrat Members to take some action on the state of that Liberal Democrat group. As recently as last week, there was yet another resignation from the Liberal Democrat group in Harrow. On leaving the group, the councillor said that he had become more and more dissatisfied with the attitude of members of his group. He was the second Liberal Democrat councillor to resign in disgust from the Harrow Liberal Democrat group. Four other Liberal Democrat councillors have resigned from the council, and the leadership of the Liberal Democrat group has changed three times in the past three and a half years.
  It is no surprise to the people of Harrow that the legacy of those changes has been incompetence and a failure to grasp the problems facing my constituents. I am sure that those people would want to join me in condemning the plans of that Liberal Democrat group in each of the past two years to try to cut school budgets. The group attempted, despite the existence of obvious alternatives, to cut school budgets by up to 8 per cent. for each school. At the start of September, the first cuts that the group successfully introduced this year bit, and more than 50 teachers lost their jobs in schools in my constituency. I ask Liberal Democrat Members to tackle that tragedy behind the scenes, to raise the standards in that group.
  This debate could have been a useful opportunity to consider how we can make progress on the Government's agenda of raising standards. I am afraid that instead it has been a mere party political effort by the Liberal Democrat party, in the light of the two forthcoming by-elections. Liberal Democrat Members must accept responsibility for failing to consider how to make progress on the Government's agenda, and failing to consider the opportunities to raise standards further in our public services.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: There is an attack to be made on the Government's handling of the education and health services of this country, but the Liberal Democrats are the worst placed people to deliver that attack.
  Mr. Simon Hughes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) affects to be surprised by my opening lines, but his pitiful contribution is testimony to the correctness of what I am saying.
  I noticed, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) noticed, that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), graced us fleetingly with his presence in the Chamber.
  Mr. Hughes: He will be back.
  Mr. Bercow: I am glad to hear that, but it is very good news indeed for the hon. Gentleman that his leader was not present to hear his contribution, because he got himself into a frightful pickle.
  The truth may be succinctly stated. The Liberal Democrats are puffed up with self-importance by their membership of a Cabinet Committee. The problem is that their right of free expression is constrained by it, and in attempting to square the circle, to manoeuvre themselves out of the unprincipled mess into which they have plunged, they have chosen today, of all days, to launch an attack on the Government.
  People will recognise the cynicism of the timing of the debate. No doubt the press releases in Winchester and Beckenham have already spewed out of the fax machines so that a campaign of disinformation can be waged, but let it be clearly understood: the Liberal Democrats have every opportunity to raise the subjects of education, of health, and of the quality of our public services on that Cabinet Committee. They fail—indeed, decline—to do so. People in the country ought beyond peradventure to understand that the similarities that unite Liberal Democrat Members and the Government are always, everywhere and without exception greater than the differences that divide them.
  Let me turn, as lain Macleod would have said, briefly but with relish, to the subject of funding, because that was a lamentably handled feature of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Being an emollient and kind-natured fellow, I am all in favour of partnership politics, but it would be helpful if the Liberal Democrats were capable of practising partnership politics within their own ranks. They are not. The inconsistency is manifest. The contradictions are plain for all to see.
  For ages, the Liberal Democrats have been telling us that there should be another penny on income tax to finance education. On one occasion they told The Times that they had sought a change of stance and that they really sought to convey to the masses that a penny of income tax should be devoted additionally to education, but that income tax should not be increased.
  This evening, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey stuck to the traditional line, saying that the additional penny raised by income tax should be spent on more books, special needs provision, reductions in class sizes and commitment to lifelong learning. He does not seem to be conscious of the fact that, on 4 July 1995, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) adopted an entirely different position. In the course of a by-election campaign in the north-west, he owned up to the reality that Liberal Democrat plans would cost another 2½p on the basic rate of income tax.
  64
  In case the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is looking bemused by that contradiction, as undoubtedly the House will have noticed he is, the explanation is readily available. He ought to consult his hon. Friend. They are sitting next to one another; one should be able to establish a partnership with the person next to whom one is sitting in the Chamber. There is a difference because in the course of that by-election, true to form, typical of Liberal Democrats' chameleon behaviour and consistent with their opportunist stance in by-elections, the hon. Member for Bath then spoke about additional expenditure on higher education and argued for universal social security benefits for part-time and full-time students in higher education. On the strength of that, it was dragged out of him under pressure that an additional 2½p would be required on taxation rather than the 1p with which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has contented himself in other speeches.
  The Liberal Democrats are getting into great difficulty. Why was The Times briefed during the Liberal Democrat conference that the party was considering abandoning its commitment to increased taxation altogether? Liberal Democrats always say, in sanctimonious sermons to the public, that what we need is clarity and consistency. They say that the public demand clarity and principle, but what we get from the Liberal Democrats is twisting and turning—one statement one week and a different statement the next; one statement in one part of the country and a different statement in another.
  Mr. David Jamieson indicated assent.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is nodding. Given the area from which he comes, he will be aware of the sheer unbelievability of Liberal Democrats' opportunism and of their capacity to change their minds regularly, apparently without embarrassment.
  People should understand that the Liberal Democrats and the Government are an alliance. They are an alliance against choice, competition, efficiency and value for money. They are an alliance for greater bureaucracy and stopping parental choice, and for believing that funds are always the answer and nothing else is in the equation. They are against both grant-maintained and grammar schools. In my county of Buckinghamshire, whose education results are unsurpassed in the United Kingdom, people on the doorstep have no doubts about how they should vote if they want choice, quality and competition, and if they favour the pursuit of excellence. The Government know that they are poorly represented in my county and will continue to be.
  Voters in Buckinghamshire know that the Liberal Democrats are against grammar and grant-maintained schools. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey must therefore try to rescue himself from the difficulty into which he has plunged, on the subject of funding. He must seek to answer his constituents, and particularly the electors in Winchester and Beckenham, on his party's record. Liberal Democrats prattle on about the need for additional funds, but since the Conservatives took control of Hampshire county council on 1 May, spending on education is £2.5 million more than it was when the Liberal Democrats were in power.

  65
  We recognise that, although funds are a necessary condition of improvement in the quality of public services, they are not and never can be a sufficient condition. We believe in markets, choice and the power of competition. We believe in the right of parents to go elsewhere if they do not like the service that is provided in the state sector or a particular school. The Liberal Democrats are plainly ignorant of that because they are steeped in the orthodoxy of the 1960s. They are fanatics for egalitarianism but know nothing of excellence.
  Excellence, choice, quality and competition form no part of the Liberal Democrats' lexicon, which is why, for the bulk of the time, they are on splendid terms with the Government. The Minister for School Standards is an agreeable fellow and an effective exponent of the Government's case, but he is also very chummy with the Liberal Democrats because they agree on most points.
  What we have witnessed is in no sense a dalliance; nor is it a flirtation or an attempt at an affair. The relationship has been consummated. What we have witnessed between the Liberal Democrats and the Government is a full-blown marriage in which the contract has been clearly signed. Those people know nothing about what is needed to bolster education or health today.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to welcome the £12 million extra that Buckinghamshire health authority will receive from the Government next year to fund services? Does he accept that Buckinghamshire would not have received those funds under a Conservative Government?
  Mr. Bercow: If the hon. Lady were factually correct, I would welcome that intervention, but as she is not, I do not. I accept that there has been a modest increase, but it is nothing like as much as the service providers in that part of the world need, nor anything like as much as a future Conservative Government choosing better priorities would deliver.
  The choice open to voters in Winchester and Beckenham is to vote either for a party that wants to improve the quality of services or for a party obsessed only with inputs. I am concerned with outputs, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton; my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) devoted an extremely thoughtful speech to the subject. On that subject and on the results of the expenditure dedicated, the Liberal Democrat party has nothing coherent or intelligible to say.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred rather eloquently to the underfunding and undermining of public services during the 18 years of Conservative rule. He also said that many people were concerned that under new Labour those services might continue to be undermined and underfunded.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) accused my hon. Friend, a little unfairly, of not spending most of his speech praising the new Government. Today was not the most appropriate day to do that. It is important to recognise, however, that whenever the Liberal Democrats have considered it appropriate to do so and have agreed with the Government's proposals
  66
  and propositions, we have been willing to support them. We have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about trying to overcome the artificial boundaries between health and social services. We would be more than willing to work with him and the Government to deal with that question.
  Labour Members, particularly Back Benchers, do not realise the full import of today's debate. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, praised the Government for the additional money being put into the health service in Halifax. However, she failed to note that in her local education authority area of Calderdale the Labour-controlled local education authority is in the process of planning a 1.5 per cent. cut in the education budget for next year. That cut will take place under a Labour Government. There are many other examples of that happening.
  The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) was keen to defend the Government, but in so doing even he admitted that the money going into our schools was not enough. He went on to say that we must remember that we live in the real world. In the real world, local education authorities and health services are planning for further cuts in services. Local education authorities in Oxfordshire, for example, estimate that they need to make a £3.5 million cut in the education service.
  Let us move closer to home and to the current Prime Minister. In Islington, the local authority is planning cuts of £9 million in overall services next year under a Labour Government, with £1.3 million likely to come off education services. In Brent, as a further example, cuts of £3 million from schools and a further £1.3 million from children's services are planned. That is the real world, of which the hon. Member for Gedling should be aware.
  Only the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) did not mention Winchester in their speeches. I should hate to be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so let me point out that in the real world of Winchester further cuts in the education budget are planned. Schools such as Twyford primary school desperately need—but will not get—the money to replace temporary classrooms, where metal props are holding up the roof, making it difficult for some of the pupils to see the blackboard.
  That is true not only of education services, but of other public services. The Local Government Association recently conducted a survey on the impact that the new Labour Government's budget for local government will have on care services in local authorities around the country. The survey showed that seven out of 10 local authorities will have to tighten the eligibility criteria for their care services; more than six out of 10 say that they will close establishments which provide much needed care; six out of 10 say that they will have to increase charges above the rate of inflation; and four out of 10 say that they will introduce new charges. Those are the real facts of the real world that are the subject of the debate.
  It was a great pity that when the Secretary of State addressed the House he was not prepared to deal with the real figures. When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey whether he would accept the independent figures prepared by the Library of the House of Commons, he said that he was not prepared to do so.

  67
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will be prepared to accept the figures presented by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 4 November this year. When asked what would be the spending on health in the current financial year on a constant price base under the new Labour budget, as opposed to what it would have been under the previous Tory budget, the Minister's answers were revealing. Under Labour's budget, it would be £33,306 million; the Tory budget would have been £33,422 million. Simple arithmetic shows that less money is being spent this year by the Labour Government under their budget than would have been spent under the Tory budget, on a constant price base. Those are not the independent House of Commons Library figures, but the figures prepared by the Minister of State, the Department of Health.
  Mrs. Ellman: Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman will not allow the facts to stand in the way of his polemic? Does he agree that in his own constituency of Bath, under the Labour Government's plans, the health authority—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have noticed two occasions when information from the official Box has come not to the Front Bench, but to Government Back Benchers. Would it be possible to draw hon. Members' attention to the convention of the House that the official Box is there to provide information to hon. Members on the Government Front Bench?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The hon. Gentleman is correct. That would normally be the case, and it would be helpful if hon. Members could observe the conventions.
  Mr. Foster: I regret giving way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) if she was merely reading out the brief just passed to her. She will surely understand that I am not trying to make up figures: I am giving figures that have been quoted by the Minister in the past two weeks and which make clear the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was arguing earlier.
  It is a great pity that by wafting in front of the House a large number of statistics the Secretary of State seemed more interested in the language of the spin doctor than in the language of real doctors.
  We heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) his concern that one Member of Parliament sometimes says something different from another Member of Parliament. In that context, it is interesting to consider the comments of the Secretary of State in relation to Hereford hospital. He said that the move was wonderful and had been welcomed by everybody, and that there had been widespread consultation. I would say to the Secretary of State, were he here, that I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), believe that it is a wonderful move forward, but it would be wrong to say that it was widely welcomed, because the Labour party candidate in the
  68
  general election opposed it, and it would be wrong to say that there had been widespread consultation about it, as in the past few weeks a delegation from Unison has been to see my hon. Friend to complain about the lack of consultation on the matter.
  A great deal of spin has been put on health service figures during the debate. We all remember the card produced by the Labour party during the general election showing Labour's five early pledges, which the party made clear that it would get on and implement straight away. One of those five early pledges was to
  "cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step".
  Interestingly, if one went to the Labour party conference and bought the mug displaying Labour's five early pledges, that pledge was not worded in quite the same way. I wonder why that was. The Minister of State has made it clear that he knows that those figures will not come down during the lifetime of this Parliament.
  We heard an interesting contribution from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who told the House with great glee that she "wrote it all myself". The majority of the House would no doubt share my view that it might be a good idea if she found herself a speechwriter. Not only did she spend most of her time moving hither and thither, but the one clear theme that emerged from her speech was her fascination with people getting in bed together. She referred in an obsessively prurient way to matters such as liaisons dangereuses, but all was revealed when she said that she now understands that getting in bed together is about sitting round a table. One wonders what happened at the Tory party's bonding session in Eastbourne.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of relationships, may I tell him that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is more up to date with the gossip than with the facts? She alleges that we have relationships only with Labour. After the debate, she may wish to comment on the fact that one of her colleagues in the other place, Lord Hugh Thomas of Swynnerton, has today left her party and joined ours because he believes that we are more in touch with the people than her party ever has been.
  Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend makes a telling point and brings me a piece of information that I had not heard. I am grateful to him. The problem with the hon. Lady's contribution to the debate—
  Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the noble Lord was a Labour peer before he was a Conservative peer. It shows the rather wayward nature of such relationships.
  Mr. Foster: The noble Lord has clearly moved around—he was head of the Tory party think tank at one time—but however much he may have wandered over time, he has at last found the holy grail and he is very welcome.
  The hon. Lady was clearly not talking about the holy grail in her speech. She tried desperately—and unsuccessfully—to defend 18 years of Tory misrule. How could anyone come to the Dispatch Box during a public services debate and fail—as she did—to mention

  69
  the appalling cuts that took place under the Tories? Public services were cut to the bone during 18 years of Conservative government.
  The real point of today's debate is to express concern about the effect that those cuts are now having. We must know whether the new Government are prepared to do something about that—as the Liberal Democrats would.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, the hon. Gentleman promised to make a brief speech and then took more than 16 minutes. I must press on.
  Are the Government prepared to do something about the state of our public services? The evidence to date is slightly worrying. My hon. Friends and I have cited worrying figures for health, and the situation is equally disturbing in education. The Liberal Democrats were chastised for not praising the Government for the good things that they have done. I acknowledge that the Labour Government have done some good during their short time in office, but they have also imposed spending cuts on various local authorities, heralding teacher job losses and rising class sizes, while threatening local education authorities with hit squads, cutting school budgets and introducing university tuition fees. The Government's education budget offers jam tomorrow—and very little of it.
  I will explain why that is so. We have had far too much spin recently. When the Government get into a spin—as they did over the tuition fees issue—they spend money that could have gone to education trying to stop people's heads from spinning. The Government have spent about half a million pounds on a publicity campaign explaining their new policies.
  The Secretary of State also tried to put a spin on the allocation of additional money. The other day he announced £83 million for further education, as though he had found some wonderful new money, but in reality the Government did not find a single penny of additional money: £20 million came from employers, £48 million was recycled money from existing training schemes, and the remaining £15 million came from accounting changes within the Department. That is the reality: despite the Secretary of State's spin, there was no new money.
  What about the Government's Budget that claims to give new money to education? If we take into account the impact of rising inflation on education, we find that local authorities will lose £157 million in school funding this year. The Government claim that local authorities will have extra money next year. However, the carry-forward of the teachers' pay award reduces that sum to £673 million. Local authorities will face severe pressures as a result of rising pupil numbers, which reduces available money to £404 million.
  Local authorities were expecting to make a 1 per cent. funding cut next year and they must make reductions of £1.3 million overall, which will cut school funding still further. That reduces the money available to a £34 million increase. Sadly, however, £333 million is set aside for capital expenditure. So the net effect of the Budget hailed as providing new money for this year and next is that it will leave schools £157 million short this year and nearly £300 million short next year.
  70
  In the run-up to the general election, Labour candidates around the country campaigned against Tory education cuts. However, the Labour party is now delivering those Tory cuts in government. Before the debate, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned that the Government were having to deal with a "lousy Tory budget". It does not have to be like that; I believe that there is another way. The Government believe that extra money will come from a successful economy: the Liberal Democrats believe that increased investment in education is an essential ingredient for creating that successful economy.
  6.44 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government welcome this opportunity to debate our public services. After 18 years of neglect, it is time for the House to address the vital issue of the future of our public services. After those 18 years of neglect and four Parliaments, what did we inherit on 2 May? We have record levels of debt in the national health service, record levels of crime on our streets, and public housing starts at an all-time low. As a result, the nation is divided.
  Nowhere is the division and failure more clear than in the education service, where four out of 10 11-year-olds fail to reach the target standard for their age in mathematics and English; where only one in two 16-year-olds gets five good GCSEs; where 20 per cent. of adults have literacy or numeracy problems; and where 50,000 16-year-olds left school last year without a qualification and nothing to show for 11 years of statutory education.
  That is the legacy of our predecessors: a legacy of shame and of failure. The Conservatives failed to provide the people of this country with a decent health service, good housing, freedom from the fear of crime, and a high-quality education service. That failure is not just social, but economic. The previous Government failed to equip our country with the education and skill base that we need in order to compete in the modern world. Investment in education, training and lifelong learning is essential if we are to put right the neglect of the past two decades.
  I share many of the concerns expressed by the Liberal Democrats this evening, and we welcome the choice of subject. We have a huge task if we are to convert Britain into a modern, successful economy capable of providing decent public services. While I regret the tone and nature of some Liberal Democrat speeches, there is an important principle on which we agree that distinguishes our two parties from the Conservative party. While the Conservative party is hostile to the very idea of public services, we believe in strong public services that respond to people's needs and not to the wealth of those who use them.
  As a Government, we shall act for all our people and not just a few. We recognise that, in order to govern for our whole nation, we must look beyond groups of individuals and families struggling on their own and treasure the fact that there is such a thing as society.
  Mr. Bercow: I am following the Minister's argument closely. Does he acknowledge that, when he says that the Conservatives are hostile to publicly funded and publicly provided services, he is being not only very immature but

  71
  deeply insulting to those of us who have used, and have been proud to use, public services—including health and education—for years?
  Mr. Byers: If the hon. Gentleman had represented an inner-city seat on Tyneside for the past five years under a Conservative Government, he would know only too well the destruction and the chaos that that Government inflicted upon essential public services. The Conservative Government believed that the market should determine essential public services. From our experience, that approach clearly fails our people and those essential public services.
  We believe that there is such a thing as society. We want to see a society that is both strong and united, in which we marshal the power of society to advance and benefit the individuals within it—the power of all for the good of each. Efficient, accessible and accountable public services do precisely that. They harness the power of all for the good of each.
  The previous Government—the Government of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—allowed dogma to triumph over reason, with services sacrificed on the altar of the market. It was an approach based on winners and losers. Let the position of this Government be clear. We reject a philosophy for essential public services, such as health, social services and education, that is based on the belief—the belief of the Conservative party—that some of our people must be losers for others to be winners. Our commitment is to ensure that all our people benefit from good public services.
  Mr. Willis: I shall raise a point that has not come out in the debate, but first we welcome the Minister' s comments about some of the values that we share.
  One of the great issues, to which I would like a straight answer, is that much of the new money that the Minister claims is going into health and education is from reserves or the windfall tax. What will happen when that money runs out?
  Mr. Byers: That was a very interesting intervention, because for the past two and a half hours we have heard from the Liberal Democrats that no new money will be made available to fund health and education. Now we hear the truth—there is new money. It is coming from the reserve in the short term. We are investing in education and health to build a future, so that the economic growth will eventually provide the wealth for our country and fund those essential public services. We are spending from the reserve to save for the future, and redirecting it into essential public services. That is exactly what we are seeking to do.
  It is important, however, as we consider the future of public services, that we recognise that public services themselves must change. By definition, they exist to serve the public, but all too often they are seen to operate for the convenience of producer interests. Well, no more. The Government will defend, protect and support public services only where they are accountable to their public; where they provide a high-quality service and are committed to raising standards.
  Although we share a principal support for public services with the Liberal Democrats, we do not understand how they would pay to put right the legacy of
  72
  neglect. During the election, they told us that we needed an extra penny on income tax to spend £1.8 billion on education—or did they? The briefings that they put out during their party conference neither confirmed nor denied where they stand on this issue. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, is not in the Chamber—[Interruption.] I am sorry, he is here. I am grateful. He has just arrived in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No he has not."] The reason why it would be of interest to the Liberal Democrats is that, during their party conference, the spin doctors were spinning away about the Liberal Democrats' pledge to increase spending on education.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Byers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use this opportunity to clarify the position for the House.
  Mr. Bruce: Our position was unequivocal. We said that to fund education we would put a penny on income tax if necessary. We said that it was necessary and we made that commitment. We have not backtracked on it.
  Mr. Byers: I am grateful for that very important condition. It is no longer a cast-iron commitment for a penny on income tax to fund the £1.8 billion. Instead the condition is "if necessary". We do not know what conditions will be attached or what criteria will need to be met, if necessary, to put that money into the education service.
  The Government have already put more than £1.8 billion into the education service. The Budget introduced on 2 July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer ensured that there was real money, in real terms, for education and health. The Government believe in spending when it is prudent to do so. We make no apology for that.
  A central part of the Government's commitment to prudent spending is our comprehensive spending review: a root and branch review of public spending in all Government Departments, with a view to reordering our spending priorities. We will do precisely that. We are taking a fundamental look at Government spending from a zero base; starting from basics, asking whether the Government need to spend money in the way that we do. There may be other ways to meet public needs. If there is a case to continue any programme, we will aim to do so in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
  In just six months we have begun to reorder our priorities. We have allocated £1.2 billion to the national health service; £1 billion to schools from the reserve next year for day-to-day education spending to employ more teachers, reduce class sizes, and update books and equipment. We expect more than £2 billion to be spent through the new deal on capital for schools. We have released a further £900 million under our capital receipts initiative. Spending on the police service will rise by 3.7 per cent. to £7.3 billion. That is not underfunding. It is a commitment to fund priority areas. It is targeting resources to help the most vulnerable: the sick, the unemployed, the young and the old. We will enable them to get the help that they need and deserve. We will ensure that the money is passed on to fund those essential public services. We will improve education standards in schools and the standards of schools.

  73
  We are committed to reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. One of the key pledges—we heard about key pledges from Liberal Democrat Members—in our election campaign was that, by the end of this Parliament, the class size for five, six and seven-year-olds would be reduced to 30 or fewer. I can tell the House that we shall begin to implement that pledge not in 2001, not in 2000 or 1999, but from the next school year. In September next year we will provide an additional £22 million to employ 1,000 extra teachers, all of whom will be used to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds.
  We will also invite local authorities to submit plans for capital spending under our new deal project for next year to carry out the necessary building alterations to deliver our class size reduction pledge. On the latest figures, nearly 500,000 infants are being taught in classes of more than 30. That is unacceptable. We must begin cutting class size as a matter of urgency. We will begin to do so from the next school year.
  The Government are not complacent about the work that is still to be done. The neglect of two decades will not be put right over night. Service standards matter, and the Government will ensure that service standards are improved. The Government will put in place policies that will allow us to invest in education, social services and health, instead of having to pay the high costs of economic failure, criminal behaviour and social squalor. If we do not change course, we will have two classes of health service, two classes of state school, and, as a result, a fractured and divided country.
  Under this Government there will be change. Public services have a crucial role to play in ensuring that we become a nation united, working together for the common good. In just six months, we have already begun the task of turning around 18 years of neglect. We shall rebuild our public services so that our people can once again take pride in them. Those public services will be efficient, accountable and accessible, and they will meet the needs of the many, not the few. That is why I commend to the House the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 300.

  Division No. 89]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Coleman, Iain

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Colman, Tony

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Connarty, Michael

  Austin, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Banks, Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cox, Tom

  Beard, Nigel

  Cranston, Ross

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benton, Joe

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davidson, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Borrow, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Denham, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Drew, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Edwards, Huw

  Byers, Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Caborn, Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Cann, Jamie

  Flint, Caroline

  Caplin, Ivor

  Follett, Barbara

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Chaytor, David

  Foulkes, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clapham, Michael

  Galloway, George

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gapes, Mike

  77

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godman, Norman A

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWalter, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mandelson, Peter

  Grant, Bernie

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Grogan, John

  Maxton, John

  Hain, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Milburn, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Austin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mountford, Kali

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Home Robertson, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hood, Jimmy

  Norris, Dan

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hope, Phil

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Illsley, Eric

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pond, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jamieson, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Rapson, Syd

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kidney, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lepper, David

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Salter, Martin

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lock, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Love, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCabe, Steve

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McDonnell, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  78

  Singh, Marsha

  Todd, Mark

  Skinner, Dennis

  Touhig, Don

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Truswell, Paul

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Soley, Clive

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Stevenson, George

  White, Brian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wills, Michael

  Stott, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wise, Audrey

  Stringer, Graham

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutclifte, Gerry

  Wray, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. David Clelland.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Baker, Norman

  Keetch, Paul

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brake, Tom

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Breed, Colin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Burnett, John

  Moore, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Chidgey, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cotter Brian

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Webb, Steve

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Hancock, Mike

  Willis, Phil

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Harvey, Nick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Donald Gorrie.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Notes 43.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the extra £1.5 billion the new Government has made available to the National Health Service since taking office; notes that this is more than the Liberal Democrats promised in their Election Manifesto; further welcomes the £100 million shifted this year out of NHS red tape and into frontline patient care, including £10 million for breast cancer treatment and £5 million for children's intensive care; further welcomes the £1.3 billion hospital building programme announced since the election; welcomes the £2.3 billion extra over Conservative spending plans announced in the Budget for education, including £1.3 billion to tackle the backlog of repairs in schools and to bring further improvements for education in the future; further welcomes the public/private partnership approach adopted in education which will increase that sum further to £2 billion by 2002; welcomes the start that has been made on achieving the Government's pledge to

  79
  reduce infant class sizes and to phase out the assisted places scheme; welcomes the enormous strides that have begun in improving standards in schools; and congratulates the Government on the commitment that has been thus shown to the public services, in particular in education, health and social services.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister for Transport in London for being present, because I gave her notice that I would raise an important point of order. It arises from a point of order raised with you, Madam Speaker, by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
  As my hon. Friend has already told you, earlier today we were surprised to hear that two coastguard stations were to close and to be merged into a single station. Last Wednesday, I asked the Minister, in Committee, whether the rumour had any foundation, and was told that it was empty speculation, and that simply repeating what had been in the press for some time was fanning the flames of scaremongering.
  I have now seen a press release that describes the move as not reducing the number of people employed in the coastguard service. It talks of 200 new jobs. That refers to 200 people who were recruited recently to replace 500 who had lost their jobs last year; in fact, there are 75 new job losses. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to make a statement to put the record straight, and to promise that hon. Members who represent constituents in the areas involved will be consulted about such life-threatening issues. We should at least have had the chance of being consulted before, rather than—I do not know how to describe the words that have been given to me.
  The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson)rose
  Madam Speaker: Order. It is not for Ministers to answer points of order; it is for the Speaker to do that. If the Minister wishes to raise a point of order, as she has indicated, I will deal with it.
  Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the point of order?
  Mr. Wallace: Yes, Madam Speaker. Although I was not in the Chamber at the time, I noted the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), and what you said in response. Since press reports about two and a half weeks ago that a coastguard station in my constituency, and one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), were threatened with closure, we have both been seeking meetings with the Minister to put our case before a decision was made; but our requests have been turned down. That makes things very difficult after an event has taken place. Will you look at that, Madam Speaker?
  Madam Speaker: When hon. Members seek an interview or a meeting with a Minister, it is customary for the request to be granted at the earliest opportunity. The Minister is present, and may wish to respond.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Further to the last point of order, Madam Speaker. It is not within my knowledge that meetings have been requested. Had such meetings been requested, I would of course have agreed to them.
  Further to the first point of order, a response to a parliamentary question is in today's Official Report. As for the question of whether two coastguard stations would be closed and reduced to a single station, I made the point—very succinctly—that two stations would, in effect, be housed under one roof, and that there would be no diminution of either manpower or coverage.
  Madam Speaker: In my response to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I suggested that he apply for a half-hour Adjournment debate. As other hon. Members are involved, perhaps I can make this clear to the House. A number of hon. Members may like to write in, and who knows? They may be given a debate lasting an hour and a half on a Wednesday morning. In any event, they can all be given five or 10 minutes in which to deal with their own areas, and we can get this properly on the record.

  Standards and Privileges
  [Relevant documents: First report from the Committee (HC30-I, II and III) and memoranda laid before the Committee (HC 30-IV).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House approves the Seventh and Eighth Reports of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 240, 26I).—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
  Madam Speaker: Let me tell the House that I have no intention of putting a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. So many Members wish to speak, however, that I expect Members to discipline themselves.
  I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), which can be divided on, if necessary, at the end of the debate.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I think that the House should first understand the difficulties facing my colleagues in finishing the business of the former Committee. Doing that is always difficult, but it is even more difficult in such a complicated case.
  The reports that we are considering originate in a statement that you, Madam Speaker, made to the House on 14 October last year, after Mr. Neil Hamilton withdrew from his libel action against The Guardian You pointed to the serious allegations that had been widely made about the conduct of a number of Members of Parliament. You said that those matters must be resolved as soon as possible, and you called on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to make an early special report to the House so that the full nature and scope of any investigation that it undertook could be made known.
  On 20 October, the former Committee reported to the House that it had asked the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, to investigate the allegations as a matter of urgency. The Committee arranged for the Commissioner to have the additional legal and administrative assistance that he asked for. It went on to say that, when the Commissioner had established the precise allegations and had assembled the supporting evidence, he would
  "determine whether there is prima facie evidence of a case to answer and, where possible, reach conclusions on whether the allegations have been substantiated."
  I emphasise those words. The task that the former Committee gave the Commissioner was not simply to find out whether there was a prima facie case, but to go further and, where possible, to reach conclusions on whether the allegations had been substantiated.
  When the new Committee met for the first time after the general election, Sir Gordon Downey presented us with his findings on the allegations against 25 Members and former Members. The Committee published his findings, with the oral and written evidence on which they were based, as its first report.
  I am pleased to say that the majority of Members against whom allegations have been made were completely exonerated of any wrongdoing and I need make no further reference to them. Five former Members—Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Michael Brown, Sir Michael Grylls, Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Tim Smith—were criticised by the Commissioner. They made written representations to the Committee, which were
  82
  published at the same time as the Commissioner's findings. Apart from Mr. Neil Hamilton, with whom I shall deal separately, those Members challenged the Commissioner's interpretation of the facts, rather than the facts themselves.
  Having considered the Commissioner's findings and what the Members concerned said in their defence, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges considered whether the rules of the House had been broken and to what extent the conduct of the former Members had fallen short of the standards expected of them.
  In the cases of Mr. Brown and of Sir Andrew Bowden, the Commissioner found failures to register or to declare financial interests. We concluded that their conduct fell below the standards that the House is entitled to expect of its Members. Had Mr. Brown still been a Member, we would have recommended a period of suspension from the service of the House, and we would have considered recommending a similar penalty for Sir Andrew Bowden.
  In the case of Sir Michael Grylls, the Commissioner found that he persistently failed to declare his interests in dealings with Ministers and officials. Moreover, he deliberately misled the Select Committee on Members' Interests by seriously understating the number of commission payments that he had received from Mr. Ian Greer and by omitting to inform the Committee of other fees received from Mr. Greer. In doing so, he committed a contempt of the House. We found that the conduct of Sir Michael Grylls fell seriously below the standards that the House is entitled to expect of its Members. If he were still a Member, we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension, augmented to take account of his deceit.
  In the case of Mr. Tim Smith, the Commissioner found that he had accepted substantial cash payments from Mr. Al Fayed in return for lobbying services and that he had concealed those payments. The Commissioner also found that the form in which Mr. Smith had registered his interest in the House of Fraser was totally unacceptable, and that he had persistently and deliberately failed to declare his interests in dealings with Ministers and officials. The Committee found that his conduct fell seriously below the standards that the House is entitled to expect.
  We noted that Mr. Smith had admitted a substantial part of the allegations against him and made a full public apology. Nevertheless, if he had still been a Member, we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House.
  Therefore, of the 25 Members, 20 were exonerated by the Commissioner and the conduct of five was found to be unacceptable. Only one of those 25 has sought to overturn the Commissioner's findings—Mr. Neil Hamilton.
  The Commissioner concluded that there was compelling evidence that Mr. Hamilton received cash payments directly from Mr. Al Fayed and that the way in which those payments were received and concealed fell well below the standards expected of Members of Parliament. The Commissioner also criticised Mr. Hamilton for failing to register hospitality received from Mr. Al Fayed at the Ritz and elsewhere, for failing to register two introduction payments from Mr. Ian Greer, for deliberately misleading the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about his financial relationship

  83
  with Mr. Greer, for failing to register a consultancy fee from Strategy Network International, and for persistently and deliberately failing, in dealings with Ministers and officials, to declare his interests.
  The Commissioner did not uphold other allegations against Mr. Hamilton. In particular, he found no evidence that Mr. Hamilton received cash from Mr. Al Fayed indirectly through Mr. Greer, and he found that there was insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Hamilton received Harrods vouchers. Mr. Hamilton has now admitted, and apologised for, many of the failures to register and to declare interests, but he denies that he received any cash payments from Mr. A1 Fayed.
  The conclusion s that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges reached in Mr. Hamilton's case deal, first, with the issues of non-registration and non-declaration. We concluded that
  "cumulatively this list of omissions adds up to a casualness bordering on indifference or contempt towards the rules of the House on disclosure of interests. Mr. Hamilton's conduct fell seriously and persistently"—
  I repeat: seriously and persistently—
  "below the standards which the House is entitled to expect of its Members."
  That is the only occasion when we have used the words:
  "seriously and persistently below the standards".
  The Committee goes on:
  "Had Mr. Hamilton still been a Member we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House".
  I emphasise that that is the view of the Committee as a whole and that we formed that view irrespective of whether Mr. Hamilton took undeclared cash payments from Mr. Al Fayed.
  That issue—the cash payments—was the most difficult that the Committee had to deal with. As I have said, the Commissioner found the evidence compelling. It included Mr. Al Fayed's first-hand account, with corroborative evidence provided by several of his employees, in particular Alison Bozek, a key witness, who provided evidence that she put the £50 notes in brown paper bags and wrote Mr. Hamilton's name on them, to be collected by Mr. Hamilton. She had been out of Mr. Al Fayed's employment for two and a half years when she gave the evidence to the Commissioner. At that time, she was in training to become a solicitor in a leading firm of City solicitors.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: In his report, the right hon. Gentleman's Committee said:
  "This was a parliamentary inquiry and there was no attempt to replicate the procedures of a court action."
  Surely the point of a court action and of our procedures, which have been built up over hundreds of years, is to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done. Many people cannot understand why his Committee did not give Mr. Neil Hamilton a chance to cross-examine his accusers. That is an absolutely elementary part of natural justice and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain why Mr. Hamilton was not given that opportunity.
  Mr. Sheldon: I will come to that, but it was not a court action. In fact, as the House will know, Mr. Hamilton withdrew from the court action because his colleague withdrew.
  84
  Alison Bozek was interviewed by the Commissioner two and half years after her period of employment with Mr. Al Fayed, when she was training to be a solicitor at Allen and Overy Solicitors. A partner, Mr. House, said this about her:
  "I am very happy to provide a reference for Alison, who is currently working as a trainee in my department.
  Alison applied for a training contract in September 1992. Her application was not given preferential treatment because of her position with Mohamed Al-Fayed. She was interviewed in February 1993 during our normal recruitment season and offered a position as a trainee solicitor on her own merits. After completing law school, she joined Allen and Overy on a two-year training contract in February 1996.
  In November 1992 we took up a reference from Birkbeck College, University of London, where Alison studied for her BA as a part-time student. The reference is very positive in all respects and includes the statement 'I can vouch for her integrity'.
  During her year with the firm Alison has met the high standards we expect of our trainee solicitors. I have never had the slightest reason to doubt her honesty and reliability.
  I have formed a high opinion of Alison. She has been working for some time with me and other lawyers on a demanding case, and our regard for her is such that we have extended her period in the Litigation department, when in the normal course she would have moved on to another part of the firm.
  She is mature, sensible and reliable. I do not believe she would lie in order to support her former employer's contentions. I hope this is sufficient for your purposes, and I will be happy to provide any further information you require. Once again I apologise for the delay in replying."
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it not rather curious that the right hon. Gentleman should read to the House a long testimonial for a witness whom he prevented us from calling to the Committee? I was never able to put any questions to Ms Bozek. The right hon. Gentleman prevented the Committee from seeing that witness and forming its own view about her.
  Mr. Sheldon: The Committee decided differently from the hon. Gentleman. I am giving the evidence that was received and acknowledged by the Commissioner.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: How long was it before this lady came forward to give evidence? That is a material factor.
  Mr. Sheldon: She came when she was called by the Commissioner and Nigel Pleming. I shall deal with some other points when we come to the hon. Gentleman's amendment and if he wants to ask questions at that stage I shall be happy to answer them. I have outlined one part of the evidence which, in my view, is important. Other evidence is documentary and it has been tested forensically in private one-to-one meetings between Mr. Al Fayed and Mr. Hamilton, apparently at Mr. Hamilton's request.
  Mr. Hamilton's letter to Mr. Al Fayed on 23 July shows a commitment strongly suggesting a financial relationship. Paragraph 142 of the report states:
  "In his letter to Mr Al Fayed Mr Hamilton explained that he had now been elected Secretary of the Conservative backbench Finance Committee and Vice-Chairman of the backbench Trade and Industry Committee, which, as he put it, 'gives me a better position from which to act on your behalf', adding: 'Previously, as a PPS, it was less easy'. Mr Hamilton concluded by saying that he would shortly be writing to Mr Francis Maude, the new junior Minister at the DTI."

  85
  It is not a matter of one man's word against another. Mr. Hamilton submitted a lengthy memorandum in which he challenged the Commissioner's findings. We asked the Commissioner for his comments on Mr. Hamilton's submission, and he gave them to us. Mr. Hamilton then appeared before us. He continued to deny the charge and questioned at some length the credibility of the witnesses but did not present relevant new evidence that might have formed a basis for further examination.
  We had to consider whether it might be appropriate for us to take the matter further by calling the witnesses whom Mr. Hamilton sought to discredit. For reasons that I understand and respect but do not share, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) argued that we should, but we decided not to do that. If we had called further evidence, in my view and in the view of the Committee, we would inevitably have been drawn into reopening the whole of the Commissioner's inquiry.
  The Commissioner's findings were based on the evidence of more than 60 witnesses and documents consisting of about 14,000 pages. A considerable proportion of that evidence related to Mr. Hamilton. If we had attempted to re-do the Commissioner's work, I do not think that we would have been able to take the matter any further than the Commissioner had done.
  In the context of the amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the hon. Gentleman is naive to think that calling Mr. Al Fayed would be the end of the matter. Mr. Hamilton accuses many people of lying. He accuses of lying Mr. Al Fayed, Mr. Macnamara, Mr. Webb, Mr. Cole, Ms Bond, Ms Bozek, Mr. Bromfield, Mr. Preston, Mr. Hencke and Mr. Mullen. Mr. Hamilton says that all those people are liars and he is not.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Commissioner did not take any evidence on oath? In paragraph 72 of his report, he gives his reasons for not taking evidence on oath and says that, in part, it was because he understood that the Committee was in a position to take evidence on oath. The result of the Committee's decision not to do that is that no evidence has been taken on oath or, to put it differently, none of the evidence was given on oath.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Except for Mr. Hamilton's.
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, except for Mr. Hamilton's evidence.
  Mr. Sheldon: The Commissioner had with him Mr. Nigel Pleming QC and, as I have said, they conducted the investigation by calling more than 60 witnesses and having submitted to them documents consisting of more than 14,000 pages. They produced 900 pages for the Committee to examine. That was the consequence of the Commissioner's undertaking. As a result, our report concluded:
  "We are satisfied that the Commissioner has carried out a thorough inquiry which took the evidence presented to him fully into account. The Committee did not arrive at a practicable way of reaching a judgment which adds to or subtracts from the Commissioner's findings. So the Commissioner's findings stand."
  86
  Our problem was that, if we had taken just bits of evidence rather than the evidence of the 10 who have been accused of lying, each of those witnesses would be involved in other accusations and, as a result, we would have to do not only the work of the Commissioner all over again but even more.
  I want to see the Committee succeed. It is difficult to take over a problem that was being dealt with by an earlier Committee, but that was the task before us. Our problem was to conduct an investigation through a Committee which, by its nature, reflects political party strengths. The Commissioner, a man of repute and high standing, conducted his affairs extremely well and thoroughly.
  Three misapprehensions have been given currency since the Committee's report was produced. The first, which Mr. Hamilton himself has put about, is that the Committee has found against him on a series of trivial complaints and has been unable to reach a conclusion on the only complaint that matters. Mr. Hamilton has used the term "parking offences" and has compared the allegation about cash payments to a murder charge. That is disgracefully wrong. The other offences are not trivial and, taken as a whole, they are serious breaches of the rules of the House—serious enough to warrant a substantial period of suspension.
  On the matter of the cash payments, the Committee decided by nine votes to nil that it could neither add to, nor subtract from, the Commissioner's findings. That is a clear majority for the Committee's decision. On that basis, as I said before, the Commissioner's report stands.
  The second misapprehension is that the Commissioner has somehow exceeded his proper role. It has been suggested that the Commissioner's task is merely to find whether there is a prima facie case of a breach of the House's rules and that, if his finding of a prima facie case is contested by the Member concerned, it is for the Committee to hear the case and reach conclusions. I remind the House of the wholly exceptional complexity of this case. Allegations were made about a large number of Members.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has said that, when we reached a conclusion, we had no practicable method of adding to, or subtracting from, the Commissioner's findings and that that meant that the Commissioner's findings stood. Is it not true that, when an amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours), I explicitly told the Committee, "If this is a concealed endorsement and that is the agenda, I will not support it"? I was assured by the hon. Member for Workington that it was not a concealed endorsement. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I believe that I was grossly misled. Let me put it plainly on the record. I do not endorse the Commissioner's findings.
  Mr. Sheldon: That is a matter for the right hon. Lady. I am saying that if we neither subtract from, nor add to, a report, the report stands. I found no other way to handle the matter.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The words moved by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) were to substitute for the following words in the original draft—
  [Interruption.] This was in the report. The words in the original draft were:
  "We have no reason to question his"—
  that is, the Commissioner's—
  "findings and we therefore endorse them."
  The Committee struck out those words and instead inserted the words moved by the hon. Member for Workington.
  Mr. Sheldon: We say in our report that there was no other practicable way. That is a sensible observation. We accepted that we could not add to, or subtract from, the Commissioner's findings. I have only one interpretation of that—even though the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, whom I greatly respect, thinks differently—and it is that the Commissioner's report stands.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheldon: We are rather tight for time, but I shall give way.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I listened with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said. It appears to me, and I hope that he will agree, that the procedure adopted by the Committee will stand up only when the essential facts are not in dispute. When they are in dispute, the procedure that he described does not stand up and provide a satisfactory outcome. When the facts are heavily in dispute, as they are in respect of the brown envelopes, should not those making the allegations and those seeking to rebut them be cross-examined and heard, on oath, by the Committee?
  Mr. Sheldon: The problem remained that a vast amount of information was available. If we had proceeded along the lines the right hon. Gentleman suggested, we would have done more than just copied the work in the 900-page report and the 14,000 pages of documents because further allegations would have been made. We could not cancel out some of the evidence, because it would take too long. I could find no way to deal with such a procedure.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheldon: I am sorry, but I must make some progress. I shall try to give way later.
  As I have said again and again, the major problem was that of a major investigation replicating the work of the Commissioner and carried out by a Committee that reflected party strengths. It was an inevitable problem. We gave the task to the Commissioner—an Officer of the House of Commons. We had confidence in him. He was not a prosecutor. The offences were not trivial and, taken as a whole, they were serious breaches of the rules of the House.
  The second misapprehension is that the Commissioner has somehow exceeded his proper role. It has been suggested that his task is merely to find out if there has
  88
  been a breach of the rules of the House and that, if his finding is contested by the Member concerned, it is for the Committee to hear the case and reach a conclusion.
  I remind the House of the great complexity of the case, with the large numbers of witnesses to be examined and the huge bulk of documents to be examined. I also remind the House that the matter originated not with a complaint where the onus was on the complainant to submit the supporting evidence, but from Madam Speaker's statement. The Commissioner had to define the allegations and assemble the evidence.
  The former Select Committee asked the Commissioner not merely to assess whether there was a prima facie case but, where possible, to reach conclusions on whether the allegations were substantiated and to report his findings to the Committee. That was the task an Officer of the House of Commons was given and he did it. Any other course would have left the Committee with an impossible task to perform.
  The third misapprehension is that Mr. Hamilton has somehow been denied natural justice and that the Committee has failed to give him an opportunity to appeal against the Commissioner's findings. The procedures adopted by the Commissioner were inquisitorial, not adversarial. He was not a prosecutor; his aim was to arrive at the truth, not to secure a conviction. The procedures were shown in advance to the former Select Committee and to the hon. Members whose conduct was under investigation. They are described in full in the Commissioner's 900-page report. Not many people will have read all 900 pages, but they should at least read some of the most relevant parts.
  The parties to the investigation were given the opportunity to comment on evidence produced by other parties which was relevant to the allegations against them. The Commissioner did not discuss his findings with those being investigated, at the request of the former Committee. I believe that the procedures adopted were fair to all concerned.
  The Committee considered a great deal of material from Mr. Hamilton. The written and oral evidence that was before the Commissioner is all on the record. There is also a lengthy memorandum from Mr. Hamilton in which he challenges the Commissioner's findings. In addition, he appeared before the Committee and addressed it for two and a half hours in a public session. The Committee has bent over backwards to give Mr. Hamilton every opportunity to put his case to it and to respond to the Commissioner's findings. Had he presented new evidence that was not available to the Commissioner, I have no doubt that the Committee would have examined it carefully. He did not introduce relevant new evidence. Had he persuaded us that the Commissioner's proceedings were flawed in some way, I am sure that the Committee would have reopened the inquiry. He did not persuade us that the manner in which the Commissioner's inquiries were conducted was at fault. Had Mr. Hamilton persuaded us that the Commissioner's conclusions were such that no reasonable Commissioner could have reached them, we would have reopened the inquiry. He did not persuade us of that. His case was, in essence, that the Commissioner had heard all the witnesses and read all the papers, but came up with the wrong answer.

  89
  I have explained to the House that, in the unique circumstances of the case, a Select Committee is wholly unsuited to undertaking the investigative role which a full rehearing of the inquiry undertaken by the Commissioner inevitably would have involved. However, the Committee recognises that this case has highlighted the need to consider some of its procedures and to define them more clearly, in particular the Commissioner's responsibilities and those of the Committee. It is our intention to report to the House on those matters in due course.
  I want to place on record the fact that this House owes a great deal of gratitude to an Officer of the House, Sir Gordon Downey, for the skill and care with which he has carried out an inquiry of enormous complexity. He served this House well as Comptroller and Auditor General and he has now served it extremely well as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I also thank Mr. Nigel Pleming QC, who acted as counsel to Sir Gordon's inquiry and as a specialist adviser to the Committee.
  When Mr. Hamilton withdrew from his libel action in the courts, he said that he would accept the Commissioner's judgment on the allegations. On the "Today" programme he said:
  "I'm going to put all the material which relates to me in this libel action, before the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, who used to be the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is perfectly capable of assessing this evidence".
  In another part of the interview, he said:
  "I will seek the opportunity to have this matter considered by the Commissioner for Standards in the House of Commons, who will be able to take a measured view".
  Finally, he said:
  "I have absolute confidence that I will be vindicated in a matter of weeks by Sir Gordon Downey".
  Neither the Committee nor the Commissioner has vindicated Mr. Hamilton. He now seeks to discredit the findings of both the Committee and the Commissioner. I ask the House to uphold our conclusions and to approve the seventh and eighth reports of the Committee.
  7.58 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: It is clear that there are extremely strong feelings about this matter on both sides of the House, not least within the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges itself. I congratulate and thank all members of the Committee for their work. They have had to conduct their examination in the glare of publicity and media interest, but they were not distracted from their responsibilities. The responsibilities have been heavy, because nothing less than the reputation and the integrity of the House is at stake. Important as is the reputation of individuals, the House's reputation and integrity and its ability to regulate itself are also important.
  I want to make it clear from the outset that Conservative Members absolutely do not condone any conduct that falls below that which the House is entitled to expect from its Members. The work of the Committee, in its various reports, has shown that some hon. Members on this side of the House, and on the other side, engaged in such conduct. It is true that Conservative Members have paid the price for their conduct, but their behaviour
  90
  has affected the standing of the House, of the Conservative party and of public life. I wish to place it on record that we most sincerely regret that consequence.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not recall any Labour Members being accused in that report. Will the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) clear up that point?
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but a matter of argument.
  Mrs. Shephard: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Labour Members had to face investigation by the Commissioner and by the Committee. That is a matter of record. It is true also, of course, that one of his colleagues is currently suspended by the House. His colleague has appeared before the House, and other hon. Members remain suspended. It is therefore true that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had to be investigated both by the Commissioner and by the Committee.
  It is perhaps worth pointing out that we would not be having today's debate without the establishment of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in July 1994, by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). That Committee was given the following terms of reference:
  "To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities and to make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life."
  Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has stated his personal determination to ensure the highest standards of behaviour in the Conservative party. As part of the wider reform and renewal of the Conservative party, we shall ensure that no one individual will ever again demean the reputation of either the House or the party. We shall establish an ethics and integrity committee—the full details of which will be announced next year—to rule on cases of misconduct. Conservative Members intend to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life at all levels—including, of course, in local government and public bodies.
  In the reports, the Committee itself recognises the limitations of its own role. When the conduct of those who are not hon. Members has a material bearing on judgments made on those who are, the Committee is clearly not empowered to act. As the Committee states in its seventh report:
  "We recognise that, in practice, the powers of the House to punish non-Members are limited. In a future report we shall offer advice to the House on appropriate penalties and sanctions for Members, former Members and other persons involved in unacceptable behaviour."
  The Committee also makes it clear, in paragraph 10 of its eighth report, that the scale and scope of the report are
  "wholly unlike anything envisaged by the House when it created the new system for examining complaints against the conduct of Members and appointed a Commissioner for Standards."
  Normally—if one can use that word in this context—the onus would have been on an individual complainant to submit evidence supporting any complaint to the Commissioner. In this case, however, the

  91
  Commissioner—following a statement to the House by Madam Speaker—was asked to define the allegations and assemble the evidence.
  The Committee has consequently concluded that it will need to examine further whether there should be an appeal against the Commissioner's findings or the Select Committee's conclusions, except in consideration by the House. That is welcome. The fact that the Committee was unable to produce a unanimous report on that vitally important matter, despite the very best efforts of all its members and its Chairman, poses the question whether it has been the most appropriate vehicle for the task. That is a question that will have to be tackled by the entire House, because, as I said, at stake is not only the reputation of individuals but the principle of natural justice, and the House's ability to regulate itself.
  On the case of Mr. Hamilton—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the right hon. Lady deals with the particular case, will she endorse the view expressed by the Committee Chairman, that the Commissioner is the proper person to conduct the inquisitorial proceedings that were conducted in this case, and that no Select Committee would be appropriate for that task?
  Mrs. Shephard: I shall quote later in my speech from the Committee's report, which seems to call into question the inquisitorial process. I will therefore not answer the right hon. Gentleman's question now, but will tackle the issue later.
  In paragraph 7 of the eighth report—which the Chairman has already quoted—the Committee has ruled that Neil Hamilton's
  "conduct fellseriously and persistently below the standards which the House is entitled to expect of its Members. Had Mr. Hamilton still been a Member we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House. These conclusions are justified by paragraph 6 alone."
  The report makes it clear that Mr. Hamilton accepted that he had failed to register a number of interests—which, of course, were serious breaches of the rules of the House.
  The Committee's clear statement puts an end to what has been a difficult matter for the House and a personal tragedy for Mr. Hamilton. The former Member for Tatton has endured considerable public opprobrium, and he now faces the end of his chosen career. He will not stand on the official Conservative party candidates list again.
  The Committee has been able to draw a line under the affair, and both sides of the House are indebted to it for that. However, the case of Mr. Hamilton—in respect of Mr. Al Fayed's allegations against him—precisely highlights the limitations of the Committee's role.
  In paragraph 3 of the eighth report, the Commissioner is quoted:
  "This was a parliamentary inquiry and there was no attempt to replicate the procedures of a court action … The approach was inquisitorial, not adversarial. Its sole purpose was to arrive at the truth, not to achieve a `conviction'."
  Given the effects on Mr. Hamilton's life and future, however, he would have had more rights in calling witnesses and producing evidence to support his case
  92
  against the allegations made against him by Mr. Al Fayed had it been a court action. He would also have had a right of appeal—something that he has been most specifically denied by the entire procedure.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: The right hon. Lady has told the House that Mr. Hamilton will not appear again on a list of Conservative candidates. By what inquisitorial method within the Conservative party has that decision been reached?
  Mrs. Shephard: I do not have to answer the hon. Gentleman about matters that take place within the Conservative party.
  The House will wish to examine the important questions raised by the Committee's own limitations. It cannot be right that anyone is denied simple natural justice by a procedure of the House or the Committee, and the House itself should be concerned so to reform matters that that cannot happen again. That is something for the future.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What weight should we give to Mr. Neil Hamilton's decision to withdraw from his libel action against The Guardian, which initially triggered the procedure?
  Mrs. Shephard: The Committee will have drawn its own conclusion on that matter. I think, however, that no weight should be attached specifically to Mr. Hamilton's decision on the matter. I am concerned about the way in which the Committee's procedures reflect upon the House's ability to deal with matters affecting its own reputation.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Should not some weight be given to that fact in so far as two people—Mr. Greer and Mr. Grylls—lied in 1989 and 1990 to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, in writing in the case of Mr. Grylls and during oral evidence in the case of Mr. Greer?
  Mrs. Shephard: I have no comment to make on that. Any kind of dissembling or lying is obviously regrettable and not acceptable. That is one of the things that the Committee uncovered.
  I have accepted that certain Conservative Members have fallen below the standards of conduct appropriate for Members of Parliament. Without exception, they have paid a heavy price, but it should not be forgotten that such conduct is not the prerogative of this party.
  As I said, there are very strong feelings on both sides of the House and on all sides of the argument. While recognising those and the effect on individuals of the limitations of the Committee's role in this case, we accept the reports, but we expect that the Committee and the House will bend their efforts to a reform of their procedures, so that those limitations will be corrected.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I served on the Select Committee on Privileges for 10 years, and I greatly regret to have to tell the House that I am unable to support the recommendation before us. I shall explain why.

  93
  My uneasiness about the report centres on a number of matters, some of which have been aired. The first is the method of inquiry, which was secret. However one looks at it, it was in many ways a judicial inquiry into the conduct of a Member of Parliament who was denied representation. Thirty-seven years ago, I appeared before the Privileges Committee and sought to be represented. That request was denied, because the Committee does not work that way.
  Secondly, I am uneasy because the Committee sub-contracted its judgment to the Commissioner. It is no good saying, "We have found nothing to add or subtract," because by doing that, the Committee sub-contracted its judgment to the Commissioner, who also sat in secret.
  Thirdly, the scope of the inquiry is far too narrow. It does not deal with wider questions that I shall outline, and the recommendations are too limited.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes over that point, saying that the Committee has somehow sub-contracted its work, I should point out that what the Committee did was follow exactly the terms of the resolution passed by the House in the previous Parliament. That is the fact of the matter, not the construction that the right hon. Gentleman has put on events.
  Mr. Benn: It is a matter for the House to determine whether the Committee would have been entitled to go further. I was thrown off the Committee three years ago because I was not prepared to sit on a secret Committee considering matters of this kind. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman voted for my removal—I would be surprised if he had not. I have held the view for a very long time that Committees dealing with individual cases should not meet in secret. That is a view that I now reaffirm.
  I have no brief for Mr. Hamilton. What he did was utterly disreputable, so I have no complaint about what was said about him, but one thought occurs to me: did he break the law? I say that because the one thing that the House of Commons has totally failed to deal with throughout this matter is its own failure to lay down standards for all Members of Parliament. That is the issue that I wish the Committee had found time to consider.
  What Mr. Hamilton did may or may not be widespread; I do not want to go into that. It may or may not extend to all parties; I do not want to go into that. Certainly, the sale of peerages has been known. It is a problem that has to be viewed in a very broad context. However, the whole debate has been overtaken by a wider question—not just cash for questions but cash for politics. On what condition should money be made available for political action, either by an individual or by others?
  We have heard all the arguments about self-regulation. Self-regulation means, in effect, that we decide on an arbitrary basis instead of laying down the law as to what should or should not be acceptable and leaving judges to determine it. If Parliament passes a law saying what is and is not acceptable, that is self-regulation, but the determination falls to the judges, not to the House. There was always a problem with this in election cases which were transmitted to an election court instead of an election committee. A majority party always has a sort of interest in protecting its own members, which is why election cases are no longer handled in that way.
  94
  I am not in favour of Sir Patrick Neill being the man responsible for making recommendations of this kind. It is for the House to decide, on a considered judgment based on draft legislation. I shall take only a minute or two to try to identify what the law could have been that could have prevented this happening.
  Just as a corrupt practice is defined in an election, so a corrupt practice should be defined for a Member of Parliament. What the House determined to do in legislation would be a matter for it to decide, but if someone were charged with a corrupt practice as a Member of Parliament, the matter could go to a court to determine. The person concerned would be able to present his case.
  I have committed every known offence. I have been thrown out by an election court, but at least I had the opportunity to present my case, which I was not allowed to do to the Privileges Committee. I spoke for a week, which is the longest speech I have ever made in my life, the House will be glad to hear. At the end, two judges said that I was disqualified, as I had committed an even more serious offence—my blood had gone blue.
  Has anyone ever looked at the list of disqualifications? It is as long as your arm, as we are always adding to it. Certain relationships should be disqualifying relationships. If it turned out that a Member of Parliament was working for Al Fayed or someone else and that was listed as a disqualifying office, that Member would be out, but it would be determined by law and not by the arbitrary proceedings of a secret Committee that operated without protection for those who were charged.
  Mr. Campbell—Savours rose—
  Mr. Benn: I should like to finish. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that I have a long interest in this matter.
  There must be transparency. The complaint about Mr. Hamilton is straightforward. If it had been known what he was up to, he would have been dealt with years ago. Indeed, the real remedy for Mr. Hamilton was his electorate, who dealt with him. That is the proper way to deal with people who have not done anything illegal but who have done something unacceptable.
  I have never believed that the House had the right to throw out Members—none of us is here because the House wanted us, but we are here because our electors sent us here. The proper remedy for inappropriate behaviour is the electorate, and the proper remedy for illegal behaviour is the courts. Somehow, in the middle of all this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), a distinguished body of people and a Commissioner hanging around to help him, have fallen between two stools.
  I shall outline briefly what I think should be done. There should be a public register of gifts from individuals and organisations. Organisations and companies should have a ballot before they give money, just as trade unions do. Why should a company be able to give money without consulting shareholders when trade unions have to have a ballot? Companies should register any gifts and services that they offer to parties and to individuals.
  Similarly, individuals and parties should be required to register the gifts and services that they have received—the amount and the recipient. I have said this before, but I

  95
  repeat it now—this information should appear on the ballot paper. Voters should know the interests of candidates. The electorate are the proper remedy for inappropriate behaviour.
  If the people of Tatton or anywhere else want to vote for someone engaged in something that is not illegal and that person has listed all his relationships, it is up to them to decide whether they want him. If it says on the ballot paper that the candidate is a director of 15 companies or is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, they will decide whether or not they want him. We are really discussing the rights of the electors, not the rights of Parliament. There should also be a cap on election law.
  I am broadening the argument a little, but it is obvious in the light of what has happened recently that the question of cash for politics is more interesting and relevant than the issue of cash for questions.
  It is not a matter of trust—I have never been inclined in my life to distrust people—but a question of law and responsibility. As a member of the Labour party, I would like to know who gives money to the Labour party, what they have given and when they gave it. That does not require legislation, but is a matter for me as a member of the Labour party. The shadow Leader of the House said that Mr. Hamilton would not be on another Conservative candidates list, and that is a matter for the Conservative party.
  We are dealing here with transparency and the law. If we had had a combination of a clear statement of the law, judges to determine whether the law had been broken and transparency in financial relations, the Hamilton case would never have occurred. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee, whom I deeply admire, has moved his report. I shall not vote against it, of course, but I cannot support what I regard as a classic failure by the House of Commons to do its proper job—to lay down the proper and improper things that a Member of Parliament can do.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I can start by agreeing with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on at least one point. I have always regarded cash for politics as infinitely more significant than cash for questions. Anyone who understands parliamentary procedures knows that cash for questions was much closer to money by false pretences, implying without much substance that some influence had been bought.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield has always believed—very consistently—that this House is quite incapable of regulating itself and that these matters should be taken away from it. He believes that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges—or any successor—is incapable of discharging these responsibilities. I stand here as a member of the former Nolan committee, but I am speaking today in a personal capacity and not on behalf of any other member of the Committee. However, anyone reading today's edition of The Times will have seen the views of Professor Anthony King—also a member of the Nolan committee—which did not come across as a wholesale endorsement of the approach taken by the House so far.
  96
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on another point. As the House chose to divert significantly from the Nolan committee's unanimous proposals as to the structure that the House should establish, I shall not support the motion. I do that with some sadness.
  We are debating the seventh and eighth reports of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Until now, the structure of the Committee has worked well in dealing with different sorts of cases. I except from that the case dealt with in the sixth report—that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who claimed that he twice asked to appear before the Committee before the judgment was made against him and before he was suspended. I do not know why the Committee refused to hear him. I hope that a member of the Committee will tell us why, because I am uneasy about that.
  We sought to establish a system to replace the previous, manifestly inadequate system. The previous Privileges Committee was, at one stage, 17 strong with no investigative functions in support. Two hon. Members found themselves facing a sort of star chamber, and one spent more than five hours without representation appearing before 17 colleagues. Obviously, that was most unsatisfactory. The Nolan report unanimously recommended that a system be constructed which could be seen to accept the differences in the nature of Parliament. That system would need to be capable of dealing with many issues that are not crimes outside this House, but which are breaches of the standard of conduct that this House ought to expect of its Members if it is to continue to be entitled to claim the privileges which you, Madam Speaker, rightly claim for this House at the opening of each Session.
  The committee set out not to put the matter in the hands of the courts—for the reasons that I have given—nor to appoint a new regulator who would be totally independent, sovereign and outside any control of this House, with one exception. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield touched on one important matter. One of the weaknesses at present is that we do not have adequately defined crimes of bribery of a Member of Parliament and corruption. I am glad that the Government have responded to the recommendations that those crimes should be established, making them a matter for a court of law. However, to deal with matters that fall short of crimes but which are totally unacceptable in a Parliament of our standing, reputation and credibility, another structure should be established.
  We recommended the establishment of a new Standards and Privileges Committee and a new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We proposed that the Commissioner should have security of tenure, but should report to the Committee, which would be sovereign. We recommended that the Standards and Privileges Committee should be a small but very senior Committee—we recommended that it should consist of up to seven very senior Members. Historians here may know that the original Privileges Committee was chaired by the Prime Minister, with the Leader of the Opposition representing Opposition parties.
  The situation has changed. The Leader and shadow Leader of the House served on the previous Privileges Committee, and for the first reports of the present Committee. We recommended that that should continue. It is no secret that there is great disappointment that the

  97
  Leader of the House has decided not to continue to serve. A unique feature of the job of Leader of the House is that it is not a party political appointment. The Leader is the one member of the Government who must speak for the whole of Parliament. It is important that we have someone in that position on the Committee. When the right hon. Lady previously served as shadow Leader of the House, she found that she could discharge her responsibilities, recognising her duty to Parliament as well as to her party.
  I have heard it said that some of those involved in previous Committees believe that, in the final analysis, it will be impossible for this Committee not to end up on political lines. I hope that that is not true, but one of the weaknesses of the present Committee—here I am critical of the Government—is the inclusion of no fewer than three new Members. I did not know who the three new members of the Committee were until they were pointed out to me. I met one last week, and I believe that the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) are also members. I have never seen them before—they are new Members. I wish them well, but this is not fair to them, nor right for the House. Not only do we not have very senior Members; we have three new Members who have never been in the House before. Part of the Committee's task is to command confidence in the House among colleagues, and part of that comes from the reputation that hon. Members have established over the years among their colleagues.
  The first weakness in the previous structure was the lack of proper independent investigation, and we proposed the creation of the post of Commissioner. I pay tribute to Sir Gordon Downey for the way in which he has discharged his duty. We never envisaged that the Commissioner would make a major finding—certainly, he might do so in cases where a malicious and unjustified complaint had been made, or in minor cases, but we never envisaged that he would be the final arbiter of major cases.
  In that situation, we envisaged that if there was a case to answer, the Commissioner would put the case to a Sub-Committee, which would take it from there. The Sub-Committee would produce its findings and there would then be an opportunity for the Member to appeal to the full Committee. The House decided not to accept the recommendation to have a small Committee, although the Standing Orders indicate that there should be a Sub-Committee. My understanding is that the Sub-Committee still has not been appointed. The Standards and Privileges Committee is in breach of the Standing Order, which is a mistake. It would provide these tiers: the Sub-Committee, an appeal to the full Committee and then, if necessary, a final appeal to the whole House.
  In this case, Sir Gordon Downey was instructed to reach a conclusion—I understand the remit to which he worked. He then said that his
  "duty was to arrive at the truth and not achieve conviction".
  If the Commissioner arrives at the truth with what he describes as compelling evidence, but says that he has not arrived at conviction; and if the Committee then says that it will not add to or subtract from what he says; and even if one has read the full text and the amendment, in which the Committee deletes the statement "endorse the finding", it is not difficult to see why many people,
  98
  both inside and outside the House, begin to become worried about natural justice, especially as there was no opportunity for cross-examination or appeal as was recommended.
  The House must now decide. I have made some critical remarks about the Committee, but I have considerable sympathy for its members, because I would be sorry to be faced with the awfulness of this case and some of the characters involved in it. The main witness had already been accused and convicted by the Department of Trade and Industry report of not being a reliable witness, yet he was the main prosecution witness against Mr. Hamilton. It was an appallingly difficult case, but no matter how difficult the case, the Committee has to reach as far as it can to be seen to achieve natural justice. It is also essential that, out of this case, we ensure that we maintain a system that commands public confidence.
  It is true that some of the events, some of the happenings, some of the standards, some of the practices and some of the consequences of the vast invasion of lobbying that hit the House in the 1980s posed many problems—there were uncertainties and grey areas in which people were not sure what was expected of them. Now, because of the work of the Nolan committee, the House's response to that and the work of Sir Gordon Downey, we have cleared up a great deal of murky territory. Many perfectly honourable Members of Parliament who did not know what was expected of them now have a far better understanding.
  I was pleased—and I am sure that new Labour Members are, too—by the acceptance of the Nolan committee recommendation that there should be proper induction training for new Members of Parliament and a proper code of conduct, so that hon. Members should be told what is expected of them. You, Madam Speaker, gave warm support to that because you understand its importance. Those improvements have meant—God willing—that we shall never see a case like this again and that most future cases will be of a minor correctional nature. None the less, in case there is another such case, the House must be ready and ensure that it has a system that meets the need.
  If I may echo the words of Professor Anthony King, the House has to decide whether to have
  "an investigative or a judicial review function".
  Is the Committee to be only a rubber stamp to the Commissioner? If the Commissioner submits a report, is the Committee's vote one of confidence in the Commissioner? Is the Committee to be faced with the resignation of the Commissioner if it does not accept the report? Or does the Committee have to accept that—no matter how complex, difficult or controversial the case—it has not a judicial review function but an investigative function and therefore has to spend time on difficult cases?
  I believe that we must adopt that approach. In the face of this most difficult case, we must not abandon the structure, but I beg the House to look again at the Nolan committee's recommendations. They were made on an all-party basis, and the politicians and non-politicians serving on the committee tried genuinely to find what we thought was the fairest system, but the House departed from our recommendations. With no disrespect to those who gallantly served in difficult circumstances, I beg the House to look at the membership of the Committee and

  99
  to raise the seniority of the Committee back to its proper standing. We need the structure of a Commissioner to investigate; a Sub-Committee to carry out further investigation if necessary and to reach conclusions; and the Committee and the House to provide the court of appeal.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have been a member of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges since the start of the new Parliament. I thought that both the speech of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) contained a great deal of wisdom after the event. The Committee faced the difficulty of operating under clear guidelines laid down in a resolution of the House, yet it appears that the complaint from several quarters, both inside the House and among members of the fourth estate, is that, in interpreting that remit in as fair-minded a way as we could, we have not come up with a conclusion that people feel is circular, tied up and completely to their satisfaction.
  Mr. Benn: That comment underlines my point that the House has made a mistake. I said that when I was expelled and when I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, but I absolutely failed to persuade the House that the matter should be tackled on a broader basis.
  Mr. Kennedy: I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I do not necessarily dissent from it.
  My other point, by way of a brief response to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, is that, although I acknowledge the sincerity and seniority with which he delivered his remarks about the Committee's membership, it has been my experience that the Committee comprises a group of impeccably fair-minded people. I say that especially in respect of the two members who happen to be Conservative Members—that is not how I think of them in connection with their membership of the Committee—but who have nevertheless been at odds with certain of the procedures and certain of the decisions. Therefore, I do not feel that the right hon. Gentleman's comments about seniority in terms of membership of the House of Commons are particularly apposite.
  What we are looking for in a Committee of this sort is commonsensical judgment. I remember a journalist telling me a few years ago that we did not need all the paraphernalia—we just needed to apply the Private Eye test. I asked what that was and was told, "If it appeared in Private Eye, would you be embarrassed by it? If so, you should not be doing it in the first place." There is much common sense and wisdom in that remark, but it is not, unfortunately, an approach available to the Committee.
  As one of the two Scots on the Committee, I would have to say that, in Scots law, the not proven verdict is one that has its critics. It is now invariably taken to mean, "Guilty, but unable to stick it on the accused." Not proven was essentially the verdict arrived at by the Committee on the central question of the cash-for-questions controversy. Although not a lawyer, I happen to be a defender of the
  100
  not proven verdict in the Scottish legal context, and I would also defend its applicability in the context of the report that we are debating. However, it should not have to be defended in quite the same way on a future occasion.
  Mr. Hogg: As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is saying that the Committee was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hamilton was guilty of taking the money. If that is what he is saying—incidentally, I would agree with him—the House should not support the Committee's recommendations tonight.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: The House decided the remit, not the Committee.
  Mr. Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman is saying, I would have to refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the clear parameters set out by the Parliamentary Commissioner himself when he set about his task. He stated that we were not looking for the burden of proof as if it were a legal case heard in court, as Mr. Hamilton has argued for; in Sir Gordon's telling phrase, we were looking at "the balance of probability". That is what led him to conclude that there was a clear decision to be reached, and it was on the balance of probabilities that the Committee decided to endorse that decision.
  Leaving aside the central issue of cash for questions, which is what the media descended on but was not the sole object of the Committee's remit, I should stress that Mr. Hamilton has admitted to a number of omissions, including the failure to disclose Harrods' hospitality and various introductory commissions and consultancy fees. That is what led the Committee to the conclusion that his behaviour fell "seriously and persistently" below the standard that the House can expect of its Members. The Committee said:
  "Had Mr. Hamilton still been a Member we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House."
  What led the Committee to that decision were the facts—quite apart from cash for questions—to which Mr. Hamilton admitted in the full public gaze.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has just pointed out, between 1985 and about 1990 the culture of the times was such that many Members accepted hospitality from companies without declaring it. The practice was widespread. Indeed, our own Prime Minister has accepted hospitality at Gleneagles and a trip on Concorde, the Deputy Prime Minister ditto, and the President of the Board of Trade likewise. What is more, our Prime Minister recently accepted hospitality at Silverstone—yet none of that was declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Hamilton's was hardly a unique case; what he did was not unreasonable in the culture that prevailed at the time.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am not so sure about that. We all make mistakes from day to day in terms of what we do or do not disclose or accept as hospitality. That is mere human fallibility. If, however, the hon. Lady will look at the report in detail and read up on the sequence and successive nature of what Mr. Hamilton was accepting,

  101
  she will see that it was an open and shut case. I do not think that it bears comparison with what a great many other Members, let alone the Prime Minister, get up to.
  It was clear to those of us who served on the Committee—we heard it from the horse's mouth—that the pattern of accepting certain things and not declaring certain things persisted for several years. Had I been a junior Minister in the Government of the day, and had I had a pointed conversation with the Deputy Prime Minister about allegations that had appeared in The Guardian and other newspapers, I should have been a fool not to be up front about my activities at that point. Yet it is clear that there was a fundamental lack of candour—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made it clear in his letter that he was not seeking information from Mr. Hamilton about what had gone on in the past; he wanted to know whether anything was going on in the present. Disgracefully, Sir Gordon Downey reinterpreted my right hon. Friend's letter to imply that my right hon. Friend had asked Mr. Hamilton whether he had ever had any such relationships. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is being fair on that point.
  Mr. Kennedy: I think that I am being fair. Anyone questioned in such circumstances about his activities, given the national media interest that had developed, should not answer simply in respect of the here and now. He should answer with details of past relationships with certain people. Still, the hon. Gentleman's point is a telling one, because it goes to the heart of the difficulty that faced our Committee.
  Anyone can look at evidence and form any conclusions he likes. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has made a harsh comment about Sir Gordon Downey with which I would not agree. The crucial issue is that it was upon cash for questions that Neil Hamilton was being judged, yet it was the Parliamentary Commissioner appointed by the House and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges that ended up, perversely, in the dock.
  The conclusions that we reached were therefore neither the "political stitch-up" alleged by Mr. Hamilton, nor the "fudge" pronounced by his successor as the Member for Tatton. The Committee merely recognised Sir Gordon Downey's description of his role and remit, which was as follows:
  "This was a parliamentary inquiry and there was no attempt to replicate the procedures of a court action … Its sole purpose was to arrive at the truth, not to achieve a `conviction'."
  As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said earlier, anyone who complains about that now should have complained about it a long time ago, when the process was set in motion.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I hope that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) will have his say in the course of the debate—we shall listen to him with great interest—does the hon. Gentleman agree that the electors of Tatton rejected Neil Hamilton so overwhelmingly at the general election because of cash for questions—which issue has not been proven in the report? So a man's reputation has been shattered.
  102
  Why did not the Liberal Democrats contest the Tatton constituency at the election? Why did not the Labour party contest it? Was it not fought on the subject of cash for questions?
  Mr. Kennedy: That election was contested on the issue that became known as sleaze, of which cash for questions formed a major part—but it was not the only component. It is perfectly clear that an awful lot of other wrongdoing had been going on for quite some time as well. As for the psephology of Tatton, I do not want to go into it this evening, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
  I am clear in my own conscience about the decision that the Committee reached, but I am less clear about the procedures within which we operated. There must be a rethink, not least about the issue of an appeal mechanism.
  In his recent Dimbleby memorial lecture, Lord Nolan pointed out how his committee had recommended a three—stage process: the initial inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner; consideration of the report by the full Committee; any subsequent appeal to be handled by a small Sub-Committee. As the Chairman of the Committee has pointed out, the Hamilton case is but the first of two dozen to have triggered the appeal process; and for reasons of complexity and of the resources available to us, most of us felt that we were simply not equipped to conduct such a process. That is not an abdication of responsibility: it is a recognition of reality.
  Like the Committee, I hope that further consideration will be given to finding a procedure allowing a satisfactory appeal against the Commissioner's findings. My experience on the Committee is that such a procedure is unlikely to be discovered within Westminster alone. We should consider moving away from parliamentary self-regulation. The pre-election Privileges Committee was riven by party politics and partisan advantage. The post-election set-up was fair minded and cross party, yet its conclusions seem to have satisfied few.
  In future, the Commons may have to refer any alleged breaches of parliamentary standards to an outside judicial system of inquiry with its own independent and in-built appeal mechanism. Only when that process is complete can a definitive verdict be reported to you, Madam Speaker, with the House then resolving upon the appropriate course of action. Alternatively, Members of Parliament, like local councillors, should be made subject to the usual course of criminal proceedings.
  Either way it is hard to see how Parliament can much longer avoid legislating on what constitutes unethical or illegal behaviour on the part of its Members. The status quo may simply yield more not proven verdicts of this type—verdicts unique to the Scottish legal process and, I suggest, best left there, where they properly belong.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: I rise, as one of the newer Members of Parliament who has served on the Standards and Privileges Committee, to defend the report—warts and all.
  First, I want to consider in whose interests the Committee operates. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the Committee operates in the best interests of the House. Our brief was to ensure that the House benefited from our judgment, and I believe that we have fulfilled that brief.

  103
  For that purpose, it was necessary for us to be representative of the House. By being a cross—party group and by including old established Members—I am sorry, older established Members—and new Members, the Committee reflected the make-up of the House.
  Arguably, we should have included more new Members to reflect the make-up of the House more accurately. I shall not argue that strenuously, but in my opinion it was beneficial that those of us who served on the Committee as new Members had, until only a few weeks before our appointment, been members of the public. We had watched what was going on. We had made our judgments about this place and at the time we were talking to our respective constituents and gaining their impressions of this place and of the damage that was being done to its reputation by the things that were being said and done by Members whose cases came before the Committee.
  We have started to perform our role of setting standards and of rooting out abuse of privilege. In the report, we commented on our proceedings and suggested ways in which we might make progress. The system is not perfect and the proceedings are not yet fully tried and tested, but we operated within the rules set down to guide us.
  As the current hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said a few days ago, the appearance of wrongdoing can be as damaging as wrongdoing itself. He said that in a different context, but how right it is regarding our investigation into former Members. When one Member of the House is caught out in the way that those former Members have been, a process of corrosion starts which affects all of us. That means that we must demand the highest ethical standards. The worst offence that a Member can commit is to disgrace the House.
  I shall now discuss our eighth report. We said in earlier reports, considering others of the five former hon. Members who were particularly found by Sir Gordon to warrant our judgment on them, that accepting cash for questions was wrong. It was done in various ways, but in every case we said that it was wrong. Where it was proven, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that Members had accepted cash for questions, there would have been suspension from the House had they still been Members, and most of those Members who were found to have done so accepted that judgment. One did not, and we asked Sir Gordon Downey to carry out the investigation.
  Sir Gordon spent hours in cross—examination, read volumes of evidence and produced a report many hundreds of pages long. He found compelling evidence of the acceptance of cash for questions. He did not establish absolute proof. Perhaps he did not establish what had happened beyond all reasonable doubt, but we were not applying a criminal standard of judgment because we were not operating as a criminal court. Mr. Anthony King, who has been mentioned more than once in the debate, says in The Times today that
  "the committee would … exercise a broadly 'judicial review' function and reject the Parliamentary Commissioner's report only if his procedures had been seriously flawed or his findings manifestly unsafe and unsatisfactory … It has clearly concluded that Sir Gordon Downey's procedures were not seriously flawed and his findings not unsafe and unsatisfactory."
  He says that we were reluctant to use that form of words. I am happy to use that form of words because that is what we found.
  104
  I accept some of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said about making bribery of Members of Parliament a criminal offence and making the acceptance of bribes by a Member of Parliament a criminal offence, but that is not the situation that we are in and that is not the background against which we made our judgments and Sir Gordon carried out his investigation.
  I repeat that this was not a court of law, so we did not have to apply legal standards of proof. In fact, the House changed the law to allow Mr. Hamilton to test his case against legal standards of proof in a court of law. The fact that he did not eventually do so is not the Committee's concern. That was where the law came into the case.
  The nature of the allegations regarding cash for questions was such that it would always be difficult, if not impossible, to establish absolute proof. Conclusions were reached only on the basis of the testimony of individuals close to the event, and in that case, in order to move further and further towards an absolute standard of proof, we would have been obliged to open a procedure that was potentially indefinite. We might always get closer and closer, but we could never reach an absolute standard of proof because of the nature of the allegations. Nevertheless, as Sir Gordon said, the evidence was compelling.
  As hon. Members have said, however, it does not matter whether the proof was absolute in the specific case, given the Committee's role, for two reasons.
  The first reason is that, as the hon. Member for Tatton said last week, the appearance of wrongdoing was bad enough. When that wrongdoing is "seriously and persistently" carried out—the phrase used in our report—it is even worse.
  However, let us put the cash-for-questions issue aside for a moment. Sir Gordon Downey's report and the Committee's report set out 11 allegations against Mr. Hamilton, only two of which relate to cash for questions. Sir Gordon found two of the remainder "not proven". That leaves seven allegations that were substantiated, over and above the cash-for-questions allegations—allegations of misrepresentation, of failure to register interests, of taking commission payments without declaration and of being disingenuous, to say the least, in attitude towards a Minister of the Crown and the Cabinet Secretary.
  Those were offences against the House, and the decision of the Committee outlined in paragraph 7 that
  "Mr. Hamilton's conduct fell seriously and persistently below the standards which the House is entitled to expect of its Members … we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House"
  was passed unanimously. The report shows that there was no dissent or abstention: there was agreement without division on that paragraph as it related to the allegations other than those concerning cash for questions.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman is going on about a red herring. The whole point about the procedure was that when the Commissioner could agree on the facts there was no appeal. Clearly, in this case the facts were not disputed. Mr. Hamilton and all the others accepted that they had not observed the rules and we simply left that matter aside. The sad issue that the House must

  105
  confront this evening, whether it likes it or not, is that there was a procedure for an appeal against the Commissioner's verdict when the facts were not agreed.
  Mr. Hamilton was entitled to exercise that appeal. He did so and his appeal was never properly heard. He appealed on the vital issue of whether he took money from Mr. Al Fayed. As a result of the behaviour of the majority of the Committee, no one will ever know whether Mr. Hamilton took money from Mr. Al Fayed and no one has ever been in a position to question Mr. Hamilton about it on behalf of the House, or to question Mr. Al Fayed, who would have been equally guilty had money passed hands in that way.
  Mr. Levitt: That is not the point. The Committee was set up to serve the House and we said what standards of behaviour we expected. Whether or not all the allegations are proven to an absolute standard of proof, we said that Mr. Hamilton's behaviour was wholly unacceptable and he would have been suspended had he still been a Member. That is not in dispute. When we had the death sentence, someone could be found guilty on six charges and beheaded; it was immaterial whether they were found guilty on a seventh charge.
  The Standards and Privileges Committee carried out its work diligently and at great length. Sir Gordon Downey went to painstaking lengths to produce a huge and utterly convincing report, which we examined for several months. We had three written rebuttals from Mr. Hamilton at various stages of the report and a lengthy two-and-a-half-hour contribution from him in person. It was an experience having Mr. Hamilton make a presentation before us that day. It was entertaining, skilful, slick and seductive, but it was empty. Nothing during those two and a half hours gave me or the majority of Committee members any reason to want to reopen the debate on Sir Gordon's report. Nothing that Mr. Hamilton said made us feel that Sir Gordon had the wrong end of the stick or had misinterpreted what was going on.
  The House commanded us to carry out our deliberations within a reasonable period of time. That form of words appeared when the Committee was set up. We took more than a reasonable amount of time. Had we reopened the question and taken witnesses, we would not have seen an end to our deliberations. We had no reason to do that because we had no reason to doubt Sir Gordon's report.
  As the hon. Member for Tatton said last week, the appearance of what was going on was what mattered. The appearance of wrongdoing in this case was total, and I stand by the Committee's report.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I intend to speak briefly without the help of interventions.
  Something that is not in our report is the fact that no one has accused Neil Hamilton of doing anything as a Minister that would have made Mr. Al Fayed happy. In practice, most of the Al Fayed accusations were made because Ministers would not do what he wanted.
  The eighth report clearly draws a line under paragraph 7. Of the broadsheets, excluding the Financial Times, The Guardian was the only newspaper to reflect in practice what the Committee had agreed. Most of the other commentaries, especially in the press, were on the
  106
  basis that the eighth paragraph had been used for the conclusion of paragraph 7. As the Committee Chairman said, the report says clearly that what we would have recommended for Neil Hamilton was based on paragraph 6, which is not the contentious part of the allegations taken through by the Commissioner or the Committee.
  In simple terms—although this is a complicated matter—the Committee did not find Neil Hamilton guilty on paragraph 8. We did not overturn the Commissioner's work, but neither did we say that Mr. Hamilton should be recommended for punishment under paragraph 8. The fact that it is not material has been missed by many people.
  Like the hon. Members against whom allegations were made in the seventh report, Neil Hamilton would have been acceptable as a Member of Parliament had he served a period of suspension, substantial or not.
  Had the Committee wanted to recommend that someone was unfit for public life or that they should be struck off by their professional bodies, I have no doubt that we were capable of saying that. Because we did not, people in the House and outside should not believe that the Committee's recommendations went further than they would have done had those Members been re-elected at the last election.
  My next point may be controversial. It relates to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). I think that he has rightly stayed away from these issues up to now. If he speaks tonight, I shall listen with great interest. When the House has disposed of our reports Nos. 7 and 8, I hope that the House authorities will consider whether the hon. Gentleman should be nominated to join the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, as he is not likely to be a Member for a number of Parliaments—he said that he would stand only once—and he should be able to bring a point of view that would be of value to the Committee.
  To those who want to understand what has been going on, I commend the early pages of the first report, which spells out how the matter started and why it is an unusual case. I do not believe that in future we shall have to deal with general accusations thrown about by someone like Mr. Al Fayed—to whom I say, not in passing but specifically, that I extend my sympathy on the loss of his son. Mr. Al Fayed will not be repeated many times. He made accusations, a number of which were extremely serious. Some were untrue.
  I also want to draw attention to what the Commissioner says on page 5 of the first report. He states in paragraph 33 that he wants also
  "to acknowledge that, but for The Guardian's persistence in pursuing its original investigations, many of these serious allegations would never have been brought into the open."
  He goes on to say in paragraph 34—and this, I believe, the Press Complaints Commission should call for and invite The Guardian to comment on:
  "I cannot, however, view in the same light The Guardian's action in leaking extracts from the transcripts of oral evidence given to the inquiry. I repeat what I said in a press statement on 21 March 1997, namely that the selective publication of incomplete evidence was both inimical to the principle of natural justice and a gross breach of the trust placed in The Guardian as a party to the inquiry."
  Those are not matters that the House should take up, but The Guardian and the Press Complaints Commission should consider them together.
  On the issues before the House, I believe that the House is perfectly capable of considering recommendations from Sir Patrick Neill, as we did from the Nolan report. We are

  107
  capable of coming to conclusions and, if necessary, taking further evidence for the Committee after investigation by the Commissioner. The number of cases where Members or former Members seriously dispute facts after inquiries by the Commissioner will be non-existent or very limited. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I should be glad if hon. Members would desist from arguing with me at this time simply because it is doubtful whether they are going to be called. They are challenging the hon. Members whom I have called. [Interruption.] Yes, you are. You are looking at the list to see who has been called. You will desist from coming to my Chair.
  Mr. Quentin DaviesRose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. You have been challenging who I have called and complaining that I have called the Chairman of the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee has every right to be called, and to be called first. I will hear no more. Resume your seat and we shall continue with this debate.
  Mr. Bottomley: The most important issue for us is to try to work in this House, not in the expectation that there will never be a time when any of us will transgress, but in the knowledge that we have a method of investigating complaints. I believe what has been said already—that the commissioner is the right person to test whether complaints need to be taken further.
  My final major comment relates to the procedure of the Committee and the options open to hon. Members on it. During our deliberations, I pushed one issue to an oral vote, but not to the taking of names. The way in which the report came out reflects the contributions made by members of the Committee together. Those who put too much weight on the fact that we did not accept the words about endorsement in the draft Chairman's report are building too much on that. We could have arranged matters in such a way that the word "endorsed" never appeared in our deliberations or in the vote. We did not do that.
  I believe that we are capable of raising the standard of behaviour of Members of Parliament. I believe that what happened during the 1980s was excessive. I believe that from now on, when hon. Members speak in the House it will be because they are saying something that they believe, although they may be wrong, or because they are saying something that is in the interests of their constituents, although they may be wrong, or something that they believe to be in the national interest, although they may be wrong, but it will not be because they have been getting benefits from people outside.
  I make one final plea: could I please be invited to any meetings of Transport and General Workers Union members in this place? I have been a member of the union and of the House for 22 years, but as I was not sponsored by the union I have never been invited to a single meeting.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth; I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to end and add:
  108
  "notes that, on an amendment proposed by the honourable Member for Workington, the Committee on Standards and Privileges resolved, nemine contradicente, not to endorse Sir Gordon Downey's findings in respect of Mr. Neil Hamilton; expresses its deep concern that the ultimate author of the grave allegations concerning cash payments, Mr. Al Fayed, was not called to give evidence before the Committee on oath in public; and believes that justice cannot be done until Mr. Al Fayed has been so called."
  I must declare an interest in the debate at the outset: Neil Hamilton is a friend, and has been for many years, and I will not stand by and see an injustice done to a friend without speaking my mind. I hope that I shall not face too many serious consequences for so doing—but if one cannot speak one's mind in this place, where in the world can one do that?
  I believe that Mr. Hamilton has been subjected to the most wicked, vicious witch hunt in the media—particularly in The Guardian newspaper, whose journalists have something to answer for. Nobody knows better than me that he has conducted himself throughout the past extraordinary months—which have been incredibly difficult for him, his wife and family—in a manner that is nothing short of magnificent. He has shown great courage and great determination—in part, it is his determination that got him into such trouble as he is accused of protesting too much. I think that he has acted with great dignity. To those who are concerned that he appears too much on television—on perhaps slightly down-market programmes—I would say that that illustrates the point that he made to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges: Neil Hamilton is unemployable. He has lost his seat in this place and has no prospect of employment elsewhere. The only way that he can keep a roof over his head is by diverting those talents that he displayed with such excellence in this place.
  I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall endeavour to be brief—although I must confess that it will be difficult. This business is known to the public as the "cash for questions" affair. It is, therefore, proper that I should concentrate my remarks on the specific allegation that Neil Hamilton received cash, in whatever form, from the proprietor of Harrods, Mr. Fayed.
  In answer to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I assert that Mr. Hamilton has apologised. He is deeply apologetic for some of the errors of judgment that he made, and I have not heard him refer once to "parking offences". I do not dispute that Mr. Hamilton may have said that—if the right hon. Gentleman says he has, I shall leave it at that. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that Mr. Hamilton is extremely contrite and apologetic for his lapses of judgment.
  It serves no purpose the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) claiming that Mr. Hamilton has committed the most heinous offences. The Prime Minister also has a catalogue of non-declarations. I do not wish to be too partisan, but I suggest to the House that it is not fair to criticise a former Member for taking hospitality when the Prime Minister did so also. The Prime Minister's response to not registering was to say, "They saw me on television." It is no use hon. Members bickering about it; that is a fair point.

  109
  I have sought to amend the motion before the House to draw attention to two important and connected issues. The first is the injustice to Neil Hamilton and the second is the cumulative damage done to the House by Mohammed Fayed, the proprietor of Harrods. I remind the House that the story began when The Guardian newspaper alleged that Neil Hamilton was paid £2,000 a time by Ian Greer for tabling parliamentary questions. The fact that he tabled rather fewer parliamentary questions—certainly fewer early-day motions—than the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is relevant only in the sense: why pay Mr. Hamilton if the hon. Member for Workington will do it for nothing? Which he did, I hasten to add—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: And more effectively.
  Mr. Howarth: And more effectively, the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position.
  It is an important point. However, the most important point is that an analysis of Ian Greer's accounts disproved beyond doubt that Neil Hamilton had received payment from Mr. Fayed via Ian Greer, and that charge, which was the essence of The Guardian's charge in October 1994, was dismissed by Sir Gordon Downey. The accusation that Neil Hamilton had received gift vouchers from Harrods was also dismissed.
  As the legal action was proceeding, Mr. Hamilton sought the permission of Parliament to change the law so that he could take the case to court. He took it to court, and Mr. Fayed then changed the allegations about cash and said that, rather than being paid by Ian Greer Associates, it was paid face to face. Neil Hamilton pointed out that at one of the meetings where these cash payments were supposed to have been made by Mr. Fayed, Timothy O'Sullivan, a man of undoubted integrity, was also present. Mr. Fayed had forgotten that one, so it was no longer possible to argue that Neil Hamilton had been paid face to face. What happened then? Ah, we come to the brown envelopes. The brown envelopes were the means by which the payment was made. Mr. Fayed is a man most familiar with the transmission of cash through brown envelopes. I know because I have a constituent who used to be in his employ, and he tells me all about it. It is not all dishonourable stuff. It is the largesse of the man. He has much of it. Nobody knows where it comes from but he has much of it.
  We found that Neil Hamilton had not been paid through Ian Greer. Sir Gordon agreed with that. He had not been paid face to face, because an independent witness proved that that could not have happened, at least on that particular date, and therefore must have undermined Mr. Fayed's credibility. Finally, at the door of the court, at the 59th minute of the 11th hour, we had the third allegation: that the cash in the brown envelopes was collected from the desk of Fayed's Park lane offices and couriered to Neil Hamilton's home. That is the changing scenario against which the judgments were to be made.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and inverness, West referred to the verdict in Scotland of not proven. I say to the Chairman of the Committee, it is a cardinal principle of English law—not Scottish law—that a man is innocent unless and until proved otherwise. In its report, the
  110
  Committee has failed to produce the evidence that Neil Hamilton received money from a very powerful business man.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend and I sit on the Home Affairs Select Committee. He will recall that he has heard the Home Office Minister arguing in terms that where policemen face dismissal for serious disciplinary offences, the standard of proof should be the criminal one—beyond a reasonable doubt. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the appropriate approach to take with hon. Members of the House?
  Mr. Howarth: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. He has made a most important point. It is a most cavalier attitude if the House is saying that in this case a former Member of Parliament's entire life can be destroyed, completely shattered, simply on the balance of probabilities. That is not good enough. I do not think that Sir Gordon Downey's compelling evidence—his words—is compelling in the least. He has failed to say how much Neil Hamilton took. He has failed to say when he took it. He has failed to say how he took it. Above all, he has failed to say what happened to the money when he had taken it. As to how much he had taken, Sir Gordon is instructive. In volume I of the first report, at page 122, he says:
  "The total amount received by Mr Hamilton is unclear, but it is unlikely to have been less than that taken by Mr Smith (between £18,000 and £25,000)."
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: That is a lot of money.
  Mr. Howarth: It is a lot of money, but it is no basis upon which a former Comptroller and Auditor General should charge a Member of this House and say
  "it is unlikely to have been less than"
  while also saying,
  "The total amount … is unclear".
  I do not believe that a servant of the House—the Chairman of the Committee tells us that that is what he is—has any business making that kind of accusation.
  The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) has said from a sedentary position that it was a lot of money. Sir Gordon also charged Mr. Hamilton with failing to declare a one-month consultancy, which added up to £667 and which he described as a material sum of money. So Mr. Hamilton has been stuffed both ways—£667 is judged a serious amount of money when it comes to non-registration of a consultancy, but between £18,000 and £25,000 is a cavalier amount of money.
  It is instructive to read what Sir Gordon says in the report about what happened to the money. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said that we must deal with the appearance, but that is absolutely breathtaking. To suggest that just because the public think that something wrong was committed, we must therefore go along with that, is a most extraordinary attitude. It is gravely damaging in one who is a member of the Committee, which should operate on the basis of fact alone and not on the basis of conjecture.
  The Chairman of the Committee has said that it has not been possible to find hard evidence either way. Of course, it would be possible because Sir Gordon has gone through

  111
  Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton's bank accounts, building society accounts and all other accounts. He cannot find the money. What does he say about that in the report? He uses the following words:
  "I am unable to shed any light on what became of this money … Given the relatively modest sums involved, and the fact that the payments were spread over a period of more than two years, the absence of such documentary confirmation of their receipt is perhaps not surprising."
  That is not an acceptable judgment on which to condemn a man who has given great service to the House; a man who has given great service as a Minister; and great service to the country. He should not be condemned on the basis of such cavalier behaviour. The House ignores those facts at its peril.
  Shona McIsaac: Is it also right that the House should also ignore the corroborative circumstantial evidence which is in the Commissioner's report, such as that provided by the telephone message pads, which suggest that Mr. Hamilton was, to use the words in the report, "soliciting" for the preparation of payments? Should we also ignore such evidence or should we regard it as compelling circumstantial evidence?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady is a new member of the Committee and a new Member of the House, but—
  Shona McIsaac: I am capable of judging a case.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady does not need to get too excited because I was about to deal with whether that evidence was compelling or not. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Lady would be interested in considering what was the corroborative evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am dealing with it. As for the message pads, the messages were taken by staff, and I want to deal with the staff.
  Shona McIsaac Rose—
  Mr. Howarth: No, I will not give way because time is getting on.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I will give way to my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, she is a lady as well.
  Miss Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the exchange between him and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) provides an ample demonstration of the reasons why at least two of us on the Committee wanted to go through the evidence and test it thoroughly? Surely it amply demonstrates the exact problem that we faced — there was one piece of evidence followed by another, another and another, which we wanted to test.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, with whom I agree entirely. That is why some of us on the Conservative Benches at least, and, I believe, elsewhere in the House, are concerned about the findings of the Committee because there has not been an opportunity to
  112
  test Mr. Hamilton's arguments, let alone those of other people who have not been called at all. Sir Gordon has no direct evidence that Mr. Hamilton received the cash, or what he did with it if he did receive it. He has to rely on the evidence of witnesses who are Fayed employees.
  It is interesting that, in the case of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), Sir Gordon said:
  "They cannot all be telling the truth and this has underlined the crucial importance of seeking independent corroboration for the allegations."
  Sir Gordon did not explain why Al Fayed's employees were not independent in the case of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but suddenly became so in Mr. Hamilton's case. It is up to Sir Gordon Downey to explain that.
  These events occurred 10 years ago, and these witnesses have a recall about Neil Hamilton that they have about nobody else. I do not want to bore the House with the details, but I shall give a couple of examples. Mr. Philip Bromfield sat at the desk in Park lane. He apparently remembered giving envelopes to Tim Smith, who we now know did not receive any envelopes from Park lane, so Mr. Bromfield's evidence should be questioned. Tim Smith was paid on seven or eight occasions, but he never collected an envelope from Park lane.
  Mr. Bromfield remembered Mr. Hamilton, but failed to remember Francesca Pollard. Those of us who have been in the House for a while will know that Francesca Pollard was being paid by Fayed to write nasty things about Tiny Rowland. Every month for over four years she collected £2,000 in brown envelopes, but Mr. Bromfield could not remember her collecting those 40 envelopes. How can we rely on that evidence? There is plenty more where that came from, but I shall not trouble the House with it.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend accept that the point of this debate, which will last only three hours or less, should not be to argue the toss about these detailed aspects of evidence? The question that the House should ask is whether this accused man should be allowed to cross-examine his accusers. Is it right for the House to abrogate that role, and for the Committee Chairman to say that we do not have time? That is what we should be arguing about.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right, but it is also important to draw attention to some of the detail, given some of the comments that have been made in support of Sir Gordon Downey. There is considerable evidence that Fayed employees were not suitably independent to be relied on in this important matter.
  I think that Mr. Fayed has done immeasurable damage to the House. He congratulated Neil Hamilton on his appointment as a Minister, but was galled because of his failure to buy Mr. Hamilton, who acted with total propriety, unlike the Minister for Public Health. When he was told by his civil servants that he could handle House of Fraser matters, he handed the papers over to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Miss Bozek gave the game away when she wrote of Mr. Hamilton in The Mail on Sunday:
  "We thought he would be tremendously helpful to us. We were very disappointed that he wasn't prepared to help. … When he obtained a position that could have been really useful he opted out. He never even replied to Mr. Al Fayed's letter of congratulations."

  113
  Mr. Fayed was fed up because he could not buy a Conservative Minister. He could not get his case overturned at the European Court of Human Rights, he could not get the Minister to do his bidding, and he could not get a meeting with the Prime Minister, so off he went to The Guardian. He is the source not only of this problem, but of the cash-for-questions allegations, which was the scam that The Sunday Times ran about Mr. Graham Riddick and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). He is the man who accused my right hon. and learned Friend the former Home Secretary of having taken £1 million in bribes. Twenty-four other Members have been victims of this man Fayed.
  I believe that Sir Gordon Downey gave too much weight to what Fayed said. He was prepared to take the word of a man proved by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors to be a liar; a man who has not stopped short of raiding someone's safe box; a man who even said of the late Princess of Wales that he had heard her dying words. I believe that there is a catalogue of shameful activities on the part of this man, and that he is responsible for bringing the House into disrepute. The House may well decide tonight that it wants to accept the report and get it out of the way—my colleagues on the Front Bench may say, "We have other things to do in our careers, and we ought not to become involved in this business"—but I tell the House that, if we do that, we shall be in serious trouble. This man will not go away: he will stop at nothing.
  I also believe that there are beginnings—there are rumblings. People outside the House are already concerned about the way in which the matter is being handled. They feel that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I cite just Mr. Anthony Bevins—talking about "the Tatton one"—Mr. Chris Moncrieff and Mr. Paul Johnson.
  I hope that the House will have second thoughts, and will feel able to support my amendment.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I do not want to rehearse the evidence given in the Hamilton affair this evening, for the reasons set out by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in her intervention. We can go back and forth, and we shall get nowhere. We cannot retry the matter on the Floor of the House.
  I shall follow what was said by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), because I want to know what will happen in the future. How are we to change procedures? We are dealing with a matter of natural justice. I believe that I can endorse Sir Gordon's report—I have no trouble in doing that—but that is not the issue. The issue is whether, having endorsed the report personally, I, as an individual Member of Parliament, am satisfied that Mr. Hamilton has been heard on appeal. He has not received an appeal, and my view is that we must find a way of providing for that at some stage in the future. I shall say more about that later.
  Let me trace the background to what has happened, and show why we are in our present quandary. Nolan recommended that post-prima facie inquiries should be carried out by the Committee. In other words, he set a threshold: once an inquiry had reached the prima facie
  114
  stage and it had been established that there was a case, the matter should go to the Committee. The Select Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that as well, in paragraph 5 of its first report; but it was never implemented by the Committee.
  We have been in default of the first report of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life since the beginning of the operations of this Committee. In only one case have we stopped at the prima facie point, as far as I can recall: I refer to the case of the gentleman whom I believe is now the shadow Home Secretary. In nearly all our inquiries, we have repeatedly asked the Commissioner to pass the prima facie stage. In doing so, we have compromised the Nolan recommendations, and also compromised the recommendations of the first report on standards in public life.
  This particular case was complicated by a reference from the Speaker that wore neither a standards hat nor a privileges hat; but the same procedure was applied. The first special report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges recommended:
  "The Commissioner will then determine where there is prima facie evidence of a case to answer and, where possible, reach conclusions on whether the allegations have been substantiated."
  Those words "reach conclusions" are all-important. The moment we asked the Commissioner to reach conclusions, we were in default of the recommended procedures, and were effectively negating the requirement that the Committee itself carry out an inquiry.
  The House might ask why that happened. The answer is simple: it was for the convenience of the Committee. Members realised that it would be impossible to sit and adjudicate on all those cases as if we were a court of law. Members of Parliament do not sit on juries and I presume that one reason why is that we simply do not have the time. I am not a juror. I am not in a position to sit and to hear a whole case and nor was any member of that Committee.
  Lord Nolan's original recommendations were fundamentally flawed in that area and I take my share of responsibility because I was one of those people who went to the Nolan committee, asked for an ethics registrar, as I called him, and referred to the need for the committee to be the appellate body. I was wrong and I should have learned from my experience.
  A House of Commons Committee cannot sit in a quasi-judicial form and carry out the function of an appellate body. My reasons for saying that are controversial.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let me finish just the next stage and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I have six examples as to why those Committees can be meddled with politically. Last week in my office, during an interview with a professor of politics from a famous university, I learnt that he had interviewed a prominent Member of Parliament on those matters, who had told him that the John Browne inquiry in the late 1980s, which came before a quasi-judicial Committee, the Select Committee on Members' Interests, was the subject of influence by the Whips. That prominent hon. Member also alleged that the Aitken inquiry was influenced by the Whips. Those were in quasi-judicial conditions.

  115
  I know for a fact that the Grylls inquiry of 1990 was interfered with. Why? Because I was there and I watched it happen. I called for him to give evidence to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I was blocked by a Conservative majority on the Committee, yet that evidence was critical during the libel case of Mr. Hamilton; indeed, it was one of the reasons why the Hamilton trial collapsed. That is well established. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is agreeing with me. That Committee was meddled with and my attempts to have Sir Michael Grylls brought before the Committee to answer detailed questions were blocked. Clearly, in so far as I was not able to bring him before the Committee, the result was that justice was not done.
  In the case of the Hamilton report, the Select Committee on Members' Interests was manipulated. That was what led to my complaint in the case of Mr. Mitchell, the former hon. Member for Gedling. I can reveal for the first time that we had absolute, clear and incontrovertible evidence from a member of the former Select Committee on Members' Interests, which, if it had been brought before the Committee, would have clearly shown that Mr. Mitchell was acting for the Tory Whips office during that inquiry. It came from one of the Tory members of that former Committee. That Committee was meddled with.
  Early this year, the Mitchell inquiry came before the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee, which is supposed to be manned by people of independence, was blocked when it came to calling additional witnesses—a list of witnesses had been submitted by Committee members to its Chairman. We were prevented from calling additional witnesses in the Mitchell inquiry into what happened in the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1992. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) joined with others to block additional evidence being given to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head: perhaps he would like to intervene. Does he recall what happened in those debates? He was one of those who said that we could take no more evidence in the inquiry into Mr. Mitchell. By doing that, he further proved that quasi-judicial proceedings in Parliament do not work in the way that they should.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is trying to divert attention from the subject under discussion because he is worried about the role that he played on the Committee. I shall answer his extraordinary charge against me. Under no circumstances was I a party to trying to suppress evidence on any Committee on which I served. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if there had been any further material evidence—I do not remember him presenting any—I should certainly not have blocked it. There is no justification whatever for the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary and wild accusations against me.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps my final example will convince the House. It relates to the inquiry that some members of the Committee tried to get into the blind trust of the Leader of the Opposition at that time, now the Prime Minister. The conversations in Committee at
  116
  the time were remarkable. People wanted a show trial, although they knew that my right hon. Friend was complying directly and to the letter with the recommendations that had been given to him by the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges. They knew that my right hon. Friend's private office had been advised.
  Sir Archie Hamilton (Epson and Ewell)Rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to reveal yet another matter which we agreed never to speak about outside the Chamber. He acted thoroughly politically and had to apologise to the Committee. That is the procedure that we are told is quasi-judicial and operated by independent people. The Committee cannot carry out that function.
  Sir Archie Hamilton: Will' the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, I will not give way.
  The Standards and Privileges Committee could not carry out an appeal inquiry because it is not competent to do so in its appeal form. It was capable of accepting an independent report from the Commissioner and treating it in the way that it should be treated. However, it was not capable of acting as an appellate body without turning into a political forum, as happened before the last general election.
  I want to be constructive. What is the answer and what is the way forward? The answer is not to go to the courts because people with large pocketfuls of cash will make sure that their cases are never heard. That will carry rich Members through general elections and there will be no justice because those people will bring about delay by using the money that is available to them.
  Those matters must always be settled within the procedures of the House. I have two recommendations. The first is that we implement paragraph 10 of the recommendations from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life. That recommends that we legislate on the functions and duties of the Commissioner. The post should be made statutory in the same way as that of the Comptroller and Auditor General was made statutory under the National Audit Act 1983.
  I believe in an appeal procedure and some people think that the Commissioner's role should be strengthened by the use of added assessors while the Committee would adopt a quasi-judicial review status. That is not my view because it still does not provide for the appeal procedure to which the likes of Hamilton and those people who think that they have a right to contest the Commissioner's judgments are entitled. They should not bring spurious appeals and I do not think that Mr. Hamilton would bring a spurious appeal. However, he would believe that, in terms of natural justice, he has a right to be heard.
  My provisional recommendation is that, where an appeal is sought against a judgment, and where the Select Committee is prepared to support such an appeal by way of a Committee resolution, assessors should be appointed to review evidence and to take further evidence if necessary. It might be possible to include the Chairman of the Committee, with the judicial assessors, in the review procedure. The Commissioner and any counsel appointed

  117
  to the original inquiry could be available to advise that appeal inquiry on the reasons for the Commissioner's original findings. The review body would report its findings and conclusions to the full Committee.
  That is my provisional view. That is what effectively, and without going into detail, I have been arguing over with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford for months. I wanted an appeal procedure; he wanted to use a Committee that I do not believe could be relied upon, in any circumstances, to act as a proper appellate body. I wanted a different procedure. That is what I have argued for tonight.
  I appeal to those people who have formerly sat on the Nolan committee and now sit on the Neill committee to look at these matters again because I do not believe that Parliament is capable of deciding them. We need the voice of those outside, presenting their recommendations. We need a proper appeal system that is not politically adulterated.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been accused of some peculiar things this evening. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has just made a vague accusation about my suppressing evidence. I do not know what he is talking about. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, can advise me on some way in which I can have redress on this matter or at least find out precisely of what he is accusing me. The hon. Gentleman's emotional attack on me may possibly have something to do with the fact that he put down 55 early-day motions on behalf of Mr. Al Fayed and vociferously and vituperously tried to prevent me from calling Mr. Al Fayed before the Committee. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, it is a point of frustration. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration because I have not been able to call him. I regret that I have not been able to call all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who had a right to be heard this evening. We did not start the debate until 7.30 pm and I now have to take the winding-up speeches.
  9.47 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall be brief, as I know that the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wants about 10 minutes for her remarks.
  Tonight's debate underlines one thing above all others—that we are suffering from the untidy consequences of our own actions in this House. I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Select Committee, agrees with me on that point. It is important that we look again, with great care, at our procedures.
  The two words "natural justice" have cropped up time and again during the debate and in the publicity leading up to it. There is not a single right hon. or hon. Member in any part of the House who would not wish to see natural justice done. It is therefore important that we look at the matter again. The Opposition will want to give careful thought to making constructive proposals and to discussing them with the Government and with you, Madam Speaker, to try to ensure that we come to a tidier solution.
  118
  The other thing that we must recognise is that one former hon. Member's name has dominated the proceedings this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made an impassioned speech. He has no need to apologise for friendship. He has no need to apologise for speaking in defence of his former hon. Friend and his friend still. However, we must all recognise that the admitted actions of Mr. Hamilton, for which he has apologised, did themselves justify the report that we are discussing.
  The House has to realise also that Mr. Hamilton has not been found guilty of corruption, of fraud or of any other criminal act. It is important that that message goes forth today from the House.
  Mr. Hamilton can no longer be dealt with by the House. Had he still been an hon. Member, the Committee would have recommended his suspension for an appreciable time, which is a significant punishment. The Committee did not, however, say that it would recommend his expulsion from the House. It is important that the House recognises that fact. It is important that Mr. Hamilton, as he attempts to pick up the tatters of his career, recognises that fact. Moreover, it is important that those who might be in a position to benefit legitimately from his talents—he has many of them—recognise it.
  In the debate, the House has had to examine the report that has been produced by the very right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and his Committee. I cannot pretend that I would necessarily agree with everything that the members of the Committee said in that report, and I fully understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) felt that they had to dissent from some of the report's major recommendations. Like you, Madam Speaker, I understand their sense of frustration at not being able to speak in the debate.
  What is at stake is the integrity of the House and of all those who attempt to serve within it. For that reason, if there is a Division, we shall support the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. We support him with a heavy heart, however, believing that our procedures—recently evolved—are very far from perfect and that they need immediate attention and significant reform.
  9.50 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Tempers have at times been heated in this debate, which, nevertheless, has been of value to the House. Some very important points have been made in it, which may have long-term implications for our future proceedings. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that we should thank the members of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges for their time and effort. It is not easy to serve on such a Committee, as it bears a heavy responsibility. Moreover, very serious issues were raised in the inquiry. The House should also thank Sir Gordon Downey and his staff for their work on the report.
  At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said that he thought that—as a Committee and as a structure—the Standards and Privileges Committee had worked well in most of the cases that had been referred to it. Speaking especially as a former Committee member, I completely concur with him in that belief.

  119
  Hon. Members should think carefully before we introduce changes in our procedures. Certainly, we should think carefully before we change our procedures on the basis of, I hope, the worst-case complaint about an individual hon. Member, which the House will have to deal with. Perhaps changes are necessary, but we should not rush into them on the basis of what is, I hope, the worst case.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater made a point also about the Committee's membership. In his speech, and in representations made to me privately, he said that I should have chaired the Committee. I was flattered by his comments, and by those of the Nolan committee. He said that the Committee's chairmanship should not be political, and I agree. Although I think that it is possible to wear two hats—as Leader of the House and as a member of the Government—it was extremely important that the Committee should be seen to be free from political interference. I know that that view was shared by the former Leader of the House, who, in the previous Parliament, had to chair the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I had to deal with that important consideration.
  Nevertheless, the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater on the Committee's membership were patronising. To members of the public, the fact that we have new hon. Members on the Committee might be regarded as a very good thing. Members of the public might even say that we needed some new members on the Committee and some new influences in dealing with the matter. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the present Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), is an extremely senior Member of the House, more so than me.
  The shadow Leader of the House reminded us why we are discussing these issues. She went back to the establishment of the Nolan committee. Obviously, many hon. Members were not keen on implementing Nolan's recommendations, but the basic question at that stage was whether there should be self-regulation or whether we should hand over such matters to the courts. The fact that we opted for self-regulation is still justified, and I believe that the general framework of a Select Committee on Standards and Privileges can work. We have made progress with the new procedures and in cases when complaints have been made. For the first time, the House has a code of conduct and if all Members follow that code, we shall have fewer problems in future.
  Mr. David Winnick: I went along with self-regulation. I took the view that the House should be in a position to regulate its own affairs, and I rejected the call made by people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that an outside body should do the job. However, having listened closely to this evening's debate without intervening, I am coming to the view that if the issue produces such controversy and, indeed, if it is largely along party lines, self-regulation might not work and we might have to go to an outside body.
  Mrs. Taylor: That may be the case at the end of the day, but we are not at that stage yet. There are things that we can do to make self-regulation work.
  I should like to say a few words in response to some of the general points raised, especially those in connection with bribery and the law on corruption. Nolan said that the Government should clarify the law relating to the bribery of, or the receipt of a bribe by, a Member of Parliament. I remind the House that the Government have said that they will clarify the law on corruption, and the Home Secretary has published an options paper with a view to legislation. That document is to be considered by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which is due to have its first meeting next week. I hope that the House will accept progress in that direction.
  I remind the House that when the appeals procedure was first put to the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Clerk of the House told us that there could be problems in adopting such a procedure because the members of the Sub-Committee would also be members of the main Committee.
  As I said, we are talking about a new system of self-regulation. Until this case arose, there were no complaints about the procedure. I do not think that there are general grounds for complaint tonight.
  Mention has been made of the degree of evidence required in the Hamilton case. Sir Gordon's memorandum said:
  "Indeed, the substance of the case stemmed from the abandoned civil libel action where the standard of proof would have been `balance of probabilities'. In practice my approach was more stringent than this".
  The part of the eighth report of the Standards and Privileges Committee that was accepted unanimously stated:
  "We have carefully examined Mr. Hamilton's representations. Essentially, these repeat the evidence he gave to the Commissioner for Standards. We do not consider that Mr. Hamilton has brought forward relevant new evidence."
  That was what the Committee said after it had heard from Neil Hamilton.
  Tonight, the House has been asked to approve the seventh and eighth reports of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I hope and trust that the House will do so, because the reputation of this House and its ability to regulate itself are at stake. The shadow Leader of the House said that the Committee had been able to draw a line under the Hamilton affair. The House can do that this evening if it agrees with the report that Mr. Hamilton's conduct fell seriously and persistently below the standards that the House is entitled to expect of its Members.
  I hope that the House will reject the amendment and support the motion. Such a decision will help to repair some of the damage done to the reputation of this House by the actions of Neil Hamilton and others.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Seventh and Eighth Reports of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 240, 261).

Ordered,
That Mr. Cynog Dafis and Mr. Matthew Taylor be added to the Environmental Audit Committee. —[Mr. Jamieson.]

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Stephen Day be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mr. Philip Hammond be added to the Committee. — [Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Merchant Fleet
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Jamieson.]
10 pm
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Madam Speaker, may I take this opportunity—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Wait a moment, please. This is the hon. Gentleman's maiden speech, so could those hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quickly, because others want to hear him?
Mr. Henderson: I thank the Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), for coming here to respond to this important debate and to my maiden speech.
It is impossible to represent the constituency of Harwich without having a feel for the sea and all that is connected with it. One of the first recorded naval battles involving an English king took place in what is now Harwich harbour, when King Alfred defeated a fleet of marauding Danes. Since then, the spot has been known as Bloody Point.
Far less bloody was the most recent skirmish in Harwich, which resulted in my election as the first Labour Member of Parliament for the constituency. Fortunately, my opponent was not a marauding Viking, but lain Sproat—the then Sports Minister. While the encounter was keenly fought, I would like to record that it was a good-tempered and honourable affair. I will never forget the generosity and dignity with which Iain Sproat was the first to congratulate me at the count.
Iain Sproat had at various times been both Shipping and Heritage Minister—two issues undeniably linked with the Harwich area. No part of the constituency is more than a few miles from the sea, and all the major population areas are on the coast. The sea plays a vital role in the local tourist industry, and the popular resorts of Clacton, Frinton, Walton and Dovercourt, with their beaches, piers and entertainment facilities. The sea is equally important to the town which gives the constituency its name.
The sea, through the ships and port-related industries, has given Harwich a place in history. Harwich was the first landfall for the ships which defeated the Spanish armada, and was the site of a Royal Navy dockyard, established during the wars against the Dutch. As HMS Badger, its large natural harbour gave it a vital role during the second world war.
Throughout history, the Merchant Navy fleet that has served this country so well has been at the very heart of Harwich, providing employment for those living right across the east of England, and not only in the immediate area of the Harwich constituency. It is for that reason that someone like me—who has lived in Harwich all his life—is desperate to see our maritime heritage preserved and its future secured.
Before the privatisation of Sealink by the Conservative Government, thousands of British seafarers were based in Harwich. Daily passenger and freight services linked Harwich with the continent, all but a handful of which were British-flagged, British-crewed ships. Now there is only one—one freight ship with 30 or 40 British seafarers aboard.

123
Such decimation of the local Merchant Navy fleet has had a massive impact on the economies of all the towns in the immediate area. I am aware that the same story can be told all over the country, and that flags of convenience and investment by other Governments in their own seafaring industry have affected most ports where our proud maritime heritage has been built up over centuries. I now believe that it is time that everyone became aware of that.
Our Merchant Navy fleet is a national asset, and this country's maritime industry is desperately in need of the support it so richly deserves. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has stated publicly that the Labour Government are committed to working with those in the industry to help to develop its economic potential, and so reverse the decline and safeguard our maritime future. He has made it clear that that includes preventing unfair competition and ensuring that our own shipping industry is not further eroded by the exploitation of the freedom of the seas. That is what I wanted to hear, and I assure the House that the people of Harwich also wanted to hear it.
Our seafarers have traditionally been regarded as highly trained, highly skilled professionals. That reputation has been earned, and it is something that a British Government should be proud to promote and keen to build on. Sadly, as we all know, the previous Government were content to see it undermined, undervalued and underused in the name of market forces.
Market forces do not maintain safety standards, nor can they be used as an excuse for allowing the exploitation of third-world nationals who have never had the advantage, training, experience or expertise of our own seafarers, and who can be forced to work for meagre wages. At a time when the global economy ensures a vital role for transportation by sea, we should be promoting excellence, not allowing it to rot on the dole queue.
A couple of months ago, the BBC asked to spend a day with me in order to make a programme about the new Labour Member of Parliament for Harwich. I was more than happy to oblige. It was decided to make the programme on the new high-speed ferry link between Harwich and the Hook of Holland. The programme was very good, and making it was a most enjoyable experience; the ship is an incredible achievement, providing a fast, smooth and pleasant way to cross from England and Holland. Unfortunately, I had to accept that we were making the crossing on a Dutch-crewed ferry; we had to do that because no British seafarers are any longer employed on that passenger ferry route.
For 100 years, there had been British seafarers manning the passenger ferries between Harwich and the Hook of Holland. My election came just after the last of them were cast aside because it was cheaper for the ferry company to employ Dutch seafarers. The policy of the Dutch Government has been so successful that, during 1996, 50 new vessels were attracted to the Dutch flag. I congratulate the Dutch Government on their sense of vision—if only the previous Government in this country had had one eye open, we might not be experiencing our current difficulties.
124
We are on the very edge: those with experience are disappearing fast, and the training that ensured a ready supply of young, highly motivated seamen to replace them has long since been denied to our youth. The Government have already identified the problem and are preparing to act. Support for maritime training—SMART—will commence next April, and will not only ensure that training is available but will make explicit provision in standards of training for the modern era. A few years ago, I would not have described it as smart—I would have called it common sense, but unfortunately the Tories did not agree.
All the evidence points to the simple conclusion that high standards increase efficiency, improve safety and reduce the risk of accidental pollution of the seas. As one who represents a constituency containing important areas of coastal wildlife and towns reliant on tourism, coastal pollution is a major concern. We are all familiar with the effects of oil washing up on our coastline. Without a doubt, prevention is better than cure, and ensuring that ships moving along our coastline are manned by highly disciplined crews will reduce the risk of accidental pollution. These areas must be tackled internationally. To do that, we must take the lead. We must show how ensuring the best training results in the best service and, in the long run, the best value for money. We must show the rest of the world that we mean what we say; promoting our own highly efficient industry is, after all, the best way to prove that.
Every hon. Member does what he or she can to promote their constituency. I am fortunate in having a constituency that includes so much that is worthy of promoting. The Minister will no doubt recall her visit to Harwich, when I was able to show her the Electric Palace, the oldest purpose-built cinema in the country. Thousands of Royal Navy veterans trained across the river at HMS Ganges and have fond memories of Harwich. Millions of holidaymakers have enjoyed a day trip to the seaside at Clacton, Walton or Frinton; and many millions still travel through our beautiful countryside on their way to crossing the North sea to mainland Europe.
The Harwich constituency has the ports, the industrial capacity, the tourists and leisure facilities—and the knowledge and expertise to make the most of all of them. We are proud of our history and heritage, and we are determined to build a secure and prosperous future. The same applies to the British Merchant Navy.
Samuel Pepys is regarded by many historians as the saviour of the British Navy. He it was who arranged for a naval dockyard to be built at Harwich, and he brought another man, Anthony Deane, back to his home town to oversee it. Pepys was the Member for Harwich, and in 1679 Deane joined him as the town's other Member of Parliament. I am the first Harwich man since that day to be elected Member for Harwich. I was born within a few hundred yards of the dockyard. I went to a school that bore Sir Anthony Deane's name. Until this May, I had spent all my working life in shipping-related work.
All around the country, seafarers, dock workers, ship builders and shipping agents want a strong and vibrant future for our maritime industry. It is our responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that such a future is secured.
10.11 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) on his maiden speech on this extremely important topic. It is important because 95 per cent. of all our imports and exports come in and leave by sea. At £2.6 billion, shipping is our fourth biggest service earner, and we carry 4 per cent. of world trade in our vessels, which on the whole are well managed, technologically advanced and run with some of the highest safety standards in the world.
Shipping's contribution to British invisibles is enormous, and maritime London's pre-eminence relies on the raw material which former masters and chief engineers provide. They bring their expertise to the offices of the Admiralty solicitors, Lloyd's of London, the Institute of London Underwriters, the Baltic exchange, general average adjusters and the merchant bankers who finance the fleets. The industry is fundamental to maritime London and the whole service sector that depends on it.
I have an interest to declare, in that, before arriving in the House, I used to run a company of general average adjusters—so my interest in the debate is more than a passing one. In that capacity, I was invited last week to give the keynote address at the European ship managers conference in Glasgow, on the subject of crewing and training.
I am delighted to say that, after 18 years during which the Conservative Government went through more Shipping Ministers than Liz Taylor went through husbands in the same time, the shipowners and managers to whom I spoke in Glasgow expressed their profound thanks that this Government have a transport team—including the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) —who are clearly committed to the maritime industry. My right hon. and hon. Friends are going to be around for a long time; they understand the industry, and they want to get it right.
In limited time, I do not want to dwell on the former Government's record—the decline in our fleet by two thirds, the 50 per cent. decline in the contribution of the UK-owned fleet to the UK service sector, the 55 per cent. decrease in its contribution to gross domestic product. I shall focus on the fact that the numbers of British seafarers have declined by 60 per cent. since 1980, from 52,000 to 20,000.
The Cardiff report shows why it is fundamental that the Government take the actions that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich mentioned to put the support for maritime training programme into effect. The report predicts a frightening shortfall, and the implications for the whole UK maritime sector are equally frightening.
I am glad that the Government have taken the initiative on SMART. Unfortunately, it has come late in the day, but that is because the Government were not previously in a position to put it into effect. I am delighted that they have done so, and I am sure that the Ministers will have our full support in all that they are doing to improve crewing and training in this country.
10.15
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) on an excellent maiden speech,
126
and on his generosity in allowing an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich has chosen for his maiden speech a topic of particular importance to the Government, a fact highlighted by the presence on these benches of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and many other colleagues. The fact that the matter is not of importance to the Conservative party is emphasised by the absolute emptiness of the Opposition green Benches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich brings a wealth of personal experience and commitment to what is not only his constituency but his birthplace. He described the degree to which the sea has influenced his constituency, from King Alfred's day to the present time.
The reliance of Harwich, and the United Kingdom, on the sea remains undiminished. Shipping is crucial to all of us, a fact perhaps not sufficiently appreciated, for 95 per cent. in weight of our trade—77 per cent. in value—is carried by sea. Ferries to and from our islands carry more than 55 million passengers a year. The UK shipping industry and maritime London contribute substantially to the UK's balance of payments.
Without shipping, our country would not have defended our interests in the past; without shipping we could not maintain our quality of life today. We all rely on the sea, whether for our food, for the goods we use, for transport, for leisure or for our defence.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich said, in recent years we have witnessed a dramatic decline in the size of the UK merchant fleet and in the number of trained British seafarers. That cannot be allowed to continue. The Government are committed to halting the decline and giving the industry its due prominence. Let there be no doubt: we believe that a revival in the UK fleet is long overdue.
That is why we have established a shipping working group to see how Government and industry, working in partnership, can reverse the years of decline. The group's first meeting takes place this week. It will include representatives from the Chamber of Shipping, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers and the Transport and General Workers Union. It will consider how to obtain the maximum economic and environmental benefit from shipping, how to reverse the decline in the UK fleet, how to increase the employment of UK seafarers, and how to encourage the wider maritime industry to commit more resources to seafarer training.
Our object must be to encourage a high-quality shipping sector, able to flourish in increasingly competitive markets. I hope that the group will maintain a healthy balance between exploring innovative and well-constructed ideas and maintaining the momentum and sense of urgency necessary for such an important issue. I hope that it will not be another talking shop; it is action that counts.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is keen for the group to produce a package in time for inclusion in our White Paper in the spring.

127
Shipping is a high-tech, high-quality industry, demanding drive, commitment and determination. A competent, well-trained crew must be the most significant factor, not only in terms of the contribution to individual companies but in the wider context of maritime safety and environmental protection—a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich. We must do all we can in this, the International Year of the Seafarer, to ensure that the prospects for that invaluable national asset—the British seafarer—are not neglected.
The United Kingdom already has a high standard of seafarer training, but many of the ships that call at our ports, pass our shores or carry UK passengers are crewed by seafarers who have not been trained in the UK. It is therefore important to secure high standards of training worldwide. Proper implementation of the International Maritime Organisation's revised standards of training, certification and watchkeeping convention will be central to achieving that objective. The UK played a leading role in updating STCW, and we have subsequently been determined to apply its provisions promptly and effectively.
When I gave the opening address to the IMO assembly this morning, I reaffirmed our support for the international safety management code, which aims to create a safety culture embracing those on board ship and those ashore. Passenger ships, tankers and bulk carriers must achieve ISM code certification by 1 July 1998. UK ships required to comply are well on course to do so, but many recent reports show that some companies do not take the deadline seriously, and that a large number of ships may not comply in time. Some have even speculated that the deadline might be extended.
The IMO secretary general has stated that the deadline will stand, and the United Kingdom Government fully support that. We shall ensure that effective action is taken to deal with non-compliant ships arriving in our ports after the deadline, and we are working with our European partners to ensure that measures are in place to achieve that throughout the Community.
In addressing the IMO, I focused on implementation, which is the key to improving safety standards around the world. The Government firmly believe that the primary responsibility for safety rests with the flag state. We can no longer accept the apparent abdication of that responsibility by some flag states. The UK is taking the lead at the IMO in developing proposals to ensure that that is dealt with.
I am determined to involve as many parties as I can in the general debate on raising standards. I am particularly concerned that some of the service providers in shipping, such as bankers and insurers, which are crucial to the very existence of the shipping industry, are often not directly involved when policy issues are discussed and decisions on regulations made. I wish to change that.
Next month, as an experiment, I shall host a seminar with representatives from maritime London to hear their ideas about what they can do to help us improve standards. I trust that that will lead to more dialogue in the future. We are also working to ensure that all shipowners have the means to meet their liabilities to third parties. That policy, which is supported by the Chamber
128
of Shipping, should protect responsible shipowners from unfair competition from operators of sub-standard and uninsured ships.
We shall continue to work to ensure that all UK ships continue to enjoy the navigational rights and freedoms enshrined in the international law of the sea. We are now better able to do that following our accession to the UN convention on the law of the sea this August.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich referred to the importance of training, which must be a priority in any maritime policy that is committed to creating a meaningful and worthwhile future for the British shipping industry. We are under no illusions about the scale of the task required to ensure an adequate supply of seafarers, not only to serve at sea but, ultimately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said, to provide the pool of experience essential for the whole range of maritime-related industries.
Last year's university of Wales report into the UK economy's requirements for people with experience of working at sea concluded that, even to maintain the present maritime status quo at sea and ashore, the industry needs to recruit 1,200 new cadets a year, against a current intake of about 400. Clearly, that problem needs to be addressed urgently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich referred to the new support for maritime training scheme—SMART—which commences next April. SMART will be a flexible long-term vehicle to deliver Government financial assistance for seafarer training. It will improve the delivery of training support by integrating the existing GAFT—Government assistance for training—and docks schemes into a modular training scheme to operate under a single contract and budget.
New modules will make explicit provision for ratings and will provide support for STCW skills upgrading. Although SMART will initially focus funds on the key priorities of new entrants and ratings, its modular nature should mean that it is possible to add other elements, as required and as funding permits.
SMART is simply the vehicle. Whether we are able to make a fundamental difference will depend on the industry's commitment to forging a real partnership, and, in so doing, contributing to the achievement of our common objectives. Government support can therefore only ever provide half of the equation. For any training scheme to make a truly significant impact, the active support of all sides of the industry must be engaged. That is why we will be looking to the industry to make a direct contribution, through actions and financial commitment, to the training of future seafarers.
Although there have been some notable exceptions, for too long much of the maritime-related sector has regarded training as the shipowners' problem, and too many shipowners have simply failed to invest in training. We cannot allow the issue to be side-stepped. If Government are now facing up to their responsibilities, so too must the shipping industry.
I am hopeful that the working group will provide the vital spark necessary to encourage more companies to start training programmes, and for the industry to pledge additional funding to supplement Government support.

129
With matching levels of drive and commitment, it must surely be possible for this partnership to make real progress towards the common goal of increasing the number of highly trained seafarers.
I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich for raising such an important issue for discussion. Few can doubt that the industry has reached a critical point. Responsibility falls to both
130
Government and industry to ensure that we take full advantage of the great opportunities that lie ahead. With world seaborne trade growing at a rate of 4 per cent. a year, we must do all we can to revitalise British shipping, and to take our nation's fair share of the prospective growth.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o ' clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Workplace Injuries
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 721, on workplace injuries, what estimate he has made of the proportion of the increase in major injuries reported between 1995–96 and 1996–97 which is accounted for by the extension of the definition of major injuries in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. [14472]

  Angela Eagle
  Based on provisional figures for 1996–97 it is estimated that at least 45 per cent. of the increase in major injuries to employees, and all of the increase in major injuries to the self-employed reported to HSE and local authorities between 1995–96 and 1996–97 is accounted for by the extension of the definition of major injury in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. The remaining 55 per cent. of the increase in major injuries to employees could be due to extensions to the definition of injuries reportable under RIDDOR 1995. These cannot be separately identified since they are classified within general categories previously reportable as major injuries.

  Figures for 1997–98 will be available next summer. At that stage we will be able to make a better assessment of the effects of the changes brought by RIDDOR 1995. However, there is no room for complacency, any accidents at work are unacceptable and we have asked the Health and Safety Commission to analyse the statistics further and to try to identify the main influences.

  Bridge Strengthening
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, columns 713–14, relating to bridge strengthening, how many bridges on the trunk road network have been strengthened to date; when he expects local authorities to complete their assessment of their bridge stock; and by what criteria and by whom decisions on which require strengthening will be made. [150331]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  With regard to bridges on the trunk network, the position at 1 April 1997 was that 528 had been strengthened. Work on the strengthening programme continues and I shall write to my hon. Friend in due course providing an update on progress.

  The vast majority of local authority assessments will have been completed by 31 March 1999. However, it seems likely that a small number, on roads of less strategic importance, will remain to be assessed in 1999–2000. It is for local authorities to decide, in the light of local needs and
  2
  circumstances, whether to strengthen individual bridges or to make use of alternative measures such as weight restrictions or traffic management.

  M6
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to make an announcement on the widening of the M6. [15644]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The two schemes for widening the M6 between Junctions 11A and 19 are subject to consideration within the strategic trunk road review which my right hon. Friend announced in June. We expect to announce the outcome of the review next year.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on official hospitality for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992– 93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997.[15230]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]Figures for years (i) and (ii) are not available. Figures for the Department and its Agencies, where these are available, for years (iii) to (x) are as listed. This information is not held centrally for Non-Departmental Public Bodies and the information could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  £000

  Department

  Agencies

  (iii) 1990–91

  92

  14

  (iv) 1991–92

  131

  27

  (v) 1992–93

  389

  36

  (vi) 1993–94

  408

  23

  (vii) 1994–95

  359

  102

  (viii) 1995–96

  253

  111

  (ix) 1996– 97

  318

  130

  (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997

  115

  44

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the new sites granted SSSI status by English Nature in each year since 1990. [15675]

  Angela Eagle
  An up-to-date list of sites notified since April 1991 (when English Nature was set up) has been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Telecommunications Developments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce procedures to enable local planning authorities to extend the 28 day limit in their determination of prior approval for telecommunications developments; and if he will make a statement. [15662]

  Mr. Raynsford
  An application for prior approval determination in respect of telecommunications development provides the local planning authority with
  3
  the opportunity to say whether they wish to approve, within 28 days, details of its proposed siting and appearance. Currently we have no plans to extend the 28-day period allowed.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the 28 day prior notification limit for telecommunications developments on(a) consultation with parish or town councils and councillors, (b) the opportunities for comment from local residents and (c) the opportunities to negotiate and amend proposed schemes; and if he will make a statement. [15663]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Where an application for prior approval determination is to be made, Appendix E to the Department' s Circular 9/95 emphasises the importance of discussions between the operator and the local planning authority to minimise any difficulties about the proposal and avoid delay in processing the application. It also encourages publicity for such proposals so that people likely to be affected can make their views known to the local planning authority. It is important that authorities make satisfactory arrangements to enable them to deal with these applications. The Department's Code of Best Practice on telecommunications prior approval procedures as applied to mast/tower development provides guidance on how local planning authorities and operators can co-operate to make it easier for prior approval applications to be dealt with effectively within the 28 day period allowed.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce national guidance in respect of(a) the circumstances in which the public health impact of telecommunications developments should be a planning consideration and (b) the weight which should be given to public health issues by local planning authorities; and if he will make a statement. [15665]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning Policy Guidance note 1 advises local planning authorities that any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is, in principle, capable of being a planning consideration. The issue of whether, in any individual case, a particular matter is a material consideration will depend on the prevailing facts and circumstances. It is for the body determining the application (usually the local planning authority) to decide which are the material considerations applicable in the first instance. This is the planning position. Any organisation engaged in telecommunications development should comply with Health and Safety legislation.

  Medium-density Fibreboard
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the findings of the Medical Research Council's Institute for Environment and Health's preliminary assessment of health risks associated with the domestic use of medium-density fibreboard. [16069]

  Angela Eagle
  The Medical Research Council's Institute for Environmental Health has not yet undertaken a formal assessment of the risks associated with the domestic use of medium-density fibreboard. Without wishing to prejudice the outcome of the assessment, the 4
  Institute has expressed the preliminary opinion that inhalation of dust from operations involving medium-density fibreboard is more likely to be an occupational rather than a domestic hazard. Although inhalation of any dust is to be avoided (especially very fine particles which can reach the deep lung) the Institute does not consider occasional "DIY" activities involving medium-density fibreboard to pose a particular risk. Good working practice when cutting or sanding medium-density fibreboard, would be to wear a suitable dust mask or where possible, perform this work out-of-doors. Like other types of particle board, medium-density fibreboard can give off formaldehyde gas (used in resin bonding) but only in exceptional cases is this likely to cause problems.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to encourage the use of(a) alternatives to medium-density fibreboard and (b) low or zero formaldehyde emission fibreboard in do-it-yourself home construction. [16065]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department does not consider medium-density fibreboard a risk to health to individuals involved in do-it-yourself activities. Therefore, the Department does not have a policy to encourage the use of alternatives.

  Like other types of particle board, medium-density fibreboard can give off formaldehyde gas (used in resin bonding) but only in exceptional cases is this likely to cause problems—such as acute sensory irritation. However, fibreboard with low or zero formaldehyde emissions is available on the market and my Department is encouraging its use in general advice to professionals and the public.

  London Government
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will(a) publish and (b) place in the Library on or before 17 November (i) a list of those individuals and organisations that have responded to the Green Paper on the future on London government and (ii) the evidence submitted by them. [15883]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]By 1 December we will place in the House of Commons Library a list of individuals and organisations who responded to the Greater London Authority consultation exercise. We will place copies of the correspondence in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions main library, 2 Marsham Street, SW1P on the same day.

  Sewerage Maps and Records
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has received for the transfer of maps and records of the sewerage network from the relevant local authorities to the statutory undertakers; and what response he plans to make. [15632]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 November 19971]No such proposals have been received. Under section 199 of the Water Industry Act 1991 sewerage undertakers are required to keep records of the location and other relevant particulars of every sewer or disposal
  5
  main vested in the company. Such records should include particulars shown on 31 August 1989 on sewer maps kept by local authorities under section 32 of the Public 32 of the Public Health Act 1936.

  Sewerage undertakers are not required to keep maps or records of sewers which have not been adopted.

  Social Housing
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions pursuant to the Answer of 3 November 1997 Official Report, column 54, if the results of the feasibility study to develop an economic model of the demand and need for social housing between 1996 and 2000 will allow for the unprotected expansion in the private rented sector since 1991. [16401]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The economic model of the demand and need for social housing developed by the feasibility study estimates the numbers of households in the private rented sector for England between 1991 and 2006. The model allows for an expansion of the private rented sector in the period 1991 to 1995 and the aim is to be able to model a range of scenarios for 1996 to 2006.

  Waste
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the correlation between the level of waste collected per head of population by waste collection authorities and the size of dustbin available. [15708]

  Angela Eagle
  Figures provided by district councils in a new DETR/Welsh Office survey of municipal waste management suggest that weekly arisings per household are up to 3kg higher in areas where households are provided with wheeled bins than in areas provided with plastic sacks. However, a direct relationship between bin size and waste volume cannot be assumed, as there are other factors which can influence the amount of waste generated, for example the socioeconomic characteristics of households and the type of housing. Local authorities may take these factors into account in any decision to introduce wheeled bins in a particular area.

  Environmental Information Regulations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to limit further the exemptions relating to the holding of information under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; [15705]

  (2) if he will appoint an independent commissioner in respect of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; [15702]

  (3) if he will require privatised utilities to comply with requests for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; [15700]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to create a list of relevant persons in respect of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992;[15701]

  (5) what steps he plans to take to secure greater public access to information under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. [15703]
  6
  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to a policy of greater openness, including improving public access to environmental information. A Freedom of Information Act is a key pledge in our manifesto. Issues relating to access to environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, are now being carefully considered in the context of that wider legislation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be publishing a White Paper shortly.

  We are determined that there should be no abuse of exemptions relating to the disclosure of information, and the nature of any exemptions is therefore being considered very carefully in the work on a Freedom of Information White Paper. Making any exemptions subject to a harm or public interest test is an option being considered.

  As to establishing an independent commissioner, the Freedom of Information White Paper will set out the Government's proposals for an independent appeals procedure on freedom of information issues generally, including environmental information. The establishment of an Information Commissioner is being considered.

  The option of listing bodies to ensure clarity about the coverage of freedom of information legislation, including the status of privatised utilities, is also being considered.

  Virgin Resources
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the reduction in use of virgin resources. [15709]

  Angela Eagle
  Prudent use of natural resources is an integral part of the Government's approach to sustainable development. We are currently reviewing the previous Government's Sustainable Development Strategy and a consultation paper is planned for early next year.

  Areas which the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is currently pursuing include:
  programmes for improving energy and environmental awareness which aim to encourage more sustainable patterns of consumption;
  an aim to increase the proportion of waste managed by options towards the top of the waste hierarchy, defined in the 1995 Waste Strategy Making Waste Work as reduction, re-use, recovery (including recycling, composting and energy production) and finally disposal;
  research on efficient use of aggregates and increased use of recycled and secondary materials, and a trial Aggregates Advisory Service. These initiatives will help to take forward policies for the sustainable use of minerals set out in the Department's existing Minerals Planning Guidance Notes; and
  support for the Government's commitment to sustainable management of woodland resources and an expansion of woodland cover, together with activities promoting the increased use of biomass wherever possible as a renewable source of energy.

  Tree Damage
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated

  7
  in relation to the damage caused to native (i) oak and (ii) ash trees arising from (a) air pollution and (b) climate change. [15685]

  Angela Eagle
  An annual survey of woodland tree condition in the UK is carried out on behalf of my Department. While there was evidence of decline in the health of woodland oak over the period 1989 to 1993, this trend has been reversed during the past four years. Previous analysis for this survey has indicated that air pollution, such as acid deposition and low level ozone, could account for only a small proportion of the observed changes in tree health. Other stresses, including climatic factors, such as drought stress, are thought to be of much greater significance. Ash, which grows on lime-rich soils, is not susceptible to damage from acid deposition.

  Other research and monitoring, commissioned by my Department into the health of non-woodland trees, however, does show that both native ash and oak have experienced damage in recent years, probably due to drought stress. It is too early to say whether recent warm, dry years are a part of a long-term climate change, but they give an indication of the kind of damage which could, in future, become more prevalent.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the risks his Department considers for assessment purposes with respect to applications for the release of genetically modified organisms for(a) field-testing and (b) marketing. [16198]

  Angela Eagle
  The potential hazards and risks considered for field testing and marketing of genetically modified organisms are as follows: capacity to survive, establish and disseminate; potential for gene transfer; products of expression of inserted genes; phenotypic and genotypic stability; pathogenicity to other organisms; and, potential for any other effects including non-target effects. In accordance with the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment detailed information on the risk assessment has been published by the Department as DOE/ACRE Guidance Notes and these have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his Department's policy to differentiate between risk assessment and hazard assessment with respect to the interaction of genetically modified organisms with their environment. [16155]

  Angela Eagle
  An assessment of the potential hazards is an integral part of the risk assessment with respect to the interaction of genetically modified organisms with their environment. This approach to the risk assessment is in accordance with the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. Detailed guidance on the risk assessment has been published by the Department as DOE/ACRE Guidance Notes and placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) risk and (b) hazard assessments have been (i) performed and
  8
  (ii) evaluated by his Department with respect to genetically modified soya that has been treated with glyphosate-based herbicide. [16149]

  Angela Eagle
  The hazard and risk assessment performed by Monsanto Europe for their consent application to market soya beans genetically modified for tolerance to glyphosate-based herbicide has been evaluated by the Department and the statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. The application was then forwarded to other European Member States for evaluation and following their agreement, the Department granted a consent on 7 May 1996 for import, storage and processing of the genetically modified soya beans. The procedure followed to assess this application was in accordance with the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what safeguards exist to prevent the horizontal gene transfer of patented genes from genetically modified crops to certified organic crops. [16151]

  Angela Eagle
  The frequency of horizontal transfer of any genes of genetically modified crops to certified organic crops is very low and no formal safeguards exist to prevent this occurring with respect to the release of genetically modified crops. Where gene transfer between compatible species (vertical transfer) is feasible, consent conditions (including isolation distances) can be imposed to minimise undesirable effects.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements exist to monitor the horizontal transfer of patented genes to wild species. [16153]

  Angela Eagle
  The frequency of horizontal transfer of any genes to wild species is very low and no formal arrangement exists to monitor this with respect to the release of genetically modified organisms.

  Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the advisory bodies his Department would consult in advance of a decision to invoke Article 16 of Directive 90/220. [16200]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department would consult the statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to include bungalows for elderly and disabled people with the right-to-buy scheme. [16483]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Disabled or elderly people are already able to buy bungalows under the right-to-buy scheme, unless the dwelling is sheltered accommodation which is specially built for people with disabilities, or let to elderly people and part of a group of dwellings with support services or facilities provided nearby. Under paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985, landlords may exclude from the right to buy non-sheltered bungalows if
  9
  they were first let to elderly people before 1990 and are particularly suitable for such people; however, tenants who disagree with their landlords have a right to appeal to the Secretary of State against such decisions. Housing which has been adapted to make it suitable for disabled people is not excluded from the right to buy.

  Local Government Commission for England
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to undertake a review of the Local Government Commission for England; and if he will make a statement. [16713]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have today set up a finance, management and policy review of the Local Government Commission for England (LGC), as part of a programme of reviews of non-departmental public bodies.

  This review will be conducted in two stages. The first will be a "prior options" study focusing on whether the functions carried out by the LGC are needed and, if so, whether those functions are best undertaken by the LGC or some other body. Subject to the outcome of this first stage, the second stage will consist of a more detailed review of the LGC's structure, funding, financial management and methods of operation.

  I have appointed Robert Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit in the School of Public Policy at University College London to undertake the prior options study. To oversee the review, I am establishing an Advisory Group, on which we are inviting representatives from the Local Government Association; Departmental officials and the Chairman and Chief Executive of the LGC will also serve on the Group.

  In carrying out the study it is intended that Mr. Hazell will consult with a wide range of interested parties and would welcome written representations from anyone who has views on the Commission and its work.

  Coastguard
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the search and rescue co-ordination provided by Her Majesty's Coastguard. [16728]

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the coastguard service; and if he will make a statement. [16176]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To improve still further the high level of service provided by Her Majesty's Coastguard I am able to announce today that I have endorsed a strategy for HM Coastguard which involves a substantial investment in new technology and which will take the Service into the next century. That investment will introduce operational flexibility which will increase the safety of those who use our sea and shores, and will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of an already highly proficient Service. The key to the strategy is the introduction of digital communications technology at Coastguard rescue centres and remote radio sites to replace aging equipment. Once the new technology is in place HMCG will be able to concentrate their operational expertise within fewer rescue co-ordination sub-centres by 10
  closing the rescue sub-centres at Oban and Pentland (Orkney) by the end of 1999, and Tyne-Tees and Liverpool by the end of 2000. Portland and Solent rescue sub-centres at present in unsuitable buildings will be bought together under the same roof by March 2002.

  By carefully planning the process we expect to be able to achieve the reduction of staff by a combination of natural wastage, early retirement and early severance. Staff and trade unions will be closely involved in the implementation.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the total expenditure on official hospitality by his Department in the current session. [12583]

  Angela Eagle
  [pursuant to her reply, 4 November 1997, c. 138]The correct figure for total expenditure is £103,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomats (Private Education)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review funding for the private education of diplomatic personnel provided by his Department; and what is the estimated cost of such funding in the current financial year. [15823]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  An independent review of Diplomatic Service allowances was carried out last year by Sir Derek Hornby. The review confirmed the need for allowances to ensure continuity of education for many Diplomatic Service children. It also recommended some adjustments in the way the allowances are administered. Further detailed work is being carried out on these recommendations. The cost to this Department for the education of Diplomatic Service children worldwide during the current financial year is estimated to be £10.9 million.

  Yangtse Dam
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government concerning the environmental impact of the damming of the Yangtse. [15732]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have not raised the "Three Gorges" project with the Chinese.

  Chagos Archipelago (Mineral Rights)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the ownership of mineral rights around the Chagos Archipelago. [15829]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The mineral rights on the continental shelf around the British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) are vested in the Crown. But the Territory and the mineral rights will be ceded to Mauritius when the Territory is no longer required for defence purposes. Meanwhile we have no intention of allowing mineral prospecting.
  11

  Camilla Carr and Jon James
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has obtained about Camilla Can and Jon James; and what steps are being taken to ensure their will-being. [16036]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 10 November 1997,Official Report, column 389.

  There has been no news of Camilla Carr and Jon James for several weeks. We do not know who has taken them, or where they are held. Their employers, the Centre for Peacemaking and Community Development, and we are doing what we can, in the difficult conditions of Chechnya, to contact anyone who may be able to help secure the couple's safe release.

  Ngawang Sangdrol
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the Government of the People's Republic of China for the early release of the Tibetan nun Ngawang Sangdrol. [16050]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are deeply concerned about many individuals detained in China, including Tibetans. We take every opportunity to raise with Chinese authorities our concerns about religious and political freedoms in Tibet. I last did this when I met the Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister on 3 November.

  Human Rights (India)
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report by the United Nations Human Rights Committee's inquiry of 30 July into breaches of human rights in India. [15932]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Parties to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights are obliged to report to the Human Rights Committee every five years. The inquiry to which my hon. Friend refers is the Committee's routine examination of India's latest periodic report. We welcome the Indian Government's constructive responses to the points of concern raised by the Committee.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Film Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the Budget on the United Kingdom film industry's capacity. [15444]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The introduction in the Budget of accelerated 100 per cent. write-off on film production and acquisition has been widely welcomed as an incentive to increase investment and hence capacity. The British Screen Advisory Council has estimated that the new tax relief will generate a 31 per cent. increase in investment in film production over the next three years.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of United Kingdom and co-produced films were(a) released
  12
  nationally,(b) released in the West end and arthouses only and (c) unreleased in the last year for which figures are available. [15445]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  In 1995, 23.1 per cent. of United Kingdom and co-production films were released nationally; 34. 6 per cent. were released in the West End and arthouses only; 42.3 per cent were unreleased.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans his Department has to encourage the wider distribution of a greater number of United Kingdom and co-produced films; [15446]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with the main film distributors in the United Kingdom to encourage a greater distribution of United Kingdom and co-produced films. [15447]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  We have established an all industry working group, headed by myself and Mr. Stewart Till, President of International at PolyGram Filmed Entertainment, with the aim of doubling the domestic market share for British films. The working group includes representatives from several of the main distributors in the UK and has also invited evidence from the distribution sector. The recommendations of the Film Review will be published early next year.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if there are proposals to alter the extent or content of advertising in broadcast or non-broadcast media for any categories of products other than those contained in the forthcoming White Paper on Tobacco. [15625]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government have no such proposals. The Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority produce detailed guidelines for broadcasters on the scheduling and content of broadcast advertisements. These are reviewed from time to time in consultation with Government and broadcasters, but no reviews are currently under way or planned. For non-broadcast advertisements, the advertising industry also produces a code of practice for advertisers which is administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. The industry is currently conducting a general review of the code.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate for the expenditure by(a) his department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980 –81, (ii) 1987 –88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991 –92, (v) 1992 –93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994 –95, (viii) 1995 –96, (ix) 1996 –97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if he will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15207]
  13
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]The available information on expenditure on overseas travel and subsistence is given in the following table:

  £000

  1992–93 (actual)

  1993–94 (actual)

  1994–95 (actual)

  1995–96 (actual)

  1996–97 (actual)

  1 May–30 September 1997

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  86

  99

  161

  133

  163

  33

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  Nil

  1

  5

  17

  22

  10

  Royal Parks Agency

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  A breakdown in the format requested and information on our non-departmental bodies is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. An estimate of the expenditure for the earlier years, prior to the establishment of my department in April 1992 and Royal Parks becoming an Agency in April 1993, is not available.

  Creative Industries Task Force
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the members of the creative industries task force. [16035]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The membership of the task force is as follows:

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Chairman) Minister and officials from:

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The Department of Trade and Industry

  HM Treasury

  The Department for Education and Employment

  Department of Social Security

  The Scottish Office

  The Welsh Office

  The Northern Ireland Office

  The Minister without Portfolio

  HM Government's Chief Scientific Adviser.

  Officials from:

  The British Council

  The Office of Science and Technology

  No. 10 Policy Unit

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Lord Puttnam

  Richard Branson

  Alan McGee

  Paul Smith

  Waheed Alli

  Gail Rebuck

  Eric Salama

  Janice Hughes.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on official
  14
  hospitality for (i) 1980–81 (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997. [15206]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]The avail able information is given in the following table:

  £000

  1992–93 (actual)

  1993–94 (actual)

  1994–95 (actual)

  1995–96 (actual)

  1996–97 (actual)

  1 May–30 September 1997

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  22

  18

  15

  26

  41

  7

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  18

  17

  16

  46

  33

  18

  Royal Parks Agency

  n/a

  9

  26

  17

  14

  11

  Information on our non-departmental bodies is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportion cost. An estimate of the expenditure for the earlier years, prior to the establishment of my department in April 1992 and Royal Parks becoming an Agency in April 1993, is not available.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98, year to date, (vi) the 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15209]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (formerly the Department of National Heritage) has incurred no expenditure on advertising over the past six years, except in respect of advertising for vacant posts.

  Figures for publicity expenditure over this period are as follows:

  1993–1994: £25,000

  1994–1995: £57,000

  1995–1996: £348,000

  1996–1997: £609,531

  1997–1998: £112,705 (to date)

  £500,000 (estimate)

  1998–1999: allocations have not yet been made.

  Expenditure by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity is a matter for each individual body within the parameters of their grant in aid allocations.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has(a) to ensure maximum commercial access to opportunities for digital broadcasting and (b) to prevent monopoly control of (i) critical technology and (ii) customer data. [15826]
  15
  Mr. Fisher
  The Government encourage commercial access to the opportunities for digital broadcasting via terrestrial, cable and satellite delivery by maintaining the lightest regulatory regime compatible with protecting the public interest and with the capacity constraints of each delivery platform. Those with proposals for digital television services may approach the digital terrestrial multiplex operators; companies holding cable franchises or operators of digital satellites. Authority to provide programme content on digital broadcasting services is via the appropriate programme service licences, which are available effectively on demand from the Independent Television Commission to any fit and proper applicant. Plurality of voice is underpinned by the requirement that no single person may control licences which together have more than 15 per cent. of the total television audience.

  General competition law provides powers to act against the abuse of monopoly position or anti-competitive behaviour. The new Competition Bill will introduce two prohibitions which will prove a highly effective deterrent against cartels and abuses of dominance. The provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996; the Advanced Television Service Regulations 1996 and the Class Licence for the running of telecommunications systems for the provision of conditional access services granted on 7 January 1997 by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 collectively safeguard the use of critical technology and customer data.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister which advertisements for Civil Service positions other than for departmental heads of information require applicants to be in sympathy with Ministers. [15731]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no question of appointments to the permanent Civil Service requiring applicants to be in sympathy with Ministers. The first Civil Service Commissioner in a recent letter to the press has emphasised that candidates for advertised posts are judged solely on their merits in the context of the job specification. Recruitment to the Civil Service follows the fundamental principle of selection on merit.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if sports and pastimes other than Formula One motor racing were invited to make a presentation relating to partial exclusion from a comprehensive tobacco sponsorship ban; [16112]

  (2) what discussions he, other ministers or government advisers have had on tobacco sponsorship with representatives of international sports and pastimes other than Formula One motor racing. [16111]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health have met with representatives from governing bodies of sports currently in receipt of tobacco sponsorship. These meetings were at the initiation of the Department and will help determine 16
  how we achieve an end to the advertising and promotion of tobacco at sports events while minimising any damage to the sports concerned. The Government are also engaged in discussions with their EU partners on these issues. In addition, the Government will publish a White Paper next year setting out their plans for a range of measures to tackle tobacco consumption.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 November 1997,Official Report, columns 898–99, if he will list those Ministers whose knowledge of the donation referred to by him gave rise to a possibility of a conflict of interest; and if he will list the meetings attended by those Ministers with the donor or his representatives. [16463]

  The Prime Minister
  No conflict of interest arose for any Minister.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he and his advisers or Ministers have met representatives of Formula One motor racing; [16109]

  (2) how government meetings with representatives of Formula One motor racing were arranged; and who took the initiative in each case. [16110]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 12 November 1997,Official Report, columns 898–99.

  Civil Contingencies Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1 May the Civil Contingencies Committee has met; and what matters have been discussed. [15691]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]It is not the practice to disclose details of proceedings of the Civil Contingencies Committee.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the membership of the Civil Contingencies Committee. [15692]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The composition of the Civil Contingencies Committee is as follows:

  Home Secretary (Chairman)

  Head of the Economic and Domestic Secretariat, Cabinet Office (Deputy Chairman)

  The Prime Minister's Chief Press Secretary Representatives of:

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  HM Treasury

  Home Office

  Department for Education and Employment

  Ministry of Defence

  Department of Health

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  Northern Ireland Office

  Welsh Office

  Office of Public Service.

  17
  Its terms of reference are:
  "To co-ordinate the preparation of plans for ensuring in an emergency the supplies and services essential to the life of the community; to keep these plans under regular review; to supervise their prompt and effective implementation in specific emergencies; and to report as necessary to the appropriate Ministerial Committee".

  Political Party Funding
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he requires lobbyists and people asking ministers directly to make decisions favouring particular interests to disclose(a) in private and (b) in public any substantial help, services or funding provided to the minister's political party. [16114]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers are required to take decisions on the merits of each case, not on the basis of whether the people concerned have provided assistance or funding to their political party.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will incorporate in the rules for ministers a requirement for disclosure before September 1998 of knowledge by ministers of help, services or funding exceeding £5,000 provided before May 1997 to the minister's political party. [16113]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life—chaired by Sir Patrick Neill—to undertake a wide ranging review of party funding and make recommendations to the Government.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the President of Yemen. [16471]

  The Prime Minister
  President Saleh's visit was the first by a Yemeni president to the UK. We discussed a number of bilateral and regional issues on 11 November, including trade and economic co-operation, UK aid to Yemen, the situation in Iraq, and Yemen's application to join the Commonwealth. I welcomed President Saleh's recent political reforms, and thanked him for the Government of Yemen's help in securing the release of the British hostage who was kidnapped in Yemen last month.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department has lead responsibility for the Environment Agency. [16211]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is the lead Minister responsible for the Environment Agency.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 861, on the interception of telephones of hon. Members, if the policy applies to other forms of electronic surveillance. [15728]
  18
  The Prime Minister
  I can confirm that the policy described in my previous Answer applies in relation to the use of electronic surveillance by the Security Service as well as to telephone interception.

TREASURY

  Investors Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has made to the Investors Compensation Scheme in respect of its handling of compensation for Knight Williams and Co. clients. [15944]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Officials keep in touch with developments in the Knight Williams case but the handling of claims for compensation is a matter for the Investors Compensation Scheme itself.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 October,Official Report, columns 583–84, concerning the constitutional issues relating to European economic and monetary union, if he will list the issues; what published sources Ministers of the Crown assessed in reaching their conclusions; what consultations they had with constitutional lawyers concerning their assessment; and if he will place in the Library the written documents relating to that assessment. [15031]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  As I said in my Statement to the House, joining the single currency would involve a pooling of national sovereignty in relation to aspects of economic and monetary union pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Treaty of Maastricht. Provided this step was endorsed by Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 and had been endorsed by the people in a referendum, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are satisfied that there is no overriding constitutional bar to participation by the United Kingdom in stage 3 of economic and monetary union.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to revise the Government's public expenditure plans for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [13291]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]New plans for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 will be announced following the conclusion of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many and what percentage of (i) male and (ii) female employees had total earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions; and what percentage of these were part-time workers in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) the most recent available figures; [155091
  19
  (2) if he will list for April 1997 the number and proportion of manual, non-manual and all part-time employees on adult rates earning less than (a) £4.61, (b) £6.15 and (c) £6.60 per hour excluding overtime for (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) in total for (1) each county and unitary authority in England, (2) each unitary authority in Wales, (3) each London borough, (4) each unitary authority in Scotland, (5) Great Britain as a whole, (6) England as a whole and (7) each Government office region; [15555]

  (3) how many and what percentage of (i) male and (ii) female employees with total earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions are (a) under 18, (b) 18 to 24, (c) 25 years or older and (d) below pension age; [15508]

  (4) if he will list for April 1997 the number and proportion of (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) all employees in Great Britain whose earnings excluding overtime payments are less than (i) £4.61 an hour, (ii) £6.15 an hour and (iii) £6.60 an hour, broken down into (1) 16–17, (2) 18–24, (3) 25– 44 and (4) 45–65-year-olds; [15556]

  (5) if he will list for April 1997 the number and proportion of manual, non-manual and all full-time employees on adult rates earning less than (a) £4.61, (b) £6.15 and (c) £6.60 per hour excluding overtime for (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) in total for (1) each county and unitary authority in England, (2) each unitary authority in Wales, (3) each London borough, (4) each unitary authority in Scotland, (5) Great Britain as a whole, (6) England as a whole and (7) each Government office region; [15558]

  (6) if he will estimate the average weekly hours of work and average hourly and weekly earnings of men and women with total earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions; [15510]

  (7) what proportion of men and women with total earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions have been in their current employment for over 26 weeks; [15623]

  (8) if he will list for April 1997 the number and proportion of (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) all employees on adult rates of pay in Great Britain whose earnings excluding overtime payments are less than (i) £4.61 an hour, (ii) £6.15 an hour and (iii) £6.60 an hour, broken down by standard occupational classification and by standard industrial classification; [15557]

  (9) if he will estimate the (a) number and (b) percentage of (i) men and (ii) women with total earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions whose annual earnings exceed £1,600 in the last year for which figures are available. [15513]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Chris Pond, dated 17 November 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics, to reply to your recent questions (15508, 15509, 15510, 15513, 15555, 15556, 15557, 15558 and 15623) on earnings.
  20
  The available information, from the New Earnings Survey April 1997 and the Labour Force Survey, is given in the attached tables.
  Information for employees earning below the lower earnings limit whose annual earnings exceed £1600 is not available. The LFS does not collect such data and the NES sample largely excludes employees earning below the lower earnings limit.
  I will arrange for a copy of this letter and the attached tables to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that genetically modified foods are labelled as such. [15842]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 June 1997,Official Report, columns 356–57.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has evaluated with respect to(a) the effects of changes in the composition of diet and (b) the effects of genetic modification of food on the toxicity of pesticide residues in the human body; and if he will make a statement. [16203]

  Mr. Rooker
  When applications for pesticide approvals are evaluated, or existing approvals are reviewed, food consumption patterns are routinely taken into account. This information is derived from the National Food Survey and other sources.

  No approvals have been granted for the use of any pesticide specifically on a genetically modified crop. Where the genetic modification would be expected to alter the way the crop metabolises the pesticide, the resultant risks would be assessed. This is most likely to be an issue with genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops and I am taking steps to ensure that such new uses of herbicides will require specific evaluation.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department has received from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes with respect to elevated oestrogen levels in genetically modified soya. [16202]

  Mr. Rooker
  When the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes carried out its safety evaluation of the genetically modified soya produced by Monsanto—the only soya which it has evaluated to date—it found no differences in oestrogen levels compared with traditional soya.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated with respect to elevated oestrogen levels in genetically modified soya. [16197]

  Mr. Rooker
  When the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes evaluated the safety of the genetically modified soya produced by Monsanto, it found no differences in oestrogen levels compared with traditional soya and there was therefore no reason to commission further research on this point.
  21
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department has received from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes with respect to the bla gene in Ciba-Geigy's genetically modified maize line CG00526–176. [16199]

  Mr. Rooker
  The report of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes on this genetically modified maize is contained in Appendix XII of its Annual Report for 1996, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that farm feed products are labelled so as to reveal their full contents. [15827]

  Mr. Rooker
  Ingredient listing of compound feed, either by specific ingredient or by category, has been a requirement of EC legislation since 1991. Commission Directive 97/47/EC, which takes effect in the UK in the New Year, deletes the "Land Animal Products" category and requires any animal material still permitted in compound feed to be separately identified. The European Commission is now considering the complete removal of the category option, which would receive UK support.

  EU Presidency (Priorities)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's agriculture, fisheries and food priorities for the period of the United Kingdom's Presidency of the European Union. [16348]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  There is still some substantive agriculture, fisheries and food business to be completed under the Luxembourg Presidency. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to go into the detail of priorities for the UK Presidency at this time.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which European countries currently allow the use of unpasteurised milk in the production of dairy products of any type. [16378]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  All members of the European Union allow the use of unpasteurised milk in the production of dairy products. This is permitted and closely controlled by the EC Milk and Milk Products Hygiene Directive.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his reasons for seeking to bring the English and Scottish policies into line on the use, consumption and production of unpasteurised milk. [16379]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Having studied the issues closely, the independent Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food has expressed concern about the microbiological quality of unpasteurised cows' milk for drinking and has recommended that the sale of such milk be banned in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Consequently, I have initiated a public 22
  consultation on a proposal to ban the sale of raw cows' milk for drinking, which aligns with the policy in Scotland.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his scientists' 1997 assessment of the state of fish stocks which are subject to annual consideration in terms of total allowable catches and community quotas; and if he will list the changes in that assessment from the 1996 assessment. [16380]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The scientists of the Ministry's agency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, monitor fish stocks in order to contribute to the annual assessments made by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The 1997 ICES' assessments are expected to be published shortly.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his White Paper on the Food Standards Agency. [16386]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  As soon as possible.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the compensation available to farmers of certified organic crops in the event of the spread of a patented gene to that crop by a process of horizontal gene transfer. [16150]

  Mr. Rooker
  The issue of compensation for farmers of certified organic crops affected by actions on neighbouring farms is a civil matter to be pursued between those concerned.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the outcome of his consideration of the rates for Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1998. [16377]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I expect to make an announcement within the next month.

  Departmental Relocation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current estimate of the costs involved in moving his Ministry's offices from Whitehall Place to Nobel House. [16388]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The latest estimate of the costs involved in moving my offices, and those of officials, from Whitehall Place to Nobel House remains at £120,000.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his conclusions on the quarantine law consultation exercise. [16381]
  23
  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have asked Professor Kennedy, Professor of Health Law, Ethics and Public Policy at University College, London to carry out an assessment of alternatives to quarantine and of the current policy of quarantine. The assessment will consider the risk of introduction of rabies into the United Kingdom, the practical aspects of enforcement and the costs and benefits involved. The assessment will take several months. I will publish Professor Kennedy's report, and will thereafter hold a full public consultation.

WALES

  Military, Security and Police Equipment Sales
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what discussions he has had with the Welsh Development Agency about the Government's policy on the sale and supply of military, security and police equipment to oppressive regimes; and if he will place the minutes of the meeting in the Library; [15750]

  (2) what (a) instructions and (b) policy guidelines he has issued to the Welsh Development Agency about the Government's policy on the sale and supply of military, security and police equipment to oppressive regimes; and if he will place copies of them in the Library. [15754]

  Mr. Hain
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had any discussions with the Welsh Development Agency on this matter, but Welsh Office officials have written to the Agency to ensure that they are aware of the Government's policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary which requires defence exporters to take account of ethical considerations. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library.

  Expenditure by Welsh LEAs

  SSR (£k)

  Admin (£k)

  GSB (£k)

  PSB (k)

  ASB (k)

  Pupil Number

  1993–94

  Clwyd

  352

  1,725

  135,373

  111,116

  95,906

  62,008

  Dyfed

  *

  1,529

  139,792

  114,048

  96,363

  56,369

  Gwent

  555

  1,734

  169,795

  140,482

  119,164

  72,445

  Gwynedd

  390

  682

  86,131

  70,727

  60,520

  35,059

  Mid Glamorgan

  696

  2,447

  220,211

  183,546

  158,243

  96,181

  Powys

  *

  0

  42,332

  36,313

  33,411

  18,725

  South Glamorgan

  63

  1,286

  132,463

  111,343

  97,503

  65,041

  West Glamorgan

  1,303

  1,570

  130,449

  110,561

  92,267

  58,368

  Wales Total

  3,359

  10,973

  1,056,546

  878,136

  753,377

  464,196

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  359

  1,262

  145,458

  118,145

  99,312

  62,878

  Dyfed

  *

  1,301

  148,092

  120,145

  101,431

  56,889

  Gwent

  642

  2,000

  176,436

  145,710

  123,273

  73,706

  Gwynedd

  400

  695

  90,206

  74,613

  65,455

  35,533

  Mid Glamorgan

  696

  554

  234,886

  192,712

  169,859

  97,166

  Powys

  352

  54

  52,609

  39,326

  35,161

  19,112

  South Glamorgan

  57

  1,232

  146,848

  120,456

  105,131

  65,544

  West Glamorgan

  1,962

  1,552

  145,961

  119,690

  103,545

  58,848

  Wales Total

  4,468

  8,650

  1,140,496

  930,797

  803,167

  469,676

  1995–96

  Clwyd

  366

  1,116

  153,770

  121,636

  103,150

  63,246

  Dyfed

  *

  1,139

  152,134

  123,267

  104,514

  56,988

  Gwent

  1,031

  1,711

  244,161

  198,025

  174,638

  74,416

  Gwynedd

  400

  731

  93,306

  77,289

  67,489

  36,022

  24

  National Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the new configuration of NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [ 16101]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Our plan is to consult formally on a new shape of trusts in Wales over the summer of 1998. I hope to be able to make an announcement early in October 1998.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much extra money he has announced for the NHS since 2 May; and if he will make a statement. [16103]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I recently announced an additional £9,548 million for health authorities this year to alleviate pressures on emergency admissions and hospital waiting lists. This is in addition to the package of measures for primary care which I announced in the summer for which I have set aside £2.5 million and funding of £1.747 million to improve cancer services. We have also earmarked an additional £60.2 million for the NHS in 1988–99.

  Schools Budget
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local education authority in Wales for each of the three recent years(a) the actual expenditure on service strategy and regulation, (b) the actual expenditure within the general schools budget on education, management and administration, (c) the outturn expenditure within the general schools budget, (d) the outturn expenditure within the potential schools budget, (e) the outturn expenditure within the aggregate schools budget and (f) the number of pupils in the relevant year. [16095]

  Mr. Hain
  Information is available up to and including 1995–96. The details which relate to the former county councils are as follows:
  25

  Expenditure by Welsh LEAs

  SSR (£k)

  Admin (£k)

  GSB (£k)

  PSB (k)

  ASB (k)

  Pupil Number

  Mid Glamorgan

  696

  175

  153,661

  126,924

  109,912

  97,653

  Powys

  1,758

  56

  54,935

  41,177

  36,350

  19,586

  South Glamorgan

  78

  1,553

  157,600

  126,681

  109,669

  66,306

  West Glamorgan

  2,007

  619

  142,456

  124,132

  109,766

  58,792

  Wales Total

  6,336

  7,100

  1,152,023

  939,131

  815,488

  473,009

  Notes:

  SSR = Gross expenditure on service strategy and regulation (source (R01 returns).

  — * SSR figures for Dyfed and Powys (1993–94 only) are not separately available.

  Admin = Actual expenditure on management and administration in education department.

  —Powys figures are admin costs for special schools only—funding is delegated to primary and secondary schools.

  GSB = General schools budget)PSB = Potential schools budget)ASB = Aggregated schools budget) } Source: section 42 out-turn statements.

  Pupil Number = Number of full-time equivalent pupils on roll in primary, secondary and special schools in January.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has made about the projected incomes for 1997–98 for Welsh hill farms to other Government Ministers; and if he will make a statement; [16382]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying his support for applying the 1996 levels of hill livestock compensatory allowance in 1998. [16383]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Government are in the process of deciding the HLCA rates for 1998. My right hon. Friend and I met both Welsh farming unions recently and heard their concerns about hill farming in Wales. I share much of that concern, as I made clear in my speech in the House on 5 November.

  It is also important not to raise false expectations. The Government have indicated that they intend to live within public expenditure targets set by the previous Government. That Government provided an extra £60 million for HLCAs in 1997 only.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reference was made to(a) the Robson statistics on deprivation and (b) geographical rural isolation in the formulation of the capitation system of funding for health and social services boards. [15050]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Robson statistics on deprivation are not suitable for use in the capitation system of funding health and social services boards as they do not enable finance to be allocated in proportion to the need for health and social care. This is because differences in Robson statistics are not proportionate to differences in deprivation. For example, an area with a Robson score twice that of another area may not necessarily be twice as deprived. In addition, Robson is not the most focused measure of health and social care need. It is a very broad measure of general deprivation, combining a large number of indicators from areas such as environment and education as well as health and social care.
  26
  The Capitation Formula Review Group has recommended continued use of the existing rurality adjustment while specifically commissioned research in this area is completed.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) her Department's policies and initiatives designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and (b) the departmental policies and initiatives designed to reduce other greenhouse gases; if she will estimate for each the annual reduction in tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions achieved in the most recent year for which figures are available compared with those for 1990; and what estimate she has made of further reductions, or increases, predicted for 2000 and 2010, assuming continuation of current policies. [15540]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the United Kingdom's Second Report under the UN Framework Convention in Climate Change which was published in February 1997. It reports the UK's progress in implementing its programme for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and gives a projection of what the programme is expected to deliver by 2000. The report projects forward what the current programme is expected to achieve to 2020.

  Chiropody and Podiatry
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those health authorities which have notified her Department of(a) reductions or increases in chiropody services in 1996–97 relative to 1995–96 and (b) planned reductions or increases in chiropody services in 1998–99. [15377]

  Mr. Worthington
  Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts are not required to notify the Department of reductions or increases in particular services. It is for Boards and Trusts to assess the needs of their populations in respect of health and personal social services, including chiropody services, and to provide services accordingly in the light of available resources and local priorities.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the total numbers of(a) face to face contacts and (b) initial contacts, with chiropody and podiatry staff for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1994–95. [15366]
  27
  Mr. Worthington
  The total number of contacts with Chiropody/Podiatry staff in Northern Ireland is shown in the following table. Information on initial contacts is not separately available.

  Year

  Total contacts

  1994–95

  262,350

  1995–96

  297,612

  1996–97

  312,684

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the guidelines that are issued and health needs assessments that health authorities undertake to ensure the availability of chiropody and podiatry services to meet the needs of their local populations. [15367]

  Mr. Worthington
  It is a matter for Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts to carry out appropriate needs assessments of their local populations, including their need for chiropody services. In seeking to meet that need they have to take into account the total resources available to them, but Boards and Trusts have been asked to give priority to elderly people, those with disabilities, expectant mothers, schoolchildren and people with diabetes.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the NHS expenditure on NHS chiropody and podiatry in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1994–95. [15376]

  Mr. Worthington
  This information is not available in the exact form requested. The following table discloses expenditure on chiropody and podiatry by the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services Boards for 1994–95 and 1995–96. The expenditure on chiropody and podiatry for 1996–97 is not yet available.

  This information has been extracted from supplementary statements produced by HPSS Boards and HSS Trusts to provide further analysis of the expenditure

  Chiropody staff in Northern Ireland at September

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Headcount

  WTE

  Headcount

  WTE

  Headcount

  WTE

  Unit Senior Manager 11

  1

  1.00

  1

  1.00

  0

  0.00

  Technical Instructor 3

  0

  0.00

  1

  1.00

  1

  1.00

  Area Chiropodist Chf 2

  2

  2.00

  1

  1.00

  1

  1.00

  Chief Chiropodist 2

  3

  3.00

  3

  3.00

  2

  2.00

  Chief Chiropodist 3

  10

  10.000

  12

  12.00

  8

  7.93

  Chief Chiropodist 4

  3

  3.00

  6

  6.00

  5

  5.00

  Senior Chiropodist 1

  32

  30.06

  29

  26.08

  28

  24.61

  Senior Chiropodist 2

  87

  76.69

  95

  84.23

  98

  86.41

  Chiropodist

  2

  2.00

  3

  3.00

  7

  7.00

  Foot Care Assistant

  2

  2.00

  6

  5.01

  5

  5.00

  Total

  142

  129.75

  157

  142.32

  155

  139.95

  Irish Language
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which schools teaching in the medium of the Irish language(a) are and (b) are not under the management of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. [15613]
  28
  disclosed in their annual financial accounts. The format of these statements was revised in 1995–96. Prior to this the information requested was not separately identified on the financial returns and is therefore not available for every HSS Trust/HPSS board.

  Chiropody and podiatry expenditure for Northern Ireland 1994–95 to 1995–96

  Year

  Chiropody and podiatry £

  1994–95

  3,297,279

  1995–96

  3,569,148

  1996–97

  Not available

  1. The information for 1994–95 was provided by the Health and Social Services Trusts and Health and Social Services Boards' Directly Managed Units with the exception of North Down and Ards Trust who are unable to provide the information.

  2. The information for 1995–96 has been extracted from the analysis of expenditure reported in the Financial Return Statements (FR22) for the Health and Social Services Trusts and Health and Social Services Boards' Directly Managed Units.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the budget for each health authority or health board allocated for spending on chiropody and podiatry services in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1995–96. [15375]

  Mr. Worthington
  Health and Social Services Boards' general allocations are not hypothecated and it is for individual Boards and general practitioner fundholders to use their funds to best meet the health needs of their local regulations. Spending on specific services can only be determined accurately in retrospect once a Board and Health and Social Security Trust accounts have been completed.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the staffing and personnel figures by all NHS grades and whole-time equivalent staff for chiropody and podiatry for the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1994–95. [15368]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Mr. Worthington
  No schools are managed by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. Eight grant-aided Irish-medium schools are managed by Boards of Governors and five registered independent Irish-medium schools are managed by their proprietors. In addition there is one Irish-medium unit in a maintained primary school.
  29
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to ensure that Irish-medium teacher training courses are not located in venues associated with only one religious denomination. [15614]

  Mr. Worthington
  There are no plans to use other venues as the one grant-aided provider of Irish-medium teacher training for those intending to teach in Irish-medium schools is sufficient to meet needs.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  "Excellence in Schools"
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the responses not submitted on the tear-off slips to the White Paper, "Excellence in schools", came from(a) representative organisations, (b) local education authorities, (c) LEA-maintained schools, (d) grant-maintained schools and (e) individuals. [16375]

  Mr. Byers
  We received over 8,000 responses to the White Paper of which some 3,500 were written responses to the full version. The remainder were a combination of tear-off slips and other forms of communication.

  Of the 3,500, 138 were from Local Education Authorities and about 600, 2,100 and 700 came from representative organisations, schools and individuals respectively. A breakdown between grant-maintained and LEA-maintained schools is not currently available.

  Most responses addressed issues from more than one chapter and many ranged beyond the specific questions posed. There was broad support for the contents of the White Paper.

  We continue to consider all the responses in detail.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many local education authorities, commenting on Chapter 7 of the White Paper "Excellence in schools", expressed(a) support for and (b) opposition to the proposed framework of community, aided and foundation schools; and in each case, how many (i) were and (ii) were not Labour controlled; [16053]

  (2) how many responses to the White Paper, "Excellence in schools", expressed (a) support for and (b) opposition to the proposed framework of community, aided and foundation schools; [16374]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]The White Paper "Excellence in schools", published in July, has received widespread support from national organisations, LEAs, schools and others. Some 140 local education authorities have commented on Chapter 7 and/or the Technical Consultation Paper on the new framework for schools. Of these, around 30 per cent. either expressed support for the basic framework of community, foundation and aided schools or took it as their starting point, of which around half are Labour-controlled authorities. Some 70 per cent. of LEAs raised concerns about the foundation school category, of which some two thirds are Labour-controlled authorities.
  30
  We are currently considering all the responses in detail. The analysis to date indicates that, of some 1,500 responses to the Technical Consultation Paper (in addition to those from LEAs) the great majority did not comment explicitly on the framework. Of the some 300 responses which did comment, some 70 per cent. were content with the proposed foundation category for schools.

  Arts Education Task Force
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the benefits of establishing an Arts Education Task Force. [15186]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We recognise the benefits that a good aesthetic education can bring to any child's learning and believe all children should be given opportunities to experience the arts as part of a broad and balanced curriculum. However, we are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make sure that the benefits that Arts can bring to education are recognised.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate how many and what proportion of the total number of students studying in higher education expect their post-18 education to last(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years, (e) five years, (f) six years, (g) seven years and (h) more than eight years. [16431]

  Dr. Howells
  The available information, which shows the expected course length of students currently enrolled on higher education courses, is given in the following table. The information covers the current course of students only; it does not cover previous or future courses which students have undertaken or intend to undertake.

  Home and overseas higher educations students in higher education institutions in the UK

  1996–97

  Postgraduates

  Undergraduates

  Expected length of course

  Numbers

  Percentage1

  Numbers

  Percentage1

  Full-time

  1 year or less

  76,892

  56.8

  27,552

  2.9

  More than 1 year, up to 2 years

  20,717

  15.3

  54,625

  5.7

  More than 2 years, up to 3 years

  29,022

  21.4

  544,290

  56.4

  More than 3 years, up to 4 years

  6,039

  4.5

  301,862

  31.3

  More than 4 years, up to 5 years

  1,371

  1.0

  33,578

  3.5

  More than 5 years, up to 6 years

  421

  0.3

  2,927

  0.3

  More than six years

  995

  0.7

  73

  0.0

  Unknown2

  2,766

  —

  22,840

  —

  Total

  138,223

  —

  987,747

  —

  Part-time

  1 year or less

  39,303

  22.5

  43,657

  24.0

  More than 1 year, up to 2 years

  60,151

  34.5

  41,784

  23.0

  More than 2 years, up to 3 years

  40,830

  23.4

  25,802

  14.2

  More than 3 years, up to 4 years

  13,320

  7.6

  20,869

  11.5

  More than 4 years, up to 5 years

  11,295

  6.5

  29,656

  16.3

  31

  Home and overseas higher educations students in higher education institutions in the UK

  1996–97

  Postgraduates

  Undergraduates

  Expected length of course

  Numbers

  Percentage1

  Numbers

  Percentage1

  More than 5 years, up to 6 years

  6.931

  4.0

  16,285

  9.0

  More than 6 years

  2,583

  1.5

  3,515

  1.9

  Unknown2

  39,443

  —

  176,888

  —

  Total

  213,856

  —

  358,456

  —

  1 Based on courses with known length.

  2 Including courses where there is not a defined normal length for the study programme.

  Music Teaching
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will increase the level of funding available to promote the teaching of music in schools; [14720]

  (2) what is the total projected amount of funding for the teaching of music in schools for the current financial year; [14722]

  what was the total annual funding for the teaching of music in schools for each of the last 10 years. [14723]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not provide funding to schools for specific subjects of the National Curriculum. Under Local Management of Schools, it is for LEAs and governing bodies of schools to decide what proportion of their total budget to spend on music provision.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to promote music teaching in schools. [14984]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department continues to promote music teaching in schools through the provision that is available as part of the National Curriculum for all children aged five to 14 in maintained schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is also exploring ways of promoting musical instrument teaching for school pupils in addition to the National Curriculum requirements.

  European Dimension
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to give greater emphasis to the European dimension in education. [15185]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  European matters already have considerable coverage in the National Curriculum for schools, mainly through the mandatory study requirements for geography, history and modern foreign languages. To reinforce those and to celebrate the forthcoming United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union we are producing, with the professional help of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, a curriculum pack for schools. It will be entitled "Partners in Europe", and it will emphasise the importance of building a European dimension in the curriculum. We plan to publish the pack in December so that it will be available to schools in January for the start of the Spring term.
  32

  Positive Discrimination
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact on employees of the recent European Court of Justice ruling to permit positive discrimination in favour of women. [16418]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The judgment does not require an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It would therefore be inappropriate to make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he will issue to employers on the recruitment and employment of women following the European Court of Justice's ruling on positive discrimination in favour of women. [16415]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have no current plans to issue guidance.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has held with(a) the Minister for Women and (b) the European Union Social Commissioner on the European Court of Justice's ruling relating to positive discrimination in favour of women. [16416]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have held no such discussions.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to amend United Kingdom sex discrimination legislation to permit positive discrimination in favour of women following the recent European Court of Justice ruling. [16414]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The issues raised by the judgment in the case of Marschall v. Land NordRhein Westfalen are complex. The implications are still being considered. The European Court of Justice's judgment does not require an amendment to be made to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, because Article 2(4) of the Equal Treatment Directive (under which the judgment is made) operates as a derogation from the equal treatment principle. It permits Member States to have positive discrimination provisions in certain limited circumstances it does not require them to have such provisions.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the basic starting salary for a newly graduated teacher(a) inside and (b) outside London; and if he will list the average earnings of teachers (i) inside and (ii) outside London in relation to length of service (1) in cash terms and (2) as a proportion of average earnings. [16430]

  Mr. Byers
  The basic starting salary at 1 April 1997 for a newly qualified teacher with a good honours degree in inner London was £16,341; in outer London it was £15,636; in the London fringe area it was £14,805; and outside London it was £14,280.

  The average earnings of full-time teachers (including heads and deputies) in the maintained nursery, primary

  33
  secondary and special sector at 31 March 1996 by five-year intervals of length of experience were, in cash terms:

  Length of service (years)

  Greater London £

  England and Wales excluding Greater London £

  0: 1

  16,200

  14,300

  5: 6

  22,500

  19,600

  10: 11

  25,100

  22,100

  15: 16

  26,100

  22,900

  20: 21

  26,900

  23,900

  25: 26

  28,200

  25,100

  30: 31

  29,200

  26,600

  Over 31

  30,200

  27,800

  Average full-time teacher salary as a percentage of average full-time earnings for all employees:

  Percentage

  Length of service (years)

  Greater London

  England and Wales excluding Greater London

  0: 1

  68

  82

  5: 6

  95

  113

  10: 11

  106

  128

  15: 16

  110

  132

  20: 21

  114

  138

  25: 26

  119

  145

  30: 31

  123

  154

  Over 31

  127

  161

  Greater London figures are the percentage of the average Greater London earnings for April 1996. England and Wales excluding Greater London figures are the percentage of the average England and Wales excluding Greater London earnings for April 1996.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the benefits of those aged under 25 years who are unemployed and who refuse to take up any of the options offered by the Welfare-to-Work scheme will be affected. [14655]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Young people who without good cause refuse a New Deal place will lose their Jobseeker's Allowance for two weeks. Every time they refuse a further offer in the following 12 months they will lose JSA for four weeks.

  Oxford and Cambridge Universities
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria for Higher Education Funding Council is using to evaluate value for money from college fees in its review of the funding of Oxford and Cambridge universities. [16364]

  Dr. Howells
  We have not yet received the Funding Council's advice on the mechanisms for setting future funding for universities and colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. It is for the Council to decide what criteria to use in formulating its advice.

  Universities
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government(a) have taken and (b) are planning to take, to ensure that universities are responsive to the needs of the non-academic community. [16363]
  34
  Dr. Howells
  The Government are encouraging and will encourage universities to meet the needs of employers and others in their communities in a number of ways.

  We are continuing the Higher Education and Employment Development Programme, which exists to improve responsiveness to the labour market at a national level and to enhance the ability of employers to use the skills and knowledge that graduates bring. The Programme has a budget of £8 million over the next two years, during which we expect to support some 60 projects.

  The Higher Education Regional Development Fund came into operation this year. This initiative aims to engage higher education systemically in supporting competitiveness and economic growth at a regional level through close partnerships with employers and employer-led organisations. The 1997–98 budget of £2.7 million is supporting 58 projects. Although funding is due to end in April 1998, the Government are considering a recommendation from the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education—the Dearing Committee—to extend it.

  My Department is also supporting four feasibility studies on the development of graduate apprenticeships. These will explore the potential for creating opportunities for undergraduates and postgraduates that combine academic study with work-based learning.

  For the future, the Government are considering their response to the many other recommendations of the Dearing Committee intended to increase higher education's responsiveness to the needs of its non-academic stakeholders. We will announce our decisions soon.

  University Degrees
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of university degrees awarded were first class honours in(a) 1967, (b) 1977, (c) 1987 and (d) the latest year for which figures are available. [15316]

  Dr. Howells
  The available data are given in the table.

  First degree graduates1 in the United Kingdom who were awarded first class honours

  Year

  Percentage awarded first class honours

  1967

  26.7

  1977

  35.8

  1987

  36.1

  1996

  47.0

  1 Excluding the Open University.

  2 Former University Funding Council institutions only.

  3 All higher and further education institutions.

  4 All higher education institutions.

  Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department(a) has taken and (b) is planning to take, to

  35
  take account of recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm. 3270). [16362]

  Dr. Howells
  A summary of the actions taken so far on the Second Report by the Department, its funding and regulating bodies, and by local public spending bodies is contained in Appendices 2 and 9 of the Fourth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life "Review of the Standards of Conduct in Executive NDPBs, NHS Trusts and Local Public Spending Bodies".

  The Department is considering the observations made in paragraphs 12–14 of the Fourth Report and where further steps can be taken to improve its openness and accountability and that of its executive NDPBs, including funding and regulating bodies, of its local public spending bodies and of its public bodies generally. It will also be reflecting on the Cabinet Office consultation paper, issued this month, entitled "Opening Up Quangos".

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Tagging Orders (Norfolk)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many tagging orders(a) have been issued and (b) are currently in operation in Norfolk. [15760]

  Ms Quin
  On 12 November 1997, a total of 186 curfew orders, enforced by electronic monitoring, had been imposed by the courts, of which 50 were still in force.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time probation officers there were in Wales in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement. [15729]

  Ms Quin
  The number of full-time probation officers (Wales: 31 December) is as follows:

  1987: 322

  1988: 324

  1989: 332

  1990: 339

  1991: 359

  1992: 357

  1993: 366

  1994: 371

  1995: 354

  1996: 357.

  The numbers include probation officers seconded to work in prisons.

  Prisons
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new prisons are under construction; and if he will make a statement. [15744]

  Ms Quin: One
  Her Majesty's Prison Lowdham Grange in Nottinghamshire. Construction at Her Majesty's Prison Parc, Bridgend, South Wales, which is due to open on 17 November, was certified to be completed on 25 September. The construction of Her 36
  Majesty's Prison Altcourse, Fazakerley, Merseyside is scheduled to be formally certified as completed on 14 November.

  Border Controls
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 823, concerning border controls, what powers he will possess on activation of the Protocol of the Amsterdam treaty in respect of (a) citizens of the European Union and (b) nationals of member states of the European Economic Area, additional to verification of identity by personal travel documents. [15289]

  Ms Quin
  Powers for immigration officers to examine identity documents of passengers arriving in the United Kingdom are contained in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. Schedule 2 applies to the examination of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals in accordance with Article 20(2)(e) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994. Article 3 of that Order provides that (subject to article 15(1) of the Order) an EEA national will be admitted to the United Kingdom on production, on arrival, of a valid national identity card or passport issued by another EEA State and, if required, proof that he is the family member of an EEA national. "EEA nationals" includes all nationals of the European Economic Area, including European Community nationals, except British citizens. No new powers are conferred by the Protocol, which instead confirms the United Kingdom's (and Ireland's) rights to conduct checks on persons at the internal frontiers of the European Union.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the detailed procedures in place for processing asylum seekers on their arrival at United Kingdom ports of entry. [15085]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The procedures in place at ports of entry are designed to meet the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees while minimising the scope for abuse of the asylum process. These procedures allow for the prompt identification of asylum seekers; information to be provided about the asylum process and the agencies that can offer assistance; and the asylum claim to be forwarded to the Asylum Directorate of the Home Office at the earliest opportunity.

  All procedures are kept under review and revised as necessary. More generally, a study of all aspects of the asylum process across Government is currently being carried out.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allocate additional resources to treatment programmes for sex offenders, with special reference to offenders who are on short sentences and are released from prison without community supervision. [15476]
  37
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The Prison Service has made available in the current financial year an additional £1 million in support of offending behaviour programmes, including sex offender treatment programmes.

  There are no plans at present to devote additional Prison Service resources to programmes aimed at sex offenders sentenced to short terms of imprisonment because they would not be in prison for long enough after sentencing for them to complete a meaningful programme.

  The Government intend to include provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill to give the courts power to impose extended periods of post-release supervision on sex-offenders, including those who receive sentences of 12 months or less. The Government acknowledge that these proposals will have resource implications for probation services.

  E-Mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 10 November from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,Official Report, column 441, if he will list the e-mail addresses of (a) Ministers, (b) senior officials and (c) chief executives of agencies for which he is responsible. [15878]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]No Minister in my Department at present has an e-mail address.

  Correspondence sent to the Home Office e-mail address, ho.gen@gtnet.gov.uk, is forward to the appropriate senior officials as necessary. Links to the e-mail addresses of the Research and Statistics Directorate and the Police Research Group are provided from the appropriate areas of the Home Office web site, www.homeoffice.gov.uk, and messages can be marked for the attention of senior officials.

  Chief executives of agencies for which my Department is responsible do not have individual e-mail addresses. However, appropriately headed messages sent to the Fire Service College, moreton@campus.bt.com, will be forwarded to the chief executive, and a feedback form on the Forensic Science Service website, www.fss.org.uk, can also be addressed to the chief executive.

  Prisons (Healthcare Managers)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to ensure that all prisons have a healthcare manager, following the report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [16368]

  Ms Quin
  Figures for 1996–97 indicate that health care managers have been appointed in at least 122 Prison Service establishments. Governors are not obliged to follow any particular model in setting up their management teams. However, the issue of health care managers, among others, will be examined by a joint Prison Service/Department of Health Working Group which has been set up in response to the 1996 Report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons "Patient or Prisoner?", to look at the whole question of the future delivery of health care to prisoners.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are required to be complied with before(a) the police and (b) MI5 can gain access to information generated within the System X telephone system in respect of call origin and destination related information. [15710]

  Mr. Straw
  Section 45 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, as amended by the Interception of Communications Act 1985, provides that public telecommunications operators commit an offence if they disclose any information concerning the use made of their telecommunications services by any other person except where disclosures are made for the prevention or detection of crime, for the purposes of any criminal proceedings, in the interests of national security or in pursuance of the order of a court. It is for the individual operator to satisfy himself that one or more of those exceptions apply before releasing any such information at the request of the police or the Security Service.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make unauthorised surveillance by electronic devices a criminal offence. [156951

  Mr. Michael
  To introduce a general offence outlawing unauthorised surveillance by an electronic device would raise particular technical and definitional problems. Remedies are already available to take action against those who carry out surveillance which transgresses the current criminal law, for example if they commit theft or criminal damage, behave in a threatening or violent way or where there is harassment. Furthermore, the act of simple trespass is a civil tort.

  There are also offences under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 to regulate the use of certain techniques and methods. On the other hand, there are legitimate uses of electronic surveillance by other than law enforcement agencies which are of benefit to society and the safety of the public. The use of closed circuit television in shopping centres, car parks, on housing estates and inside offices, banks, shops and public buildings is generally welcomed by the public and accepted as necessary for crime prevention.

  The media would argue that cameras and other equipment are an essential component of investigative journalism and that any prohibition on their use would be a form of censorship. To regulate the use of all such equipment would create a massive administrative burden. Existing offences under the criminal and civil law already provide a degree of cover and redress for infringements of privacy by the use of electronic surveillance. Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights will also impact upon this issue.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 1967 and for how long(a) Category 3 and (b) Category 2 phone numbers have been disconnected; at what locations; and for what reasons. [15778]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Category 3 disconnections have been made when the public telephone network has been severely damaged (storms, 1987 and 1990), heavily overloaded (Hungerford, 1987), or malfunctioning
  39
  telephone exchanges (Welford on Avon, Chadford, 1993). The action was taken by the telecommunications operator to ensure that essential users could use the network while restoration of service was being carried out.

  Central Government have never invoked the authority to disconnect Category 2 phone numbers.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances MI5 undertakes telephone tapping without first having obtained a warrant. [15718]

  Mr. Straw
  Under no circumstances are communications intercepted in the course of their transmission by means of a public telecommunications system by, or at the request of, the Security Service without the authority of a warrant.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sum was paid out of public funds to British Telecom for each year since 1986 in respect of work carried out in telephone tapping services. [15726]

  Mr. Straw
  Interception of Communications is an important weapon in the fight against serious crime and threats to public safety. It has been the policy of successive governments not to disclose information which might assist criminals, terrorists and hostile foreign powers by revealing the extent of our capabilities in relation to interception.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the warrants authorising telephone taps for each year since 1986 were still in force on 1 November. [15716]

  Mr. Straw
  The available information is published in the annual reports of the Commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 which lists the number of warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland in the course of each year, and the numbers of warrants in force at the end of each year. The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the discussions and decisions regarding surveillance of telecommunications undertaken within the EU since 23 November 1996;[15682]

  (2) what action has been taken since 23 November 1996 in respect of the provision of access for law enforcement agencies to (a) satellite-based communications and (b) other communications; and if he will make a statement. [15683]

  Mr. Straw
  On 23 November 1995, a Memorandum of Understanding concerning international user requirements for the lawful use of interception by law enforcement agencies was signed by all members of the European Union and Norway. A copy of the Memorandum was placed in the Library on 3 March 1997.

  Separately from this, the United Kingdom is working with European Union member states on a draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the member states of the European Union. This includes draft articles relating to the interception of satellite and terrestrial communications. The Convention is primarily designed to improve existing arrangements
  40
  for co-operation between judicial authorities in European Union member states under the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on mutual legal assistance. On 28 October, the Government placed before the scrutiny committees of both Houses, and in the Library, copies of the latest draft of the Convention.

  Prisons (HIV-AIDS)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to ensure that all prison establishments have a multi-disciplinary management group dealing with HIV-AIDS; and if he will make a statement. [16369]

  Ms Quin
  It is Prison Service policy that every prison should have a multi-disciplinary AIDS Management Team. Teams from 125 establishments have so far attended centrally organised training courses as part of an ongoing programme. The content of the training has now been revised to include other communicable diseases such as Hepatitis B and C, and tuberculosis. The Prison Service recently appointed an outside agency to develop further and deliver the training programme, and every establishment has been invited to send a team.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prison establishments in England and Wales provide basic awareness training for prisoners in respect of HIV-Aids. [163701

  Ms Quin
  All Prison Service establishments are expected to provide basic awareness training for prisoners in HIV as part of their induction programme (usually within the first week of their arrival). In addition, all establishments are expected to have at least two trained HIV counsellors to deal with any concerns inmates may have during their stay in prison.

  MI5
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the mechanisms for authorising the vetting of an individual by MI5; [15713]

  (2) how many persons were vetted by MI5 in the last year for which figures are available; [15714]

  (3) if material collected by MI5 as part of vetting operations is always destroyed where those vetted are deemed not to be a security risk. [15715]

  Mr. Straw
  Security vetting is carried out in accordance with the policy set out by the then Prime Minister in reply to a Question from Sir Anthony Durant (then the Member for Reading, West) on 15 December 1994,Official Report, columns 764–66. It is for Departments to assess which posts, by virtue of their assess to sensitive Government assets, should be subject to security vetting. Before any vetting is carried out, the individual is informed of the processes involved and gives his or her consent to the relevant checks being made.

  As the policy makes clear, a check against Security Service records is a standard element of the vetting process. Apart from the checks made on individuals at the request of Departments, the Security Service is responsible only for the vetting of its own staff and contractors. Information obtained during the vetting process is retained for management purposes and to facilitate periodic vetting reviews.
  41
  It is not the Government's policy to provide details of the work of the Security Service, including the numbers of persons subject to vetting checks.

  Prisons (Pharmacists)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prison establishments in England and Wales have a pharmacist employed on the premises. [16371]

  Ms Quin
  Thirty four Prison Service establishments have a resident pharmacist. These establishments generally act as pharmacy cluster centres, providing services to a further 67 prisons or Young Offender Institutions. Thirty one establishments obtain pharmacy drugs or services through a variety of arrangements with the private sector or the National Health Service.

  Firearms Surrender (Compensation)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the proposed timescale for the payment of compensation for the surrender of firearms prohibited by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 to those who surrendered guns before 30 September. [16367]

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has to date been the average period between the surrendering of firearms under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the payment of compensation to the former owners of such firearms; to what factors he attributes delays in the making of payments; and what proposals he has to expedite the payment of such compensation. [15886]

  Mr. Michael
  Claims submitted under options A and B of the compensation scheme are being processed in 12 to 14 weeks. The more complicated option C claims will be processed when the bulk of these have been cleared.

  More than 37,800 compensation claims and ex gratia applications under the small calibre pistol scheme have been received since 1 July, and the volume is such that some delays are inevitable. More than 14,200 payments have been made to a value of more than £17 million.

  It has always been recognised that the pressure of claims received over a short hand-in period was bound to lead to processing delays, and claimants were advised that they may have to wait several weeks before receiving any payment. Despite that, an additional factor in delay is the burden of telephone enquiries about the progress of claims. A recent survey showed that the Home Office was receiving around 2,000 such calls a week.

  As I promised in July, everything possible is being done to process claims in the shortest time possible. For instance, weekend overtime is being worked and staff have been temporarily promoted to boost examiner numbers. I wish to record my thanks to everyone who has contributed to the efforts to date including officials and the police officers involved.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms have so far been surrendered under the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; and how many of those firearms 42
  have been (a) melted down, (b) otherwise destroyed, (c) sold in (i) the United Kingdom or (ii) overseas and (d)otherwise handled. [15885]

  Mr. Michael
  Further to my statement of 3 November,Official Report, column 56, just over 142,000 handguns were surrendered to police forces during the three month period which ended on 30 September.

  The vast majority of these firearms are being destroyed under local arrangements in each police force area once the claimant has received compensation from the Home Office Firearms Compensation Section. Some forces have begun destroying firearms where the related claim has already been met, though no central record of actual destructions is being kept. None of the surrendered firearms will be sold either within the United Kingdom or abroad. A small minority of firearms may be retained by police forces for training purposes, and some by museums for public display.

  Exports Initiative
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies which have benefited from the Home Office Exports Initiative. [16212]

  Mr. Michael
  During the period of the Exports Initiative, the Home Office Exports Promoter is known to have had dealings with the companies listed. The list is not exhaustive as not all contacts will have been recorded. The Exports Promoter also worked closely with the main trade associations in the policing and security sector who between them have over 500 member companies. It has proved difficult to show what actual export orders have resulted directly from the initiative. It is a matter for the companies concerned to assess what benefits they derived from the Initiative, but I am told that companies proved unwilling to tell officials at the Home Office whether any orders had resulted from trade events etc.

  A 1 Security and Electrical Ltd. Aadver International

  Adams Electronics

  Agema Infrared Systems Ltd. AIGIS Ltd.

  Alexander Manufacturing (UK) Ltd.

  Amcomm International Ltd. AS and E

  Aspley Identifying Solutions

  Audiotel International Ltd.

  Baxall Security Ltd.

  Birmingham Gunmakers ltd.

  Bleinheim Exhibitions

  Bastion (North) Security Ltd.

  Bramah Security

  Broadcast and Surveillance Systems Ltd.

  Camlock Systems PLC

  Canford Audio

  Cardkey Systems

  CDR International

  Chameleon Management Systems Chubb PLC

  Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd.

  CQR Security Components Ltd. Duncan Advanced PLC

  EEV Ltd.

  Eurosat Distribution (Scotland) Ltd.

  Expo Promotions

  Foster and Freeman Ltd.

  GB Information Management

  Geografix Ltd.

  43

  Glover Webb Ltd

  Grazeby Security

  Group 4 Ltd.

  Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd.

  Hiatt and Company Ltd.

  Horn Ltd.

  Hourglass Publishing

  ICL

  IES

  Imagebase Technology Ltd.

  International Trade and Exhibitions Ltd.

  Ion Track Instruments

  Island Security Systems

  Ivel Developments Ltd.

  Jarvis Engineering and Technology Ltd.

  K-Tech (UK) Ltd.

  Keygrove Marketing Ltd.

  Kinetic Group Ltd.

  Labelex Exhibitions Ltd.

  Latin American Trade and Investment Centre

  Latin American Trade Advisory Group

  Lightweight Body Armour Ltd.

  Litton Data Systems

  Martin Ison Associates Ltd.

  Maxon Europe Ltd.

  Mobile Radio Ltd.

  Neal Recording Systems Ltd.

  Notifier

  NTL Radio Communications

  Ogier Electronics

  PAC International Ltd

  PAFEC Ltd

  Photon Security Services Ltd.

  PJ Consultancy Services

  Police Aviation Services

  Probe FX (UK) Ltd

  Public Access Terminals Ltd.

  Pyronix Ltd.

  Racal Acoustics Ltd.

  Racal Messenger Ltd.

  Racal Radio Ltd.

  Racal Recorders

  Racal-Comseq Ltd.

  Rapiscan Security Products

  Recall Ltd.

  Redfern Consultancy

  Remsdaq

  RFR Marketing Ltd.

  Rover Group

  Scanna MSC Ltd.

  SDA Consultants

  Security Defence Technologies Ltd.

  Selectamark Security Systems PLC

  Sensor Electronics Ltd.

  Sensormatic

  Shepherd Surveillance Solutions

  Simoco Telecommunication Ltd.

  Sonic Communications (International) Ltd.

  Symonds Group

  Symonds Travers Morgan

  Task International Ltd.

  Texecom Ltd.

  The Archer Group Ltd.

  W. L. Gore and Associates (UK) Ltd.

  EU Conventions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 74–76, concerning the draft convention of the European Community concerning rules applying to the crossing of external common frontiers of the community, when the convention was published by the Commission; what consultation with member states took place prior to its publication; what steps have been
  44
  taken by Her Majesty's Government to send copies of the draft convention to bodies or persons in the United Kingdom whose duties or obligations will be affected by its operation and requirements; if he will publish a white paper containing the changes which it will require in the existing powers available to the Government or Parliament; and what final powers the convention provides for the European Court. [15573]

  Ms Quin
  A revised draft External Frontiers Convention was presented to the Council by the Commission on 10 December 1993; a draft Convention had earlier been under consideration by member states of the European Union under the ad hoc arrangements for co-operation on immigration and asylum which preceded the coming into force of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

  The Government are not aware of any specific consultations on the Commission's proposals but it was based on the earlier text of the draft Convention subject to the changes brought about by the TEU. The Commission's proposal for a Convention was deposited in Parliament on 1 February 1994, together with an Explanatory Note; the draft Convention which preceded it was deposited in Parliament in July 1992. The Commission's proposal was published in the Official Journal on 15 January 1994 and is publicly available. The Government did not formally consult on the Convention but the Government's Explanatory Note set out the legal changes which implementation of the External Frontiers Convention would require. It would not be appropriate to publish any more detailed proposals in the absence of final agreement on the text. Jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice remains an unresolved matter.

  The draft External Frontiers Convention has been blocked since 1991 because of Spain's objections to its application to Gibraltar, and no discussions of substance have taken place within the European Union since June 1996 during the Italian Presidency. However, arrangements have now been agreed allowing the Schengen countries to pass measures within the European Union framework relating to their external frontiers, while the United Kingdom and Ireland continue to operate the Common Travel Area. Given these changes, secured at the Amsterdam Summit, there is now little impetus behind the draft External Frontiers Convention.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 74–76, in respect of the draft conventions of the European Community concerning (i) matrimonial matters, (ii) co-operation between customs administrations and (iii) information on asylum applicants (a) when each was published, (b) what steps he has taken to forward the proposals to interested bodies or persons, (c) what matters raised by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the earlier consultation have not been incorporated in the draft, (d) when the texts were placed before Parliament, (e) what procedures will take place in Parliament prior to ratification, (f) what major changes in the rights or obligations of United Kingdom citizens are implied by the drafts, (g) what powers will be vested in the European Court in either preliminary or final judgments or rulings and (h) what memoranda he will publish. [15570]
  45
  Ms Quin
  The information requested is as follows:

  (i) Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement in Family Matters

  This draft European Union Convention, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has the policy lead, has not been published in the Official Journal but was submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities in May, together with an Explanatory Note. The Select Committee consulted a wide range of interested academic and professional individuals and organisations and published the evidence it collected in its report (HL Paper 19, printed on 22 July 1997). The matters raised in the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Scottish Court Administration are still under negotiation with other member states. The enactment of primary legislation will be needed before the Convention can be ratified.

  The draft Convention has the following main purposes; first, to establish grounds of jurisdiction in relation to proceedings for divorce, nullity and judicial separation and orders relating to children made in those proceedings; secondly, to make provision relating to concurrent matrimonial procedings in different jurisdictions; and thirdly, to provide for the recognition and enforcement of the relevant decrees and orders. Whether, and, if so, to what extent, the European Court of Justice should be given jurisdiction in relation to the draft Convention is a matter which is still under consideration and negotiation with other member states. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Scottish Courts Administration will publish a memorandum on the draft Convention before it is finally agreed; the timing of such publication with depend on the future progress of negotiations.

  (ii) Draft Convention on mutual assistance and co-operation between customs authorities (Naples II)

  The text of this draft European Union Convention is still under negotiation and has therefore not yet been published in the Official Journal. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the policy lead and intends to deposit the latest text and an Explanatory Note with Parliament shortly. It will be for the scrutiny committees to decide whether to call for evidence from interested bodies or persons. The Government have been fully involved in negotiations concerned with the drafting of the convention and, where appropriate, have sought changes to the text.

  If agreement is reached on the Convention, it will be tabled in Parliament in accordance with the Ponsonby rule for ratifying international agreements. The draft Convention does not provide for changes in the rights or obligations of United Kingdom citizens. The powers to be invested in the European Court of Justice in respect of the draft Convention are still under consideration.

  (iii) Draft Convention regarding the establishment of the EURODAC system for the comparison of fingerprints of asylum applicants

  The first version of this draft European Union Convention was brought forward by the Italian Presidency on 14 March 1996. The text, which remains the subject of negotiation under the Third Pillar of the Treaty of European Union, has not been published in the Official Journal but was deposited with Parliament on 6 June 1996, together with an Explanatory Note. The text has so far not been the subject of any wider consultation in the United Kingdom. The Luxembourg Presidency recently forwarded the draft convention to the European Parliament for an opinion.

  If adopted by the Council, the draft Convention would be laid before Parliament in the usual way prior to ratification and Parliamentary approval sought for any necessary changes to existing legislation. The inclusion of provisions relating to the European Court of Justice has yet to be determined.
  46

  IRA Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the time-frame within which the transfer of IRA prisoners to the Republic of Ireland, to which he has agreed in principle, will take place. [16475]

  Ms Quin
  Determination of repatriation requests requires detailed consideration by both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Repatriation cannot take place until all parties, including the prisoner, have given their formal consent. It is not possible to specify how long this process may take in any individual case.

  Prisoner Tariffs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department following the letter of 9 July from the Northern Ireland Office to Mr. Martin McGuinness, when he will announce the tariffs for(a) Joe O'Connell, (b) Harry Duggan, (c) Hugh Doherty and (d) Eddie Bolton. [164741

  Ms Quin
  The four prisoners in question will be informed of decisions concerning their tariffs as soon as possible.

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral Statement by the Secretary of State for International Development,Official Report, 5 November, column 332, if he will instruct officials to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards in his Department. [15492]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 13 November Official Report, column 617. All procurement decisions in my Department are based on the Government's policy of value for money. However, we are making inquiries across the Office with regard to the implications of offering such "fair trade" products.

  Telephone Preference Scheme
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has the authority to order the disconnection of Category 3 phone numbers under the Telephone Preference Scheme. [15777]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Central Government have the authority to order the disconnection of Category 3 phone numbers under the Telephone Preference Scheme in response to a situation affecting defence or national security.

  Telecommunications operators can also disconnect Category 3 phone numbers to provide assured access to the public network for essential users in the event of a heavy overload or damage to the public network.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the allocation of telephone numbers under Categories l to 3 of the Telephone Preference Scheme was last reviewed; and by whom. [15780]
  47
  Mr. George Howarth
  The allocation of telephone numbers in the three categories was reviewed in 1996 by an Inter-departmental Working Party with representatives from the Home Office, Cabinet Office, Department of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Defence and Public Telecommunication Operators.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies and organisations in(a) Category 1 and (b) Category 2 under the Telephone Preference Scheme. [15779]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Telephone Preference Scheme Category 1 applies to Central Government emergency services, local authorities, the military and the utilities, all of which have a key role in an emergency. Category 2 applies to all public call boxes and coin operated telephones. It is not possible to provide a full list within the two categories without incurring disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of the "EMU—Practical Guidelines for Business" (July 1997) have been circulated to date(a) in total and (b) to firms in the small business sector. [14728]

  Mrs. Roche
  About 50,000 copies of the booklet "EMU—Practical Information for Business", published by HM Treasury, have been distributed.

  Small businesses have been targeted in the distribution of this booklet.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the amount of Government expenditure on firework safety campaigns for each year since 1979. [15532]

  Turnover

  Operating surplus/(deficit)

  Mining reports and records £ million

  Coal Authority £ million

  Percentage

  Mining reports and records £ million

  Coal Authority £ million

  Percentage

  1994–95

  1.749

  22.843

  7.7

  0.538

  (3.566)

  —

  1995–96

  4.796

  74.834

  6.4

  1.518

  27.187

  5.6

  1996–97

  5.734

  55.807

  10.3

  1.506

  22.203

  6.8

  Note:
  The figure for turnover from provision of mining reports and records includes reports provided in respect of house and land purchase, development proposals and infrastructure developments, and for access to geological and other records held by the Coal Authority. The Authority's mining records and reports service is required to cover its costs, and adjustments are made to the cost of the service to reflect this requirement. Following the computerisation of the reports service, fees for each mining report were reduced by 17.5 per cent. on 1 June 1997.

  Source:

  The Coal Authority Annual Report and Accounts, 1994–95, 1995– 96 and 1996–97.

  Coal
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to expand the markets for United Kingdom coal. [15674]
  48
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The cost of fireworks safety campaigns between 1979 and 1983 cannot be produced without incurring disproportionate cost. The figures from 1984 are as follows:

  £000

  1984

  35

  1985

  40

  1986

  51

  1987

  78

  1988

  57

  1989

  64

  1990

  111

  1991

  74

  1992

  84

  1993

  160

  1994

  191

  1995

  185

  1996

  284

  1997

  1350

  1Latest estimate

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of businesses applying for the DTI Loan Guarantee Scheme have been declared eligible during the last year for which figures are available. [15319]

  Mrs. Roche
  No figures relating to the proportion of applications declared eligible are available. All applications are made direct to lenders and no national records of approaches to lenders are kept.

  Property Sales (Coal Mining Searches)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sums were collected by the Coal Authority in respect of coal mining searches on property sales in each of the last three years; and in each year what these were as a percentage of the Authority's total income. [15733]

  Mr. Battle
  The following table shows the Coal Authority's turnover and operating surplus from the provision of coal mining reports and records for the past three financial years, and their relationship to the Authority's total turnover and operating surplus or deficit.

  Mr. Battle
  The Government believe that there is scope for expanding the European sales of United Kingdom coal which is by far the lowest cost production in Europe. To this end, the Government are vigorously urging the Commission to block the subsidies to German and
  49
  Spanish coal producers that create barriers to 1998 sales of United Kingdom steam coal, anthracite and manufactured smokeless fuels in the European Coal and Steel Community.

  Other steps we have taken to encourage the continuation of markets for coal include:
  Setting up a review of the Electricity Pool.
  Encouraging the generators to offer their unwanted coal-powered stations for sale to RJB Mining or other coal producers.
  Encouraging the regulator to prevent generators from passing on excessive costs under the early take-or-pay gas contracts to ensure that there is no uneven playing field.
  Introducing the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill which will remove the advantage that nuclear and imported electricity from France currently enjoys.
  We are also working hard to find ways to support clean coal technology.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the United Kingdom maximum limit on the amount of grant that can be offered in an assisted area or development area. [15761]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The maximum grant ceiling in the UK is 75 per cent. of the discounted fixed capital costs for qualifying projects in areas designated under Article 92(3)a of the Treaty of the EC. This ceiling is currently applicable to the whole of Northern Ireland. The maximum grant in Development Areas under Article 92(3)c is 30 per cent.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what mechanisms have been created to avoid competitive bidding between United Kingdom regions to attract new investment. [15762]

  Mrs. Beckett
  All three operating departments have subscribed to internal rules designed to avoid bidding up. There are also procedures for central handling of major cases where appropriate—for example, if more than one site is being considered.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances her Department(a) sees the papers, (b) influences decisions and (c) has a veto on inward investment packages offered by Wales and Scotland. [15820]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The territorial departments consult my Department on a range of matters, for example the market conditions in an industry, when relevant. The territorial departments will also consult my Department when more than one location is being considered because there are arrangements for a co-ordinating approach to dealing with the prospective inward investor. Decisions on inward investment packages offered by Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines she has issued to bring investment packages offered by Scotland and Wales into line with England. [15860]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]Regional Selective Assistance scheme grants operate to common guidelines applied across Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, grants are available under the Selective 50
  Financial Assistance scheme, which operates on similar principles. I am discussing with my colleagues how best to ensure common UK criteria when dealing with the full packages of support offered to inward investors.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Secretary of State for Scotland has to submit investment packages to her Department before he is able to confirm them. [15884]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]No.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria she will apply to determine the size of grants for regional inward investment. [15882]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]Applications for Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) grant are received from both domestic and foreign companies of all sizes, and are assessed against the same strict criteria. Eligible projects must create new or safeguard existing employment in the Assisted Area, be viable and contribute to both the regional and national economy. The project must be additional; that it would not go ahead in the assisted area unless RSA grant is forthcoming. The amount of grant awarded is always judged to be the minimum necessary for the project to go ahead, and is related to the fixed capital costs of a project and on the number of jobs expected to be created or safeguarded.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Invest in Britain Bureau has the power to vet regional development body grants and investment packages. [15881]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The Invest in Britain Bureau, which is jointly managed by the DTI and the FCO markets the UK abroad as an investment location and co-ordinates a regional delivery infrastructure, providing grant to 10 English Regional Development Organisations for an agreed programme of inward investment promotion activities. It does not have the power to vet Regional Selective Assistance packages since that is not its role but it works closely with Regional Assistance Directorate in the DTI, who are responsible for RSA policy.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of car boot sales on local businesses. [15690]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Car boot sales do not compete with other retail outlets, but I am aware that many people, particularly charities and voluntary organisations, benefit from them. Consideration of licensing of this activity is the responsibility of DETR.

  Action 2000
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the terms of reference for Action 2000. [16134]

  Mrs. Roche
  Under the Action 2000 initiative, there will be an Advisory Board to assist the Chairman in providing the advice detailed in the list of his responsibilities, and a separate company to carry out day-to-day operations, including implementation of a
  51
  programme of activities. The activities should be based on an assessment by the Board of what is needed to minimise the extent of failure with significant consequences by private sector business systems, including both IT systems and electronically controlled equipment using embedded software. In particular, the assessment should assess what external help businesses need, what help is already available from commercial or other sources, and what more needs to be done. It will also identify organisations which can participate in delivering additional help, and indicate where some element of public money is needed to achieve this.

  The activities are expected to fall under the following broad headings:

  Promotion—activities to promote the importance of the issue and signpost help,

  Advice and Guidance—identifying and providing available best practice advice and guidance,

  Assessment Schemes—providing self-assessment conformance tools for users, consultants and suppliers,

  People and Skills—develop and implement ways to address the current shortage of skilled IT staff,

  Tools and Techniques—make available details of tools, techniques, products and services,

  Practical help and advice for small and medium sized businesses.

  One of the tasks of the Company will be to encourage businesses and other organisations to participate in devising or delivering the activities which are needed.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the post of Chairman for Action 2000 was advertised; and how many job applications were received.[16135]

  Mrs. Roche
  The post was not advertised, because the Government wished to appoint a Chairman as rapidly as possible in view of the urgency of the problem.

  Telescopes
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Ministers have visited the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes since the inauguration in 1985.[16436]

  Mr. Battle
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs visited the telescopes on 31 October. I am not aware of any other Ministerial visits to the telescopes since they were inaugurated.

  Mr. Pound
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the amount of United Kingdom Government expenditure on the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes at the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.[16421]

  Mr. Battle
  The Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes is a joint venture between the UK and the Netherlands. In 1997–98, the Joint UK/Netherlands Budget was £2.247 million of which the UK provided 80 per cent. The UK also provided support for staff salaries, new instrumentation and research making the total UK contribution £5.533 million. The total UK contribution over the period from 1992–93 to 1996–97 was £26.134 million. Figures for previous years are not readily available.
  52

  Textphones
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce statutory regulations to ensure the greater provision of public textphones for deaf and hard of hearing people.[15929]

  Mr. Battle
  The number of public textphones is on the increase and BT plans to increase the numbers from the current level of 90 to approximately 400 by the year 2000. Furthermore Oftel plan to launch a public consultation later this year dedicated to finding ways, including licence modifications if necessary, of improving telecommunications services for people with disabilities. The issue of the provision of public textphones will be raised as part of this consultation. My Department therefore has no plans at present to introduce such statutory regulations to ensure that public textphones are more widely available.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will take steps to enable the gas and electricity regulators to authorise the introduction of a levy on all consumers' bills to fund energy efficiency programmes; and if she will make a statement.[16171]

  Mr. Battle
  This issue falls within the remit of the Review of Utility Regulation, which is considering whether changes are required to the existing systems of regulation in telecommunications, electricity, gas and water, and which will report to Ministers by the end of the year. If we conclude that change should be contemplated, a consultation paper setting out the options will be published early next year.

  Travel Trade Monopoly Inquiry
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she plans to publish the findings from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's travel trade monopoly inquiry.[16216]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) report on the travel trade will be published as quickly as is practicable. I cannot comment on the likely publication date of the MMC report or its contents. This information is market sensitive and must remain confidential. Copies of the report will be laid before Parliament at the same time as it is published.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she has asked the European Commission for full impact statements on the proposed items of European Union Legislation relating to(a) intellectual property rights, (b) financial services (distance contracts), (c) electronic waste, (d) air quality, (e) national emissions ceilings and (f) electric sockets, plugs and bases for 16 amp-250 volts for domestic uses.[14201]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]The Government encourage the Commission to prepare impact assessments where there may be a significant impact on business. We are working with the Commission and other Member States to improve the system of impact assessment at European levels.
  53
  There are, among the policy areas cited, current legislative proposals in the areas of intellectual property and emissions and air quality, where the Commission has prepared impact assessments. In intellectual property rights, the UK opposes the draft directive on artists' re-sale rights and is pressing the Commission to consider more fully the impact upon business. In the area of air quality and vehicle emissions, the Commission has produced impact assessment work for the proposals currently being negotiated. In the other areas cited, electronic waste, distance selling of financial services and the domestic usage of electrical plugs and sockets, there are not published Commission legislative proposals at present. However, we understand that the Commission is preparing a draft Directive on the distance selling of financial services, which features in the Action Plan for completion of the Single Market. The Commission has not included any proposals for electronic waste or for domestic plugs and sockets in its 1997 Work Programme.

  Post Office (Scottish Powercards)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact on the business of small rural-post offices of the withdrawal of Scottish Powercard sales.[15355]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]Assessments of the viability of sub-post offices are a matter for individual subpostmasters and Post Office Counters Limited.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in implementing the EU Working Time Directive (1993).[15767]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]We are currently finalising our proposals for implementation of the Directive.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures are being taken to ensure that future growth in the United Kingdom manufacturing sector does not lag behind that of the rest of the economy.[15475]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]Our prosperity depends on creating a modern economy—strong in manufacturing and services. To help build a modern economy the Department of Trade and Industry is promoting competition and consumer protection; seeking high standards and fairness at work; and looking to the long-term in science and technology. This agenda is being advanced in partnership with firms in all sectors.
  54

  Industrial Underperformance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria she used to determine which industries underperformed in the United Kingdom.[16147]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]I have made no such determination.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what rate of return on capital she uses to enable her to distinguish between competitive companies and companies in need of improvement.[16144]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]I do not distinguish between competitive companies and companies in need of improvement on the basis of rate of return on capital.

  New Taxes (Advice)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice she gave to the Chancellor in respect of the effects of new taxes on businesses, on cash flow and investment levels.[16145]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]I maintain regular contact with the Chancellor about the impact on business, including on cash flow and investment, so that this can be taken into account in decisions on taxation and other aspects of economic policy.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to meet miners' representatives to discuss(a) the coal industry and (b) proposed pit closures.[16140]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]Ministers have had a number of meetings with miners' representatives to discuss the present position in the coal industry.

  Euro
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the costs to British business of converting to using the euro (i) as a second domestic currency in the transitional period and (ii) as the sole legal currency in the United Kingdom.[16146]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 11 November,Official Report, column 512.

  Sports Sponsorship
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which tobacco companies have requested a meeting with ministers to discuss sports sponsorship; and which have been granted such a meeting.[16141]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]None.

  Know-how Fund
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in the last two financial years, how many know-how fund projects were awarded to(a) companies, (b) large partnerships or institutions and (c) individuals or small partnerships; in each case how many were based in Scotland; and what was the total value in categories (a) to (c).[13978]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on know-how consultancy contracts is not recorded in the categories sought and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information can be provided in two categories: corporate (companies, partnerships and institutions-small and large) and non-corporate (self-employed individuals) contracts. This is set out below:

  Year

  Number

  Value (£) of contracts awarded

  Total value (£)

  1995–96

  Corporate

  333

  45,644,200

  —

  Non-corporate

  49

  3,678,126

  49,322,326

  1996–97

  Corporate

  488

  81,757,274

  —

  Non-corporate

  81

  3,315,631

  85,072,905

  Contracts awarded to companies with headquarters in Scotland are not recorded separately.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget allocated to the know-how fund for each of the last two years; and how much of that budget was spent on administration.[13972]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Know-how fund expenditure in the last two financial years was as follows:

  1995–96: £86.26 million

  1996–97: £90.70 million

  In addition, DFID and FCO provided a total of £3 million each year from their running cost budgets to administer the fund.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Conditional Fees
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the academic research into the use of conditional fees referred to in his answer of 10 November,Official Report, column 575; and what research underlay his assessment of the success rate of conditional fees.[16432]

  Mr. Hoon
  I was referring to the research carried out by the Policy Studies Institute. Of the 837 cases entered into by the solicitors who responded to their survey they 56
  examined 197 cases in detail. The research was conducted between November 1996 and January 1997 and referred to agreements made no later than September 1996. PSI estimated that some 10,500 agreements had been made in a little over the first year that conditional fees were available and acknowledged that they had become an established method of funding personal injury litigation. I understand that something in the region of 1,500 agreements are now being entered into each month. By the time I spoke at the PSI conference on 23 September some 28,000 cases had been entered into. I do believe that 28,000 agreements in a little over three years is a remarkable success and I am keen that more of our citizens should have the access to justice that these agreements provide.

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department pursuant to the answer of 10 November from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,Official Report, column 441, if he will list the e-mail addresses of (a) Ministers, (b) senior officials and (c) chief executives of agencies for which he is responsible.[15877]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The Department and the Agencies and Associated Departments which report to the Lord Chancellor have established the following principal e-mail addresses.

  LCD HQ

  Enquiries: enquiries.lcdhq@gtnet.gov.uk

  Court Service

  Enquiries and Chief Executive: cust.ser.cs.@gtnet.gov.uk

  Public Trust Office

  Enquiries: enquiries@publictrust.gov.uk

  Chief Executive: chiefexec@publictrust.gov.uk

  Land Registry

  Enquiries: hlmr@dial.pipex.com

  Chief Land Registrar: shclr@dial.pipex.com

  Public Record Office

  Enquiries: enquiry.pro.rsd.kew@gtnet.gov.uk

  Chief Executive: styacke.pro.kew@gtnet.gov.uk

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  Enquiries: info.nicourts@nics.gov.uk

  In addition, some of the Lord Chancellor's Departments and Agencies have established e-mail addresses for senior management and other officials and for enquiries on specific topics. Full details are available on the World Wide Web sites for each organisation.

  External e-mail access to a larger number of officials is being considered as part of the development of the Government Secure Intranet.

  EU Conventions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 74–76, relating to the

  57
  convention concerning serving of legal and court documents in civil and commercial matters, when and by what means this convention was ratified; what changes are required in the Rules of Court; what consultation was undertaken by Ministers with affected bodies or persons prior to the ratification; and if he will make a statement concerning future steps he expects to take in respect of this convention.[15569]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Convention was signed on 26 May 1997 but has not been ratified. Public consultation on the draft Convention and how it might be implemented was carried out in March and April 1997. We shall ratify the Convention once proposals for implementation are finalised. Until then it is not known what changes to Rules of Court might be required.

HEALTH

  Per Capita Spending
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the per capita spending on health services in England in the most recent year for which figures are available.[14919]

  Mr. Milburn
  Total gross expenditure on the National Health Service in England in 1996–97 was £706 per capita.

  Speech Therapists
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech therapists are currently employed within the NHS; how many vacancies exist for speech therapists within the NHS; and what steps the Government are taking to recruit more speech therapists.[14732]

  Mr. Milburn
  There were 3,580 whole-time equivalent speech and language therapists, excluding assistants and trainees, employed by the National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services at 30 September 1996—the latest year for which figures are available. Information on the number of vacancies is not available centrally. The Government are ensuring that effective recruitment and retention policies are in place to make the best use of trained staff and that training levels are sufficiently high to match supply and demand.

  National Health Service current expenditure 1993–94 to 1998–99

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  Real growth2

  Percentage real growth2

  Real growth2

  Percentage real growth2

  Year1

  £ million 1996–97 prices

  £ million 1996–97 prices

  1993–94

  304

  1.0

  395

  1.4

  1994–95

  932

  3.0

  998

  3.4

  1995–96

  754

  2.4

  749

  2.5

  1996–97

  593

  1.8

  626

  2.0

  1997–983

  727

  2.2

  692

  2.2

  1998–994

  644

  1.9

  677

  2.1

  1 1978–79 to 1996–97 are outturn figures, 1997–98 is forecast outturn and 1998–99 is planned expenditure.

  2 Using GDP deflator of 2 July 1997.

  3 Forecast outturn for 1997–98 includes the extra resources announced for this winter on 14 October.

  4Planned expenditure for 1998–99 includes the extra £1 billion announced at the 2 July Budget.

  58

  Home Care Service
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the introduction of regulation of the home care service, indicating the likely scope and timetable for introduction.[15734]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are committed to improving standards in domiciliary care and intend to publish a White Paper in the spring of 1998 outlining proposals for the regulation of such provision.

  NHS Trusts (Non-executive Appointments)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trust non-executive appointments were due on 1 November; how many individuals concerned had been informed of the outcome by that date; how many appointments were outstanding on 7 November; when he anticipates all such appointments to be announced; if he is following the guidelines on NHS appointments established in line with the recommendations of the Nolan Committee; and if he will make a statement on delays in the NHS appointment process.[15442]

  Mr. Milburn
  A total of 570 trust board vacancies were due to be filled on 1 November; 261 of these appointments had been made by that date and a further 105 had been made by 7 November. This left 204 of these appointments still to be confirmed. We expect virtually all of them to have been made by the end of November. All appointments are made in accordance with the guidance issued by the Commissioner of Public Appointments and the principles established by the Nolan Committee. The slight delays that have occurred have been due to the introduction of new procedures designed to make boards more representative of the communities they serve.

  NHS Budget
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the real terms change against the previous year in the NHS current budget in England in each year from 1993–94 to 1998–99.[15312]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the impact of climate change on(a) health risks and disease control and (b) hygiene and public health standards; and if he will make a statement.[15588]

  Ms Jowell
  We know of no representations made to the Department on health impacts of climate change.

  Independent Review Panels
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by date of issue, each national and statutory set of guidelines governing the conduct of independent review panels.[15631]

  Mr. Milburn
  The documents listed were all issued on 12 March 1996 under cover of EL(96)19. They form the statutory framework for the operation of the National Health Service complaints procedures.

  Directions to NHS trusts, health authorities and special health authorities for special hospitals on hospital complaints procedures;

  Directions to health authorities on dealing with complaints about family health services practitioners;

  Miscellaneous Directions to health authorities for dealing with complaints.

  A further document, "Complaints … Listening … Acting … Improving: Guidance on implementation of the NHS Complaints Procedure", giving guidance to the NHS on these matters, was issued at the same time.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority the membership of the independent review panel appointed to hear complaints about NHS hospital services and general practitioner services.[15629]

  Mr. Milburn
  Neither health authorities nor National Health Service trust hospitals have a standing independent review panel with fixed membership. Where it is decided that a panel investigation of a complaint is appropriate, a three person panel with an independent lay chairman is set up specifically to consider that complaint.

  Mr. Etherington
  to ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority the number of complaints about(a) NHS hospital services and (b) general practitioner services and the number of independent review panels (i) requested, (ii) refused and (iii) held since 1 April 1996, indicating the average time between request for a panel hearing and the hearing date.[15630]

  Mr. Milburn
  Statistics on the first year of the new National Health Service complaints procedures are not yet available. The Government expect to publish them early in the New Year.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission research into the overuse of sedatives in nursing and residential homes.[15772]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to commission specific research into the use of sedatives in nursing and residential homes. The responsibility for prescribing,60
  including repeat prescribing and the prescribing of sedatives, rests with the doctor who has clinical responsibility for that particular aspect of a patient's care.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the guidelines published by his Department for the administration of medication in nursing and residential homes.[15740]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no such plans at this time. The Department has worked with other organisations with an interest in residential care and nursing homes and there are various sources of available guidance on the administration of medication. Under the Registered Homes Act 1984 local and health authorities are responsible for regulating homes and should ensure that homes have proper arrangements for the administration of medicines.

  The MedicinesAct 1968 governs the prescribing, supply and administration of medication in residential care homes and nursing homes. Dr. June Crown is currently chairing a wide-ranging Review of Prescribing, Supply and Administration of Medicines, which will include issues of prescribing, supply and administration of medicines in nursing and residential care homes. Dr. Crown is due to report to Ministers next year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to review the arrangements by which general practitioners are remunerated for care of patients in nursing and residential homes.[15736]

  Mr. Milburn
  All arrangements for remunerating general practitioners are kept under review, and Ministers and officials consult with the representatives of the profession regularly.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the quality of prescribing through the greater use of information technology, with specific reference to ensuring the greater transfer of information regarding older patients between primary and secondary care.[15739]

  Mr. Milburn
  Much has gone into improving the quality of prescribing through information technology including piloting the Prescribing Rationally with Decision support in General Practice S tudy—PRODIGY—a computer-aided prescribing decision support system for general practitioners. The aim of this system is to improve the quality of GP prescribing decisions using evidence-based recommendations and faster dissemination of information about new drugs, safety alerts and other research evidence which could affect prescribing choice. PRODIGY is being trialed in some 180 general practices and is in its second phase.

  In addition, there has been significant progress towards the development of an NHS network which would allow National Health Service information about patients to pass between primary and secondary care. There has also been development in standards for GP systems, which include holding a database of prescribable items incorporating knowledge about drug interactions and contra-indications and cross-checks for patient sensitivities.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlie the greater increase in prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors between 1986 and 1996 for elderly people than for the remainder of the population.[15738]

  Mr. Milburn
  A greater proportion of prescriptions dispensed in the community by pharmacists and appliance contractors are for elderly people than for other age groups because they have a greater need for treatment. There is an increasing proportion of elderly people in the population, more treatments are now available for conditions which affect the elderly and there is increased recognition that the elderly can benefit from treatment. In addition, more elderly people are being cared for in the community and thus receiving their medication there, rather than in hospital.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to evaluate the role of community pharmacists in providing advice on therapy of minor illnesses, monitoring drug therapy and reviewing repeat prescriptions for older people.[15737]

  Mr. Milburn
  Advice on self-care and the treatment of minor ailments is a traditional role of community pharmacists and one which we are keen to encourage. The Department has funded a range of pilot projects designed to test how community pharmacists can play a wider role in the provision of primary health care locally. Subjects covered in these pilots include repeat dispensing and monitoring of drug therapy, including that of elderly people. All the projects will be evaluated.

  Cash (£000)

  Devon

  Cornwall

  Year

  Exeter DHA

  North Devon DHA

  Plymouth DHA

  Torbay DHA

  North and East Devon DHA

  South and West Devon DHA

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly DHA

  1992–93

  120,932

  51,216

  115,952

  98,125

  —

  —

  175,092

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  172,695

  224,672

  179,458

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  182,155

  233,778

  190,088

  1995–96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  186,673

  241,552

  194,552

  1996–971

  —

  —

  —

  —

  298,276

  373,336

  303,290

  Notes11996–97 data are provisional

  Source
  Annual accounts of district health authorities 1992–93 to 1995–96 and the annual accounts of health authorities 1996–97.

  At 1992 prices

  (£000)

  Devon

  Cornwall

  Year

  Exeter DHA

  North Devon DHA

  Plymouth DHA

  Torbay DHA

  North and East Devon DHA

  South and West Devon DHA

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly DHA

  1992–93

  120,932

  51,216

  115,952

  98,125

  —

  —

  175,092

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  167,860

  218,381

  174,433

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  173,958

  223,258

  181,534

  1995–96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  173,793

  224,885

  181,128

  1996–971

  —

  —

  —

  —

  271,133

  339,362

  275,691

  Notes
  11996–97 data are provisional.

  Source
  Annual accounts of district health authorities 1992–93 to 1995–96 and the annual accounts of health authorities 1996–97.
  62

  Biotechnological Inventions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the NHS of genetic tests and treatments involving biological material patentable under the terms of the draft Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions.[16154]

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State (1) what estimate his Department has made of the cost to NHS public laboratories of providing genetic medicine services if the EU Biotech patent directive is passed;[16360]

  (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b)evaluated on the cost to the NHS over the next five years of the patenting of genes if the European Union Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions is passed; and how much this research indicates the cost to the NHS of gene patenting will be in the next five years.[16373]

  Ms Jowell
  The European Commission's proposed Directive on the Protection of Biotechnological Inventions aims to harmonise the existing body of law in this area across the European Union; as such, no significant change to the current position in the United Kingdom is anticipated.

  NHS Spending (South-West)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority the spending on health services(a) in cash terms and (b) at 1992 prices for (i) Cornwall and (ii) Devon in each year since 1992.[15382]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]The information requested is shown in the following tables.
  63
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the per capita spending on health services(a) in cash terms and (b) at 1992 prices in (i) Cornwall, (ii) Devon, (iii) the South Western National Health Service Region and (iv) England in each year since 1992.[15381]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]The information requested is shown in the attached tables.

  Cash per capita (£)

  Year

  Devon

  Cornwall

  South Western Region

  England

  1992–93

  509

  518

  508

  607

  1993–94

  540

  542

  544

  626

  1994–95

  579

  580

  577

  656

  1995–96

  593

  597

  606

  684

  1996–97

  634

  628

  595

  705

  Notes

  1.1996–97 data are provisional.

  2. Per capita figures are calculated using crude population which does not reflect differences in relative age and need of populations.

  Source

  Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities and family health services authorities 1992–93 to 1995–96 and the annual accounts of health authorities 1996–97.

  At 1992 prices per capita (£)

  Year

  Devon

  Cornwall

  South Western Region

  England

  1992–93

  509

  518

  508

  607

  1993– 94

  525

  527

  529

  609

  1994–95

  553

  554

  551

  627

  1995–96

  552

  556

  564

  637

  1996–97

  576

  571

  541

  641

  Notes

  1.1996–97 data are provisional.

  2. Per capita figures are calculated using crude population which does not reflect differences in relative age and need of populations.

  Source Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities and family health services authorities 1992–93 to 1995–96 and the annual accounts of health authorities 1996–97.

  Domiciliary Services
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances local authorities, in assessing ability to pay for domiciliary services which do not include personal care,(a) should discount attendance allowance benefit and (b) have discretion to exclude from consideration attendance allowance benefit.[16417]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the current system local authorities have complete discretion whether or not to charge for non-residential social services.

  In assessing ability to pay for non-residential services, authorities may take into account all types of income including social security benefits except the Mobility component of Disability Living Allowance and income from capital.

DEFENCE

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the number of defence industry jobs likely to be generated by a British order for the future large aircraft.[13136]

  Mr. Spellar
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 31 July,Official Report, column 446, we have agreed to join our partners in issuing a Request for Proposals to Airbus Military Company for a future large aircraft (FLA). Additionally, we are seeking competing bids from other aircraft manufacturers to meet our future air transport requirements. We expect that all proposals will involve substantial benefits for the UK defence industry. If FLA were to be selected, we would expect it to create several thousand jobs in the UK over the life of the project.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the market potential for the(a) FLA and (b) C130J worldwide.[13139]

  Mr. Spellar
  The estimates supplied to the Department by potential aircraft suppliers are commercially confidential. Accordingly, I am withholding the information requested under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice.

  Hercules C130J Aircraft
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the number of British defence industry jobs likely to be supported by United Kingdom involvement in the C130J project.[13135]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are some 36 companies in the UK Industrial Support Group supplying equipment for C130J with a potential total value of over £2 billion. This is expected to provide several thousand jobs over the life of the project. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 31 July,Official Report, column 466, we are seeking bids for aircraft manufacturers to meet our future air transport requirements. We expect that, additionally, each of these proposals will involve substantial benefit for the UK defence industry.

  Christmas Island
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken since 1967 to clean up radioactive and toxic waste, and surplus military materials, on Christmas Island; what has been the cost to date of the clean-up; how many United Kingdom military personnel are currently involved in this activity; what is the estimated date of completion of this work; and if he will estimate the likely future costs of the operation.[14718]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department is aware of the waste and equipment remaining on Christmas Island after the atmospheric tests in the 1950s. Three separate radiological surveys, including one by the New Zealand Department of Health, have concluded that there is no radioactive contamination which would present a hazard to the inhabitants of Christmas Island.
  65
  On completion of the atmospheric testing and related programmes, the United Kingdom undertook extensive radiation surveys and rehabilitation work in areas which may have been affected. Surveys and rehabilitation work on Christmas Island would have been completed before the final evacuation of the Island in July 1964. The costs of these operations to the United Kingdom cannot be separated from the overall expenditure on the whole test series.

  We have found no existing records of any action being taken since 1967 to clean up waste and equipment on Christmas Island; nor are there any records of costs being incurred or estimated for such an operation, or of military personnel participating in any clean-up. No clean up is currently being carried out by military personnel; nor are there any current plans to initiate such an operation.

  We are prepared to discuss with the Government of Kiribati options which they might put forward for the disposal of the equipment and waste on Christmas Island; and what advice or assistance we might be able to provide.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the environmental and health legacies of the testing of H-bombs on Christmas Island.[15706]

  Mr. Spellar
  The British nuclear test programme was carried out in the Central Pacific area between May 1957 and September 1958. Between April and July 1962, with United Kingdom agreement and participation, the United States conducted a series of tests on Christmas Island.

  Christmas Island has been subject to three radiological surveys since the end of the nuclear weapons tests. These were conducted by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE), which reported in June 1964, the University of Washington in September 1975, and the New Zealand Department of Health which reported in 1981. Only the AWRE survey was sponsored by the United Kingdom; the others were conducted at the request of the Island's Government. The conclusion reached by all three surveys was that there was no evidence of any radiological contamination which would present a hazard to the inhabitants of Christmas Island.

  I am not aware of any other recent surveys of Christmas Island having been conducted by my Department.

  A survey of the Island was conducted by the then Overseas Development Administration (ODA) in May 1996. A copy of the ODA' s report of that survey has been placed in the Library of the House. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office are not aware of any environmental or health surveys of Christmas Island other than that carried out by the ODA last year.

  Auxiliary Oiler Contract
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what(a) detailed and (b) major changes his Department has sought to make to the design of the ships under the Auxiliary Oiler contract; what was the cost to the Ministry of Defence of such changes; and what measures have been taken to ensure that costs do not escalate on the contract;[15505]

  (2) if the Auxiliary Oiler Contract is (a) on schedule and (b) proceeding to budget; and if he will make a statement.[15506]
  66
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 11 June 1997,Official Report, column 483.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many series of technical papers or reports are being produced by the health and safety department of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston; and what are the names of each series.[15618]

  Mr. Spellar
  The AWE Directorate of Environment, Safety and Health (DESH) does not produce formal series of technical papers or reports, although papers are produced when required for conferences or other purposes. The DESH also produces an Annual Environment, Safety and Health Report, a Quarterly Health and Safety Report and a Monthly Report to the Environment Agency on Discharges from AWE. As I said previously on July 22 1997,Official Report, column 529, no numerical details of reports and papers produced by AWE divisions are held centrally.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Facilities Project Division at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston was set up; what its purpose is; how many series of technical papers are currently being produced by this division; and what are the names of each series.[15619]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Project Director Facilities Division was set up in 1986 and disbanded in 1991. Its purpose was to oversee the major programme of building and refurbishment projects then underway at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston. Since the Division no longer exists, no technical papers are being produced.

  Bosnia (Entertainment of Armed Forces)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the entertainers booked on behalf of the armed forces to perform in Bosnia.[15637]

  Dr. Reid
  The following acts performed for British forces participating in the NATO-led Stabilisation Force in former Yugoslavia between 7 and 19 May this year:

  The Stranglers (Musicians)

  Robin Ince (Comedian)

  The Knave of Clubs (Juggler)

  Under Wraps (Dancers)

  Currently performing on a tour lasting from 7 to 17 November are:

  The Divas (Musicians)

  Miles Crawford (Comedian)

  Sonny and Hayes and Co. (Comedy Magicians)

  Sax Education (Musicians)

  Under Wraps (Dancers)

  Booked to perform between 9 and 21 February next year are:

  Showaddywaddy (Musicians)

  Roy Hastings (Comedian)

  Amazing Louise (Contortionist)

  Under Wraps (Dancers)

  Colchester Garrison
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his proposals for the future of the Colchester garrison; and if he will make a statement. [15859]

  Dr. Reid
  As I announced, by writing to the hon. Gentleman on 13 October, my Department is actively pursuing the redevelopment of the whole of Colchester Garrison through a major Private Finance Initiative project. The aim is to provide high quality, modern barracks and facilities which are of an appropriate standard, are flexible to use, and have the potential for further development.

  It is likely that surplus MOD land at Colchester will become available as a result of this development. I believe this will be of great benefit to the local Borough Council as it would allow the construction of modern housing and amenities for the local community.

  Six consortia have now been issued with an Invitation to Submit Outline Proposals for the project which are due for return by 24 November. The proposals will then be evaluated, a final shortlist drawn up early in the New Year, and detailed bids sought from the shortlisted consortia. It is our intention to identify a preferred bidder by the end of 1998 and to let a contract by the middle of 1999.

  Hunting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will prohibit hunting with hounds on all of his Department's land. [16075]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 30 July 1997,Official Report, columns 352–53.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the procedures relating to courts martial. [16088]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]: A series of reforms to the court-martial system were included in the Armed Forces Act 1996 and came into effect on 1 April 1997. The reforms were wide ranging and affected the pre-trial, trial and post-trial stages of the court martial system. The purpose of these reforms was to reinforce the independence of the court-martial, principally by reducing the apparent influence of the chain of command, whilst preserving its necessary involvement.

  The reforms meet the European Court's concerns about the shortcomings of the system. The ECHR has recognised our actions, noting
  "with satisfaction that the UK authorities had made changes to the court-martial system with a view to ensuring the observance of their Conventional commitments".
  Although we are not taking any further steps at present to improve the procedures, we are aware that we cannot afford to be complacent. The system is kept under review and will, of course, be looked at as part of the process of preparing for the next quinquennial Armed Forces Bill.
  68
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current average waiting time for independent appeals following courts martial in the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Royal Air Force. [16087]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]: I regret that I am unable to provide the information precisely in the format requested. However, in the last twelve months 32 applications for an appeal to be heard have been submitted to the Court-Martial Appeal Court. Of these, six have been heard within an average period of six months each. The remainder are still awaiting a hearing date. The information by single-Service is as follows:

  Date of petition to CMAC

  Hearing date

  Army

  October 1996

  June 1997

  November 1996

  December 1996

  January 1997

  not known

  February 1997

  not known

  March 1997

  not known

  March 1997

  not known

  May 1997

  not known

  June 1997

  not known

  July 1997

  not known

  July 1997

  not known

  July 1997

  November 1997

  August 1997

  not known

  August 1997

  not known

  September 1997

  not known

  September 1997

  not known

  October 1997

  not known

  October 1997

  not known

  October 1997

  not known

  October 1997

  not known

  November 1997

  not known

  Royal Navy

  November 1996

  December 1997

  June 1997

  not known

  July 1997

  not known

  Royal Air Force

  November 1996

  April 1997

  January 1997

  not known

  February 1997

  not known

  March 1997

  not known

  March 1997

  not known

  April 1997

  not known

  May 1997

  October 1997

  June 1997

  not known

  August 1997

  not known

  The dates for hearings are provided by the independent Court-Martial Appeal Court which is part of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Military Exhibitions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on allowing private companies to host military, security and police events on Ministry of Defence property. [14366]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence would consider any request for use of its land on a case-by-case basis.
  69

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the annual cost of promoting arms exports. [15300]

  Mr. Spellar
  The net cost in financial year 1996 –97 of operating the Defence Export Services Organisation in my Department was £16.6 million.

  This sum should be judged in the context of the substantial benefit to the taxpayer which in the same year included receipts of more than £50 million in Commercial Exploitation Levy, income of £84 million from the sale of surplus military equipment, and contributions of more than £300 million in reduced overheads on the MOD's own procurement costs.

  Major Eric Joyce
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has received from the Lord Chancellor concerning the case of Major Eric Joyce, Adjutant General to Corps. [15333]

  Dr. Reid
  I am withholding this information under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the reliability of the FAD1C computer system controlling Chinook helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [15437]

  Mr. Spellar
  For the Chinook HC Mk2 aircraft, a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control system, FADEC, was procured to replace the hydro-mechanical fuel control system which had been used on the Chinook HC Mk1. An initial FADEC target reliability figure of 1.1 failures per thousand flying hours was agreed, to improve to 0.6 after seven years in service with the RAF. After five years, the FADEC system reliability is currently about 0.4 failures per thousand flying hours, and has thus improved upon the contractual target.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) his Department's policies and initiatives designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and (b) the departmental policies and initiatives designed to reduce other greenhouse gases; if he will estimate for each the annual reduction in tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions achieved in the most recent year for which figures are available compared to those for 1990; and what estimate he has made of further reductions, or increases, predicted for 2000 and 2010, assuming continuation of current policies. [15546]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the United Kingdom's Second report under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which was published in February 1997. It reports the UK's progress in implementing its programme for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and gives a projection of what the programme 70
  is expected to deliver by 2,000. The report projects forward what the programme is expected to achieve to 2020.

  RAF Wittering (Accident)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident on 31 October involving a Harrier jet at RAF Wittering, indicating the level of hazard at the accident site, with special reference to the proximity of nuclear material. [15636]

  Dr. Reid
  The aircraft crashed half a mile southwest of RAF Wittering and the usual post crash management procedures, to eliminate or contain any hazard to the public or the environment, were carried out. There were no nuclear materials involved in the accident.

  Private Education
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review funding for the private education of service personnel provided by his Department; and what is the estimated cost of such funding in the current financial year. [15825]

  Dr. Reid
  There are currently no plans to review the funding provided by my Department for the private eduction of Service personnel. Costs for such provision for 1996–97, the last year for which figures were available, were £660,000 for Royal Naval personnel and £300,000 for Army personnel. Figures for the RAF are not available as this information is not held centrally.

  Vanguard Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to have four fully commissioned Vanguard nuclear submarines in service. [15893]

  Dr. Reid
  The fourth Vanguard class submarine, Vengeance, is planned to enter service early in the next century.

  Defence Budget
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of the defence budget by amount spent in each of the regions of the United Kingdom(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the total, ranked according to percentage per region. [15937]

  Dr. Reid
  Ministry of Defence budgetary data are not maintained in manner which would allow the regional analysis requested. However, estimates of the value of defence expenditure on equipment by UK region are given in "UK Defence Statistics 1997", Table 1.9, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the submissions to the Strategic Defence Review which have not been placed in the Library. [15934]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No. We have placed in the Parliamentary Libraries the submissions from all of the outside bodies and individuals from whom we have
  71
  received consent to do so. We will be placing further batches of submissions in the Parliamentary Libraries in due course as we receive the appropriate consent.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards maintaining the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent; [15894]

  (2) if the Strategic Defence Review will examine the role, shape, size and cost of the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent. [15940]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This Government were elected on a specific manifesto commitment to retain Trident while also pressing for multi-lateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. The Strategic Defence Review will examine all aspects of our deterrence requirements to ensure they reflect changing strategic circumstances.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures will be taken to improve the AFPS pensions for widows whose husbands retired before 31 March 1973. [15942]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government have no plans to alter the rules of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme which apply to Service Widows whose husbands retired before 31 March 1973.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 115, if his Department has completed its work on dead animals found and analysed during the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement. [15847]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has now completed a survey amongst a sample of serving Gulf War veterans on this subject and collated the contemporary documentation which has been found. My officials are, however, still seeking information in respect of one important aspect of this matter from outside MOD. We deem the outstanding issue to be sufficiently significant to delay publishing a report until we know whether further information is likely to be available.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will pay for the construction and operation of the two radomes to be situated at RAF Menwith Hill for which planning permission has recently been granted; and what is their operational purpose. [15698]

  Dr. Reid
  The costs will be borne by the United States Government. These facilities will support the new Space Based Infra Red System developed to replace the existing satellite system to provide early warning of ballistic missile launches.

  Pattern Room
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will retain the Pattern Room in public ownership. [16204]

  Mr. Spellar
  The future of the Ministry of Defence Pattern Room at Nottingham is currently under review. No decisions have been taken.

  Challenger 2
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the Army's Challenger 2 programme; and if he will make a statement. [16724]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am pleased to announce that the sequence of three production reliability growth trials has been successfully completed and the contractor, Vickers Defence Systems, has met the agreed technical milestones. The company have successfully demonstrated, therefore, that the high technical and reliability standards demanded by the Ministry of Defence have been met. Work continues to ensure that logistic support arrangements are established prior to the completion of deliveries of tanks to the first regiment in June 1998, as planned.

  Agent Orange
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research Her Majesty's Government have sponsored into the effects of Agent Orange; and if he will make a statement. [14488]

  Mr. Spellar
  As far as can be established from records, no research on Agent Orange has been undertaken by MOD or its Agencies or their predecessors.

SCOTLAND

  University Students
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total number of students on first degree courses at Scottish higher education institutions in each of the past five years and (b) the number of those students taking four-year honours degree courses. [15057]

  Mr. Wilson
  The total number of first degree students—full time and part time—in Scottish higher education institutions for the most recent five years available is set out in the table.

  Number of first degree students in Scottish HEIs

  Year

  Full time

  Part time

  Total

  1991–92

  78,182

  5,169

  83,351

  1992–93

  87,057

  7,014

  94,071

  1993–94

  93,394

  7,722

  101,086

  1994–95

  97,928

  6,012

  103,840

  1995–96

  99,434

  6,198

  105,632

  However, it is not possible to ascertain how many of these students undertook a four-year honours degree course. The only point at which it is known that a student has studied for an honours degree is when they obtain their qualification. The following tables set out data for

  73
  full-time first degree graduates from Scottish higher education institutions for 1994–95 and 1995–96. It is not possible to identify the number of years taken to obtain the qualification in data prior to 1994–95.

  1994–95

  Year of student

  Honours

  Other

  Total

  Less than four years

  3,545

  5,407

  8,952

  Four years

  10,187

  928

  11,115

  More than four years

  2,041

  342

  2,383

  Total

  15,773

  6,677

  22,450

  The following table shows that of the 15,773 honours graduates for Scottish HEIs in 1994–95, 10,187–65 per cent—obtained the qualification after completing four years of study. The 3,545 graduates who completed an honours degree in less than four years will include direct entrants into second year and also students transferring between higher education institutions to study the same course.

  1995–96

  Year of student

  Honours

  Other

  Total

  Less than four years

  2,900

  6,162

  9,062

  Four years

  12,219

  1,149

  13,368

  More than four years

  2,031

  642

  2,673

  Total

  17,150

  7,953

  25,103

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland further to his answer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) of 4 November,Official Report, column 156, how many potential university entrants had confirmed places for Scottish universities by 1 August; and if he will make a statement. [15314]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is not held centrally. Information on university applications may be obtained from the University and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), Fulton House, Jessop Avenue, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 3SH.

  Chiropody and Podiatry
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the budget for each health

  NHS chiropody staff by grade1 Headcount and whole time equivalent: at 30 September

  Number

  WTE

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Chiropody

  664

  698

  716

  593.6

  619.0

  628.3

  Chiropodists

  632

  664

  680

  564.5

  588.4

  595.7

  Area

  6

  8

  8

  6.0

  8.0

  8.0

  Chief

  57

  59

  66

  55.7

  57.7

  64.4

  Senior

  555

  573

  583

  490.0

  499.9

  501.9

  Basic/general

  14

  24

  23

  12.8

  22.8

  21.4

  Footcare assistant

  32

  34

  36

  29.1

  30.7

  32.6

  1 Chiropody staff directly employed by the NHS in Scotland. The figures do not include any privately employed chiropodists who may be engaged by the NHS on a sessional basis.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll ISD Scotland Adhoc ref. 97/9541.
  74
  authority or health board allocated for spending on chiropody and podiatry services in (a) 1997–98,(b)1996–97 and (c) 1995–96; [15372]

  (2) what was the NHS expenditure on NHS chiropody and podiatry in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c)1994–05. [15373]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Health Boards are not given specific budgets for spending on chiropody and podiatric services. Resources for these services are met from within Health Boards' general revenue allocations and will reflect their assessment of need.

  The majority of chiropodists employed by the NHS in Scotland are engaged in Community Health Services. The costs are not identifiable separately in financial returns. However, information on hospital expenditure is collected centrally and the data, covering both chiropody and podiatry, are in the following table:

  Year

  £000

  1994–95

  1,360

  1995–96

  1,813

  1996–97

  2,342

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list those health authorities which have notified his Department of(a) reductions or increases in chiropody services in 1996–97 relative to 1995–96 and (b) planned reductions or increases in chiropody services in 1998–99; [15374]

  (2) what are the staffing and personnel figures for all NHS grades and whole-time equivalent staff for chiropody and podiatry for (a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1994–95. [15362]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Health Boards are not required to notify the Department of changes in activity in particular services. Although the Department wishes to see health authorities and GP fundholders provide the full range of NHS services including chiropody, detailed planning decision on levels of provision are taken locally according to the needs of the population served.

  Information available on changes in chiropody services relates to the number of chiropody and podiatry staff employed by the NHS in Scotland. This information is shown in the following table:
  75
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the guidelines that are issued and health needs assessments that health authorities undertake to ensure the availability of chiropody and podiatry services to meet the needs of the local population. [15361]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Health Boards are responsible for undertaking local needs assessments and for providing chiropody services to meet the needs of their local populations within available resources.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) face to face contacts and (b) initial contacts there were with NHS chiropody and podiatry staff in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1994–95. [15360]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The total number of contacts with NHS chiropody and podiatry services, including hospital and community-based services and services provided by voluntary organisations acting on behalf of the NHS, is shown in the following table:

  NHS in Scotland—Chiropody and podiatry contacts: year ending 31 December

  Number

  1994

  1,731,715

  1995

  1,986,911

  1996

  1,944,630

  There were 43,696 new patients seen by hospital chiropody services during 1996. Information on other contacts is not readily available.

  Business Rates
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps he has taken to monitor the differential between business rates for hotel properties in Scotland and England; [15520]

  (2) if he will commission an investigation into the level of business rates faced by hotels in Scotland and rates for comparable properties in England; [15521]

  (3) what representations he has received concerning differences between Scottish and English business rates since 1995. [15522]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]: Valuation for rating of non-domestic property in Scotland is the responsibility of local assessors who together with the Valuation Office Agency have assured the Government that the 1995 Revaluation has been carried out using cross-Border harmonised valuation techniques. Representations arising since the revaluation have been received from, amongst others, the caravan industry, the hotel industry and representatives of those providing self-catering accommodation. The majority of difficulties have been resolved through negotiation with the assessors and through the well established formal appeals system. There are no plans to commission an investigation into these matters.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Prison Service was first made 76
  aware of the application for transfer of Jason Campbell from HM prison Shotts to the Maze prison in Northern Ireland. [16206]

  Mr. Dewar
  The application from Jason Campbell was made in the first instance to local management at HM Prison Shotts on 10 September. It was sent to Scottish Prison Service Headquarters on 25 September.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if between 25 September and 5 October, transfers of prisoners(a) from Scotland to Northern Ireland and (b) from England to Northern Ireland required the consent of the Secretary of State of both the sending and receiving jurisdictions; [16205]

  (2) what factors underlay the delay between the informing of the Scottish Prison Service about the application for transfer of Jason Campbell from HM Prison Shotts to the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland and the informing of the Minister of State at the Scottish Office; [16207]

  (3) what factors underlay the delay between the approval by the Scottish Prison Service of the application for transfer of Jason Campbell from HM Prison Shotts to the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland and the informing of the Minister of State at the Scottish Office of this approval; [16208]

  (4) what reports the Minister of State at the Scottish Office sought on the progress of the application for transfer of Jason Campbell from HM Prison Shotts to the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland between 25 September and 4 October. [16376]

  Mr. Dewar
  Transfers of prisoners require the consent of both jurisdictions. They are administered by officials under delegated authority and Ministers would not routinely be consulted or receive reports. The question of a delay in informing Ministers in the case of Jason Campbell's application therefore does not arise. My hon. Friend neither sought nor received reports about the progress of the application between 25 September and 4 October. Ministers have since reviewed the relevant procedures and will in future be notified at an early stage of any application for transfer between Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if the request from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or representations from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office to the Scottish Office to deal promptly with the application for transfer of Jason Campbell to Northern Ireland was in accord with normal procedure for such transfers; [16209]

  (2) what reasons were given to the Minister of State at the Scottish Office by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 25 September for the request that the application for transfer of Jason Campbell from HM Prison Shotts to the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland be dealt with promptly. [16217]

  Mr. Dewar
  Contact between Ministers is a normal part of the conduct of Government business. In their conversation on 25 September, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland indicated to the Minister of State at the Scottish Office that the transfer of Jason Campbell had importance in the context of the wider peace process.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on current controls on the production, use and consumption of unpasteurised milk in Scotland, giving the reasons underlying the introduction of the current policy and when the policy changed. [16385]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The production and use of raw milk is controlled in Scotland by the Dairy Products (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1995. They prohibit the sale in Scotland of unpasteurised cows' milk for drinking and unpasteurised cream. Unpasteurised drinking milk from goats and sheep is permitted to be sold only from the farm premises direct to the ultimate consumer. Raw milk may be used in the manufacture of dairy products, in accordance with the conditions specified in the Regulations.

  The sale of raw cows' milk for drinking was banned in 1983, as a result of increasing numbers of cases of illness associated with its consumption. The restrictions on the sale of raw sheep and goats' milk for drinking were introduced by the 1995 Regulations based on the same potential risks but reflecting the small specialist nature of this market.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what representations he has received regarding the location of the Millennium Dome. [14983]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have received no such representations since becoming the shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company on 25 June 1997.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the operation of Millennium Central. [13441]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 10 November 1997]: Millennium Central Ltd. (MCL) was the previous name of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). The NMEC is a Non-departmental Public Body responsible for delivering and running the New Millennium Experience at Greenwich and associated National Programme.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the basis of his recent estimate that the Millennium Exhibition will contribute up to £1 billion to the economy; and to what extent this estimate takes into account the use of public and Lottery money to build the Millennium Dome. [15686]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I was quoting from a letter to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, from the Chairman of the British Tourist Board, David Quarmby who wrote in June:"Here at the BTA we estimate that the existence of the Exhibition and the way in which it will be the 'jewel in the crown' of the London and Britain tourism offer could account for an additional £300–£550 million of overseas visitor revenue to Britain in the year 2000. This is only 1–1.5 per cent. of total overseas visitors revenue of £32 billion forecast for 2000, and could be conservative; it is
  78
  conceivable that the halo effect of the Greenwich Exhibition in terms of the overall marketing of Britain could double the impact to 2–3 per cent., i.e. up to £1 billion"

  With Mr. Quarmby's permission I have placed a copy of this letter in the Library for reference by hon. Members. The BTA's calculation does not take into account the contribution from Lottery funds towards the Greenwich Experience. No taxpayers' money is involved in building the Dome.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the expenditure by Government for each year since its inception on the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [15687]

  Dr. David Clark
  The costs of implementing the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information are not identified separately and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team since 2 May, specifying in each case(a) the participating Minister or Ministers, (b) the destination of the trip, (c) the purpose of the trip and (d) the cost of the trip; and if he will make a statement. [15244]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have undertaken the following overseas visits:

  Minister/Destination

  Purpose of the trip

  Cost £

  Chancellor of the Duchy

  Washington

  To meet with key figures in the US as part of the preparation for the Better Government White Paper

  24,227

  Austria

  Trilateral discussions with Austrian and German Ministers on co-ordinating a better EU regulation strategy across the three countries' consecutive EU Presidencies

  3,905

  Canada and Boston

  To investigate how the Canadian Freedom of Information system works and to follow up discussions with leading academics at Harvard on Better Government

  16,994

  New Zealand and Australia

  Fact finding visit on Freedom of Information and Better Government

  29,235

  Parliamentary Secretary

  Malaysia and Thailand

  Investigate the use of IT in the delivery of public services in these countries and the public service reforms which both have introduced

  10,528

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received in the last month concerning the operation of the cold weather payments system; and if she will make a statement. [14646]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 17 October I have received 29 representations on a number of aspects of the scheme.

  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in relation to cold weather payments, how many new weather stations are to be created in the United Kingdom as a whole; and how many will be located in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland and (c) Renfrewshire. [14665]

  Mr. Denham
  Two additional weather stations will be introduced into the scheme this winter within Great Britain. Both are located in Scotland but neither are in Renfrewshire.

  Questions concerning Cold Weather Payments in Northern Ireland should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received about cold weather payments. [14657]

  Mr. Denham
  We have received 59 representations from hon. Members, members of the public and national organisations on a number of aspects of the scheme.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the expected increase in Government expenditure on cold weather payments this year. [14653]

  Mr. Denham
  Entitlement to Cold Weather Payments is based on either the recorded or the forecast average air temperature over any seven consecutive days. It is not possible to estimate the expected level of expenditure as it depends entirely on temperature conditions.

  Social Security Review
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her review of social security payments and proceedings with particular reference to the treatment of the poorest members of society. [14647]

  Ms Harman
  Reforming the welfare state to tackle poverty and welfare dependency is a key priority of the Government.

  We believe that work, not welfare, is best for people of working age, and we are already transforming the Social Security system to provide opportunities to work so that people can provide a better life for themselves and their children.

  Fraud
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to tackle fraud in the social security system. [14648]
  80
  Mr. Denham
  Rebuilding integrity in—and public support for—the social security system is a key element of reforming the welfare state. Tackling fraud is central to this.

  We are determined to make real and permanent reductions in fraud. We will modernise the welfare system so that it is secure from the point of benefit design, through to the point of payment, unlike the previous Government who focused mainly on detection after the event.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to reduce fraud in the information provided to the Child Support Agency. [14649]

  Mr. Field
  We are determined to stamp out fraud throughout the benefits system—that includes the CSA.

  The Agency already has powers to gather and confirm the information necessary to make a child support assessment. But we are considering whether further powers are needed to ensure that maintenance liability is based on accurate information.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in tackling fraud in the social security system. [14663]

  Mr. Denham
  We are determined to make real and permanent reductions in fraud. We will do this by modernising the welfare system and transforming the way in which it is delivered. Our aim is for an Active Modern Service where integrity is key, and where security is built in throughout, rather than focused mainly on detection after the event. A system which is secure from the point of benefit design, through to the point of payment.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the planned date of publication of the Minister for Welfare Reform's Green Paper on welfare reform. [14652]

  Mr. Field
  It is our intention to publish a Green Paper on Welfare Reform at the turn of the year.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures she proposes to take to assist low-income working lone parents. [14651]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government firmly believe that work is the best form of welfare and are committed to supporting all families, including lone parents, to improve their standard of living through work.

  We recognise that lone parents, in particular, need assistance if they are to prosper. We are therefore taking a number of steps which will support low income working lone parents.

  We are committed to the development of a National Childcare Strategy to plan the provision of childcare and will make an announcement by the end of the year. As a first step, from June 1998, the childcare disregard in Family Credit will be increased to £100 for families
  81
  paying childcare costs for two or more children and the age limit will be extended to the September after the 12th birthday.

  We are reviewing all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure it provides a fair, efficient, and effective service. Maintenance is a portable income which lone mothers keep when they move into work and they need to know the Child Support Agency will take every action to ensure that it is paid.

  We will implement a Minimum Wage which will provide a statutory level beneath which pay should not fall and will remove the worst excesses of low pay and exploitation of vulnerable workers.

  We are also examining the interaction of the tax and benefit systems so that they can be streamlined and modernised, so as to fulfil our objectives of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency, and strengthening community and family life.

  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the role of childcare in the Government's new deal for lone parents. [14664]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government recognise the importance of good quality, affordable childcare, for all working parents, but in particular for lone parents who have to cope with bringing up children alone. That is why, when we launched the New Deal for Lone Parents in July this year, additional funds were made available to meet childcare expenses while lone parents undertake jobsearch activities.

  New Deal Advisers are able to offer up to £60 per week to each lone parent to help them pay for childcare while they attend job interviews or training.

  New Deal Advisers also have access to information on local childcare services so they can help lone parents find the most suitable childcare for their children.

  In addition, the Cambridge and Peterborough New Deal for Lone parent areas have the added facility of public access to information via the Internet. This is provided through an information kiosk in the waiting area of each and allows lone parents to access information personally on childcare, jobs, training and benefits. We intend to extend this service to around other offices in the 8 New Deal areas.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents(a) receiving income support and (b) not receiving income support but receiving one-parent benefit are (i) widowed, (ii) divorced, (iii) separated and (iv) never married. [16210]

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

  Lone parents receiving income support/one parent benefit (November/December 1996)

  Number

  Income support

  1,022,000

  Not receiving income support but receiving one parent benefit

  639,000

  82

  Percentage

  Marital status of recipients

  Income support recipients

  Non-income support/one parent benefit recipients

  Widowed

  22

  23

  Divorced

  28

  50

  Separated

  23

  216

  Never married

  47

  31

  Notes:1 Information taken from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey as no information is available from Departmental administrative data.

  2 Figures based on very small sample sizes and so may be unreliable.

  1. Lone parents on income support are defined as those in receipt of the lone parent premium.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Survey and administrative data are not directly comparable.

  Sources:Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1996 (5 per cent. sample).

  2. 1 per cent. sample of the Child Benefit Computer System, 31 December 1996.

  3. 1995–96 Family Resources Survey.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she intends to review the operation of the jobseeker's allowance. [14656]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our welfare-to-work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities. As the main benefit for the unemployed, Jobseeker's Allowance has a major role to play in the transition from welfare-to-work and an extensive programme of monitoring and evaluation of both the policy and delivery is under way to enable us to ensure that it is achieving these objectives.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the total revenue savings by the awarding of nil benefits to recipients of jobseeker's allowance since its inception. [15776]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  No such estimate has been made.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of Jobseeker's Allowance have had an award of nil benefit reconsidered by(a) officials and (b) Ministers; and if she will make a statement. [15775]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Awards of Jobseeker's Allowance are made by independent Adjudication Officers. Information regarding awards reconsidered by officials is not available.

  Benefits Advice
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the telephone facilities for dealing with inquiries to benefits agencies. [14658]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Telephones are used extensively by Agency officers to provide information and advice to customers and their representatives.
  83
  The Benefits Agency is leading a project to ensure that the telephone service provided by the Department's Executive agencies, meets customer needs now, and in a future modernised Social Security delivery system.

  Pension Sharing
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals she has to enable men and women to share pension rights on divorce. [14659]

  Mr. Denham
  Our Manifesto committed us to introducing pension sharing for divorcing couples. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced in June that we would be publishing a draft Bill this parliamentary session with the intention of implementing pension sharing from April 2000. This is an important step in helping meet our objective of narrowing the pensions gap between women and men.

  Poverty
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to alleviate poverty for financially disadvantaged individuals who are not in employment. [14660]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are determined not to continue down the road of a permanent have-not class, unemployed and disaffected from society. We believe that the best way to alleviate poverty is to help people into work.

  We will achieve this aim with our New Deal which will help people back to work. The New Deal will provide real opportunities for the long-term unemployed, young unemployed people, lone parents, and sick and disabled people who are able to do some work.

  We are also carrying out a wide ranging review of pension provision, and have commissioned research to help establish why a million pensioners do not claim their income support entitlement.

  Local Benefits Offices
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to give more discretion to local benefits offices in the payment of social security benefits. [14661]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our aims for welfare reform are to modernise the structure and delivery of Social Security and encourage financial independence while simultaneously promoting social cohesion and well-being; to develop an active welfare system which supports work, savings and honesty; and to help tackle effectively unjustifiable social and economic inequalities. To that end we are reviewing all major components of the social security system.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to increase the number of female judges dealing with cases of domestic violence. [14666]
  84
  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply because although violence against women is a key priority for the Minister for Women, as this is a specific question relating to female judges, it falls to the Lord Chancellor's Department to answer.

  The Lord Chancellor has the fullest confidence that all judges, regardless of gender, deal with cases of domestic violence with impartiality and consideration for the victims of domestic violence. The Lord Chancellor's policy is that all judicial appointments are, and will continue to be, made strictly on merit. He does however very much wish to encourage applications by well qualified women and is taking steps, including increased flexibility in part-time sittings arrangements, to that end.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement about her proposals to reform pensions. [14667]

  Mr. Denham
  The pensions review, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 July, is looking at the central areas of insecurity for elderly people, including all aspects of the basic pension and its value. A key objective of the review is to ensure that pensioners should have an adequate income in retirement, that they should share fairly in rising national prosperity, and that public finances should be both sustainable and affordable.

  The first part of the review ended on 31 October and we are now carefully considering the many responses we have received. The Government intend to publish an initial framework for change in the first half of 1998. There will then be a period of further consultation before firm proposals are developed.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the role of the pensions education and awareness working group. [14650]

  Mr. Denham
  Raising awareness of pensions, and improving the level of financial education is one of the key challenges for the pensions review. People need to understand the importance of saving for their retirement, and they must be able to make the right choice about what sort of pension is best for them.

  That is why we established a working group of top finance, consumer and regulatory experts to consider how we can ensure that existing initiatives are co-ordinated, well-targeted and effective. The group will also advise what other actions are needed to improve people's knowledge of pensions in general. It will report at the end of January.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures will be taken to assist the poorest pensioners in receipt of income support, and living in the coldest parts of the UK, with their heating bills. [14668]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are already tackling the problems associated with vulnerable people keeping warm during cold weather. We have already taken action to cut fuel costs and make homes easier to heat.
  85
  Social Fund Cold Weather Payments of £8.50 will again be issued automatically to those pensioners in receipt of Income Support, when the average temperature in their area is recorded as, or forecast to be an average of 0°C or below, over a consecutive seven day period. Last winter, the Cold Weather Payments scheme triggered a total of 125 times, involving 55 of the 70 Meteorological Office weather stations used. Almost 5 million payments worth over £42 million were issued to an estimated 2.7 million people.

  We are committed to examining the means of delivering more automatic help to the poorest pensioners.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to increase take-up of income-related benefits for pensioners. [14662]

  Mr. Denham
  We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation.

  We are committed to examining means of delivering more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. We have commissioned research to identify reasons why some pensioners do not claim the Income Support to which they are entitled, and to inform ways of getting help to them.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to help local authorities adapt to the changes to the minimum funding requirement. [14654]

  Mr. Denham
  The Local Government Pension Scheme is not subject to the minimum funding requirement (MFR) and would not therefore need help in adapting to any changes, even had there been any.

  In fact, the MFR has not changed since it came into effect from 6 April this year. The actuarial profession is at present reviewing the requirement and we will consider their recommendations when they become available.

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many responses were received to her Department's invitation for contributions to the Pension Review; and if she will place in the Library lists of those who have responded and those to whom individual invitations to respond were sent. [15955]

  Mr. Denham
  The public consultation exercise and the first part of the Pensions Review ended on 31 October. Responses are still coming in but to date we have received approximately 1,700 responses from pensions providers, employers, employees, consumers, pensions experts and pensioners themselves.

  A list of the organisation invited to respond to the Pension Review and a list of those organisations who submitted their views has been placed in the Library. Approximately 1,300 individuals, mostly pensioners, also submitted their responses.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will place in the Library copies of the contributions which her Department has received on the Pensions Review. [15959]
  86
  Mr. Denham
  A number of the responses to the Review were submitted on a confidential basis. It is a matter for the respondents—pensions providers, employers, employees, consumers, pensions experts and pensioners—whether to make their responses public.

  A list of organisations who have responded has been placed in the Library. The Department is prepared to make publicly available individual responses to the Pensions Review, provided the organisation or individual who responded is agreeable.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security is she will make it her practice to inform those invited to respond to departmental consultative papers that their responses may be placed in the public domain unless they request that their responses be kept confidential. [15958]

  Mr. Field
  It is already existing practice to do so in line with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, because of an oversight this was not done in the case of the public consultation exercise on the Pensions Review.

  Pension Sharing (Divorce)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will publish the draft Bill on pension sharing after divorce. [15960]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to introducing pension sharing for divorcing couples and we aim to do so from April 2000. We welcome input from all interested groups to ensure that we deliver effective and workable arrangements which recognise the contribution that both women and men make to a marriage. We are currently working in partnership with the pensions industry, family lawyers and other key groups and will publish draft Bill clauses for consultation during the current Parliamentary session. This is the first time that this Department has consulted on draft primary legislation in this way, demonstrating our commitment to open and consultative Government.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Benefits Agency staff are themselves in receipt of income-related benefits. [15837]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current backlog of cases at the CSA. [14227]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients throughout the child support assessment process. We are looking for substantial and sustained operational improvements from the Agency, in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlog and improving customer service.
  87
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 14 November 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question concerning the backlog of cases at the Child Support Agency.
  Any maintenance application which is over 52 weeks old is considered to form part of the Agency's backlog. At 30 September 1997, there were approximately 199,000 such cases.
  The Agency has developed and is now implementing a strategy for meeting its undertaking to clear its backlogs. All Business Units have put in place operational plans which will guide them towards the achievement of our stated objective of clearing backlogs by 31 March 1999.
  The Agency is tackling the backlog of cases. However, we must balance the demands placed on us—to delivery Secretary of State targets, to continue to improve performance and improve customer service—and clearance of the backlogs.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the staffing levels at the CSA on (i) 1 October 1996 and (ii) 1 October 1997. [14226]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients throughout the child support assessment process. We are looking for substantial and sustained 88
  operational improvements from the Agency, in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlog and improving customer service.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 14 November 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about staffing in the Child Support Agency.
  Details of Agency staffing levels are collected at the end of each calendar month. The table below shows the number of Agency staff at 30 September 1996 and 30 September 1997. The figures in the table do not include personnel at the Belfast Child Support Agency Centre; staff in this Centre are part of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, which provides a service to an area of the mainland on our behalf. The number of such staff at Belfast at 30 September 1996 was 745.91, and the figure for 30 September 1997 was 876.61.

  Child support agency staff1

  Permanent and fixed term contract staff

  Casual staff

  Total

  30 September 1996

  7,191.6

  455.4

  7,647

  30 September 1997

  8,043.2

  462.7

  8,505.9

  1 Figures are an amalgamation of full-time and part-time staff and are expressed as whole time equivalents.

  I hope this is helpful.

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

Lord Stone of Blackheath
Andrew Zelig Stone, Esquire, having been created Baron Stone of Blackheath, of Blackheath in the London Borough of Greenwich, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Healey and the Baroness Hayman.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
Mrs. Veronica Linklater, having been created Baroness Linklater of Butterstone, of Riemore in Perth and Kinross, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Mackie of Benshie and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
Lord Simpson of Dunkeld
George Simpson, Esquire, having been created Baron Simpson of Dunkeld, of Dunkeld in Perth and Kinross, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Weinstock and the Lord Haskel.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address and, relying on the wisdom of my Lords, I desire that my prerogative and interest, in so far as they may be concerned, should not stand in the way of consideration by the House of Lords of alterations in the ceremony of introduction".

Russian Nuclear Submarines: Decommissioning
2.49 p.m.
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What diplomatic initiatives they will make and what financial assistance they will give to aid the dismantling of decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines which pose a threat to the environment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the United Kingdom, other western governments and international bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency are working with the Russian Government to identify safe and practical means of decommissioning their nuclear submarines. That involves the managing and disposal of
358
the spent fuel and radioactive waste from them. The UK contributes through European Union co-operation programmes, study contracts and programmes run by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, can he say, first, what endorsement the Government might give to any proposal to purchase floating dry docks from the Ukraine for the dismantling of the decommissioned Russian submarines? Secondly, can he say whether the Government might give any direct financial assistance to any Norwegian proposal to remove spent fuel from the Russian submarines and transport it to land? Thirdly, can the Minister tell the House what endorsement the Government might give to the proposal of Nirex to set up a regional radioactive waste committee to develop a common waste policy in north west Russia, where most of the submarines are situated?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first question, I can tell the noble Lord that there is no immediate proposal to purchase from the Ukraine. On the second question, I can say that we are co-operating, together with various other countries, including the other western countries. Norway is providing technology and funds. The United States is providing ship-breaking equipment and also upgrading the low level radioactive waste facility which the Russians have at Murmansk. Japan, France and the EU are also co-operating. This is international co-operative action to help the Russians with this very difficult situation. So far as concerns Nirex, I am not aware of a direct involvement in that respect. Again, there is international co-operation on both the land-based nuclear waste in north west Russia and the additional naval-originated nuclear waste in the Arctic seas.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, although we are all glad to know that the Government are helping the Russians in their endeavours to get over the problem of nuclear waste in the Baltic, is it not the case that this country is continuously, by the process of reprocessing nuclear weapons, adding daily to the amount of nuclear waste?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords; the British nuclear fleet has never dumped nuclear waste or dumped a nuclear submarine in the oceans. The problem with the Russian fleet is that that was the normal means of disposing of Russian nuclear waste for many years up until 1993. In addition, to enable the Russians to fulfil their commitments on disarmament, the decommissioning process now needs some additional technical help.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in reply to a Question tabled by me in May of last year, my noble friend Lady Chalker stated that, although the Russians have not asked for any international co-operation, British experts were already then carrying out a feasibility study. Can the Minister say whether there

359
have been any significant developments on that study? Further, is the deterioration of the rusting hulls increasingly becoming a dangerous factor?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the study to which the noble Lord referred was that carried out by the National Nuclear Corporation on the radiological consequences of dumping. That is feeding into the way in which the Russians are dealing with the matter, together with international co-operation. We have also contributed to the study by the International Atomic Energy Authority into such problems.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating the Norwegian Bellona Foundation and former Soviet naval captain Aleksandr Nikitin on publishing the report on the Russian north sea fleet which drew attention to the unsafe methods of disposal and storage being used in the Russian north? Will the Government make representations to the Russian authorities that the prosecution against Aleksandr Nikitin be dropped, bearing in mind the great service that he has rendered to the international community in exposing such risks?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the matter has been raised with the Russians. However, I am not in a position to report on any response.
Viscount Long: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many submarines are in this state and have to be looked after or dismantled?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are about 90 submarines which have already been decommissioned, not all of which have had their fuel dealt with effectively. We anticipate that at least another 30 will require decommissioning over the next few years.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question and, indeed, his supplementary question specifically asked about financial assistance. I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister if I misunderstood his reply. However, I would be glad if that could be clarified. Do we or do we not provide financial assistance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we provide technical assistance and we also provide financial assistance via the European Union's TACIS programme, which is directed at clearing nuclear waste. The total TACIS programme involves about £78 million, of which the UK's contribution is about 13 per cent.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister bear in mind the reported dumps of highly toxic substances and unused weapons in the Baltic, quite apart from nuclear weapons? Further, will my noble friend ensure that British aid is extended to the neutralising of those dumps?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Baltic Council and the Baltic states are very much pre-occupied with the
360
matter. If there is British technological assistance which can help the Scandinavian countries, we shall certainly stand by to provide it.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what is the Government's response to the description by the Bellona Foundation—the Norwegian environmental pressure group mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—of the situation in the Kola Peninsula as, "Chernobyl in slow motion"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the main problem in the Kola Peninsula is land-based nuclear waste rather than naval nuclear waste. There is a very serious problem involved, for which the European Union and other western countries are providing assistance. However, the full scope of the report requires further study. It is clear that there is a very substantial environmental problem in the area.

NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council
2.57 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the ministerial meetings of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council met at foreign Minister level in New York on 26th September. Good progress was made with NATO-Russia relations, on co-operation in Bosnia and on peacekeeping more generally. The Permanent Joint Council also agreed its future work programme, which will include military co-operation and co-operation to work against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Permanent Joint Council will next meet at defence Minister level in Brussels on 3rd December and at foreign Minister level on 16th or 17th December. The work of preparing for these meetings is carried forward by permanent representatives at NATO.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that most helpful reply. Does he agree that, as the expansion of NATO goes forward, the importance of such meetings cannot be overemphasised if we are to build positive relationships with Russia?
In view of the various elements in sound security policy, can my noble friend the Minister say anything more to the House about what was discussed with the Russians on the matter of arms control, on the issue of nuclear, biological and chemical terrorism and on the proliferation of means of delivery of nuclear, biological and chemical capability? Can my noble friend also tell the House whether there was an opportunity to discuss the important issue of defence conversion in Russia, in view of the alarming social and economic significance of the defence industry in that country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, many of the issues raised by my noble friend are appropriate for the agenda of the

361
defence Minister level discussions in December, although a final agenda has not yet been reached. Clearly, one of the main purposes of the NATO-Russia body is to deal with the legacy of environmental, military and technical problems remaining from earlier Soviet military activity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how far Her Majesty's Government see the NATO-Russia dialogue developing? Many half promises were made during the first six months of this year. Russia is to have permanent representation in NATO, and NATO is to have permanent representation in Moscow. Do we see ourselves moving towards a situation where Russia becomes, in effect, a half member of NATO within the next 10 to 15 years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, 10 or 15 years is a long time. At present there are no plans and no requests for Russia to join NATO. The arrangements with Russia are entirely separate from the NATO structure and entirely different from the whole process of enlargement of NATO. The noble Lord is absolutely right: the total approach to security in Europe and beyond requires not only the strengthening of NATO but also the strengthening and the institutionalisation of the arrangements with Russia. That is what the NATO/Russia agreement is about.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what discussions have taken place in the joint council on Russia's relationships with the republics of the former Soviet Union given the challenge posed by the rising tide of Islam in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan and Turkmenistan and by the Taleban movement in Afghanistan? What co-operation should there be between these countries and NATO to help resolve these tensions?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the terms mentioned by the noble Baroness, those discussions have not taken place. However, there is the intention that relations between NATO and the central Asian republics should be improved, and indeed any stability in the NATO/Russia situation would help in the relationships with the central Asian republics.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as a matter of logic, will my noble friend explain to your Lordships the following? If Russia and the other eastern nations join NATO, what would the point of NATO be?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think I implied that any prospect of Russia joining NATO was rather a long way off. The point of the enlargement of NATO, and of bringing in central and eastern European countries to either membership or a relationship with NATO, is to provide security and stability for the whole of the European area and to provide a combined European approach to military problems in general. As compared
362
with the polarisation of Europe during the period of the Cold War, these are positive and effective moves towards greater security for all the peoples of Europe.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, will the Minister assure us—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that at the next December meeting of the joint council Her Majesty's Government will invite the Russian Federation to sign a negotiated border treaty with Estonia? Will Her Majesty's Government also point out that the eastern European nations have no desire to join a Russian security organisation and that any pressure on those nations, in particular the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, will be regarded as counter productive?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the views of the central and eastern European states, in particular the Baltic states, are well known to Russia and to the west. We respect those positions. As regards the agenda of the December meeting, I have already said that it is yet to be finalised, but some of these issues will undoubtedly be touched on.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that NATO already has no purpose other than its own survival?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept the terms outlined by the noble Lord. Clearly the original purpose of NATO has changed. NATO's role now is to ensure the survival of us all in a more stable world. As I said earlier, the end of the Cold War period has now been replaced by a situation where NATO can bring in the countries of both eastern and western Europe and engage in a more stable relationship with Russia and other peripheral areas of the European continent.

Lorne House: Funding
3.4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the withdrawal of grants from the Inner London Probation Service and the East London and The City Health Authority and the ending of a temporary grant from the Department of Health will lead to the closure of Lorne House, the only residential establishment in the country which exists to care for young drug addicts and alcoholics; and, if so, whether they will take steps to prevent this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, Lorne House's main income comes from local

363
authorities under the community care arrangements. The Inner London Probation Service has not withdrawn its funding, but has guaranteed Lorne House a minimum of £20,000 next financial year. Its income from probation services will be higher if additional places for offenders under probation service supervision are taken up. We hope that Lorne House will be able to continue its work, although in the end this will depend on the extent to which it can provide services which funders are satisfied are cost effective. Before I part from this reply, I personally sincerely acknowledge the long, continuing interest of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in this important field.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's kindly remark. Will he not go a little further and accept that to allow a hostel of this kind, with the proven record that it has, simply to disappear for lack of support would make no sense at all? It would mean that a number of young people early in their lives would simply drift into the penal system. That would be a disaster for them and a huge and continuing cost for the state. I very much hope that the noble Lord will take an early opportunity to remind the Treasury that this so-called economy would result in a huge and continuing cost for the state.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as so often on these occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, as far as I am concerned— I say nothing in parenthesis about the Treasury—is pushing at an open door in principle. Apart from the grant of £20,000, which is not negligible, the Department of Health, as I think the noble Lord will know, has given Turning Point a one-off grant of £50,000 for this financial year. That is to ensure that it continues to run Lorne House. Turning Point intends to review its operation and its structure but has not yet reported its conclusions. I dare say that your Lordships would unanimously agree that for us to make any commitment before that review is concluded would not be prudent.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to the remarkable submission made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, with regard to this remarkable establishment, will my noble friend consider that the whole medical profession would urge Lorne House to be created if it did not already exist? Will my noble friend not lightly disband Lorne House but ensure that it can continue to carry out the remarkable work that it is undertaking?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thought I had given an indication that the Government value the work of Lorne House. It is a unique establishment. It deals with addicts of drink, solvents and other drugs from the ages of 15 to 25. Of course we value its work. As I have indicated, we have demonstrated that value by a grant of £50,000 to Turning Point which is the parent organisation of Lorne House.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of City Road, which is a pan-London drug
364
intervention agency. Will the Minister bear in mind that the problem of covering the expense of drug addicts is not particular to Lorne House but is a London-wide phenomenon? Will the Government bear in mind that early and careful treatment of drug addicts saves much money later?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that final point of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is absolutely right. It does not just save money for the future; it also saves wasted lives and broken dreams. This general sub-text was very much in the mind of the Home Secretary when he asked the chief constable, Mr. Keith Hellawell, to undertake an overview of the present drug problems and how we deal with them in a variety of ways. I can assure your Lordships that this matter is very much in the forefront of the thinking of the Home Office.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many residential places there are at Lorne House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can. Lorne House has 20 beds. In 1996-97 Lorne House admitted a total of 105 male and female young persons aged between 15 and 25. The average stay is seven to eight weeks. Residents can stay for up to six months if necessary.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the Minister can clear up one point. He has referred to the £50,000 grant. That was made, was it not, by the last government?
Lord Strathclyde: Ah!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, what concerns me now is that this worthy establishment cannot continue to exist indefinitely on a hand-to-mouth basis. It must have some long-term certainty of continuing; otherwise its work will be paralysed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the donation of £50,000 preceded 1st May. But that is entirely the point of giving that grant. Turning Point is reviewing the operation. We await the results of that review; and we shall proceed in, I hope, a prudent way.

Thorne and Hatfield Moors SSSI
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to protect Thorne and Hatfield Moors SSSI from denotification, and to remove the current planning permission on the site.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government have no statutory role in requiring or

365
preventing the notification or denotification of individual sites. That is a matter for scientific judgment by the council of English Nature.
The decision on whether to revoke or modify a planning permission is the responsibility of the relevant mineral planning authority, in this case Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unexpected Answer. Is my noble friend aware that Thorne and Hatfield Moors are two of the most important wildlife sites in the United Kingdom—they provide habitat for 25 of our most endangered species—and that raised bogs, of which these are two examples, are of the highest priority under the European Union habitats directive? Is it not time that the Government looked seriously at the working of the 1981 Act with a view to updating the legislation so that a more considered approach could be taken on these important sites? Is my noble friend aware that Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, to which she referred, is against the denotification and has said so, as is the Environment Agency? The situation is very unsatisfactory.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend has a long-standing interest in this area. The Government are considering currently the options for strengthening the protection given to special sites. We hope to consult on that issue in the new year.
However, because of the well known concerns about Thorne and Hatfield SSSIs, my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment recently invited English Nature to make a presentation. That was attended by local MPs who have an interest in the area and by Friends of the Earth. At that meeting Mr. Meacher asked English Nature to look again at all the evidence for denotification. The council of English Nature will be considering that evidence carefully at its meeting on 2nd December.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the Government support the wildlife charter launched today by a wide-ranging group of NGOs? It calls for planning laws to reflect the national importance of all SSSIs and to prevent their damage in future from such activities as peat extraction.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the wildlife charter was launched today. We believe that it is a useful document. As I said earlier, we are already considering how best to improve the protection and management of SSSIs in the context of our commitment to improve the protection for wildlife. Officials have already held discussions with a wide range of bodies. We welcome the views of the wildlife organisations, which provide positive and useful ideas which will be considered carefully. In the new year there will be a full public consultation on a range of options.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend consider that in this century 95 per cent. of the peat bogs in this country have disappeared? Those
366
referred to in the Question are the most important areas which remain. The issue needs consideration at the highest possible level.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is because of the concerns raised over possible denotification of parts—I should stress that it is only parts—of the Thorne and Hatfield Moors SSSIs, to which my noble friend referred, that we have asked English Nature to look carefully at this area. Following a major voluntary transfer of sites with planning permission from the peat operator to English Nature, peat is now worked only from those sites within Hatfield and Thorne Moors which have already been damaged by previous extraction over many decades.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps I may offer the Minister one further thought. Almost 19 per cent. of our sites of special scientific interest—it is one of our strongest designations—are either destroyed or damaged each year. That has continued since 1981. Can the Minister explain to English Nature that unless we are seen to protect our own most valuable sites our exhortations to other countries, especially in Europe, to protect their sites are not helped?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend says. As she is aware, a number of candidate special areas of conservation under the habitats directive have been submitted to the European Commission. Parts of Thorne and Hatfield Moors have been included as candidate special areas of conservation although not the parts currently being considered for denotification, as I understand it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, while I may be pushing at a partially open door, the matter bears emphasis. In an area where the public have not been convinced by the scientific evidence so far presented, does the Minister accept that it is important that evidence is of the highest order and totally convincing? The Minister stated that peat is being extracted now only where the land has already suffered from extraction and has been damaged. By definition, to remain a peat bog, a peat bog has to be wet. By definition, the scientific views seem to be those which are challenged by a wide number of people.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. Work is being undertaken only at sites which have been damaged. In the context of peat bogs, it is sensible to do that since it is only by continuing extraction to groundwater level that bogs will be re-established allowing the regeneration of the conservation interest. But it is precisely because of the concerns raised about the quality of the scientific evidence that my honourable friend asked English Nature to look again at that evidence and consult with some of the people who are challenging it. However, eventually the responsibility lies with the council of English Nature.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, the Question relates to sites of special scientific interest. However, in reply to

367
the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the Minister referred to wildlife. In view of the concern about the countryside and sites of special scientific interest, will the Minister take the opportunity in the context of the protection of wildlife to tell the House that she will look carefully at planning policy vis-à-vis the green belt? That has an important role to play as well.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord's ability to involve green belt policy in SSSI questions. Issues of the green belt are important. We are looking at planning policy in a variety of contexts, in particular as regards regeneration of town centres.

Business of the House
3.19 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Sewel on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) Order 1997 will be moved during the dinner adjournment this evening. The relevant sign was omitted from today's Order Paper due to a printer's error.

British Nationality (St. Helena) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Competition Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Simon of Highbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 25 [Director's power to investigate]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("a reasonable suspicion") and insert ("reasonable grounds for belief").
The noble Lord said: The Opposition have rather rashly entrusted me with the task of dealing with amendments to Clauses 25 to 28. Before I begin, perhaps I may make a general comment on the philosophy that lies behind our amendment.
As the Minister is aware, his Government seek to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. He is further aware that that will
368
require officials in this country to meet the standards of conduct laid down in Article 6 and Article 8 of that convention.
As matters stand, a competition official can enter the premises of a business without notice; can address questions to anyone in the premises; does not need to tell that person before he addresses a question to him or her what is the purpose of the investigation; can require any relevant document to be produced to him where the question of relevance is a matter for him and him alone; and there is no requirement for a period to pass during which the relevant official can call on his legal advisers.
It is clear to me from the jurisprudence of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights that in many respects that conduct falls below the level set by the convention. Whatever one's views might be about the merits or otherwise of incorporating the convention, it is the Government's intention to seek to incorporate it. Therefore it is not unreasonable for the Opposition to expect the standards that the Government set themselves to comply with the convention.
With those opening remarks in mind, I turn to Amendment No. 94. It seeks to substitute the expression "reasonable suspicion" (at line 9 on page 13) with "reasonable grounds for belief'. That is a stiffer test for the director general. I need not explain the implications at great length. In our submission the director general should have grounds that are stronger than mere suspicion in order to exercise his powers. "Reasonable grounds for belief" means that there is at least some evidence for what he is about to do. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: This is an important amendment, and is part of a series, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, mentioned. For the moment, I merely wish to refer to Amendment No. 94, which is quite straightforward. To my mind it is not an amendment that the Committee ought to accept, since it perpetuates the very unsatisfactory position that has lasted for many years in which the Office of Fair Trading has had inadequate investigative powers. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the previous government, in a White Paper and a Green Paper, asserted that the existing powers of the director general were inadequate in order to combat serious price-fixing cartels and other restrictive trade agreements.
The phrase in the existing law is, "reasonable cause for belief". The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, wishes to say, "reasonable grounds for belief". Those phrases are immensely similar, and the existing phrase, "reasonable cause for belief", has been interpreted by the Court of Appeal as meaning that the director general must have firm evidence of, for example, a price-fixing agreement before he can investigate whether there is one. That seems to be a Gilbertian situation; it has caused the director general great difficulties in the past—both myself, when I held that office, and my successor—so that one had to rely on the word of whistle-blowers who were employees or perhaps participants in the cartel and who would emerge out of the woodwork possibly years

369
after the cartel or other misconduct had been operating. The history of this matter over the past 20 years and more suggests that a stronger power is needed.
There is always a balance in these matters. There has to be some element of trust, combined with an element of accountability, in whatever official has significant powers of investigation. The noble Lord must be right in that the Government will wish, as tomorrow they continue their debate on the Human Rights Bill, to conform to the Convention on Human Rights.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this particular amendment, simply because it would allow a very unsatisfactory situation to continue when, for the first time in many years, we are trying radically to improve the law in relation to competition and trying to ensure that those who have the responsibility for enforcing it will have adequate powers—not, as has been the case in the past, inadequate powers—to investigate.
Lord Peston: In speaking to this amendment, I apologise to the Committee for not taking part in earlier deliberations on this very important Bill, which, as we are all agreed, is long overdue. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, one ought to point out that the general philosophy—which I hoped all noble Lords would share—stems from Adam Smith's dictum that competition is a very good thing and competitive market structures are fundamental to the protection of consumers. When one talks about human rights, those are the kind of ideas that I, at least, think about. The Bill goes some way in the right direction. As it happens, I should have adopted a more draconian approach, and regard the Bill as too much of a compromise. However, this is not the occasion for a Second Reading speech.
Essentially, the Bill provides a legal underpinning for the law and for investigation enforcement. As my noble friend Lord Borrie pointed out, the director general must have a basis for doing the work that he, or one day, as we hope, she, will have a chance to do. What worries me about the amendment as it is formulated is that it is assumed that the director general has already carried out the investigation that Chapter III of the Bill enables him to do. In other words, it must logically be asked: what would it be reasonable for the director general to have to do before he can go on to the next stage? It seems to me that what is reasonable is that the director general and his office should have a suspicion that there have been infringements. We must not forget that, in the context of the Bill, infringements are an extremely important matter. I believe that my noble friend Lord Borrie is right. If the director general had to have reasonable grounds for his belief, it would follow that he had already done the work that this is all about.
Although it is useful for an amendment of this kind to be put down and one should not criticise the Opposition for doing so, it seems to me that, as was my practice when I sat on the Opposition Benches, the purpose of the amendment is to make clearer than might otherwise be the case why the Bill is drafted in its present form. I hope that my noble friend is not of a mind to accept the change of wording. I make the point
370
that it is precisely the wording in the Bill that is needed if we are to have an active and serious competition policy. That is what I hope for.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The issue is simple. Ought the director general to have some evidence before he exercises these draconian powers? It is not to the point to say, "Oh, he knows all about it already", or "He has to know about it already", before he exercises the power and he has to know what is the object of it. That is not the situation at all.
The question is whether the director general should have some evidence, some grounds for belief, or whether there should be mere suspicion, albeit reasonable, which imports a fundamental element of doubt. It may be a difficult matter of debate, but on the whole I support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Highbury: First, I wish to try to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, as to positioning and the first four schedules. I can announce to him that he can now proceed in total relaxation because I shall handle them from this side of the Chamber.
The first positioning concerned compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, since in these clauses we are talking about the protection of individual rights in the investigation process. We believe that the regime is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and that the Bill would pass that test. In any event, as the noble Lord rightly mentioned, the Government have recently introduced the Human Rights Bill into your Lordships' House which will require, so far as possible, primary and secondary legislation to be read and given effect in a way that is consistent with the European convention. So on both tests—the existing shape of the Bill and the future direction of legislation—we feel that the Bill is well positioned.
Perhaps I may extend the very interesting general debate and the points that have been made. It is worth noting that Clause 25 is the first of many important clauses dealing with investigations. The number of amendments proposed to the clauses confirms their importance. I know also, from our earlier debate at Second Reading, that these clauses have raised a number of concerns. I look forward to detailed discussion of some of the concerns as we continue through the Committee stage.
It is important, however, for the general positioning that we do not lose sight of the overall purpose of the legislation in all the detailed consideration of individual clauses and the weighing of the balances.
One of the key aims of the Bill is to deter anti-competitive behaviour. An effective way of doing that is to ensure that if anti-competitive behaviour takes place it will be identified. That is the purpose of having vigorous and effective investigatory powers. I make absolutely no apology for that. The Government's position is that the current regime is inadequate and ineffective—points which my noble friend Lord Borrie

371
has just made—particularly in its failure to tackle cartels. We know that change is long overdue and, as the debate continues, I shall, of course, listen carefully to all the points that are made. I shall certainly not want to rule out making improvements to the Bill, but I believe it will be very difficult to persuade the Government to accept amendments that would damage the deterrent effect of the regime.
So much for general positioning. Let me now turn specifically to Amendment No. 94. Clause 25 sets a threshold which must be reached before the director general may conduct investigations. It is right that there should be a threshold. It is not our intention that the director general should go on "fishing expeditions", as I believe they are colloquially called, just in the hope of turning up something.
Clause 25 sets out a threshold appropriate for starting an investigation. The director general must have reasonable suspicion that either of the prohibitions has been infringed. Let me emphasise that this is the threshold for the director general to start his investigation. It should be judged in that light.
We discussed the issue at Second Reading and I have had the benefit of being able to reflect on what was said. I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, spoke of the importance of those powers. I was also particularly struck by the words of my noble friend Lord Borrie. He said then, and he said much the same again today—and it is a powerful point—
"Up to now the law has been that the Office of Fair Trading can only demand and require … documents from suspected companies if it has 'reasonable cause to believe' that there is a cartel. But that has been interpreted by the courts in such a way that it creates a Catch-22 situation. Ilt seems absurd to have a] requirement for the Office of Fair Trading to have firm evidence of the existence of a cartel before it can issue a notice in order to find out whether the cartel exists".—[officia/ Report, 30/10/97; col. 1170.]
I agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Acceptance of the amendment would probably seriously impede the investigation of suspected cartels and other anti-competitive behaviour. It would be quite wrong to have a high threshold of reasonable grounds for belief before allowing an investigation to commence. On that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not be surprised to learn that I urge him to reconsider and to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his reply and hope that he will not mind if I address one or two further questions to him. He stated in his reply that "reasonable suspicion" only authorised the start of an investigation. But if he addresses himself to Clause 25(2), he will see that that is not so. Subsection (2) states that:
"The Director may authorise any officer of his to exercise on his behalf all or any of the powers conferred by section 26 or 27".
So it seems on the face of it that "reasonable suspicion" is enough to trigger the full procedure.
What does the Minister consider reasonable suspicion entails? For example, would it be enough for an innocent bystander to write a letter to the director general alleging that a particular cartel existed with
372
nothing more? Would that, in the Minister's view, constitute reasonable suspicion? Alternatively, would it be enough for the director general to read in the financial columns of informed newspapers in this country that there were rumours in the City that there was a cartel or that a monopoly was abusing a dominant position? Would those matters amount to reasonable suspicion?
Our fear is that the expression "reasonable suspicion" would be used to permit officials in the director general's employment to engage in what are often termed "fishing expeditions". We would regard that as highly undesirable and an enormous waste of taxpayers' money as well as not being fair to the companies involved. I hope the Minister will not mind my asking him again to be more specific about where he sees the line being drawn between the kind of situations that I mentioned and "reasonable suspicion".
Lord Simon of Highbury: Let me say, first, that the noble Lord is right in that my remarks related to Clause 25. When we reach Clauses 26 and 27 there will be other debates and they should be sequential.
What is reasonable cause to believe? What is reasonable cause to have suspicion? It is the reasonableness and the nature of the data that are pertinent. In general terms those are matters of judgment for the director. We will never be able to be absolutely certain as to precisely where lines of judgment are drawn. They are lines of judgment. But the following areas have had common currency of sources of reasonable grounds for suspicion: copies of agreements which are usually supplied secretly by people who have been members of cartels who are disaffected and who have grounds for wanting to pass on confidential information; statements from employees or ex-employees, the so-called "whistle blowing test" with which we are all coming to terms in industry; a substantial complaint by a competitor who has been refused entry into a cartel; and perhaps economic evidence of prices moving in a specific way. All those in the past have existed and had judgments taken about them as being reasonable grounds. The one I find least convincing is, "My Lord, I read it in the newspaper".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does not the Minister appreciate that "reasonable cause for suspicion" is the most abused bureaucratic concept that we have? For instance, a police officer stops somebody in a car on suspicion of drink driving. When asked what was his reasonable cause, he says, "He was driving too slowly", "He was driving too fast" or some other made-up excuse. The phrase is wide open to abuse by any bureaucrat.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My worry is that the consumer has been even wider open to abuse as a result of the way that some companies have behaved. We have heard from practitioners with 20 years' experience that it has often taken a painfully long time to uncover that sort of concerted practice. The protection should be on the side of the consumer.

373
The noble Lord's argument in relation to the driver of a car is persuasive in a personal way, should it happen to me; but it is beside the point when we are trying to protect consumers from the sort of extravagances which they have had to endure.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is the first amendment and it is extremely important that we get it right. Once the director has come to the view that he has "a reasonable suspicion", it is at that point that these draconian powers are triggered. There is no getting away from that. The jurisprudence of the European Union is such that this competition law would be regarded as criminal, but in fact it is not criminal; it is part of an administrative process set out in the Bill.
Powers are given to the director general. As we see in Clause 26, he does not have to obtain a warrant to go into people's houses; he can ask questions without explaining why. If we were dealing with this as a criminal Bill, I have no doubt that there would be keen and anxious scrutiny given to this provision. Why Amendment No. 94 is important and why we are taking time over it is because once the director has no more than "reasonable suspicion", all the other powers flow from it.
I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to pursue the matter further. I intervene at this stage to say how important it is. Until we correctly establish the starting point, there are real dangers that excessive powers might be given to the director. At one point the Minister used the expression, "Where there was firm evidence". But if there was firm evidence then the test of "reasonable grounds for belief' would be met.
What troubles us most is the idea that a trade competitor, who is not in the cartel about which allegation has been made, may make a mischievous or malicious complaint. After that it is difficult for the director to set it aside if the only test he has to meet is one of reasonable suspicion. I do not know if my noble friend wants to intervene again, but we shall certainly want to come back to this point at a later stage.
Lord Peston: Before my noble friend the Minister replies and the noble Lord considers what he wants to do, perhaps as a layman I can ask for some clarification. I assume that "reasonable suspicion" is not to be interpreted as a psychological term; in other words, we would not bring in psychiatrists to discover whether or not the director was correct. I assume that we are discussing a legal concept. I ask therefore whether "reasonable suspicion" is subject to test in the courts. I assume that it is and therefore the problems raised by Members of the Committee opposite simply do not arise reasonably—if I may use that word in this context.
As my noble friend the Minister pointed out, certain evidence, short of conclusive evidence, comes to hand to the director who then considers it and says, "On the basis of what I have been told, I feel that reasonably I ought to mount an investigation". That makes good sense to me. He does not have enough evidence to say, without further analysis, that there is an infringement.
374
But he has evidence—that is all we require here—to say that he has "a reasonable suspicion" and therefore ought to conduct an investigation.
Given that the courts would protect a firm which felt the director was being unreasonable—they would say, "You do not have a reasonable position. Let us argue it through"—and given that we all wish to see competition policy and competition itself strengthened, I cannot see what is currently exercising Members of the Committee opposite.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may intervene again. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, may wish to examine the matter this way. If someone goes to the police and makes an allegation about him, the police may properly, given the allegation made, begin to conduct some investigation of the conduct of the noble Lord. Where there would be a difference if criminal conduct was being alleged is that it would not immediately give the police, without warrant, the right to ask questions; the right to go into premises that were either occupied or unoccupied and ask questions of all manner of people without giving them warning, a caution or anything like that. There would require to be a build-up of the case before much of that could happen. Certainly at one point some judicial intervention would be required.
As I understand it, other than in the rather restricted circumstances to which we shall come in relation to Clause 28, there is virtually no judicial intervention or opportunity for it in this scheme of things. That is why we feel that the issue must be examined very carefully.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I have listened with great care to the arguments. I understand clearly that this is an important opening threshold test for the sequence of the clauses we are debating. I would draw two or three points from the argument. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said that much may follow from Clause 25. I did not hear the emphasis on the word "may". It appeared as if everything was sequential.
It is important to stress that the "reasonable suspicion" can affect many different stages of action thereafter on the judgment of the director general. It is the "may" which I believe is important, because the issue is what the director general could do in circumstances where he had a reasonable suspicion. There are then stages of impact from that. Perhaps the test the noble and learned Lord is applying is how far this can be taken; and it can be taken, as he says, a long way. He mentioned entering premises—I would confirm that homes can be entered only if they are business premises—and using force in doing so, both of which arise in later clauses. The point I make is that the reasonable suspicion is the threshold which starts an investigation.
There are many ways in which an investigation may be taken forward. Later clauses show us the outside limits, as it were, as one would have with a contract. We all know that we write contracts. Contracts give us the outside limits at which we negotiate with our partners. That is my experience of business. In the meantime, within the contract, one can do many things

375
and undertake many behaviours. But those are all within the limit of the contract. Here we are arguing about the start of the process. I believe that, given how complex and clever people are in terms of hiding circumstances when they wish to indulge in concerted practice and wish to abuse the consumer, the power should be on the side of the investigator in order to take forward a reasonable suspicion.
My noble friend Lord Peston asked whether this is a matter of psychology. As he rightly said, we must have a ground which a reasonable man would find suspicious. It may not be absolutely firm evidence in the terms of the letters or the contract, but indications about behaviour that a reasonable man might wish to pursue. If the reasonable man, in terms of the director general, is out of court and has not drawn the right conclusions, there are many ways in which that can be corrected. But, on the whole, we have to make the reasonable presumption that the director general is a reasonable man.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I am missing the point completely, but how do these powers differ from the powers in the Competition Act, which is repealed by the Bill, in terms of points of reference for the director general to start an investigation?
Lord Simon of Highbury: I have to take notice of that question because it is a deeply interesting one. We have looked in many ways at the compatibility with the regime that exists in places like Customs and Excise and under the Companies Act. But in terms of a detailed reconciliation between these processes and those under existing law in the national circumstance, I certainly take notice of the question and shall come back to the noble Baroness. I should point out that these processes are already in place under the existing jurisprudence of the Community.
Lord Kingsland: So that the tension between the Government and the Opposition in your Lordships' House can be creative, perhaps I may suggest a possible way out of this difficulty. I do not seek to produce a specific draft on the hoof but the approach would go something like this. The director may open an investigation if he has reasonable suspicion, first, that the Chapter I prohibition has been infringed or, secondly, that the Chapter II prohibition has been infringed. The director may, if he has reasonable grounds for belief thereafter that a prohibition has been infringed, authorise any officer of his to exercise on his behalf all or any of the powers conferred by Clauses 26 and 27. That would inject two stages into the opening phases of the investigation. I do not expect the Minister to give a definitive response now, but I invite him at least to indicate that he might, at the end of the day, consider such an alteration.
Lord Borrie: I hope that the Minister will not go along the route suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. What does "open an investigation" mean?
376
There cannot be an investigation without some ability to require documents or to require to see someone in order to hear what he has to say. The Minister was right in referring to Clause 25 as being only the opening of an investigation, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, was correct in saying that there have to be the other clauses to which we shall come in a moment, although he slightly confused the issue when talking about entering premises. The later clauses make a clear distinction between going along, knocking at a door and being admitted, having said to some degree what you are there for, and knocking doors down or forcible entry, for which a warrant is required. We shall come to that in due course.
Surely there cannot be any effective investigation without the director general having some powers, and those "some powers" should, in my submission, be available on a reasonable suspicion. A "reasonable suspicion" does not mean any suspicion. It does not mean simply acting, to take up the example used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, on a rumour which is referred to as such in a newspaper. One cannot have reasonable suspicion if one has nothing more than the say-so of a rival who, as it were, "would say that, wouldn't he", in order to be mischievous.
"Reasonable suspicion" is somewhere—a judgment has to be made in the particular circumstances—between suspicion, or mere suspicion, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said a moment ago, and reasonable cause or reasonable grounds for belief. "Reasonable suspicion" seems to be a happy balance and should be the basis for the obvious forms of investigation to which I have referred.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am impressed by the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to draft on the hoof. However, I shall decline to respond on the hoof. We believe that having the appropriate threshold to start the investigation is a vital part of improving the process in order to create a more competitive and fairer environment for companies. I urge the noble Lord as strongly as I can to reconsider the position.
Lord Kingsland: I shall not disguise from the Minister my disappointment at his response. I shall reflect on it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 13, line 12, at end insert—
("and notifies the persons whose conduct is to be investigated of the nature of the alleged infringement and of any matters which he considers relate to it.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a group of four amendments, Amendments Nos. 95, 100, 101 and 106. Amendment No. 95 amends page 13, line 12, of Clause 25(1) by adding the words,
"and notifies the persons whose conduct is to be investigated of the nature of the alleged infringement and of any matters which he considers relate to it".
Perhaps I may put the four amendments in context. Each one seeks to notify the persons to whom the competition authorities are addressing themselves of the nature of the complaint and also seeks to specify the particular documents that the competition authorities are likely to require. The four amendments should be seen in that spirit.
Amendment No. 100, at page 13, line 20, of the Bill, proposes a substantial addition to Clause 26(2). The text reads,
"The power conferred by subsection (1) is to be exercised by a notice in writing signed by the Director".
The amendment seeks to add,
"which identifies the specified document; specifies the conduct which is being investigated; specifies the Director's grounds for considering that the specified document relates to a matter which is relevant to that investigation; and states that a person on whom the notice has been served has the right and shall be afforded sufficient time to seek legal advice before complying with the notice".
It is a kind of compendium amendment which sets out what we believe to be proper protection for the individual in these circumstances.
Amendment No. 101, at page 13, line 20, seeks to add:
"The notice must state the purpose for which the request is being made and the penalties for non-compliance".
Finally, Amendment No. 106 relates to page 13, line 40, of the Bill. Clause 27(1) states:
"Any officer of the Director who is authorised in writing by the Director (or by an officer acting on his behalf under section 25(2)) to do so … may enter any premises in connection with an investigation under section 25".
The amendment seeks to add:
"The written authorisation referred to in subsection (1) shall state the purpose for which the investigation is being made and the penalties for failing to comply with a request by an investigating officer".
I believe that the amendments are self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: Clause 25, as we have just debated, provides for the basic threshold of "reasonable suspicion" of an infringement of either of the prohibitions to trigger the power to investigate. Amendment No. 95 seeks to add a further requirement that the person whose conduct is the subject of the investigation must first be notified of the nature of the infringement. As a general point, it is not unreasonable for those being investigated to be told what is the nature of the alleged infringement. We have a number of amendments which address that point in different ways. I need to address them case by case. The significance of Amendment No. 95 is that it would require, at the outset of all inquiries, notice to be given to undertakings telling them of the "charges against them". That would render redundant all those provisions which provide for unannounced visits with or without a warrant. I believe that the amendment goes too far.
Clause 26 provides for the director—I am moving forward slightly here, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—by giving notice, to require the production of specified documents. Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 would require that the notice specifies the conduct being
378
investigated and the penalties for non-compliance. Amendment No. 100 also covers some other matters to which I shall return.
Amendment No. 106 would require the purpose of the investigation and the penalties for failing to comply with the request to be set out in the written authorisation provided for in Clause 27.
I am advised that it is implicit in the requirement for written authorisation in Clause 25(2) that the authorisation will have to identify the subject matter of the investigation. That is a common point. That would follow the requirement in Regulation 17/62 under which the European Commission conducts investigations into suspected infringements of Articles 85 and 86. I would also expect the director to be prepared to wait a reasonable time for the lawyers of the undertaking to arrive provided he is allowed to remain on the premises while waiting. That is also implicit in the European jurisprudence. Equally, I would expect individuals to be warned of the penalties for failing to comply with a request where that was relevant. I have not thought it necessary hitherto to set that out on the face of the Bill given the position of Regulation 17/62 and the European jurisprudence.
As I say, the first of these matters, the notice as to the purpose of the inquiry, is implicit in the Bill already. However, I am aware that this requirement and the one as regards the notice of penalties for non-compliance are express requirements of Regulation 17/62. At this point I see no objection to following suit.
It is important that we should get any amendment exactly right. I should like to consider further the case for how that might be effected. At this stage I believe that the general approach in Amendments Nos. 101 and 106 is to be preferred, but I shall be inviting the noble Lord to withdraw Amendments Nos. 95 and 106 to allow me to consider the matter further. Amendments Nos. 101 and 106 are the preferred direction of amendments in reconstituting this point.
Amendment No. 100 goes rather wider. It would require the notice, to be given to a person to produce a document relating to any matter relevant to an investigation, to include further specific information about the subject of the investigation. In many cases it will, quite frankly, be impossible to provide the information that the amendment seeks to include. It is unlikely that a specific document could be identified to this degree in many cases. I make no apology for this. The point has been made previously that cartels and other anti-competitive behaviour invariably involve secrecy and concealment. Consequently, we have intentionally provided for a wide definition of "specified document" to ensure that the director can obtain the information necessary for his investigation. Even were it possible to give the information in question, these amendments would give too much encouragement to falsify or destroy documents, sufficient to thwart the investigation.
A number of points have been raised in this exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and myself. I should like to reflect on the position as regards specifying the conduct being investigated, stating

379
penalties and allowing time for lawyers to arrive at premises. I believe that that is the general thrust of Amendments Nos. 101 and 106, but I must advise those noble Lords who have followed this rather long explanation of the four amendments that I do not find myself as persuaded by the wording of Amendments Nos. 95 and 100. In the circumstances and in order to allow the Government time to reflect on the two amendments that we do find helpful, I ask noble Lords opposite to withdraw Amendment No. 95.
Lord Peston: Before everybody becomes too helpful and in total agreement, perhaps I may interface a certain tone of dissent. I am particularly intrigued by Amendment No. 95. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will think back to Wealth of Nations and reflect on Adam Smith's remarks that people of any trade seldom meet together essentially without a view to exploiting the consumer. Those were not Adam Smith's words—I cannot remember the precise wording—but that is broadly what this is all about. The noble Lord might also like to think about the so-called "Gary dinners", which were the essence of the American steel cartel. Members of the firms met together for dinner and took it in turn to raise prices—one firm would raise its prices one month while another would raise its prices the next month, and so on.
It is because we are trying to deal with such behaviour from cartels—let alone with the points raised by my noble friend the Minister about the destruction of documents—that I do not believe that we should put on the face of the Bill wording which would restrict the director-general's ability to look into such matters. He cannot very well turn up and say, "I am investigating the fact that you have all been having dinner together". I suspect that his investigation will be based on several things which indicate the operation of a cartel; but that is so obvious that I wonder why it has to be stated on the face of the Bill.
I was glad to hear that my noble friend is not very keen to accept Amendment No. 95, but I fail to see why he might be remotely keen to accept Amendments Nos. 101 and 106 other than in a spirit of goodwill. He will naturally want to look at anything suggested by the Opposition and, of course, I strongly approve of that. However, I believe that the central principle must be to construct a Bill that enables the director to deal with infringements and anti-competitive, anti-consumer activities. That is what I believe the Bill to be about. I regard it as broadly reasonable. I believe that it already strikes a reasonable balance. I do not want to discourage my noble friend from thinking further, but I hope that he has not already reached his conclusions on these matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Given what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has just said, I hope that the Minister will not depart from his suggestion, if I may put it that way, that what was implicit—I need not go over it again
380
or the reasons why it was implicit, which are very important—should appear on the face of the Bill. I have put it quite shortly to save time.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: There were occasions in the last Parliament when I felt it necessary, even desirable (although not everybody agreed with me) to endeavour to put what I thought was right and sensible into the minds of Ministers. I was not always successful, but I should like to take the opportunity afforded to me by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to say how much I welcome a repetition of such arguments between himself and his noble friends. It gives my noble friends on the Front Bench an opportunity to get their breath back, although the Minister may find it a little tiresome, and greatly as I admire the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am not sure whether it will do his standing with his noble friends all that much good. I am particularly sorry that, having briefly referred to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, we did not have the stimulating experience of hearing the noble Lord speak in more detail on that subject. I know of no one better qualified.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, I support the amendments under consideration. At some stage those investigated need to know why they are under investigation. The fact that the Minister is prepared to take another look at this makes me feel very satisfied and I would not have intervened had it not been for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, quoting, as he regularly does, from Wealth of Nations. The Inland Revenue has occasionally told me that I have omitted something from my return, but it has never given me any clue about what has been omitted. On one occasion I spent hours with my financial adviser and, in the event, although there was an omission, it was an omission which did not involve any tax liability. Given the hours that I had spent, I was a little irritated. That is why I believe that if people are being investigated, they should be given at least some clue or guidance about the reason for that investigation.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am grateful for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, about the stimulating nature of debate in your Lordships' House. I do not believe that the noble Lord was present last Thursday when we had the most stimulating debate between the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who was fully in favour of all the investigatory powers that we are proposing, and some of her noble friends. The other side of the Committee had a remarkably interesting debate on that. Sitting in the middle, I receive wide-ranging advice from all corners of the Committee—and is not that a privilege?
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Pestonhe is, of course, my friend—that I listened with interest to him say that the main point of Wealth of Nations is competition. I agree—it is competition to achieve great value for all sides.
In concluding, I hope, this debate on these amendments, I repeat that I shall reflect on the four amendments, two of which I do not find appropriate but

381
two of which I feel may add value to the Bill and which we may take forward after reflection. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, whether he is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: Given that the Minister has not in any way resiled from his earlier remarks in relation to these amendments, despite the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendment No. 95A, I should remind the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 96 or 97.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 95A:
Page 13. leave out lines 13 and 14.
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may start by saying that I believe that competition is a good and necessary thing and follow that up with what noble Lords opposite could regard as either a threat or a promise: if I am accused of being a friend of cartels or someone who wishes to snuff out competition, I shall feel obliged to make an extremely long speech or series of speeches in my own defence. I hope that that will effectively silence any unpleasant jibes from the Benches opposite.
I continue by assuring the noble Lord who has the duty of carrying this Bill through that, had my noble friends and I still been on the other side of the House, I would have made exactly the same speech as I am about to make now. Perhaps I may interpolate one comment. When the Minister says that it is a great privilege to receive advice from all quarters of the Chamber, that is a testimony either to his guile or to the nobility of his nature. I prefer the latter construction, and I gladly salute him.
The words to which I particularly object are "any officer of his". Those words are very wide indeed. There is a need to indicate the officer of the director who has the necessary skills, experience and tact to carry out what may be a difficult and embarrassing task. I do not expect the Minister to draft on the hoof or to respond immediately with an acceptance of my amendment. That is not what is required here. However, I hope that he will give serious consideration to the possibility of limiting this power.
One understands that the authors of Bills that come before this House tend to approach them with an instrument not unlike a pepper mill. One sprinkles convenient phrases throughout the Bill in the hope that noble Lords will not notice them and in the belief that one never knows when they will become useful. Thus, it is a great pity not to include them. I do not believe that this is particularly welcome. I hope that the Minister will agree to examine the matter.
The powers conferred here relate not merely to the production of documents but to the requirement for an explanation of what a document is about and also entry without warrant. Even in these days when Parliament is not noticed all that much it is appropriate that we should
382
at least stand up and say that Ministers must think very carefully before they include such language in a Bill. I was encouraged by the noble Lord's reference to fishing expeditions. I understand that it is not the intention of the Government to encourage such expeditions. During my time in your Lordships' House from time to time I have come across instances where people furnished with certain powers have tended to use them. I believe that a good number of people in official circles were born with whistles in their mouths and cannot refrain from blowing them on the most trivial and unimportant occasions. Without going into details, in one case a farmer in Lanarkshire was literally tortured for a year or so by presumptuous, intruding officials who were eventually brought to book only by a very sensible and wise judgment in the sheriff court.
I hope that the noble Lord will not impute to me any hostility to competition when I say that I am nervous about putting into the hands of people about whom I know very little powers that they may feel tempted to abuse, if only to ensure that they win the approval of their superiors. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I preface my remarks by saying that I fully recognise the noble Lord's commitment over many years to the desirability of commerce and industry enjoying a competitive structure. We shall therefore avoid the threat of the noble Lord to make lengthy speeches to prove that he is indeed pro-competition. No doubt many Members of the Committee are of the same view. I recognise also that the noble Lord is in favour of the provision of adequate powers to ensure that those who engage in price fixing or other anti-competitive practices have their conduct investigated and, if it is proved, are perhaps condemned. On many matters both I and the noble Lord are in full agreement.
However, by the nature of this amendment the noble Lord suggests that the Director General of Fair Trading, who heads an office of 300 or 400 people, would have to investigate personally the facts of particular cases. The noble Lord desires to delete that part of the clause which specifies that an authorised officer should be enabled to do that. There are other amendments yet to be discussed—I do no more than mention them—which suggest that there should be some qualification attaching to particular members of staff of the Office of Fair Trading and that they alone should be permitted to engage in these investigations. It is normal practice—my experience of the Office of Fair Trading is that it is not abused—that if an official on the staff of the Office of Fair Trading is duly authorised to do certain acts which the legislation permits him to do that is surely sufficient. According to the resources available, that is carried out and the director general is fully responsible for the proper conduct of the investigation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to make a short rejoinder to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. First, he should not take me further than I desire to go. This amendment is simply exploratory. I made clear that I was conscious of its defects and that I did not expect it to be accepted by the Government. I merely asked that the Minister should look at the points to which I referred. Secondly,

383
the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, obviously feels some degree of paternity for this Bill. I do not blame him for that. But he should not allow his enthusiasm for the Bill to eclipse all of the arguments against it that I believe to be valid.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I believe that all noble Lords have a degree of enthusiasm for the Bill. Certainly, I have. By and large, in principle the Bill is a very good one. I am concerned that there should be a calm approach to a reasonable balance of protection. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I believe that my noble friend has raised a very important point in the context of reasonable protection. I have some practical experience. I am not concerned with what the director does. However, I am a little concerned that an officer should be authorised by the director or given a licence to conduct a fishing expedition in relation to documents which fall,
"within a category of document which is specified, or described, in the notice".
That seems a bit too wide. It seems unreasonable. I am not sure, in actual practice, what "category of document" means. I am conversant, in my profession, with discovery in categories of documents. That I understand, but I do not see in this context what "category of document" can conceivably mean.
If I cannot understand what it means, how can the authorised officer understand what it means even if the director understands what it means? Category of document? Contract? Invoice? They would form categories, but it is difficult to know what conceivable restrictive effect the term "category of document" could have. If, in practice, it does not have one, I respectfully suggest to the Minister that it is fair to ask him to reconsider the point.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: Not for the first time in this place, I do not have the faintest idea of what is going on. Am I right in saying that we are still discussing the third group of amendments on the Marshalled List which contains six amendments?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Peston: Am I right that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has merely moved the first amendment in the group?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord was not debating his first amendment?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: There is no one I would rather help than the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I moved Amendment No. 95A. If the noble Lord has the paper available, he will be able to tell very quickly what we are talking about.
Lord Peston: I am aware of what the noble Lord did, but do I have an obsolete piece of paper? Mine includes
384
the other five amendments. Customarily, we tend to debate all the amendments in the group together unless something has happened recently about which no one has told me. I take it we are debating Amendment No. 95A only. Is that right? In due course the proposers of the other five amendments in the group may find time to join in. I had assumed that we would debate all six together, because that is typically what this place has done over the past 10 years. For all I know, there has been some change in our rules of procedure while I was sleeping over the weekend.
Having said that, perhaps I may reiterate that I would have expected the proposers of the other amendments to have had their say, because they all fit with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I share all the noble Lord's fears about bureaucrats and people poking their noses into things they should not poke their noses into. I share his approach. It is the Committee's duty to try to expose these matters or to prevent their happening. I interpret the subsection that the noble Lord wishes to delete as saying no more than that the director general may use his staff to do his job. That is all I interpret that to mean, and no more. He may not use his staff in a Draconian way, a Nazi way, or any other way. The provision merely says that he may use his staff.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord said about his fears. However, I do not see that we could have a Bill that did not allow the director to have people to do some work for him. That is the only point here. The reason I made my acerbic remarks is that the remaining amendments deal with points of detail concerning what the staff may do and which staff we are talking about. I suppose that in due course we may reach those topics. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is to be congratulated on putting his fears on the record, but I hope that he does not push further than that in the sense of getting us to a position where no work could take place, which I believe would be the sole consequence if my noble friend the Minister were to agree to Amendment No. 95A. One person could not possibly do all the work himself.
Lord Kingsland: On this occasion I did not take the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to be acerbic. I had been under the misapprehension that we were debating just Amendment No. 95A. I think I am wrong about that, and that we should be looking at all the amendments, so I apologise to the Committee for not having intervened earlier. I understand that if Amendment No. 95A is adopted, Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 will fall. Nevertheless, I should say something about them. Both relate to page 13, line 13. Amendment No. 96 inserts between "any" and "officer" the word "senior". That is very much in the spirit of what my noble friend was seeking to obtain by his amendment.
Along the same lines, after "of his" Amendment No. 97 seeks to insert,
"who is an appropriately qualified official in the division of the Office of Fair Trading responsible for investigations".
The reason why the expression "responsible for investigations" has been included is to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Director General

385
of Fair Trading has in these matters a split personality. On the one hand he has to investigate these matters; on the other hand he has to adjudicate upon them. It is important therefore that on the face of this part of the Bill there should be some clause or subsection which helps us understand how he will achieve that important division. The Minister may not wish to address the point now. If so, I hope that at some stage in the course of the amendments we can return to it.
Amendments Nos. 105, 124 and 142 are in the spirit of my noble friend's amendment and deal with different phases of the investigatory process. Amendment No. 105 seeks to strike out the expression,
"or by an officer acting on his behalf under section 25(2)".
So the amendment similarly limits, when premises are being entered by an official, the range of officials who can fulfil that task.
Amendment No. 124 relates to the clause which gives power to enter premises under a warrant granted by a magistrate. It seeks to insert the words,
"senior office of the Director who is an appropriately qualified official in the division of the OFT responsible for investigations, and other named senior officers with appropriate qualifications and from the same division to accompany him".
In other words, it clarifies the kind of officials who will undertake this task and their level of seniority.
Finally I turn to Amendment No. 142. That, again, is in the same spirit and is designed to leave out Clause 28(8)(b):
"a person acting on his behalf".
So the only two categories that remain as a definition of the "appropriate person" are the director or a person authorised under Clause 25(2).
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before my noble friend sits down, I do not want to let my inquisitiveness go too far, but I wish he would make clear whether he gives his broad general support to the amendment which I moved.
Lord Kingsland: I thought that I had done that, perhaps not in so many words. I think I expressed support for the spirit of what my noble friend said when dealing with every amendment to which I spoke.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am aware of the sequential nature of the amendments. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will not mind my answering the general point before going on to deal with the definition of the level of person, brought in by the later amendments. I shall try to answer in sequential terms.
I am aware of the anxieties about the investigatory powers in the Bill and that the matter is difficult and sensitive. The idea that the investigation will be handled by junior, inexperienced or untrained personnel in the office of the director general or sector regulators is being probed. I appreciate that Amendments Nos. 96, 97, and 124 seek to address that anxiety by specifying qualifications or rank. However, I do not believe that we can sensibly provide for such matters in statute. How would one define "senior"? What qualifications would be regarded as appropriate to the work of investigating?
386
Amendment No. 95A would prevent the director general from authorising one of his officers to conduct investigations or enter premises without a warrant. Therefore, he would have to undertake those functions himself. That would be unworkable, as many of my noble friends have observed. The provision enables the office of Director General of Fair Trading to work. Any officer is merely a definition of the requirement that there must be a delegatory management power within the organisation.
Amendment No. 124 would additionally require the director general and sectoral regulators to separate their organisations internally and to create a discrete investigation division. It was trailed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, when he asked me how the investigatory and judgmental functions could live together.
The Bill, like many others, creates functions for the officers concerned. It would be undesirable and impractical to go beyond providing the statutory framework and to try to provide for the internal organisation of such officers. The director general will have statutory duties and functions to perform under the terms of the Bill. He must ensure that his staff and organisation is adequate for that purpose. Therefore, I urge the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment specifying the nature of "officers" who can receive the delegated power of the director general to do the reasonable business of the Office of Fair Trading.
Amendment No. 142 would remove the power for persons acting on behalf of the director general, other than those authorised by him to exercise investigative powers to apply for a warrant. The reason for the provision is to enable other suitable members of the director general's staff to make application for a warrant. That could be, for example, a lawyer in his office. An application for a warrant is a serious business. The information must be given on oath and I have no doubt that only suitable persons would make the applications. Therefore, I invite noble Lords to withdraw their Amendment No. 142.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: As regards Amendment No. 95A, I am bound to say to the Minister that if I were sitting on the opposite side of the Chamber, which was the case a year ago, I should say that I was extremely disappointed in his reply. I did not ask him to accept my amendment; I made it clear that it made no sense and was silly. On the other hand, it gave him an opportunity to go away and consider what has been said.
I say to the noble Lord with the utmost courtesy that there are few things more irritating to an Opposition than a Minister, when a serious point is made, at best deploying the answer typed out in his brief long before the argument is made. The noble Lord is a man of great experience and I hope that he will agree to take the issue away and look at it again. The provision "any officer of his" is too broad. There is no indication of rank or seniority; so far as I know the person could be a temporary officer employed last week. As the Bill stands, it is not good enough.

387
I hope—and I really mean this—that the Minister will agree to do nothing more than look at the matter again without any commitment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The clause, for clarification in Hansard, is Clause 24(3)(b). While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say it is quite wrong, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that either—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. I believe that it would be easier if the Minister could reply to my simple invitation. I hope that he will agree to take the matter away and look at it again without further commitment.
Lord Simon of Highbury: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, while it is often necessary to read one's brief and to follow the careful line of one's department, I happen to believe most strongly that it is important that the director general should have delegatory powers to manage his own system. Those are difficult to define in the structure of words in the text qualifying "any" or "any senior" officer that we have discussed. Perhaps I may humbly submit that because I spent many years trying to run large administrative groups I thought hard and sincerely about whether the qualification of "any officer" should be made on the face of the Bill or by the management of the office, which in these terms is the director general when he sets about fulfilling his task. Therefore, the brief was not read lightly or without consideration; it was given as my experience of how best to organise serious departments of office.
I will think again and think seriously about the point which the noble Lord raised. However, I want him to know that I have already considered hard. I am not just a reader, but the brief helps me to keep my place. Perhaps I may deal with the earlier point—
Lord Peston: Before the Minister responds, perhaps we can complete this section of the business. The Minister was right about the ability to delegate, but the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is right in expressing concerns about the misuse or even abuse of delegated powers. I am always troubled about such issues because of the legal dimension. I take it for granted that, legally, one does not have to write into Bills that powers must not be misused or abused. I believe that that is a general characteristic of all our legislation and of human beings.
I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister will look at the matter again. I hope that his answer is that we do not need to write the provision into the Bill because it is part of our system of law and government. However, I do not believe that that detracts from the importance of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Because there is abuse, there is a procedure of abuse of power. That is no reason whatever, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for not seeking to narrow the area of licence in a Bill. All I seek to do in supporting my noble friend Lord Peyton is to suggest, as I have suggested, that the Bill is unnecessarily wide. The Minister has been kind enough to
388
say, without commitment, that he will consider the matter. That generosity is accepted. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will accept that the object is not at all to make the regime unworkable. I want—and I believe my noble friend Lord Peyton wants—the regime to work but to work fairly. That is all.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to prolong the proceedings. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Until the very last minute, I was not sure that he was supporting my amendment but I am glad that he has made that point clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Simon, was good enough to say that he appreciated the point I am trying to make, and I certainly appreciate his difficulty. I appreciate also his courtesy in saying what he did and, on that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Powers when conducting investigations]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("any person") and insert ("any officer or senior employee of an undertaking").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 98, 102 to 104, 109, 116 and 129 look at the same issue as we addressed from the other end of the telescope. They concern the rank of the person questioned. Most of these amendments are, on their face, fairly straightforward. Amendment No. 98 seeks to leave out the words "any person" and insert the words,
"any officer or senior employee of an undertaking".
Amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 104 deal with a slightly different point; that is, the extent to which former employees should be questioned. The amendments seek to promote the notion that the investigatory action is taken against the company and not against an individual and that once an individual has left the company he should not be subject to that questioning regime. Such documentary evidence that is required by the investigator will be on the files and the successor should be in a perfectly good position to answer any question which the investigator needs to ask.
Amendment No. 109 seeks to replace the word "person" with the expression "officer or senior employee", as do Amendments 116 and 129.
To put the matter in a rather absurd but not wholly imaginary context, one does not wish to see an investigating officer shimmying up to the cleaning lady and extracting from her the skeleton key, because in those circumstances a wide-ranging extraction of documents could take place without any controls at all. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: There is one part of the proposed amendments which I should like to query, in relation to past employees or people no longer in employment. I hope that when this Bill becomes law, because of the greater investigatory powers, it will be possible for the

389
Office of Fair Trading to deal with anti-competitive practices and cartel agreements rather more speedily than it sometimes has in the past.
Nevertheless, even in the future I imagine it will be the case, as certainly it was in the past, that sometimes information comes to light about agreements that were made some time ago, not necessarily years ago but perhaps just months ago, and one or two of the key people involved who have information are people who have just left the employment of the company being investigated or left its employment some time ago. It seems to me to be unduly restrictive to say that it is not permissible for the investigation to include inquiring of people and obtaining documents from people who may have recently or some time ago left that company's employment.
Lord Ezra: As my name is to two of the amendments on which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, commented specifically, perhaps I should say a few words in their defence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, pointed out so clearly, the aim of the amendments is to try to limit the enormous scope of those inquiries. While we all agree with the purpose of the investigations, we feel that there should be some limit in respect of the people, as we have discussed previously, who undertake them and the people who are inquired into.
I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that it may be that the issue under investigation arose at some earlier period and that the persons primarily involved may have left the company's employ. That is a perfectly arguable proposition. However, I should feel happier—I hope the Minister will be prepared to have another look at this matter—were some such word as "normally" to be introduced so that normally the persons to be inquired into would be current employees of the company but in exceptional circumstances others might be turned to.
Lord Peston: "Normally" takes me back to the happy days when I used to sit on those Benches opposite and if I was totally at a loss as to which amendment to speak to, "normally" was my favourite word because it gave me an entrée and an opportunity to speak. Now I am on these Benches, I regard "normally" as the kind of weasel word that we could do without.
We are discussing a rather technical matter. Essentially, we are concerned with documents. The director would like to know what they mean and would like an explanation of them. He may receive the answer, "I don't know. I wasn't there when they were drawn up. I am not at all clear what was their origin". That will be very frustrating for the director and, as my noble friend Lord Borrie pointed out, would make the investigation much more difficult.
It seems to me that any investigator would rather approach current employees—and that brings in the "normally" of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Of course that is the case because it is much more difficult to approach someone who is not there or to find out who the relevant person may be. The Minister may clarify the issue for
390
us, but my reading of the Bill suggests that it means essentially what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would like it to mean; namely, that the investigator would say, "I have this document. Can you give me an explanation of it?". Those people say that they cannot, to which the investigator responds by asking who can give him an explanation of it; who was present when that particular part of the agreement was drawn up. That person may have left or be dead but, in practice, that would be a second stage.
Therefore, again, I believe that one should raise these examples when discussing Bills of this kind. But, subject to hearing what the Minister says, which I hope will not be too alarming, it seems to me that the Bill should meet the needs of the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Kingsland, on this matter, unless we assume that the director is not very interested in doing his job properly but simply interested in making trouble for firms. I do not make that assumption. I make the assumption that the director has a responsibility in terms of competition and competition policy and that he will meet those obligations reasonably. This Bill enables him to do that. I would be fearful of any amendment to the Bill which would actually make it impossible for the director to do his job. Having said that, I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response.
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: Amendment No. 98 to Clause 26 would restrict the range of persons from whom the director general may require the production of documents. If we follow through the other amendments, as indeed we were advised to do—and we are looking down the other end of the telescope this time—it will be seen that Amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 104 would restrict the range of persons from whom an explanation of the documents may be required. Amendments Nos. 109 and 129 relate to similar points in Clauses 27 and 28. Essentially, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, explained, the amendment would restrict the range of persons to officers or senior officers in terms of the investigatory approach.
I can understand the concerns which have prompted the tabling of these amendments. I even sympathise with such concerns, and appreciate that the CBI has pressed very strongly for these changes. But, if we are to make a sound judgment about the range of these powers, we must keep in mind the purpose that they are intended to achieve.
Clause 26 is the first clause we come to in the Bill which confers specific investigatory powers on the director general. Clause 26 gives the director general powers to require the production of specified documents. Clause 26 is, if you like, the first weapon in the director general's armoury. Later clauses provide for a power of entry and a power to enter premises under a warrant. I have already sought to explain that effective powers of investigation and the certainty of discovery are key elements of deterring anti-competitive behaviour.
However, there is a second important factor that we must bear in mind. I should point out to Members of the Committee that I am working up to answering the points

391
that have been raised. The statutory investigatory powers must be able to cater for the very worst case of unscrupulous concealment of evidence of a cartel, or other anti-competitive behaviour. I would expect most cases where the DGFT has reasonable suspicions to proceed with the full co-operation of the undertaking being investigated. Full use of the powers provided in the Bill should, therefore, generally be unnecessary. Many of us are fully aware of the normal course of events in investigations. My own past company has been investigated many times; and, indeed, on many occasions we provided the information required.
While the powers in Clause 26 may be used to require past employees to provide explanations, those in Clauses 28 and 29 do not contain such a limitation. The reason for this is simply that these powers are exercisable on the premises of the undertaking during an inspection visit. Clearly past employees are unlikely to be present on the premises to answer questions. The powers to seek explanations of documents from past employees may be needed where an undertaking is found to have been committing an infringement over a long period, as has been pointed out. As my noble friend Lord Borne said, they are a necessary part of the director's armoury.
As regards junior employees, while I value the phrase, "shimmying up to the tea-lady"--indeed, that phrase stuck in my mind—it is important that we seriously have the ability to speak to both secretaries and personal assistants. They may be younger but they may, effectively, have a great deal of knowledge of the activities under investigation. We must also remember that the range of things that may appear in documents needing explanations is wide. Therefore, it seems to me to be right that the powers should also be exercisable when asking that category of employee or past employee for explanations.
However, that does not mean that we should limit the powers for expected use in normal circumstances. As I said, the limit of the powers in the Bill must cater for the very worst cases that we expect to encounter. I believe that that consideration throws a very different light on the matter. I have said it before, but I believe that I must repeat it: cartels do not advertise themselves very often. Identifying them and establishing their existence requires painstaking investigation and adequate powers. While the intention behind the amendment, and those grouped with it, is understandable, in practice it could materially assist the unscrupulous in concealing evidence. Price-fixing rings operated by employees might be beyond investigation if those employees were no longer employed by the undertaking once the investigation was under way. Conspiracies of silence would quite clearly be easier to operate.
Of course there must be proper safeguards for the innocent. Clause 41 makes it clear that it is a defence if a document was not in the individual's possession or under his control and that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with a requirement. The director general must act reasonably. But putting the broad perspective on the need for this to be the "outer
392
limits" of the director general's capacity to find the case, then, going to whomsoever in the organisation—if needs be, even the tea-lady—would be an acceptable requirement to avoid the continuation and long continuation of some of the cartels which, if we look with the gift of hindsight, have been running against the interests of the consumer.
My conclusion remains that accepting the amendment would weaken the effectiveness of the investigatory process and the deterrent effect of the regime. It will not, I believe, surprise noble Lords who have tabled the amendments if I urge them, given the seriousness of the requirement to make investigations successful, to consider withdrawing them.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I should just like to expand on one point that I made when introducing the amendments. It is the point about the cleaning-lady. It is not her level of responsibility that is relevant; it is the imbalance, in authority between the person who is seeking information and the person who is asked to render it. If you have a big imbalance of authority between those two people, you are much more likely as an investigator to extract evidence to which you are not entitled.
Unlike the Minister, I have never experienced one of these investigations but I understand that they can be tough or even brutal. If a senior investigator comes into an office and addresses a very junior member of staff in a forceful way, he may extract from that member of staff a whole range of evidence to which he is not entitled. Although we have yet to see the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights in our law, we all know that the law in our country is that evidence illegally obtained is, nevertheless, evidence. Therefore, the relationship between the investigator and the investigated party on the ground is an important one. It is that relationship that the amendments seek to address.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say a few words before the noble Lord decides what to do about his amendment. I have listened to what the noble Lord said, but I would ask him to reflect back a few years to a time when he was a junior member of staff. Does he recall, as I do, that very frequently the junior member of staff who produces a document is often the only one who understands it? Indeed, on many occasions when I was a young man my senior would say, "Oh, he knows what this is all about, ask him".
I understand the noble Lord's fears, but what would worry me a little about the precise wording of the amendment is the fact that, as it is written, it would mean that only senior people—who, I have to say, having become one myself, frequently do not know very much about such documents even though they may be produced under their name—could be asked for such explanations. The wording of the amendment would prevent a junior person speaking on such matters. That can always be dealt with by redrafting but we ought to be careful of assuming that the senior person who is always responsible in theory is responsible in practice and that he understands what the matter is all about. I speak for myself, but my experience is that the senior

393
person often does not know what the matter is about. His only good idea is to get the junior person to do the work.
Lord Kingsland: I am at the moment experiencing what it is like to be a junior member of a new organisation. I assure the Committee that the experience is extremely immediate. This matter need not be a difficulty. All that it requires is for the senior member of the investigated company, having been questioned by the investigator, to ask the junior member to reply to certain questions or produce certain documents. That is not precluded. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there are circumstances in which the person at the coalface knows best. However, there is nothing to prevent the Bill permitting appropriate delegation by a company official. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("he considers").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple and brief amendment but its brevity is matched only by its reasonableness. I very much hope that the Minister will appreciate that fact. Clause 26(1) states,
"For the purposes of an investigation under section 25, the Director may require any person to produce to him a specified document which he considers relates to any matter relevant to the investigation".
My amendment seeks to remove the words "he considers". Clause 26(1) would therefore state,
"a specified document which relates to any matter relevant to the investigation".
I cannot see any reason why the words I have mentioned are necessary except as a grotesque example of insisting upon belt and braces and suspenders too. I hope that the noble Lord will resist this temptation which is always put in front of Ministers. Again and again, Ministers are told, "Minister, there is only one thing that you can really count on and that is your own judgment. You must never allow any words to be included or taken out which will have the effect of removing that subjective judgment. Objective judgment is to be avoided at all costs."
We are all conscious that Ministers and others, to whom considerable and wide powers are dedicated, find it almost impossible to admit that there exists even the remotest chance of those powers being abused while they are in charge. However, that does not prevent the frequent and regular abuse of powers in high places. Law reports are littered with them; parliamentary debates are littered with them; even your Lordships' House, which is not given to loud complaining, has from time to time heard complaints about the abuse of powers. Therefore, I do not think it is too much to suggest that the power to insist upon the production of a specified document should depend upon the fact that that document relates to the matter under investigation. It is simply not good enough for people to excuse themselves from all examination by simply saying, "I thought it referred to or concerned" this or that. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the force of that argument, or that at the very least—I say this with much more hope on this amendment than on my previous
394
amendment—he will agree to consider what is a serious point. To deny it is to deny the existence, or the possibility of, abuses. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: I understand exactly what my noble friend Lord Peyton says and his powerful argument with regard to removing the words, "he considers". However, my mind was racing ahead, particularly when my noble friend used the expression "belt and braces". I believe that under his proposed amendment there would be more belt and braces. One could be flooded out with paper. I refer to any document, be it a tram ticket, a train ticket or a menu. One could lose the relevant document because every office now contains so much paper. I should have thought the director general would have to be able to sift through that. He should specify exactly what he thinks relates to a specific investigation. I fear one might confuse the issue by allowing him to be submerged by a great amount of paper.
Lord Kingsland: I shall move, or rather speak to, Amendments Nos. 99, 111, 117, 118 and 130.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hate to interrupt my noble friend but I hope that he will at least refer to the amendment I moved.
Lord Kingsland: Of course I shall refer with total and unqualified approbation to the amendment that my noble friend has moved.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is it not the case that, an amendment having been moved, the Committee should speak to that amendment whatever the grouping may be?
Lord Kingsland: I shall speak to all those in the group, as I believe I indicated.
Baroness Nicol: All that is wrong is that the noble Lord needs to acknowledge the fact that Amendment No. 98A has been moved in saying that he wishes to speak to Amendment No. 99 and the others. It is quite simple really.
Lord Kingsland: I thought that what I said, rather incompetently, was in effect that. However, I apologise if I did not get my line of sight exactly right. I shall endeavour to improve the focus as I work my way through these amendments.
Baroness Nicol: I think it was the attempt to move Amendment No. 99 which upset people.
Lord Kingsland: I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness. These amendments for the most part seek to tighten up the criteria by which documents are considered by the director general. Clause 26(1) states,
"For the purposes of an investigation under section 25, the Director may require any person to produce to him a specified document which he considers relates to any matter relevant to the investigation".

395
Amendment No. 99 seeks to include the words "is necessary" to the investigation. The wording of the Bill seems to us to be too loose a criterion for the director general. It gives him too much scope in his choice of documents. Amendments Nos. 111, 117 and 118 in different contexts seek to do precisely the same.
In a different way, Amendment No. 130 also seeks to tighten up the circumstances in which the director general exercises his discretion. Clause 28(2)(e) states:
"to require any information which is held in a computer and is accessible from the premises and which the named officer considers relates to any matter relevant to the investigation".
The amendment seeks to remove,
"which the named officer considers relates to any matter relevant to the investigation",
and to insert,
"is specified in a notice under section 26(2) issued in relation to the".
Lord Simon of Highbury: First, I speak to Amendment No. 98A and the general point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I shall then attend to the other amendments which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, pointed out, are sequential.
As ever, we are thinking hard about striking the right balance between safeguarding the rights of those being investigated, ensuring that the investigation is properly carried out, and that the overall regime acts as a deterrent.
Clause 26 enables the Director General of Fair Trading to produce a specified document which he considers relates to any matter relevant to the investigation. Amendment No. 98A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, removes the words, "he considers". The point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that if one takes out "he considers" one could find a flood of paper moving towards one at a rate of knots when considering the way in which the investigation may be conducted. However, that is not the point I wish to make in arguing that the amendment is not helpful.
The important point is that the director should be able to ask for a document that he thinks is relevant. Here we have the Catch-22 argument again. Until the director general has seen the document, he cannot tell that it is definitely relevant. For example, the director general may wish to see a director's diary because he considers it relevant in determining whether he attended a meeting at which he believed a cartel fixed prices. Until he sees it, he will not know whether or not it is a relevant feature.
The amendments remove that margin of appreciation or judgment which I am sure is important in properly determining that documents, in whichever category the director general considers should be produced, are relevant to the investigation. I argue that "he considers" is sensible as a limiting factor for the data flow but, more importantly, allows the director general to determine the nature of the investigation. Under those terms, I believe that it is important that his personal consideration is a vital element in the chain of inquiry.
396
Amendment No. 99, and those relating to it, put down by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Kingsland, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, relate to the words "is necessary". We believe that to insert "is necessary" would make matters worse. The overall result could increase the ability of undertakings to challenge the right of the DGFT to require the production of documents if he could not meet the standards of demonstrating objectively that the document related to the investigation. This would be a potential recipe for frustrating an investigation rather than a justifiable protection for those being investigated.
Amendment No. 101A would deprive the director general of the ability to ask for classes of document. Each and every document would have to be specified. It would be a chicken and egg situation. Until the director can identify a document, he will not be able to require its production. But he would not know precisely what documents he should ask for until he had seen and identified them. Hence we believe that he must be able to ask for categories of document. The point was raised earlier by a noble Lord who is no longer in his seat. I could have answered his question now as regards category of documents. The category may be invoices, as the noble Lord indicated. It could be agreements or contracts. In this modern day and age it might even be printouts and spreadsheets since we are talking about the computerisation of information as well. All those would be categories of documents. Unless the director general is absolutely clear beforehand, he would be wise to ask for a category of document if he considered that it had an implication for the way in which the investigation was progressing.
Again, I believe that the tone of Amendment No. 101A is a recipe for frustrating the investigation rather than a justifiable protection for those being investigated.
What is important here is the balance between the capacity of the director general to move towards discovery in an appropriate manner, as he considers, and the protection of the individuals who are producing the data. Our belief is again—I am becoming rather repetitive—that in many of the cases which are difficult, where we seek to improve our capacity to find against, it is often difficult and frustrating for the director to move forward. We believe that the balance in the new framework of the Bill gives the director general a better opportunity to get at the hard cases, if I may so put it.
Finally, we do not believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, achieves the right balance. Therefore we ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Having moved the amendment, perhaps it is appropriate that I seek leave to withdraw it. However, while I do not ask the noble Lord to give any sweeping commitment at this stage, perhaps he will consider what was said. There is a genuine and real fear—it is not confined to this side of the Chamber—that if one gives powers to director generals or Ministers, very respectable people, it is at least possible that they, or one of their underlings, may be tempted at some time to abuse that power for the best

397
possible reason: they think that they are doing right; they are bringing a culprit to justice. But they are still breaking the rules. I hope that the noble Lord will bear those considerations in mind. If he will do so, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps I may—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I had sought leave to withdraw the amendment. If my noble friend wishes to intervene, I should have thought that he would probably have done so before I spoke.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 104 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Power to enter premises without a warrant]:
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 14, line 2. leave out ("one working day's") and insert ("two working days'").
The noble Lord said: One working day's notice is a very short space of time. It is all too easy for governments and large organisations to think that other, less well-equipped bodies have plenty of spare people around to pay attention to matters. I do not believe that that is so. There is no magic in the two days that is suggested rather than three, four or five. It simply seemed to me that one day is rather short notice. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the provision. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: This is the fourth time that I have come to the Dispatch Box to respond to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Three times he has entreated me to listen and to consider and reflect on an amendment. Three times I have replied that I will think about it. This time, my thinking time will be short. I can state quite clearly that I agree with the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I rise to my feet moved, astonished and grateful. I give the noble Lord an undertaking that I shall not disturb him any further this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 14, line 5, leave out ("a reasonable suspicion") and insert ("reasonable grounds for belief").
The noble Lord said: The point is a very straightforward one; it has been discussed already. The amendment deals with the expression "reasonable suspicion" and seeks to replace it with "reasonable grounds for belief-. I do not know whether the Minister has changed his mind about these expressions since we spoke about them two hours earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: Indeed, we debated the matter at great length earlier as a question, in particular,
398
of the balance that is required when considering what are appropriate powers for the director general. I have listened very carefully to the arguments put. Lest the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, thinks that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, having left the Chamber is a sign that one is merely waiting for someone to move in order to agree an amendment, I must tell him that on this matter we have debated the balance. We are not in favour of reflecting this amendment in the redrafting of the Bill. At this stage, we would wish the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on the same basis as the arguments that have gone before.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord heard the previous debate. I trust that he will reflect on this matter in the same way as he said he would reflect on the earlier matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 14, line 10, after ("25(1)(b)") insert—
("and the giving of notice in accordance with subsection (1) would be likely to result in that party or undertaking concealing, destroying or tampering with any document specified in a notice under section 26(2);").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the circumstances in which the director does not have to respect the limitation in Clause 27(2), which states that.
"No investigating officer is to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under this section unless he has given at least one working day's written notice to the occupier of the premises".
Subsection (3) cuts down that right in certain circumstances:
"if the Director has a reasonable suspicion that the premises are, or have been, occupied by … a party to an agreement which he is investigating … or … an undertaking the conduct of which he is investigating".
The amendment seeks to limit that exception so that the circumstances in which the day's grace would be disallowed would be circumstances in which the director had a genuine suspicion that something would be done with the evidence. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: These amendments relate to the power to enter premises. As previously stated, it is an important power. Let me reiterate that I do not expect it to be used very frequently. But these powers must be sufficient to enable the director general to obtain all the documents relevant to his investigation into whether there has been an infringement of the prohibitions. As I have explained, these powers must be effective to conduct investigations. They must be sufficiently strong to cater for the worst cases of covert cartels. The right to make unannounced visits is therefore an important weapon in the director general's armoury.
Amendment No. 108 would increase the threshold to be crossed before the director general has a right of entry. Under the Bill, as presently drafted, he could make unannounced visits if the premises in question are occupied by an undertaking whose conduct he is investigating or if he has reasonable suspicion that that is so. All of this is, of course, subject to the provision

399
in Clause 25 that the director general must have a reasonable suspicion that either prohibition has been infringed.
Amendment No. 108 would increase the threshold such that the giving of notice would be likely to result in the specified documents being tampered with or destroyed. While these are among the circumstances in which an unannounced visit would be necessary—so I understand the logic behind the amendment—there are additional circumstances. Giving notice also gives those being investigated time to prepare their story.
However, we need to address the practical effect of the amendment. How could the director general establish that the giving of notice would be likely to result in the documents being tampered with or destroyed? That sounds like a Catch 22 situation. How could he establish that without making an unannounced visit in the first place? We have many instances of that difficult hurdle for the director general in making his case.
The practical result of this amendment would be to create a high hurdle before unannounced entry. It would be the same as that which exists under Clause 28 for obtaining a warrant. As I have already said, we believe that it is right to give the director the power to make surprise visits. We must be able to cater for the most unscrupulous operators. Acceptance of this amendment would materially weaken the effectiveness of the investigating powers and the deterrence of the regime. Accordingly, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 110 is a further example of limiting the range of the director general's powers in a way which on the face of it is reasonable but which in practice would seriously limit the effectiveness of the powers. Unannounced entry to premises is an important part of an investigation. If, when he is there, the investigating officer could only ask for documents to be produced and ask for explanations of documents he had previously considered relevant and had given notice of, then that would obviously hamper the investigation. Investigation of a document may well indicate that other documents may contain relevant information relating to the cartel or other anti-competitive behaviour. So there may be a sequence of documentation. Is there to be a formal notice under Clause 26(2) each time so that you move from one document to another only by a separate formal notice? That would not be an appropriate way to conduct an investigation that could have any hope of unearthing evidence of a cartel, particularly if that cartel was clever enough to require that type of approach to finding information. If the investigating officer had the power to write notices on the spot, what purpose would be served? It seems to me better that he should have the ability to find the documentation as appropriate, which I believe would be restricted by these amendments. I urge both noble Lords to consider withdrawing Amendment No. 108 and not moving Amendment No. 110.
Lord Kingsland: That is the Minister's point of view. Can he tell me what purpose Clause 27(2) serves? Clearly the only reason for entering premises is if the director has
400
reasonable grounds to believe or has a reasonable suspicion that it is relevant to the party whom he is investigating.
I put it to the Minister that it is hard to conceive of a set of circumstances in which an investigation will not fall into subsection (3). Perhaps he can prove me wrong. But if I am right, what is the point of including subsection (2) in Clause 27? It will never be operable.
Lord Simon of Highbury: There is a sequential logic in that statement which escapes me for the moment. Could the noble Lord elaborate, or perhaps he can explain it outside?
Lord Kingsland: Clause 27(2) gives a company a day's grace before the director general descends on it. Subsection (3) cuts down that right to a day's grace in certain circumstances. In my submission, the terms of subsection (3) are drawn so widely as to exclude any possibility of a company exercising its rights under subsection (2).
Lord Simon of Highbury: Again, this is an interesting point but it has escaped me. I shall have to ask the noble Lord to give me a tutorial on the point afterwards. In the circumstances, I wonder whether he is prepared to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I would be delighted to receive a tutorial from the Minister on the subject, or, if he wishes, to give him one. The point is important to the Opposition. If the Minister is unable to accede to our amendment, we shall table it again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 111 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): In calling Amendment No. 112, if it were to be agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 113, owing to pre-emption.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 14, leave out lines 19 and 20.
The noble Lord said: This point will be raised in different ways under Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 114. It goes to the right to silence. In what circumstances can a person who is on the receiving end of an investigation be required to give an explanation? We should bear in mind that we are on the edge of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into law, unless the Opposition win the intellectual argument. The right to silence is enshrined in that convention. Does the Minister feel in those circumstances that he can sustain the power of the director general in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I do not think it is unreasonable for an investigating officer to be able to require explanations of a document. The European

401
Commission's inspectors are empowered to ask for oral explanations of books and business records on the spot when conducting investigations under Articles 85 or 86.
Without such a power, investigations could be seriously hampered. Perhaps I could give a couple of examples of the problems that might be caused. I was talking earlier about documentation from a computer, which is specifically included in the Bill. If Members of the Committee have seen a spreadsheet, they will know that it is difficult to track down the relevant information without an explanation of the sheet's structure or the way in which the formulae and equations are used and applied. If a private code, abbreviations or some kind of shorthand were being used, the document might be incomprehensible without an explanation.
The power of explanation is one that it is useful to have available. I hope that the noble Lord will not wish, on reflection, to emasculate the investigation powers in the Bill and will not press the amendment. However, I understand the issue of self-incrimination raised by him. The Bill will provide the same defences against self-incrimination as exist under European jurisprudence which provides that (and I quote from Orkem):
"the Commission may not compel an undertaking to provide it with answers which might involve an admission on its part of the existence of an infringement which it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove".
Investigations are always bounded by European jurisprudence; and I would hope that that answer will be taken into account by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in considering what to do with his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: It is true that the case of Orkem gives the individual the right to withhold any document which involves an admission. It does not, however, give an individual the right to withhold a document that may be used to establish the existence of anti-competitive behaviour. Under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the individual's rights are much broader. As the Minister will be aware, in the case of Funke v. France it is clear that the individual's rights go to the second as well as the first category. As we discovered in the recent case, it is clear that in financial and business matters the rights of the individual are no less than they are in other matters.
I submit that my amendment must be seen in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court of Human Rights and not just the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice.
Lord Simon of Highbury: As I think I said in an earlier answer, we believe that the regime is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In any event, as I also mentioned, we are currently bringing forward legislation which will require, so far as is possible, both primary and secondary legislation to be read and given effect to in the same way as is consistent with the European Convention. So that is in the body of law which is being developed. I should like the noble Lord to reflect on
402
that. I shall carefully consider the position he has put, but we believe that the regime is compatible.
Viscount Trenchard: Perhaps I may speak in support of the amendment. I have sympathy with the view expressed by the Minister that it is reasonable to ask for an explanation. But, as drafted, the Bill states that the officer is entitled to receive the explanation that he requires. That sounds as though he is entitled to say what explanation he wants.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The meaning is that the officer requires an explanation. I shall reflect carefully on the use of the words and think hard about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It is a serious point. We are talking about developing law in terms of our position in the UK, inside the protection of the overall umbrella of the Orkem finding in European jurisprudence.
We are aware of the point raised and it bears consideration. However, we need a little more time.
Lord Kingsland: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 14, line 19, at end insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 113 seeks to convert a subjective discretion into an objective discretion. It relates to the requirement to produce documents and provide explanations. It converts the sentence,
"to provide such explanation of it as the officer may require",
to,
"to provide such explanation of it as the officer may reasonably require".
The reason for the injection of the word "reasonably" is to make the discretion of the officer subject to judicial control. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I understand the concern that lies behind the amendment. I wholly accept that an investigating officer should only be able to demand such explanations of a person as may reasonably be required.
However, it is a principle of our law—I speak with a certain amount of deference to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—that, in exercising powers of the sort that we would be conferring on an investigating officer, the person having the power must behave reasonably. The law has that effect without express provision on the face of the Bill. On that basis the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Kingsland: In those circumstances I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment. The word "reasonably" is interpreted by the courts in a different way according to circumstances. Equally, the absence of the word "reasonably" can be read by courts in different ways. If the Minister feels that an officer ought to behave reasonably, that belief should be reflected in the text of the Bill by inserting the word "reasonably".
Lord Borrie: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will consider this point. If there were judicial review proceedings against the officer in respect of what was required, surely it is existing law that if no reasonable officer would have done what that officer is alleged to have done, then judicial review proceedings would condemn what took place. In other words, the officer's action is reviewable because he did not act reasonably.
Lord Kingsland: Without being over dramatic in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I remind him of the great case of Liversidge v. Anderson in 1940 when the then noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, sought to read "reasonable behaviour" into a subjective discretion and failed. The Opposition are seeking a guarantee. The Minister said that it was inconceivable to expect his officers to behave unreasonably.
Lord Borrie: Does not the noble Lord agree with me that it is generally accepted today that it was Lord Atkin who was correct?
Lord Kingsland: He was nevertheless in a minority of one in a House of five. I was about to invite the Minister on this occasion to accept the amendment.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I do not wish to come between two noble and learned gentlemen of this Chamber on a matter of case law. My problem as a practical businessman looking at this construction is that, if we make express provision on the face of the Bill, it may be read as casting doubt in respect of other provisions on the general principle that powers should be reasonably exercised. It would be undesirable if we had to move through all the powers of the Bill, where the debate concerned the reasonable nature of action by one of the officers, to determine whether reasonableness in one instance should be put on the face of the Bill and in another should be regarded as a general principle of the law.
I do not want to enter into the debate on previous judgments in case law. That point needs to be taken into account in the noble Lord's thinking and I beg him again not to ask us always to put on the face of the Bill what we believe it inherently contains.
Lord Kingsland: I am aware that the Committee is impatient to get on. But there are grounds for making an exception in this clause. It refers to the right of silence which is a right that is different in kind, not just in degree, from other rights of the individual. Therefore I invite the Minister to reflect on the matter between now and Report stage.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I shall think about the matter, having aired most of the doubts in all our minds.
Lord Kingsland: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 14, line 20, at end insert—
("provided that the person is afforded sufficient time to seek legal advice before complying with any such requirement").
The noble Lord said: This is a point which the Minister addressed when responding to the second group of amendments. It relates to the time that an individual needs to seek legal advice before complying with the requirement. I sensed that the Minister was sympathetic when he previously addressed the matter, but I do not know whether he feels the same way in these circumstances.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I do not initially wish to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. My reflections earlier on time related to the time between the notice of intent to investigate and the investigation. Amendment No. 114 relates to what is happening in the here and now, during the course of the investigation under way. Amendment No. 119 would require an investigating officer entering premises to allow the occupiers reasonable time to contact their legal representatives. I would expect that to happen.
It is a procedural feature of the EC regime that the undertaking which is the subject of the investigation is given by the Commission and therefore that such an opportunity is given. As Sir Leon Brittan said in an answer given to a question about investigations in the European Parliament,
"[The Commission] must … allow the company a reasonable time in which to secure, during the period of the investigation, the services of an in-house legal adviser or a lawyer of its choice".
However, it is well known that the Commission will wait only a limited time for a lawyer to arrive and will do so only if it can be confident that the records of the business remain in the state they were in when the Commission officials arrived, which can happen only if they remain on the premises. There is a certain difficulty about judging the time for lawyers to arrive.
The European Court has recognised the right to legal representation as one of the rights of defence but not that an undertaking is entitled to delay unduly the commencement of an investigation while a company is awaiting its legal adviser. I expect therefore the director general to follow Commission practice in conducting his investigations. Clause 58 of the Bill makes provision for EC jurisprudence generally to be imported into our domestic regime under the Bill and also for the director general to have regard to Commission statements. The right of defence and the statement by Sir Leon Brittan would thus apply by the Clause 58 route. Therefore, I am not sure that we need to have an amendment to the Bill.
It is important, however, not to tie up an investigation in procedural knots. These amendments, by making detailed and explicit provisions rather than relying on the general principles, take that risk. We are bringing over the European application through the words of Sir Leon Brittan. I hope the noble Lord will see that as adequate protection for the reasonable application of

405
advice and legal advice as the investigation gets under way and that he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support the amendment. Although I have listened to the Minister saying that the point will be covered under EU legislation, I think that Clause 27 does not give much help or hope to the person under investigation. The clause is fairly onerous. I think it would be more realistic and reasonable to have the amendment on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will see it that way. I understand what he says about not making the clause too detailed. However, subsection (4)(d) states:
"take copies of, or extracts from, any document which is produced".
Subsection (4)(e) states:
"require any information which is held in a computer and is accessible from the premises".
If the clause is as detailed as that, why cannot we put in the few words suggested in my noble friend's amendment?
Lord Simon of Highbury: Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 are aimed at affording the person who is actually to produce a document or an explanation of it, who is not necessarily the occupier, to be given a similar opportunity to obtain legal advice. We think that would be impractical. An investigation could, of course, involve the production of many documents and explanations. The whole process would therefore become over-complicated. If that is not the intent of Amendments Nos. 114 and 115, I shall reflect very carefully on the points that have been made.
Lord Kingsland: In supporting my noble friend, perhaps I may summarise in this way. Subsection (4)(b)(i) states:
"to produce any document which he considers relates to any matter relevant to the investigation".
The noble Lord will see from the subsection that the discretion that the Minister exercises is entirely subjective. My noble friend and I would be much more relaxed if that phrase could be redrawn as follows:
"to produce any document which he reasonably considers relates to any matter relevant to the investigation".
I say that because, if he or she does not have legal advice about whether a document is or is not relevant, there is nothing an individual can do to resist the demand. As far as I am aware, there is no system of appeal in relation to the issue of relevance. In my submission, there are two choices open to the Minister. He should either introduce the word "reasonably", which makes it clear that the standard is objective, or introduce a delay to allow an individual to obtain legal advice. In other circumstances, the man behind the guichet, if I may use an expression I used during the Second Reading of another Bill, is in total control of the situation.
Lord Simon of Highbury: We dealt earlier with the concept of reasonableness. Perhaps I may reflect on these issues. I am not convinced in my own mind that
406
the reasonableness argument is the right way to tackle this. However, I should like to think carefully about the nature of how legal advice is obtained in the circumstances. The existing European jurisprudence is not satisfactory to the noble Lord and he would like to see this tied a little more clearly to page 14, line 20 of the Bill. I shall think about it in that context.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 119 not moved.]
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Power to enter premises under a warrant]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 14, line 28, leave out ("A justice of the peace") and insert ("The President of the Tribunal").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 121, 131, 132, 143 and 144. All these amendments relate to replacing the application to a justice of the peace with an application either to the president of the tribunal or to a judge of the High Court.
The Minister may or may not be aware that the Opposition have tabled amendments which seek to remove to the High Court the powers of the tribunal to act as a court of appeal. If those amendments are successful, the president of the tribunal will become a High Court judge in any event. Although the amendments have been couched in terms of the president of the tribunal, in the context of the whole Bill it is our view that the tribunal should be a branch of the High Court. In those circumstances, the president of the tribunal would be a High Court judge. Our general point is that, because of the technical nature of these matters, we do not feel that a justice of the peace—I take nothing away from the merits of justices of the peace—is the relevant adjudicator. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I have listened with interest to that legal construct and the point as to why warrants should be issued by High Court judges or by the president, who will have the status of a High Court judge. I am thoroughly of the view that the right to entry using reasonable force is a necessary part of ensuring that the process of investigation goes forward. It is a key element in our strategy. I respond to the views of the Committee, which are very clear, that forcible entry is a serious matter. Therefore, it is important that we set the proper threshold to be reached before the powers are used and ensure that they are authorised in the proper manner.
I see some advantage in the power to issue warrants resting with High Court judges. I prefer that to the alternative we are also offered this afternoon of the president of the tribunal. That is because I do not believe that the function rests easily with the nature of the tribunal arrangements. In the light of the submission by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I am very much minded to consider Amendments Nos. 121, 132 and 144, hut, because of the nature of the organisation, I ask him not

407
to press Amendments Nos. 120, 131 and 143, which concern tribunals and the president's role, while we effectively consider the three positive amendments.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may say to the Minister how much we welcome that indication from him. There is also a different line of reasoning that he might wish to bring to bear on this matter. Of course justices of the peace throughout the United Kingdom are well used to being asked by police officers to sign search warrants, so that aspect is not particularly problematic. As regards Clause 28, one would have to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are on any premises documents whose production has been required under Clauses 26 or 27. The Minister has worked his way through the provisions assiduously. He has gone back to Clauses 26 and 27, which in turn take him back to Clause 25, which in turn takes him back to Clause 18, and that takes him all the way through to Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome. There are plenty of very highly conscientious justices of the peace throughout the country but, if they were taken logically through those provisions and were then asked what is an abuse of a dominant position in the market place, I believe that their willingness to face up to whether or not a warrant should be granted would be very different from their response in cases with which they are very familiar, such as those involving drugs or whatever it might be. I hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration to that. I do not believe that he will be surprised to hear me say that if power is granted to a High Court judge this side of the Border we would expect, indeed demand, comparable treatment north of it.
Lord Kingsland: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 14, line 35, leave out ("it is reasonable to suspect") and insert ("there are reasonable grounds for belief').
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 122, 123, 133 and 134 take us back to "reasonable suspicion" and "reasonable grounds for belief'. On two occasions the Minister has spoken on this issue. Can I take it that his view remains the same as it was at the beginning of today's proceedings? I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has judged my reaction well. My views remain unchanged and therefore it is hardly surprising that I ask whether he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I shall be delighted to withdraw my amendment on the usual terms.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("such force as") and insert ("no more force than").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is almost a banker. I am absolutely convinced that the Minister will happily accede to this amendment. It seeks to change the expression,
"such force as is reasonably necessary for the purpose"
to,
"no more force than is reasonably necessary for the purpose".
I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and I have disagreed on many subjects, on this one I am happy to go along with his amendment and commend it to the Minister.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I find myself in a quandary. When I see these particular battalions raised against me I begin to wonder whether it could be absolutely correct for me to say that I entirely agree with the principle that, on those rare occasions when these powers are used, no one should be authorised to use more force than is necessary. That is the effect of the Bill as drafted. I find it difficult to see that the proposed new wording makes any difference. I would like to hear one more time why it is that the words in the Bill are not adequate for the amount of force that is necessary to go about one's business.
Lord Kingsland: It is a question of tone, really. It is the way in which these things are normally expressed by judges when dealing with the duties of citizens in relation to the exercise of force; namely,
"no more force than is reasonably necessary".
It is not a trick amendment and it does not seek to cut down the officers' authority, but simply to express it in terms which are more attuned to our own constitutional traditions.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I can respond positively in terms of advice on style, culture and mode to the noble Lord opposite. I shall think very hard about this, because if this is the right language to use it would be inappropriate for me, as the common man, to question the difference between the two alternatives. I shall think very carefully about style, culture and the right approach, and we shall discuss this matter again in, I hope, as pleasant circumstances as we have tonight.
Lord Kingsland: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 126 is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 127 through pre-emption.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 15, leave out lines 6 to 9.
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 are couched as alternatives. I believe that the Minister is aware of that. The purpose of these amendments is to limit the power to remove documents. It is in that spirit that they are drawn. Exactly the same is true of Amendments Nos. 128 and 140. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: As Amendments Nos. 127 and 140 stand in my name, perhaps I may speak briefly to them. I feel that there is some inconsistency in the Bill as drafted. There are references to "copies of' or "extracts from" documents. There are other references to the original documents. Original documents should not be taken. A company should be left with its original documentation. Furthermore, there should be consistency in the drafting of the Bill. I therefore hope that the Minister will take serious note of these two amendments.
Lord Simon of Highbury: Amendment No. 126 would mean that an officer who had entered premises under a warrant would be unable to search them. This would undermine the whole purpose of the provision. The power to enter under warrant is for exceptional cases where the production of documents has already been refused, entry has been refused, or it is reasonable to suspect that documents may be destroyed or concealed. We are therefore talking about the very limits of investigation, if I may express it in those terms. Under those circumstances, is it realistic to imagine that documents would then simply be made available? Very rarely. I would suggest. Cartels which have been hiding their existence are unlikely to leave incriminating documents lying around.
Amendment No. 127 would not affect the power of search but would mean that an officer entering under a warrant would not be able to take possession of documents or prevent their destruction. The director's officers would just be able to take copies or extracts. I can understand the concerns of those who believe that the power to take possession of documents goes too far. That is implicit in Amendments Nos. 126 and 127, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that these are powers for use in the exceptional cases in which we know that the rogues have thus far repelled all boarders. It may be that such people are even outright hostile to an investigation.
I cannot accept that it would be right to leave OFT officials in a position where they might be watching documents that would provide evidence of a cartel being shredded and be powerless to do anything about it, or where they might be trying to photocopy documents on the premises while they were being threatened. I see serious problems with restricting the nature of the activity which an investigator can undertake.
As I have said, we have to construe the provisions as applying in extreme circumstances. I believe that we would again be seriously limiting the powers of the investigation if we were to accept Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. Given that we are considering
410
extreme circumstances, I ask the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Ezra, whether they would be prepared to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Ezra: I have taken careful note of what the Minister has said, but there nevertheless appears to be a degree of contradiction in the provisions of subsection (2)(b) and subsection (2)(c). Paragraph (b) refers to the authorisation,
"to take possession of any document"
while paragraph (c) relates to the authorisation,
"to take copies of, or extracts from, any such document".
I should have thought that, if, as the Minister says, paragraph (b) refers to wholly exceptional circumstances, that should be stated on the face of the Bill because, as I read the provisions, I am not exactly clear what we are considering given that paragraph (c) refers to taking,
"copies of, or extracts from, any such document".
That seems to be multiple treatment of the same document.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am not sure that it is multiple treatment; it is simply that we want to cover a number of options. It may be desirable for the officer to take copies if he can and he may well get the original, but the point is that he has to look for whatever evidence he can.
In the exceptional circumstances of a search taking place under a warrant in what could be a hostile situation, I think that it is reasonable that the officer should be able to copy documents which appear to him to be of a kind that may be required rather than him having to rely on the original only. All sorts of things may be happening. The circumstances can be violent. Some cases have been very difficult. What matters is that the officer can get evidence, whatever evidence, while he can. That is why we have provided for the possibility of an officer looking for both types of evidence.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps I may invite the Minister to consider changing the order of the clause so that the normal behaviour of the investigating officer would be to take copies of, or extracts from, documents and that only when it is necessary in some specified (or, what is much more likely in this style of drafting, some unspecified) situation should the officer be able to take the original document. I say that because, if a company is facing an investigation, it would be extremely inconvenient for the company to lose its original documents. Therefore, it should be exceptional that an original document is taken. In withdrawing my amendment, perhaps I may suggest that the Minister considers some way of reordering the construction of that subsection.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am very clear about the point that has just been made. Perhaps I may be allowed to reflect on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 127 to 134 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 15, line 21, leave out ("relating") and insert ("necessary").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to subsection (3) of Clause 28 and to the circumstances in which a justice of the peace,
"is satisfied on information on oath that it is reasonable to suspect that there are also on the premises other documents relating to the investigation".
The amendment seeks to replace the word "relating" with "necessary". I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: We have already had similar amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. As I previously indicated, I consider this limitation would be unduly restrictive of the director's power to require the production of documents. In this instance, the power concerns entering premises under warrant where relevant documents are likely to be destroyed, removed, concealed or tampered with if they were required to be produced. In these circumstances, the warrant may also authorise action to be taken in respect of other relevant documents (that is, other than those thought likely to be destroyed). The investigating officer would have to make a precise on-the-spot judgment that such documents were necessary.
In the aim of general consistency with similar clauses about which we have argued previously, we believe that "relating" allows the person on the spot the right amount of judgment to be able to procure and seize the information that is necessary for the investigation. I have spoken in a similar vein before and it probably does not surprise the noble Lord that I ask him whether he is prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am not in the least surprised by the Minister's response. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 15, line 22, after ("shall") insert ("specify those documents and").
The noble Lord said: I am a touch more optimistic about the Minister's likely response to this amendment because it relates to the next line of subsection (3), which states:
"relating to the investigation concerned, the warrant shall"—
and the amendment seeks to insert the words, "specify those documents and" before,
"also authorise action mentioned in subsection (2)".
I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 137, which I believe to be straightforward. The amendment seeks to remove "document" and insert "documents".
6.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The director may obtain a warrant where he suspects that there are documents on premises that he could require under Clause 26(2) but which he suspects would be tampered with or destroyed if he did require them. He can then exercise the search powers in relation to documents of that kind. Under
412
Clause 28(3) the warrant may also authorise him to search for other documents relating to the investigation concerned. These are relevant documents that he does not suspect would be tampered with or destroyed. Amendment No. 136 would require the warrant to specify what these documents were rather than enable the exercise of the power to search for such documents on the spot.
As I said in relation to a somewhat similar amendment on unannounced entry, investigation of one document may well indicate that other documents may contain evidence relating to the cartel or other anti-competitive behaviour. It is not clear what would happen if the amendment were accepted. Would the investigating officer have to try and exercise the powers in Clause 26 to obtain the documents and, if refused, go back for a further warrant? Is that effective investigation? I think not. I therefore believe it right that the director should be able to obtain, under a warrant, this additional power to search for relevant documents. I do not believe that the power should be restricted, as it would be, by the amendment. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, I observe that in line 21 the Bill specifies "other documents", whereas in line 23 the reference is to "any such document". Should not the two be the same, either singular or plural?
Lord Simon of Highbury: I believe that "any such document" falls within "the documents".
Lord Kingsland: If I correctly understand the response of the noble Lord, he believes that there are many circumstances in which it would be extremely difficult for the investigating officer to identify the documents concerned. But if that officer takes the view that those documents are relevant, how can he not know what they are?
Lord Simon of Highbury: When the officer arrives he may not know the relevance of a particular document. When he is there he understands the relevance of one document and his train of thought may then lead him to other documents. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, this is a document which falls under the generality of "the documents". At any stage he may be surprised by the thought of what document may be relevant to his train of thought during the investigation. This is a dynamic situation which requires flexibility on the part of the investigator.
Lord Kingsland: I look forward to reading the response of the Minister in Hansard tomorrow. I believe that my point stands. In order to have a right to acquire a document the document must satisfy the test of relevance. In order to apply that test the investigating officer must at least know the class of documents which is relevant, if not the individual documents. Surely, there is no objection to that being specified in the warrant.
Lord Simon of Highbury: Since I believe that this debate could continue for some time, particularly the

413
difference between the singular and plural, I now understand the point that is made. I shall think about it carefully. We shall have another opportunity to discuss it.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 15, line 25, at end insertȔ
("(4A) The warrant referred to in subsection (I) shall state the purpose for which the investigation is being made and the penalties for failing to comply with a request by an investigating officer.
(4B) Any person entering the premises by virtue of a warrant under this section shall allow the occupiers reasonable time to contact their legal representatives before exercising any of the powers conferred by subsection (2).
(4C) Any person entering unoccupied premises by virtue of a warrant under this section shall refrain from exercising the powers under section (2) until reasonable opportunity has been given for an officer or senior employee of the company to be present.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 138 seeks to insert a long passage at the end of subsection (4) of Clause 28 at line 25 on page 15. I shall not read it out. The passage specifies what the warrant should contain. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 139, which again is related to the contents of the relevant warrant. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My name is attached to Amendment No. 139. I believe, however, that the point is better covered in the proposed new subsection (4C) of Amendment No. 138 and the wording,
"reasonable opportunity has been given for an officer or senior employee of the company to be present".
I believe that that is preferable to making it an absolute condition. Therefore, I should like to associate myself with the amendment.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for that clarification. I would have found it quite difficult dealing with the two amendments. His intervention is much appreciated. Amendment No. 138 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Lucas and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, puts forward three insertions to Clause 28. The first would require a warrant authorising entry to premises to state the purpose for which the investigation was being made and the penalties for failure to comply. Amendment No. 106 raised a similar point in relation to the authorisation of entry under Clause 27. I indicated then that I would be willing to reflect on the matter, and I am happy to do so as well in relation to warrants under Clause 28.
The second part of Amendment No. l38 deals with the opportunity to contact legal representatives. This was discussed in relation to Clause 27. As I said then, the effect of commission statements, to which the director is to have regard, is that a company would be allowed a reasonable time in which to contact legal
414
representatives provided the delay did not impede the investigation. We therefore do not see a need for amendment to the Bill. However, I said that I would give consideration to the matter when we debated Clause 27.
The third part of Amendment No. 138 deals with entry into unoccupied premises, as does Amendment No. 139 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It seeks to provide an opportunity for a representative of the company to be present before the powers under the warrant are exercised, but it does not preclude the powers being used if such an opportunity has lapsed without being taken up. I can understand the concerns about entry to unoccupied premises. I am not convinced that there needs to be a provision of the kind suggested by the last part of Amendment No. 138. 1 am willing to reflect upon it. I shall give careful consideration to the first two parts of Amendment No. 138 and subsume to a large extent the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland: On that basis, I am delighted to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 15. line 33, after ("for") insert ("no longer than is necessary for the purposes of the investigation and in any event for not longer than").
The noble Lord said: I am tempted to say that the amendment is wholly self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I agree entirely with the principle that documents should be kept no longer than is necessary. Under those circumstances, I am willing to consider this point with a view to returning on Report with an appropriate amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for that reply. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 142 to 144 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 145:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY REGULATOR
(". Where any functions of the Director under sections 25 to 28 are, in accordance with Schedule 10, exercised by a regulator, the regulator shall exercise those functions jointly with the Director.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to a matter which was debated fully on the first day in Committee. I do not wish to oblige the Minister to enter into the fundamentals of that debate. I know that he has given an undertaken to consider carefully the relationship between the director general on the one hand and the regulators on the other. I wish merely to draw his attention to the fact that here is another area

415
where harmonisation will be necessary if he decides not to put one or other in charge of the matter. In those circumstances, I do not expect the Minister to give a long reply. but just to indicate that, together with all the other matters concerning the relationship of the director general and the regulators, he will consider this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The amendment would require the Director General of Fair Trading to be involved whenever a regulator took action under the investigation powers in the Bill, whether to require documents or to enter premises. That is its fundamental point. I recognise and appreciate the spirit with which the noble Lord raised the amendment with me in general terms. No doubt we will return to a fuller discussion about the role of the regulators on another day. As he is aware, I do not believe that a requirement for double banking between the regulators and the director in undertaking investigations would be an efficient or effective way of operating.
However, the amendment as such prompts the question whether the Bill, as drafted, enables a regulator and the Director General of Fair Trading to work together on investigations where both agree that that would be helpful. I am doubtful that it does. It might well provide useful flexibility if it did. I should like to reflect further on that point with the possibility of bringing forward a separate amendment on that on Report. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Privileged communications]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 16. line 11, at end insert—
("(4) In this section "professional legal adviser" includes employed professional legal advisers.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a short but important point given the interplay between the provisions in Clause 29 and Clause 58 which bring into play the jurisprudence of the ECJ. Of course advice given by a lawyer to his client in the UK would normally be privileged. We are concerned that, following a case in the ECJ which I understand is AM and S, where the legal advice was given by a qualified lawyer but one who was employed in-house, the privilege that would ordinarily be extended to a legal adviser and his client has been abandoned, withdrawn or lost. If that is the case, and as the pattern is pretty clear now in some large concerns of having an extensive legal corps working in-house, it would seem desirable that the confidentiality we would otherwise expect to be allowed should be maintained. It is for that reason that we have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: Far be it from me to become involved in a legal argument with such an eminent noble and
416
learned Lord. It is the Government's intention that the director should not be able to require, under his investigation powers, the production of legal advice and other material enjoying legal professional privilege, whether the lawyer concerned is an external lawyer or an "in-house" lawyer. I am therefore in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord as to the approach to be adopted. However, I am advised that this is the effect of the Bill as currently drafted.
We have always been clear that we wished to depart from the narrow definition of privileged communications under EC law, which extends only to advice given by an independent lawyer, which is interpreted as not including in-house lawyers. The fact that the Bill refers to legal professional privilege in High Court proceedings signals that this is an issue on which EC law is not to be applied by the governing principles clause.
The position of 'in-house' lawyers was considered in a case in 1974 in your Lordships' House called Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd versus Customs and Excise Commissioners. Lord Cross said:
"The Court of Appeal held that Mr Justice Forbes was wrong in holding that there was any distinction for the purposes of a claim to legal professional privilege between solicitors in private practice and salaried legal advisers and the appellants did not challenge that view in their appeal to this House".
We consider therefore that the Bill already achieves what the noble and learned Lord wants.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clearly there is nothing between us as to the eventual outcome that we wish to achieve. However, if it is intended to send a signal, it has been a faint one. We are concerned that the broader approach set out in Clause 58 would run contrary to what the noble Lord has said. As our objective is the same, we will look at the matter again. We should not like there to be any risk that such privilege would be lost or withdrawn. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 147:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
COMMISSION INVESTIGATION
(" .The Director shall not instigate any investigation under section 25 where the conduct of the parties in respect of which the Director would otherwise be minded to instigate an investigation is or has been the subject of a Commission investigation as defined in section 59(1).").
The noble Baroness said: This new clause has the support of the British Retail Consortium which is concerned about certain aspects of the Bill as it stands. The prohibitions contained in the Bill reflect Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome. The same course of conduct or agreement may give rise to inquiries by both the European and the UK competition authorities.
The new clause seeks to prevent parallel investigations. Investigations, as the Committee will realise, involve not just parties to an agreement or

417
course of conduct but a considerable number of third parties from whom copious amounts of information may be sought involving those third parties in considerable time and expense in respect of an agreement or course of conduct with which they have no connection.
It is extremely important that all parties to the agreement or course of conduct should not be subject to double investigation or double inquiries. The Bill provides that an agreement which is unobjectionable under European law can also be unobjectionable under United Kingdom law and the EC competition authorities must therefore be given primacy in investigation. The additional clause which I propose would preclude the director investigating a matter that is or has been the subject of a Commission investigation, thus avoiding a double investigation. However, the amendment deals with only one aspect of the problem of overlapping jurisdiction. There must be further consideration of the issues involved in order to ensure that all areas of overlap, in particular the problem of double jeopardy, have been dealt with. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: In responding to the noble Baroness, I cannot over-emphasise that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure as far as possible a consistency with EC approach and thereby to ease burdens for business. Both the director and the European Commission will be applying substantially the same competition tests and following common jurisprudence where applicable. We believe that, in practice, if the Commission is investigating a matter it is unlikely that the director will start his own separate investigation. The Commission will already have the matter in hand; that is the parallel investigation to which my noble friend referred.
Even though the risk of separate investigation is small in practice, we have also considered the case for placing a bar on the director conducting separate investigations into the same matter which the European Commission is investigating or has investigated. We decided that it would not be right to prevent the director from ever exercising his investigatory powers in such a situation.
In deciding whether to provide for such a power, I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that we must be alive to the risk of loopholes which can be abused. For instance, if we were to prevent the director from investigating behaviour which the European Commission had investigated some time before, or with third parties, it would not be possible to take account of market developments. Conduct at the time of the Commission investigation may have proved justifiable, but after several years the market may have transformed and it would therefore be wrong to prevent the director from starting an investigation. Equally, even for cases which are the subject of current or recent investigations, determining what is the behaviour which the Commission is investigating may well be extremely difficult.
The amendment could prevent the director from taking action against conduct which raised UK competition concerns but appeared to be within the scope of a Commission investigation, although it was actually of no interest to the Commission. We should guard against placing such barriers in the way of the
418
director in forcing prohibitions to protect competition in the UK. In view of the likelihood of the amendment creating loopholes, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister began his remarks by saying that the Bill was designed to produce consistency between UK and EC practice and inquiries. He then said that, while inconsistency was unlikely, loopholes could emerge as a result of market changes. Of course that is possible, but as loopholes emerge does not the Minister envisage consultation between the UK and the EC in order to ascertain the EC's intention in respect of what has become a flawed piece of legislation?
We do not want business, third parties or anyone to be involved in what is sometimes distasteful and expensive work which takes time. A great deal of paper is produced only to go through it again. Would it not be better to avoid that situation by ensuring that the supreme body, the EC, is consulted and takes the initiative? If the Director General of Fair Trading updates the UK law as a result of loopholes the EC would have to make changes to its legislation.
I believe that the amendment is sensible. The director general may believe that he is unable to take action because certain possibilities are unlikely to arise. However, surely there is dialogue between the authorities here and in Brussels and there should be a sensible approach. If there is a superior and inferior level, the UK is inferior by comparison to the EC.
I must declare an interest under Part III of the register. I am secretary of the all-party group for retail trade and I hope that my comments have not let it down.
Lord Haskel: I began my remarks by saying that I cannot over-emphasise that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure as far as possible that the burdens on business are eased. By consultation, burdens on business can be eased. Furthermore, consultation can ease the burden on the director. However, there are cases in which there is not sufficient Community interest. The Commission notice on co-operation with national authorities, which was recently published, acknowledged that some cases it has examined are anti-competitive, but it does not wish to pursue them because there is not a sufficient Community interest. The notice goes on to state:
"It goes without saying that in such cases the national authority may take action.
I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord.
Baroness Nicol: I still have one worry. The Minister referred to changes which may take place over time and which may make a further investigation necessary. I appreciate that and I am sure that the intention behind the clause is not to disallow a second investigation which may be necessary after a period of time. However, I hope to avoid a dual investigation, either simultaneously or within a short period of time, which would involve all the parties in a great deal of unnecessary work. Perhaps we might agree a wording

419
which would preclude investigations following too quickly. Perhaps the Minister will look at the matter again.
Lord Haskel: I would have thought that one could leave it to the good sense of the Commission and the director to ensure that work is not duplicated. My noble friend does not wish the work to be duplicated or repeated after too short a period of time. I would have thought that one could leave the matter to the good sense of the director and the Commission. After all, they are applying the same competition tests and neither will want to duplicate the work.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister is saying, following the good sense of my noble friend Lady Nicol, that an internal UK investigation is not likely to follow very quickly after the authorities in Brussels have reached their findings. Businesses and the British authorities need to be assured that they will have an opportunity to digest the significance and practice of the EC change. If we could have that assurance, that would go some way towards ameliorating the aggravation which may occur.
Enormous costs are involved in any survey or investigation. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could repeat that he does not envisage that soon after an EC investigation, there is likely to be a need for a further investigation.
Lord Haskel: I repeat that we think it is unlikely that the director will start his own separate investigation when the Commission already has the matter in hand. I refer to our earlier discussions when the Minister raised the question of reasonableness within the Bill. It is not reasonable to expect people to duplicate that work.
Baroness Nicol: I hate to sound cynical, but I never like to rely on "good sense". However, I should like to think about the reply which we have been given and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Directions in relation to agreements]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 16, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) No direction issued pursuant to section 31(3)(a) shall restrict or inhibit the right of the parties to the agreement so modified from terminating such agreement.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 31 gives the director power to make such directions as the director considers appropriate in bringing an infringement to an end. Clause 31(3) provides that a direction of the director may include provisions requiring the parties to modify their agreement or to terminate it.
Parties to an agreement which is found to infringe the prohibitions may prefer to terminate their arrangement rather than continue in a form which they had not agreed. The amendment makes it clear that the director does not
420
deprive the parties of their right to terminate the agreement rather than modify it if that is their wish. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I can quite see that the parties to an agreement in respect of which the director has issued a direction under this clause may wish to terminate the agreement. Indeed, they may well wish to terminate it at a much earlier stage of the director's intervention.
In our view, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the parties to an agreement from terminating it at any stage. I do not believe that the clause as drafted gives the director the power to require parties to an agreement not to terminate it. They can terminate it at any time they wish. Therefore, my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary because the parties to an agreement already have the right to terminate it whenever they so wish.
Baroness Nicol: Is my noble friend saying that, even if the director has insisted on a modification, that still leaves the parties with a right to terminate the agreement?
Lord Haskel: My understanding is that the parties can terminate it at any stage.
Baroness Nicol: And ignore the modification?
Lord Haskel: Yes.
Baroness Nicol: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Interim Measures]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 17, line 17, leave out ("a reasonable suspicion") and insert ("reasonable grounds for belief").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 take us back to the issue of "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable grounds for belief'. I am not sure that I can repeat with profit what my noble friend Lord Kingsland has already said. However, because, at this time, I decline to elaborate in that way is not to be taken by the Government as an indication that, in the context of interim measures, we depart from our view that a preferable requirement would be that the director should have "reasonable grounds for belief".
I recognise that this has been put forward to deal with a difficult circumstance when the director has not completed his investigation and, under subsection (2), he regards it as important to act as a matter of urgency in order to prevent
"serious, irreparable damage to a particular person or category of person, or
(b) of protecting the public interest".
Therefore, we recognise how that particular provision has come about.
However, I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the powers of direction which he could then give, even at a stage of investigation, are very significant indeed. Those directions could do significant damage or harm to a number of undertakings. In those circumstances, while in no way departing from the earlier urging of my noble friend when saying that "reasonable grounds for belief' is preferred to "reasonable suspicion", it is our view that it is particularly desirable that the higher test should be included within the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I am delighted to know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, appreciates the need for interim measures, because there have been extremely serious cases in the past when it has not been found possible to complete an investigation. I use as an example the predatory pricing on the part of one bus company against another. By the time the investigation had been completed and any final measures were available to the authorities, the bus company complainant had gone into liquidation and been wiped out by the anti-competitive practice being engaged in. The lack of interim measures has been significant.
I turn to the specific point of the amendment. Because the investigation has not been completed, it may well be that there is a case for interim measures, although there is not yet a reasonable belief that a Chapter I or II prohibition has been breached because it requires the further completion of the investigation to tell one that. It would be a great pity if those new and invaluable interim measure powers were to be hobbled by requiring "reasonable grounds for belief" as distinct from "a reasonable suspicion" at a time when the investigation has not been completed. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not give way to this amendment.
Lord Haskel: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie for that intervention. I remember on Second Reading he reminded us of the past harmful anti-competitive behaviour which had been permitted to continue unchecked for long periods. This provision forms an important part of our plank in our reform of current UK competition law because the current system is certainly failing to tackle anti-competitive behaviour quickly before serious damage has been inflicted.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 149 and 150. It is right that the power to impose interim measures should be exercisable only once an adequate threshold has been passed. Clause 34(1), requiring the director to have a reasonable suspicion that the prohibition has been infringed, is an appropriate threshold for starting the process for the imposition of interim measures. It is merely a preliminary threshold and must be judged in that light. Once that threshold has been crossed, the director must then go on to satisfy further conditions before being able to impose interim measures. Those other thresholds are set out in subsection (2) of the clause and are the subject of other amendments which I am sure we shall go on to discuss.
However, we have also discussed today, in the context of the investigation powers, the significantly higher threshold which this test of "reasonable grounds for believing" would set for the director. We believe that
422
this is not appropriate where it provides simply the initial hurdle which must be cleared before the director can proceed to examine whether the further conditions for the exercise of the power are satisfied. I hope, therefore, that that explanation will satisfy the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I regret it, but I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord. However, I shall not alarm him and pursue my disappointment to a Division on the matter. I should like to make it clear that we regard the issue most seriously. Despite the noble Lord's response and the support from his noble friend Lord Borrie, I am still concerned that such powers are pretty extensive and could be imposed right from the very beginning. It seems to me that there is something slightly alarming about the situation if the director is allowed to resort to interim measures at the very time he starts his investigation. It is exactly the same test. All that is required of him is to have reasonable suspicion about the matter. It follows, therefore, that he could apply those powers from the word go. As I said, I shall not press the matter tonight, but it is certainly something to which we shall return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 17, line 26, leave out ("protecting") and insert ("preventing serious and irreparable damage to").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a fairly simple amendment, and I should point out to the Committee that I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 152 to 154. The Minister will see that we have in fact adopted his own wording for the second category in the subsection. Paragraph (b) talks of, "protecting the public interest". We propose a shift in the language to reflect that which is to be found in paragraph (a). That would seem to us to be more desirable and we would like to hear what the Minister has to say in that respect.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 152, I believe that we have already made some progress as regards the relationship with the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland. Therefore, I have nothing further to say about that amendment at this stage. The only other amendment in the group upon which we would like to hear some comment from the Minister is Amendment No. 154. In that amendment we suggest that it would be appropriate, given the nature of these interim measures—and bearing in mind the reasons that I have already outlined—for the provision to be restricted to a maximum period of three months. I beg to move.
7.15.p.m
Lord Haskel: We share the noble and learned Lord's concerns that the power to impose interim measures should be subject to adequate safeguards. We have therefore made this power subject to a number of important checks and balances. It is only exercisable if certain requirements set out in the Bill are met. First, as

423
we have just discussed, the director must have a "reasonable suspicion" that the prohibition has been infringed.
Secondly, one of the alternative conditions for acting is that the director must consider that it is,
"necessary as a matter of urgency",
for the purpose of protecting the public interest. Therefore, not every damage to the public interest will be a sufficient reason to act. It must also be,
"necessary as a matter of urgency".
That is a significant hurdle for the director to satisfy.
Amendment No. 151 would introduce the additional limitation of forcing the director to show the prospect of serious and irreparable damage to the public interest. I do not believe that this is the appropriate criterion where harm to the public interest is at stake. For example, where there is the prospect of harm to large parts of the economy, we must carefully consider the balance to be struck between the damage to the economy and the firm which is to be subject to the interim measure. In such a case, I believe that the interests of the individual firm are already adequately protected by the significant hurdle of the director showing that,
"it is necessary for him to act … as a matter of urgency".
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that the interests of firms subject to interim measures must be protected by effective safeguards. We have done this and have done so by providing that a decision to impose interim measures will be appealable to a tribunal of the competition commission. We have also provided that the tribunal rules may make provision for a tribunal to suspend the effect of an interim measure imposed by the director before taking a final decision on whether the interim measure should be upheld. This is contained in paragraph 13 of Schedule 8. Given those safeguards, I believe it right that the power to impose directions should remain with the director subject to the safeguard of an appeal to a tribunal.
I move on now to Amendment No. 154. We too have been alive to the concerns expressed that an interim measures order should not remain in place for an undue period of time. However, the three-month time limit proposed by the noble and learned Lord in which to reach a final decision may in certain cases not be sufficient where complex and detailed analysis of the economic and legal issues for the final decision is required. Nevertheless, as we said during the first Committee day, we expect to bring into force, when the system has bedded down, the provision in Schedules 5 and 6 enabling application to the court to ensure there is no undue delay in determining applications for decisions. Behaviour subject to interim measures can of course be notified to take advantage of this procedure.
424
In view of all those hurdles to be overcome—and, indeed, all the procedures which I believe protect companies—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel satisfied and therefore will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I cannot say that I am particularly persuaded by the argument that adopting the language of the proposed legislation itself—namely,
"preventing serious, irreparable damage to a particular person",
is inappropriate. For me, it is precisely the language suggested by the Government. I guess that it is a requirement on the draftsman for some elegant variation rather than any real need to introduce a separate test. However, we may yet reconsider the matter at a later stage.
We believe that it would be useful to have a maximum period built into the provision. The powers are very extensive and the measures that might be taken against a company could seriously cripple that company's business if the director, however well intentioned, was simply wrong. Indeed, the degree of damage might be such that the undertaking would never recover. That is why we thought it would be useful to have a focusing of the mind and, therefore, the requirement that there should be a maximum period. With those further observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 152 to 154 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 17, line 39, leave out ("section 31(3) also applies") and insert ("sections 31(3) and 33 also apply").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 156. The amendments correct an obvious omission from the Bill. Clause 33 provides that if a person has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with directions given by the director to bring to an end an infringement of either prohibition, the director may apply to the court for an order. The amendments apply the same procedures where a person has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with a direction imposing interim measures; that is, when he suspects that the prohibitions have been infringed and he gives directions as a matter of urgency and subject to the safeguards in this clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 17, line 41, leave out ("section 32(3) also applies") and insert ("sections 32(3) and 33 also apply").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Penalty for infringing Chapter 1 or Chapter II prohibition]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 18, line 19, after ("undertaking") insert ("in the United Kingdom in the relevant goods or services").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an important amendment but I have some optimism that either I shall be told it is an acceptable amendment, or at the very least I shall be given the reassurance once again that we are seeking to achieve the same end and what I wish to introduce is unnecessary. Clause 35 deals with the penalties that might be imposed in the event of an infringement of either a Chapter I or Chapter II prohibition. Clause 35(7) states,
"No penalty fixed by the Director under this section may exceed 10% of the turnover of the undertaking (determined in accordance with such provisions as may he specified in an order made by the Secretary of State)".
It may be the intention of the Government to introduce just the restriction that we wish to see on the face of the Bill. I am not at the moment absolutely certain that it is necessary to put this on the face of the Bill, but it would be extremely helpful if the noble Lord could give some indication exactly what is proposed, or what plans they have to introduce an order along the lines of that set out in the provision in brackets in the clause. If the noble Lord is not already aware of this I must tell him that in the business community there is a real worry that if a large undertaking with activities not only elsewhere in the European Union but at any point around the world, had imposed on it a 10 per cent. penalty on its worldwide or European turnover, that would be grossly excessive. For that reason we should like to see the penalty restricted, if not on the face of the Bill, then in an unequivocal undertaking from the Minister that that is the intention of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: I associate these Benches with this amendment. The provision seems to be rather loosely drafted. As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, it could imply quite draconian punishments on companies. The clarification sought in this amendment would be appreciated by a large number of companies or, let us say, by a small number of companies but very worried ones.
Lord Haskel: I accept that this clause is quite draconian. However, I remind the Committee that this Bill is also intended to be a deterrent. The Government have already said that it is our intention that the turnover to be determined under Clause 35 should be UK turnover. I am happy to confirm that. As for confining the turnover to turnover in the relevant goods or services, I am not persuaded that it should be so confined. It has been suggested that otherwise the provision would discriminate against large companies. Is it not the case that the amendment might discriminate in favour of a large company as opposed to a small one? However, these are in any case not matters for the moment. How turnover is to be defined will be decided at a later date, after careful consideration and discussion with interested parties.
However, I wholly accept that the provisions we draw up will be of considerable importance as they will determine just how heavy a potential burden 10 per cent. of turnover is on an undertaking. That is why Clause 67 provides that an order under this subsection of Clause 35 may not be made unless a draft has been laid before
426
Parliament and approved by a resolution of each Chamber. This matter will come before the Chamber when the draft has been prepared. In the light of those remarks, and especially the fact that Parliament will have to approve our proposed provisions on the definition of turnover, I hope that will satisfy the noble and learned Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I suppose that in these post-Pepper days I have obtained more than enough from him when he indicates that it is the clear intention of the Government to restrict the turnover to United Kingdom turnover rather than to European or worldwide turnover. He may have a point regarding how we attempted to restrict turnover in terms of the amendment, but our primary purpose was to establish that the Government were referring to the United Kingdom. I am sure that British industry will be hugely relieved to hear that. I have no doubt it would still like to bring the figure down from 10 per cent. However, 10 per cent. of UK turnover is clearly far less of a risk than 10 per cent. of worldwide turnover. It is not difficult to think of some companies in which 10 per cent. of worldwide turnover would exceed their United Kingdom turnover. In their case a massive penalty could be imposed on them. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [The appropriate level of a penalty]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 18, line 33, at beginning insert ("Before fixing any penalty under this Part").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am not sure why Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 are not grouped. As far as we are concerned, this is a small, simple point. I shall speak to both the amendments together.
We are anxious to ensure that guidance is drawn up in consultation with industry and is put in place before any prohibitions come into force. That would seem to me to be a reasonable enough request. I very much hope that the noble Lord can reassure us that that is exactly what the Government want to do. I hope that he can be brief. I remember many long hours when I was asked to put guidance provisions on the face of Bills. I am not in a mood at the moment to threaten the noble Lord, but at later stages of the Bill we may have fairly extended discussions about guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 158 and 159. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the director should not be able to impose any penalty under the prohibitions until the guidance has been prepared and published. We consider that this requirement is implicit from the fact that the clause imposes on the director a duty to prepare and publish guidance and to have regard to the guidance for the time being in force under Clause 37 when setting the amount

427
of any penalty. If the director were to set a penalty before preparing and publishing guidance we consider he would be failing to comply with the duties imposed under this clause.
On Amendment No. 159, it would be natural for the director to wish to consult relevant persons when preparing the guidance on the appropriate amount of penalty. As we said during Second Reading, the director is planning to undertake a thorough and extensive consultation with practitioners and other interested parties in the preparation of the general guidelines to be issued pursuant to Clause 50. Likewise, the director intends to consult relevant persons when preparing the guidance on the appropriate amount of penalty.
I accept that the Bill does not provide expressly for such consultation and I shall reflect in the period between now and Report on whether an explicit obligation on the director to consult should appear on the face of the Bill. That should cut short all our discussions. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I did not mean to threaten the noble Lord in any way. However, I am extremely grateful to him for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) Order 1997
7.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before the House today seeks approval for an order made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to prohibit fishing for all species of fish and shellfish in a designated area in the North Sea outwith the Moray Firth.
The decision to make the order was based on the results of analysis carried out by our scientists at the marine laboratory in Aberdeen. These test results confirmed the presence of petrogenic taint and oil contamination in samples of nephrops taken from within the designated area. The shellfish samples were taken from that area in mid-September following a spill of
428
crude oil in late August in the Texaco Captain oilfield. The purpose of the order was to prevent contaminated fish from reaching the market.
Oil from the Captain field is held in a floating production, storage and offloading facility (FPSO) and then transhipped by dedicated shuttle tanker. The incident which led to the making of the order we are debating today stems from the collision of the shuttle tanker with the FPSO. Although there was damage to both vessels no oil was spilled. The incident required a shut-down for two weeks to allow essential repairs. During that period Texaco carried out a maintenance programme on the FPSO. Production resumed just before midnight on 24th August. Only at daybreak, however, was it discovered that oil was being discharged into the sea.
Approved dispersants were used almost immediately from the stand-by vessel as the slick moved slowly westwards and later in the day from specialist aircraft chartered by the marine pollution control unit. Texaco reported that a slick of only seven tonnes remained on the surface of the sea at dusk on 25th August.
The company's initial estimate of the spill was 150 tonnes. However, this was revised downwards successively to 100 tonnes. Normally, this size of oil-spill would not trigger post-spill monitoring. Recent experience from a number of spills shows that dispersant use will disperse oil into the top few metres of the water column. Sampling experience, backed up by research undertaken by the marine pollution control unit, confirms that the deeper one goes, the less the concentration of oil in water becomes. Therefore the long-term effects on the underlying sediment and the marine life that it supports should be minimal.
The spill, however, had been greater than initially estimated, and on 3rd September Texaco announced in a press release that it was 685 tonnes and that the company was commissioning post-spill monitoring programmes of seabed sediment and fish and shellfish. Texaco arranged for the sampling of sediment from a number of points across the whole area affected by the spill. The sediment samples were sent to an independent laboratory for analysis. In addition, three trawls of roundfish and shellfish samples were also taken from different locations under the suspected area of impact of the spilt oil. The fish and shellfish samples were sent to the marine laboratory for analysis.
The results from the sediment analysis found elevated hydrocarbon levels of sediment up to five times the background levels which occur naturally.
Analysis of the fish samples involves a two-stage process. First, a trained panel of individuals taste batches to detect taint. Thereafter, gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy chemical analysis is carried out to establish the level of contamination for comparison with reference levels which occur naturally. Such analysis detected taint in shellfish from one trawl; and three of four aggregate samples of shellfish from this trawl were subsequently found to be contaminated with hydrocarbons of petrogenic origin. The tainted sample was found to be the most contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) levels 45 times higher than a reference sample.

429
Your Lordships will appreciate that the whole process is time-consuming as it is important to base results on the most rigorous analysis possible. The shellfish samples were the first to be analysed, those being the most likely to have been adversely affected. Roundfish such as cod or haddock would have swum out of the area.
It is on the basis of these results that the order was brought into force on Tuesday, 21st October. With advice from our scientists, the exclusion zone was set up to cover the whole area affected by the spill and the wide range of species normally fished within that area. This action was taken to avoid unnecessary risks even though contaminated shellfish had come from just one zone within that area.
The scientific and medical advice indicates that the consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will not have posed any significant risks to human health. It is unlikely that an individual would have consumed large quantities of any species from the affected area before the ban was introduced. Nevertheless, high contamination levels from samples meant that the safest course of action was to eliminate any doubt by imposing a total fishing ban. This course of action is consistent with measures to reduce the exposure of the public to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, some of which are known to be carcinogenic.
In setting up these arrangements we were well aware of the impact they would have on the fishing industry. However, public health must come first and this is recognised and accepted by the fishermen. They are well aware of the potentially damaging effect on the reputation of fish landed in Scotland if the action taken in the face of evidence of contamination and potential adverse effects on public health was not seen to be appropriate. Public confidence has to be maintained in the wholesomeness and safety of fish sold. Any threat to that would spell long-term difficulties for the industry.
During the debate on the emergency order on 5th November in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, explained that there was a possibility that the oil spilled in late August was the likely source of the problem, although it was unlikely ever to be proved absolutely. Indeed, further test results, which have since become available, indicate that the oil contamination does not contain the identifying markers which relate to Captain crude oil and probably results from previous industrial activity, tanker discharge or river run-off. Irrespective of the origin of the oil, however, the order will remain for as long as the scientific evidence shows that fish are contaminated.
Our scientists have in fact now advised that roundfish taken from within the exclusion zone have been tested and are not contaminated and that they are free from taint. I am pleased to say that on the basis of that advice and the recent test results, restrictions were lifted on Friday 14th November for all species of roundfish such as haddock and cod. That action was effected by the making of a partial revocation order under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
430
Restrictions must remain in place for flatfish and shellfish until results of analysis show that these species are unaffected or are no longer affected. Where that is the case the ban will be lifted progressively for those other species when test results, scientific and medical advice indicate that it is safe to do so.
We are, of course, continuing to monitor the position closely and further sampling has been instigated. When the order was made, a second batch of fish, shellfish and sediment samples were taken for analysis from within and outwith the exclusion zone for the purpose of comparison. The test results from that second round of sampling will be available at the end of November. More samples will be collected later this week and results from this latest batch are expected at the end of the year. The outcome of results from these further sampling programmes will determine whether additional monitoring will be required.
I must emphasise that our aim in making the order is to protect public health. I can assure the House that the ban will be lifted as soon as the evidence warrants it. I beg to move.
Moved, that the order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. I have no problem with the principle involved, although, as the Minister might agree, one or two odd and interesting questions arise from what he has just said. As I am sure the Minister appreciates, the order relates to quite a large area: 756 square kilometres. I am not entirely sure what that means in square miles. Perhaps the Minister will tell me when he replies.
The most intriguing point is that I had understood—and clearly the department had understood—at the beginning that the pollution found in the nephrops population on the sea-bed was the result of a Texaco oil spill. If I heard the Minister correctly, there are now considerable scientific doubts about that, since what scientists refer to as the markers did not lead back to the Texaco spill. That is the most worrying aspect of what the Minister told the House. When I read the order and received some background briefing from the fishing industry, it was my understanding that Texaco accepted that there had been an oil spill—although it seemed rather odd that the company kept going up and down the scale as to the size of the spill. On further analysis we then discover that the contamination does not appear to have resulted from that oil spill. It concerns me that the problem may be a good deal wider than the area that is excluded. I have no doubt that scientists are working on the source of the contamination.
I was pleased to hear that the restrictions on roundfish had been lifted. As the Minister rightly said and as I understood, no tainting was found in the roundfish samples taken in the area. As the Minister will know, the roundfish fishery in that area is not hugely important. The area is important as a nephrops fishery.

431
Unfortunately, it so happens that it is important at about this time of year. Therefore, the restrictions impact greatly on nephrops fishing in the outer Moray Firth.
I wonder whether the Minister can help the fishermen and the Texaco Oil Company to come to a conclusion in regard to compensation. I imagine that Texaco is now saying, "If the markers in the samples that you have taken do not actually lead back to our oil spill, it is not us you should be talking to about compensation". That is a development that has taken place since I talked with representatives of the fishing industry at the end of last week when they were reasonably content that Texaco was taking seriously the matter of compensation. I can see that the Minister's remarks will change that.
I had intended to ask about continuing monitoring. However, the Minister stated that the results from the most recent monitoring are expected shortly, and that this week some additional monitoring will go on. I have no problem at all with that. The situation requires a considerable amount of monitoring. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that the scientists will look very carefully at just exactly what they have found in the nephrops population.
We know from the "Braer" incident that it took some time before the effects of the oil began to diminish. I believe that there are some exclusion areas off the south of Shetland where fishing for shellfish is still not allowed. With that in the background, one is slightly worried about this area of the Moray Firth since it is significant for nephrops fishing.
I am not sure whether this is appropriate; however, I believe that the House will not mind my saying that during the "Braer" incident I was involved as chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. We were all very impressed by the manner in which Mr. Malcolm Green, then chief executive of Shetland Islands Council, tackled the matter. All will be sad to hear of his very early death, as reported in the newspapers today. The "Braer" incident underlines the long life of oil pollution, especially in relation to shellfish. It does not seem as important for roundfish since, as the Minister said, they can swim out of the area. Shellfish do not have that ability to nearly the same extent and the effect of pollution on them can be considerable.
As the Minister will know, the nephrops fishery round the whole coast of Scotland is particularly important, especially for all the small communities where boats go out for just a day or two. I hope that this incident will be viewed very seriously, especially if it turns out that the pollution comes from sources other than the Texaco oil spill, because that could have consequences for others.
I am reassured by the Minister's remarks that the monitoring will be on a fairly continuous basis and that the nephrops fishery ban will be lifted as soon as it is safe to do so. I can certainly have no argument with that.
Lord Sewel: I thank the noble Lord for a measured and constructive contribution to the debate. I associate myself and these Benches with his remarks about the late chief executive of Shetland Islands Council, Mr. Malcolm Green.
432
I believe we both recognise that it is perplexing that the spill triggered the investigation, only for the results of the investigation to indicate that the contamination was not caused by the oil that was spilt but by some other factor. Clearly, the most careful examination is required, if at all possible to identify the source of that contamination. I understand that because it lacks the North Sea markers, and particularly the Captain crude markers, it is likely to have been of Middle East origin; however, that is only a likelihood at present. Whether it is the result of some earlier flushing of tanks, I am not in a position to say. The noble Lord is right to draw our attention specifically to that issue and to the fact that we need to resolve it.
I can rise to the noble Lord's challenge. The figure is 440 square miles.
The noble Lord also mentioned compensation. As he well knows, our approach is based on the principle that the polluter pays and it is traced back to the polluter. Until recently, Texaco was standing in that position. There will now have to be an attempt to identify the source of the oil that is causing the contamination. I suspect that it will be a difficult job. Nevertheless, our scientists will attempt to identify the source and make the information available.
The noble Lord asked what had been found in the nephrops population and the status of the contamination there. I can assure him that full results will be published, following tests from the three samples. It is a perplexing case, as I recognise. The Government have had to act on the basis of the precautionary principle to ensure that public health is safeguarded. I hope that that is recognised. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.51 to 8.30 p.m.]

Competition Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 37 [The appropriate level of a penalty]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 19, line 1, leave out ("a tribunal or the court") and insert ("an appeal tribunal or the appropriate court").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 160, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 161 and 162.
Amendments Nos. 160 to 162 are required following a change made in response to the consultation process that appeals on points of law and level of penalty should go directly from the appeal tribunal of the competition commission to the Court of Appeal.
Under the general definition of the term "court" in Clause 57, the court referred to in Clause 37 is the High Court which will not have any role in appeals on the level of penalty. The amendments also make clear that it

433
is only appeal tribunals of the competition commission, rather than tribunals in general, which will be involved in appeals on the level of penalty. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 19, line 6, leave out ("a tribunal or court") and insert ("an appeal tribunal or the appropriate court").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 19, line 8, at end insert—
("(9) In subsections (7) and (8) "the appropriate court" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Court of Appeal;

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session;

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Limited immunity for small agreements]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 19, line 16, at end insert ("but not less than £50 million in respect of Part I and not less that £100 million in respect of Part II").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 163, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 166. Both amendments deal with the same point; that is, the level of turnover at which these clauses kick in. It is particularly important that it should be set at a substantial and significant level.
The Bill is drawn, quite rightly, in a way which allows it to operate flexibly against all sorts of possible breaches of the intention of the legislation. But that generates, in the minds of people who may be subject to it—particularly companies—a degree of uncertainty as to whether or not they are caught by it.
It is unreasonable that small companies which do not have the administrative structure to deal with this sort of problem should be caught by this legislation. After all, the likelihood of their being involved in serious ill to their fellow man along the lines of competition misbehaviour is extremely unlikely.
The figures in the amendment are of no particular significance. They were inserted because I did not know what definition of "turnover" the Government had in mind. If they are thinking of turnover within the UK, possibly the figures may be too high; if they are thinking of global turnover, then they are not. I beg to move,
Lord Haskel: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raises an important point.
Before dealing specifically with the amendments, the Committee may find it helpful for me to point out that both Clause 38 and Clause 39 provide that the criteria for defining "small agreements" and "conduct of minor significance"—and hence of determining to which small and medium enterprises the limited immunity from penalties is to apply—may, in particular, include turnover and market share. A market share limit might be more appropriate for targeting regulatory resources to where there is most competition concern.
434
Such an approach is not without merit, hut it does not deal effectively with the concern voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the burden on small and medium enterprises. Moreover, the definition of a market, and hence calculation of market share. may give rise to uncertainty and therefore may provide less comfort to business than a straight turnover test.
The Committee will be interested to know that the Government's preliminary conclusion, subject to consultation at the time on the detail of the secondary legislation, is that it would be appropriate to set the limits in both Clauses 38 and 39 by reference to turnover. I can also confirm, as has already been made clear, that our intention is that the turnover should relate to the UK only. However, we thought it wise to draft the Bill to allow a market share limit as an alternative or in addition to a turnover limit or indeed any other criteria, and to enable turnover to be defined by secondary legislation.
Amendments Nos. 163 and 166 raise two issues. First, whether the Bill should itself specify minimum figures for defining turnover, or whether the figures should be left entirely to secondary legislation; secondly, what figures should be set. On the first issue there is of course the point that whatever monetary figure we might prescribe on the face of the Bill would be overtaken by events in the real world. But I would not wish to rest my case solely on pointing out the possibility of price inflation.
More fundamentally, we will need to see how this new competition regime works in practice. It may be that whatever figures are prescribed in secondary legislation will need to be adjusted as lessons are learnt and as the new regime beds down. What the Bill needs to provide is a flexible system for enabling the Government to deal with developments, rather than imposing limits on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless—to come on to the second issue raised by the noble Lord—I recognise that the Committee is entitled to know what the Government's present thinking is on those figures.
When Members opposite were in government they suggested in their 1989 White Paper, which proposed a prohibition based on Article 85, a de minimis level of a mere £5 million. Later they issued a consultation document which sought views on a figure of £20 million. The Government's compliance cost assessment for this Bill was based on the assumption that the figure in respect of both agreements and conduct would be £20 million.
We are of course sensitive to the concerns expressed both inside and outside your Lordships' Chamber. The Government have listened and our present view is that the figure for small agreements and conduct of minor significance should be turnover between £20 million and £50 million. In the case of agreements, the turnover is of course the combined turnover of the parties.
I am not able to give Members of the Committee a more precise figure now, not least because we will need to take a judgment nearer the time and will of course wish to consult on the detailed provisions with interested parties. I recognise that even the upper limit I announced is significantly lower than the figures the noble Lord

435
proposed, especially as regards conduct, though he indicated that we should not attach too much significance to his figures. Nevertheless, the Government have listened to the concerns that have been raised. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to consider my words and not press his amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that eloquent and wholly satisfactory explanation. I shall be withdrawing my amendment. However, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would favour me with one further piece of information. Let us suppose that we are looking at an agreement that might come within the small agreement category and that the two parties to that agreement are of a totally disproportionate size. One might have a small manufacturer with a new product who is selling it to Sainsbury only, because Sainsbury has offered him a particular promotion, or one might have a sweet shop which is buying its chocolates from Cadbury. Is there any way in which such essentially small agreements can be exempted under the clause, or are they caught just because one party to them is big? Does it mean that the small company which is also party to them will have to tread as carefully as a big company would have to tread in the same circumstances?
Lord Haskel: Both parties would have to tread carefully. But it all depends on the nature of the agreement. It depends on whether the small company or the large company is contravening the conditions of the Bill.
Lord Lucas: I understand what the noble Lord says. However, one may have a new product and one may be the market in that product. I imagine that Mr. Dyson, when he started up with his vacuum cleaners, was the market for such vacuum cleaners. I would be concerned if he had to employ two or three lawyers, because he was the market, to deal with the problems under the Bill.
Lord Haskel: I do not think he would, because it is no crime to be dominant. The crime is to exploit that dominance. If Mr. Dyson exploited his dominance, he would be in danger. However, simply having a dominant product is not a crime.
Lord Lucas: I shall not extend this discussion. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 19, line 20, leave out from ("35(1)") to end of line 35.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 167. The amendments are closely related. Amendment No. 164 deals with Chapter I prohibitions and Amendment No. 167 deals with Chapter II prohibitions. The point
436
of reference for these amendments is Clause 35, which is entitled Penalty for infringing Chapter I or Chapter II prohibition.
Small businesses are caught by the prohibitions but they are granted immunities in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are set out in Clauses 38 and 39. Having granted these immunities, the Government seek in certain circumstances to claw them back. Those circumstances, in respect of Chapter I prohibitions, are set out in Clause 38(3) to (8), and, in respect of Chapter II prohibitions, are set out in Clause 39(3) to (8). These two amendments seek to strike out the circumstances in which the Government can cancel immunity. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: The short answer to the noble Lord's amendment is that we do not want small businesses to learn bad habits. I do not believe it is right that small businesses should never be capable of having penalties imposed on them other than in the case of price-fixing agreements, which this amendment seems to imply. If the noble Lord's amendments were accepted, there would remain the possibility of the prohibitions being enforced by a decision of the director and directions under Clauses 31 and 32. There would also be the possibility of third party actions.
In the nature of things, though, ordinary consumers and small companies, who will commonly be the victims of anti-competitive agreements and abuses by small and medium-sized enterprises, are less likely and less able to pursue their rights through the courts than would a big business. But a major element of the new regime that we are proposing, and what was rather lacking from the regime that it will replace, is deterrence. If there is little or no possibility of a business being penalised for infringing the prohibitions, it will have no incentive to avoid doing so at that time or thereafter.
That is not to say that there should not be some immunity from penalty for small businesses. These clauses show that the Government accept that there should and the protection they provide is extensive. The director must give written notice of his intention to withdraw immunity from penalty. The removal of immunity cannot be backdated to before the director took his decision. In determining the withdrawal date, the director must have regard to the time required to be able to bring the infringement to an end. Thus, any reasonable business would have every opportunity to avoid the imposition of a penalty. I would therefore think it not at all likely that many businesses protected by these clauses would be subject to penalties. We also need to guard against what I might call serial infringers. If there were no risk of penalty, a business would have little incentive not to engage in repeated small infringements.

437
In the light of what I have said and the recognition that all sides have shown for the need for the system to deter—I know I have the noble Lord's agreement on that—I wonder whether he is able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his response but I wish to point out to him that there is already a substantial deterrent in place. Small businesses are not immune to the effect of the prohibitions themselves. Because they are still subject to the prohibitions, they can be subject to third party actions. Therefore, the deterrence is in the fact that the third party can bring an action against them.
We think the immunity should be unqualified both because the costs of compliance by small businesses are very great—they do not have the resources which large businesses have to ensure that they are complying with every crossed "t" and dotted "i" of the competition regime—and, equally, because monitoring the agreements is likely to absorb, since small businesses are numerous, a disproportionate amount of the time of the Director General of Fair Trading. For those reasons I believe that a fair balance is already achieved between deterrence on the one hand, and a light touch for the regime on the other.
Lord Haskel: I am not quite sure what point the noble Lord is making. Is he saying that there is already sufficient deterrence and that the regime is therefore unimportant? He appears to be ignoring the other points I was making about serial infringements, the fact that there is protection for small and medium-sized companies and the fact that the director has to give written notice if he intends to withdraw immunities. It seems to me that most businesses have every opportunity to avoid the imposition of a penalty. Indeed, being small businesses, most of them would not have to make a large effort to ensure that they did not fall within the prohibitions of the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: I do not want to prolong the discussion on these amendments too much. I say to the Minister that the deterrent is provided by the fact that these small businesses are subject to the prohibitions and is considerably greater than he might think. Who is most likely to identify anti-competitive behaviour by small businesses? It will be their competitors. They are in a strong position to bring third party actions against companies that contravene Chapters I and II of this Bill. I emphasise to the Minister that there is a very good built-in system of deterrence already in existence. There is no need to add the great panoply of bureaucratic interference which will necessarily flow from these small businesses also being subject to the penalties.
Lord Borrie: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, exaggerates the deterrent aspect of third party actions. In my experience in the limited area under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act third party actions have been possible in the past. But small businesses have been extremely reluctant to take action themselves because of the expense. With some reason they have thought that the public office, namely the Office of Fair Trading, set up especially to enforce the law should take action at public expense. That is the real deterrent.
438
When one talks about small businesses one should not assume that they are all good boys. We are all in favour of small businesses and their continued success. But we also know of cases—not just the bus companies that I mentioned earlier today but also estate agencies—where firms have been known time and again to engage in malpractice. I do not mean to damn all estate agencies and bus companies, but I do not believe that it is right to say that third party actions are a sufficient deterrent in all cases.
Lord Kingsland: I do not know whether the Minister is going to respond further to what I said. I suspect that the argument has been pretty fully aired. In the circumstances I express my regret that the Minister has not responded more positively to my suggestions, and I shall bear that in mind when considering what amendments to table at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 165:
Page l9, line 40, at end insert ("(but shall not prejudice a supplier's right to prohibit loss leading)").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly straightforward amendment. It seeks to add to the end of Clause 38(9) the expression,
"but shall not prejudice a supplier's right to prohibit loss leading".
I believe that the context will be clear to the Minister. The subsection deals with price-fixing agreements. The intention of the amendment is to make it clear that a supplier's right to prohibit loss leading shall not be included in that category. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I would like to make clear at the start that the Bill is not intended to introduce any general rule prohibiting all restrictions on loss leading. We had this debate on the first day in Committee when we discussed the newspaper industry. Restrictions by a supplier on loss leading may or may not be prohibited, depending on their effects on competition.
All we provide in Clause 38 is that the special immunity from penalties is not available where the agreement has the object or effect of restricting the freedom of one party to determine prices. This is an important safeguard. Such agreements have the potential to create the most serious anti-competitive effects.
If an agreement does not qualify for the special immunity under Clause 38, it does not follow that it will be prohibited. A restriction on loss leading might not fall within the prohibition in the first place, and if it did it might qualify for exemption. The director can assess the effects of the restriction in the individual circumstances. The director will have to decide whether the price of a product is a loss leader or the supplier is satisfied with low margins. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister very much indeed for his reflective answer to my amendment. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Limited immunity in relation to the Chapter II prohibition]:
[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Agreements notified to the Commission]:
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("does not prevent") and insert ("prevents").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Ezra, and at his request, I move this amendment. I know that it is a matter of some concern to him and he very much regrets that he is unable to be here to move it. It is a small but decisive amendment. It relates to his concern, which I share, about the overlapping nature of the jurisdiction of UK regulators and EC regulators.
Running through some of the ministerial responses and the contributions of their Back-Bench supporters, there seems to be the idea that regulators are a good thing and that these are the guys in the white hats who go around the countryside slaying wrongdoers here, there and everywhere. We on this side of the Committee share the enthusiasm of Ministers for rooting out the wrongdoers, but a good deal of the evidence that we hear from industry is that the work of the regulators can be leisurely, academic and far removed from the realities of running a business.
My noble friend is anxious that those who are trying to run a business—not the sinners or wrongdoers or the people about whom Ministers are concerned, but the ordinary businessmen—do not find themselves in a kind of double jeopardy as a result of giving powers both to the EC and UK regulators. One might find that when one regulator is satisfied, the other regulator starts up a separate investigation.
That is the thinking behind my noble friend's amendment. As I say, it is not something that he has come up with as an early morning inspiration; the amendment is the result of some pretty heavy lobbying by industry based on its own experience and its fears. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has added his name to this amendment. In wholly concurring with what has just been said on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I should like to emphasise just one point. As I understand it, the philosophy behind the Bill is to ensure that our legislation on this matter dovetails with the European Community regime. Above all, it aims to introduce certainty and economy into the operation of the regime.
In the context of those two objectives, I find it difficult to understand why the fact that an agreement has been notified to the Commission does not prevent the director from investigating it himself. There seems to be an unnecessary overlap of responsibilities which will not only create unnecessary work for the director
440
general and his staff and unnecessary work for any company that is being investigated, but which will also impose unnecessary burdens on the economy. As the Minister said in a number of earlier interjections, the whole object of this Competition Bill is to enhance the competitiveness of the economy.
Lord Haskel: I shall not try to comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the work habits of regulators and whether they are in contact with the real world, especially in the presence of my noble friend Lord Borrie. Regulators have, however, been effective in the past few years in reducing the prices and looking after the interests of the consumer and that, to some extent, means being in touch with the real world.
Perhaps I may move now to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about dovetailing into the European regime. We discussed this when we considered the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Nicol. We concluded that the European Commission and the director in the United Kingdom did not want to duplicate each other's work. They would not want to carry out unnecessary extra work.
We have, however, carefully considered the case for giving absolute legal certainty by preventing any action by the director while the Commission is considering the same matter. We have provided in this clause the legal certainty of immunity from penalties under the Chapter I prohibition before the Commission determines the notification for exemption. However, we decided that it would be dangerous to provide in the Bill a bar on the director investigating such agreements. In deciding whether to provide for such a bar, I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that we must be alive to the risk of loopholes which can be abused. We discussed that earlier.
There may be cases notified to the European Commission which raise little or no Community interest, which it has neither the time nor the resources to attend to, and which the director might therefore wish to investigate. The cases may not involve interstate trade. Further, if we accepted the amendment, parties to agreements which have no effect on interstate trade may see a loophole and notify agreements to the Commission in an attempt to evade action being taken by the director. We therefore consider that it would be wrong to create an absolute legal bar preventing the director from investigating cases which have been notified to the European Commission. I hope that that explanation satisfies the Committee.
Lord McNally: Perhaps I should take this opportunity to try to correct Hansard. I referred earlier to regulators, and I should like to insert, "except with the shining exception of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie".
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McNally: I am not sure about the Minister's explanation. I can see that the Government do not want to create loopholes, but these provisions seem to go a lot further than mere dovetailing. The strong

441
representations of the CBI and others with concerns about overlapping jurisdictions have not been made lightly. I hope that as the Bill proceeds there will be an opportunity to look again at this. However, in the light of the Minister's interim reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Offences]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 20, line 38, after ("produce") insert ("or provide an explanation or).
The noble Lord said: I hope to have a little more success with this amendment. It is not quite a technical amendment, but it seems to me that what we are seeking runs on quite naturally from what is in the Bill already. The amendment deals with the question of offences under Clause 41(2), which states:
"If a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) in respect of a requirement to produce a document, it is a defence for him to prove",
and the defences are then listed. The amendment seeks to insert, after the words "requirement to produce" the phrase,
"or provide an explanation of",
a document. That is often a requirement of an investigator and it seems to us that the defences ought equally to apply to that. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will have a bit more success with this amendment because I can see the strength of his argument. It is not the intention of the Government to make it an offence for a person to provide an explanation of a document where that person is not able to provide such an explanation. I accept that I should reflect further on this issue in the period between now and Report. I would therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. We shall consider it further.
Lord Kingsland: In those circumstances, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [The Competition Commission]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 22, line 4, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 169A. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 169B to 169F and other amendments in this group. I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time in explaining the background to this amendment. I believe that I dealt with the matter in winding up on behalf of the Opposition during Second Reading. Noble Lords opposite are aware of the case I seek to make. I believe that the competition commission is a mistaken institution and should not be in the Bill. The two functions given to it in the Bill, one of adjudication and the other of investigation in relation to monopolies,
442
should better be undertaken in the first case by the High Court and in the second case by the Director General of Fair Trading. I shall not reopen those issues. I am aware that noble Lords opposite are actively reflecting on them and no doubt will in due course deliver their judgment on them one way or another.
Meanwhile, in order to follow through my proposals, certain amendments to the Bill are required. Some of those are set out in Amendment No. 169A and the other amendments to which I have referred. Clause 44(1) deals with the responsibilities of the purported competition commission in respect of monopolies and mergers. I have sought to remove the competition commission as the actor and replace it with the director. I believe that the director in addition to being responsible for Chapter II prohibitions should also be responsible for the investigation of complex monopolies. I believe that it is a nonsense to divide the responsibilities in respect of two such intimately connected matters. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I rise to oppose this amendment. The proposal for the establishment of a competition commission to perform the role provided in the Bill was also recommended by the previous government. I welcome that. The idea of a competition commission is, among other things, to build up specialised knowledge of competition matters. I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, sees as a disadvantageous mix is a good mix; namely, a membership which hears references from time to time—no doubt fewer than in the past—on complex monopolies and scale monopolies. But the same individuals who are members of the competition commission may comprise part of the membership of a tribunal hearing appeals from decisions, including decisions on penalty and substance, from the Director General of Fair Trading.
I commend the mix of qualities and qualifications of members, which is not untypical of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the past. Assuming it continued, it would include businessmen, trade unionists, academics, economists, lawyers and others from different walks of life. In the main, they would serve in a part-time capacity; others would serve perhaps more or a less in a full-time capacity. They would provide a mixed background of experience and would be able to build up considerable expertise in a specialised field of law and policy; namely. cartels and abuse of dominant position.
I believe that to substitute the High Court—which I suppose would mean a judge of the Queen's Bench Division who, once in a blue moon, would deal with this specialised area—would be even less satisfactory than the constitution of the Restrictive Practices Court, which under this Bill will come to an end. There a judge of the High Court would have sitting with him two members who were not judges but who had experience of business and commerce. The idea of a competition commission—I hope that the Minister will forgive my saying that this device was not thought up by the present Government but by the previous one—builds upon the

443
experiences of both the Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and is a sound one.
It is clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, indicated in relation to previous matters, that he fully understands that the president of the tribunal function of the competition commission will be a highly qualified lawyer of the calibre of a High Court judge. That is recognised by the fact that any appeals from the competition commission should go to the Court of Appeal and not to the High Court, because that would be at the same level as the president himself. The competition commission will have the mix of functions to which the noble Lord objects, and the mix of membership. Those are both plus points for the proposal in the Bill. It would be a great pity to accept this combination of amendments, which would destroy that building up over the years and continuing into the future, of a specialised body.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: First, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for the notice he gave of this amendment in debate on the first Committee day. As I did not have the pleasure of winding up on that occasion, perhaps I may put forward, build on, and, I hope complement, the ideas that my noble friend Lord Borrie has just been expounding.
It may be helpful if I explain why we have proposed the institutional framework set out in the Bill. As I understand the noble Lord's amendments, the intention is to abolish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and transfer its functions to the Office of Fair Trading. The MMC currently exercises functions under the Fair Trading Act monopoly and merger provisions, which we intend to continue within the new competition commission. We have already expended a good deal of energy discussing the reasons for retaining that legislation. The question here is whether those functions would be better carried out by the Office of Fair Trading.
The Fair Trading Act balances carefully the respective roles of the Office of Fair Trading, the MMC and the Secretary of State. The approach to dealing with competition issues under the Act is very different from that introduced by the Bill in relation to the prohibitions. I touched on that point in the debate last week. The Act enables wide ranging investigations into markets, and for matters to be considered against a general public interest test, albeit that competition is in practice a central feature of that test. Further, a very wide range of remedies may be imposed to remedy situations which are determined to be contrary to the public interest. In those circumstances it is quite right that the responsibility for remedies should rest with Ministers, subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I believe also that it is right that under this sort of approach there should be a careful separation between the body which conducts the preliminary investigation and frames the reference; and the body which conducts in-depth inquiries, considers matters against the public
444
interest test, and makes recommendations as to remedies. The collegiate structure of the MMC is right for this latter role. As my noble friend Lord Borrie reminded us, that was also the previous government's view.
I think that there would be too great a risk in combining all those functions in a single organisation. The Fair Trading Act has been in operation for nearly 25 years now, and I believe that the separate and independent character of the MMC has been crucial in establishing and maintaining confidence in the operation of the law.
The new prohibition regime introduces a different approach to competition matters and calls for a different institutional arrangement. The Bill establishes legal tests for assessing whether behaviour is anti-competitive or not. The Office of Fair Trading is to be the primary enforcer of the prohibitions. It is right that under that approach, appeals against the substance of his decisions should be dealt with by more court-like arrangements than are appropriate for MMC inquiries under the Fair Trading Act.
That is why the Bill establishes a new tribunal within the competition commission. The tribunal will, as I say, have many of the characteristics of a court, as my noble friend Lord Borrie said. Indeed it will be recognised as having the same importance and status as the High Court, as appeals from the tribunal will be to the Court of Appeal. I have no doubt that the European Court of Justice will see the tribunal in the same light. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will know that Article 177 of the EC treaty expressly refers to references from tribunals as well as courts.
There will be a clear advantage in dealing with appeals against the director's decisions in a tribunal—of high status like this one—rather than in a court. The procedural rules by which the tribunal operates may be tailored to suit the nature of the matters it will typically deal with, and they will be drawn up taking into account best practice from the courts and other tribunals.
The tribunal will be a UK-wide body, capable of dealing with issues relating to the whole of the UK. That will be a very distinct advantage given the nature of many competition cases.
The approach we have chosen also means that cases will be heard by both legal and lay members. I believe that it is essential that the tribunal panel contains the necessary breadth of experience and expertise to be able to deal effectively and efficiently with the complex commercial, economic and social issues involved in competition cases. Our approach also means that we can draw on a much wider range of people to chair tribunals while of course recognising that tribunal chairmen will need to be properly legally qualified. Schedule 7 to the Bill sets out necessary legal qualifications.
I have explained why we believe that it is right to go down the road of a tribunal to hear appeals under the new regime. We do not, however, see any need to create an additional competition body. That would be unduly costly. The arrangements we propose will make the most efficient use of the expertise and resources available. We also believe that it will encourage healthy

445
cross-fertilisation within the new competition commission. It will serve to promote consistent treatment of similar matters under the different pieces of legislation, although of course the method of approach to matters will be different. The primary function of the tribunal will be to re-hear and review the evidence considered by the director, not to initiate its own in-depth investigations.
Clause 44 introduces Schedule 7 of the Bill, which sets out detailed provisions governing the new competition commission's establishment and functions. In relation to the existing functions of the MMC, which will carry over to the new commission, the aim has been to reproduce the current arrangements. As to the new functions introduced by this Bill, the schedule provides for the appointment of tribunal panel members, chairmen and president. I should like to take this opportunity to say that at a later stage we will wish to make a number of amendments to the schedule to tidy up various points which we had not time to deal with before introduction. These are mainly technical changes and I hope that all will be uncontentious. But I am keen that we should get them right before the Bill leaves this House. For example, the provisions as to auditing should be changed in line with treasury guidance which we have received. We would also wish to ensure that conditions as to financial and management matters—though not to anything else—may be attached to grants to the commission.
I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to lay out some of the institutional arrangements and to explain our thinking. Perhaps I may summarise my remarks. The basis of our approach is that it is essential for the credibility of the new regime, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, that there are effective and efficient appeal arrangements. We believe that our proposals will achieve that and, at the same time, mesh sensibly and productively with the institutions already in place under the current regime.
I suspect that my lengthy—that is, at this stage of the evening—and institutionally-based reply comes as little surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Perhaps having heard it he will see fit at this stage to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I have one last crack at the issue because I consider it important. I would not like to abandon it without pursuing it one step further. Why a court? Simply because Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence under it have made it clear that the process in which the director general is to be involved concludes with criminal penalties. Since that is the case, those who are likely to be on the receiving end of such penalties are entitled to all the requirements of due process. From what I have seen of the proposals for the procedure of the tribunal I am not convinced that they will receive it. Indeed, I do not believe that a tribunal is a suitable institution to guarantee due process. For that reason, I propose that the function should be performed by a division of the High Court. I shall leave that point there.
446
The Minister talked about the extremely delicate balance that the procedure for investigating complex and scale monopolies requires and has talked about how successful that balance has been over the past 20 years. Leaving aside that judgment of history, I question whether his view that giving the powers of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to the Director General of Fair Trading would destroy the separation of powers that has been achieved by the existing procedure.
Under the Bill, the Director General of Fair Trading has powers of investigation, prosecution, conviction and fine. There is hardly a separation of powers there. Therefore, I do not know why the Minister should think that handing the powers of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to the Director General of Fair Trading would further affect adversely the concept of separation of powers.
Moreover, there seems to be an unacceptable duplication of function in investigating monopolies. Surely the investigation of Chapter II prohibitions and complex and scale monopolies will often require investigation into the same companies in the same industries. How can one justify separate organisations looking at those two issues simultaneously or even sequentially? I find that very difficult. However, I shall not ask the Minister to repeat or even elaborate on what he has already said unless he wishes to do so. I understand the Minister's position. I merely invite him to reflect on what I have said. It is a matter to which we shall probably return on Report.
Lord Simon of Highbury: There is one point that I should like to make and it concerns the issue of the European Convention on Human Rights and the point raised again about the capacity of a court or tribunal to address those facts with due process. I see no reason why a tribunal cannot give the appropriate judgments and protections. A court-like tribunal or a tribunal-like court seems to me, as a layman, to be dancing on a pin head.
If inappropriate judgments are made by a tribunal-like court in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights issues, it will be possible to appeal against those judgments. But I have every confidence that such matters can be addressed by the tribunal in process terms. I am grateful that the noble Lord does not seek to go further into institutional relationships and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 169B to 169D not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 7 shall be the seventh schedule to the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: The notice of my intention to oppose this Question must be seen in the light of the previous debate in relation to the status of the competition commission and all the points which have already been covered. In those circumstances, I shall no longer oppose the Motion that Schedule 7 shall be agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Appealable decisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 169E and 169F not moved.]
9.30
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 22, line 32, at end insert ("or as to whether the Director has complied with the requirements of section 58").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to Clause 45(2) which deals with "appealable decisions". The clause concerns the circumstances in which an individual or a company may appeal to the competition commission. The amendment seeks to add a requirement to those circumstances; namely, whether or not the director has complied with the requirements under Clause 58 regarding compliance with the principles of European Community law. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: Clause 45 enables appeals to the new competition commission appeal tribunal against a decision taken by the Director General of Fair Trading or by one of the sector regulators under the prohibitions. It is our intention that substantive decisions by the director should be appealable to the competition commission. We believe that the right to appeal against such decisions is an essential part of ensuring a fair and transparent system.
The requirements in Clause 58 are intended to ensure that the new prohibitions are applied consistently with the principles of Articles 85 and 86 except where the Bill specifically provides otherwise. That is the point of connection to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred. It is our view that the Bill already provides that these requirements apply to the director in making decisions as to the application of the prohibitions. Therefore, it would be possible to appeal against a decision by the director that a particular course of conduct infringes the Chapter II prohibition on the grounds that the director's decision was not in accordance with the requirements of Clause 58. This is similar to our earlier discussion on whether or not a man is a reasonable man. I ask the Committee: do we have to add it to the Bill to ensure that the Clause 58 provision is seen as fundamental to the whole process; in other words, appealable against if it is not applied?
The view from this side of the Committee is that we do not believe that Amendment No. 170 adds anything to the Bill. As I said, it will be possible to appeal against a decision by the director on the grounds that his decision was not in accordance with the requirements of Clause 58. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for enabling me to put this on the record. However, I ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful for the Minister's response. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 171 not moved.].
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 23, leave out line 5.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 176. Amendment No. 172 seeks to amend Clause 45(3), which contains a list of appealable decisions. The amendment seeks to remove the words, "cancelling an exemption". Amendment No. 176 seeks to insert at page 23, line 11 the words,
"and any other action of the Director relating to an individual exemption, a block exemption or parallel exemption made under sections 4 to 11".
In other words, it retains the concept of an exemption but expands it to a wider range of matters which in our submission are more appropriate and more comprehensive. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 176 and 172. Amendment No. 172 seems to be consequential. There is no need for the deleted reference to exemptions if Amendment No. 176 is accepted.
I have already explained our intention that substantive decisions by the director should be appealable to the competition commission. The list of appealable decisions in Clause 45(3) is intended to specify the various substantive decisions that the director might make, and which may be appealed to the commission.
Many of the decisions contained in this list relate to individual or block exemptions. It is our intention that all substantive decisions relating to exemptions should be capable of being appealed to the competition commission. I do not, therefore, believe that these amendments are necessary. All the matters which should be appealable in relation to exemptions will be appealable.
On the other hand, the very broad formulation in Amendment No. 176 would bring in matters which in our view it would be neither practicable nor necessary nor desirable to make appealable. We do not, for example, intend it to be possible to appeal against a view taken by the director that there had been a material change in circumstances concerning an exempted agreement. This would not be a substantive decision. It is, however, right that, if the director decides in such circumstances that an exemption should be revoked, that decision should be open to appeal. The Bill enables such appeals to be made. Indeed, once such a decision had been made by the director, it might be appealed on the grounds that there had been no material change in circumstances. But we believe that the right stage to make such an appeal is when, and if, the director takes a decision.
I would like to say at this stage that we are currently reflecting on whether the list in Clause 45(3) is precisely right. It has been suggested to us that there may be minor gaps or some scope for clarification. It is important that we should have covered all types of decision that should be appealable. This may therefore be an area which we would wish to return to at Report Stage, without, however, wishing to depart from our intention that only substantive decisions should be

449
appealable. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, whether he would see fit at this stage to withdraw Amendments Nos. 172 and 176.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his response. I am happy in the circumstances to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 23, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) requiring production of a specified document under section 26(1)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 173, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 174. The amendments add categories to the list of appealable decisions. Amendment No. 173 requires production of a specified document under Section 26(1). Amendment No. 174 provides,
"in respect of requests for documents and for explanations of documents under sections 26, 27 and 28".
I believe that the amendments are self-explanatory. I do not need to add anything to them.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The amendments seek to enable appeals to the competition commission against the director's use of his investigation powers.
Clause 45 provides for appeals against decisions by the director. This allows people and businesses to appeal against decisions which, if put into effect, will damage their interests—for example, a decision to impose a penalty, or a direction to stop engaging in a particular business practice. Such decisions could obviously have a significant impact on those affected.
Requests for documents by the director under his powers are not substantive decisions. An individual or business will not suffer any harm by producing a document, or explaining a document to the director—unless, of course, the document reveals that there has been wrongdoing, in which case the document is obviously relevant.
It is only an offence under the Bill to refuse to provide a document which is relevant to the investigation. No one can be successfully prosecuted for not producing a document if it is not relevant.
This all harks back to the very full debate we had about the need for a director to have the powers of investigation he needs to be able to enforce the prohibitions effectively. It is the Catch-22 situation that we spent some time discussing before dinner. I hope it will not return. I shall soon be calling it the Yossarian effect. I think that it is right that the director should be able to see any relevant documents in order to investigate matters properly. It can do a firm no harm to produce such documents for a director. There are clear safeguards in the Bill to protect information contained in such documents. Indeed, criminal sanctions would apply to any unlawful disclosure of such information by the director.
450
Having sought to elaborate on the difference between a decision and a documentation, I urge the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: As the Minister rightly observed, in an earlier debate we investigated the meaning of relevance, in particular the objectivity or otherwise of the person who decided whether or not a document was relevant. I believe the Minister said that one cannot be prosecuted for not producing a document that is not relevant. The difficulty about that approach is that the person who decides whether or not a document is relevant is the director general. On the face of the Bill, his discretion on this matter is absolute. Therefore those words may not be as comforting as the Minister might genuinely and in a bona fide way have considered them to be.
I hope that the Minister will consider the two amendments in the light of the earlier debate. I believe that this issue of relevance is fundamental to the procedures. If there is no way in which the director general's view about relevance can be questioned, it is a serious defect in the due process that the Minister seeks to guarantee and might suffer at the hands of the courts at a later stage. I therefore ask the Minister, not only for the successful operation of the Bill, but also because of the legal context in which it has to operate, to reflect carefully on this issue when he returns at Report stage. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 23, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) on a Director's finding within the meaning of section 56(2)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to Clause 45 (3). It seeks to establish a right to appeal,
"on a Director's finding within the meaning of section 56(2)".
Clause 56(2) defines a director's finding as,
"a finding of fact made by the Director in the course of determining an application for a decision under section 14 or 22".
In our submission, it is an important protection for the individual or company that is being investigated to have a right of appeal in those circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The issue raised by the noble Lord is an interesting one. It might be helpful if he could clarify whether the right of appeal is before the finding and decision of the director general, or after. It is a matter of some interest as to where the appeal is positioned or whether this is just a general statement.
Lord Kingsland: A case could be made out for both. However, the amendment as I see it refers to an appeal after the decision is taken in relation to the factual underpinning of the final decision.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that elucidation. It is important that we

451
understand the sequence well. It is appropriate for the process to be followed and a decision made by the director, and a total finding then to be appealable on the basis of the facts. We would not like to split the process going through to the director by appealing facts on the way. That may not be the most efficient process. However, there is an interest in considering the way in which an appeal on facts made after the decision is built into the construction of these clauses. I shall think extremely hard about the position that the noble Lord has now clarified; I wish to reflect on it before Report stage.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176 and 176A not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Third party appeals]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 23. line 17, leave out ("Director asking him") and insert ("Tribunal asking it").
The noble Lord said: I shall move Amendment No. 177 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 178 to 187. The point is simple. In our submission the appeal should not be to the director but to the tribunal. It will give third parties who have a sufficient interest in the decision the right to appeal to the tribunal. It seems to us that the objectivity of that approach is a better solution than the one set out in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: In responding to the group of amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Lucas, it may be helpful to outline the considerations behind devising the mechanism by which third parties should be able to appeal a decision of the director.
Clearly it would have been unacceptable for the director himself, without the safety net of appeal, to determine whether the third party had the requisite interest to challenge his decision and, if so, whether to change his decision. None of us likes having our decisions overturned, even directors general in white hats or whatever appropriate clothing the noble Lord, Lord McNally, ascribed to them. That is why we have allowed appeal on the question of having the requisite interest and, if so, whether the decision should be changed. That is an important safeguard and ensures that the clause strikes the right balance.
However, we carefully considered the option proposed by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of allowing a third party to go directly to the tribunal without first approaching the director. It may be that many Members of the Committee have put down amendments in this large group and I hope that I have not ascribed any amendment to the wrong noble Lord. I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to the arguments. However, I continue to prefer the approach set out in Clause 46. That is because it should help avoid unnecessary appeals.
452
For example, the third party might have new information which was not available at the time the director took his decision. The director could discuss the new information and concerns with the parties who are the subject of the decision and it might be that a revised decision is issued which is acceptable to all and which avoids the cost of setting up an appeal tribunal.
If the director accepts that the third party has the requisite interest in the decision, this procedural question does not then have to be determined as an initial issue by the tribunal before the main appeal. Once again costs could be saved. I accept that the director will not be keen to have his appeal challenged, but when he is determining the issue of requisite interest under Clause 46, of course he must and will act reasonably and within the law. The director, with his detailed knowledge of the case, should be able to come to a view quickly. The tribunal, on the other hand, would have to spend far greater time examining the case before being able to come to a decision on this initial procedural question. If the director accepts that the third party has the requisite interest under Clause 46, the tribunal can be saved this task.
Finally, by obliging the third party to approach the director first, the tribunal will have an established issue to determine between two opposing parties. The amendments do not provide for the director to be an opposing defendant before the tribunal.
Turning now to Amendment No. 181 of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this amendment would prevent representative actions. The Government believe strongly in an appeals system which is fair and transparent in which the business community and consumers have a fair right of appeal.
If we were to prohibit organisations representing third parties with a sufficient interest to appeal a decision, we would certainly severely prejudice the interests of consumers. An individual consumer may not have the time or resources to appeal a decision on his own; if consumers are to have a real voice in the new system, it must be possible for organisations such as the Consumers Association to be able to appeal a decision on their behalf. The same arguments apply to small traders who may have to rely on their trades institutions. In the light of these explanations, I hope noble Lords who tabled that series of amendments which run through cost efficiency in the nature of the appeal and then the ability of the small man to be represented by what to him seems a Goliath in taking an appeal forward, will see fit to withdraw them.
Lord Lucas: I found that last explanation so convincing that I have entirely forgotten why I tabled the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: In those circumstances, I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 178 to 187A not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Appeal tribunals]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 24, line 2, after ("Tribunals") insert ("and such other persons as he considers appropriate, including organisations representing industry").
The noble Lord said: I have some expectation that this amendment will not prove controversial. It simply adds to the list of consultees set out in Clause 47(2). After the word "Tribunals" the amendment seeks to insert,
"and such other persons as he considers appropriate, including organisations representing industry".
Here is one exception to all the other cases that we incorporated in our amendments today when we are expanding the discretion of the Secretary of State, not seeking to contract it. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The final statement made me pause to reflect, but not for too long. Clause 47(2), to which this amendment relates, contains a power for the Secretary of State to make rules in relation to appeals. I should explain that it is the Government's intention that this power should be exercised by statutory instrument subject to annulment. The Bill does not currently provide for that. That is an oversight. I draw the attention of the Committee to Amendment No. 271, relating to Clause 67, which we will come to in due course and which is designed to put that right.
We intend therefore that the rules should be open to parliamentary scrutiny before they are introduced. In drawing up the rules we will also consult the council on tribunals. The new tribunal will, in any case, be subject to scrutiny by the council.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, implied, we also have every intention of consulting relevant organisations. On the specific point to which this amendment is directed, I am happy to commit to consulting industry interests on draft rules. That was our intention in any case and the Bill does not preclude such consultation.
Again, I feel rather like the reasonable man, although I am becoming more unreasonable every time I say it. The amendment is unnecessary because it is included in the overall intention of the clause. Having heard my explanation, perhaps the noble Lord would be prepared to withdraw the amendment. If not, I shall think carefully about whether it adds to the powers of the Secretary of State in the most reasonable way.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his response. I hope that he will reflect on the amendment and by one means or another ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account the various factors that underlie the text. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Appeals on point of law etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 188A to 188G not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Schedule 8 [Appeals]:
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 64, line 41, leave out ("no valid") and insert ("insufficient").
The noble Lord said: This is, I hope. a very simple amendment. It is directed at the end consequences of Clause 46 and what follows by way of third party appeals. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to confirm my understanding that this is the sole route of third party appeals provided by the Bill. There has been some suggestion that, somewhere in its crannies and crevices, the Bill gives third parties additional rights to take action on the causes set out in the Bill in the courts rather than through the director. I have heard that, but I have not yet been able to detect it. I hope the Government will confirm that that is not the case and that the third party rights are all and only as set out in Clause 46 and following clauses.
That being the case, I am concerned that those organisations subject to the Bill should be free from vexation and harassment by those who wish to pursue political points, whether based on matters of emotion, ecology, morality or religion, which occasionally afflict people in their battles with companies. It seems to me that that is what this part is dealing with, but it appears to be rather narrowly drawn. It is drawn to say that the appeal "reveals no valid ground". That is an astonishingly strict interpretation. One can think of few circumstances where an appeal would have no valid ground.
With regard to paragraph 7(b), the person who falls under that sub-paragraph would have to be so habitually litigious as to be almost notorious. I would much prefer discretion to be given to the competition commission, on a rather wider scale, to deal with actions and appeals which amount merely to harassment rather than there being any substantial cause behind it which might lead to a substantially varied decision by the director or ought to have led to such a variation in decision. Therefore, I should like to see, if not this amendment, at least something made to the same effect to give the commission the discretion to deal with people seeking to misuse the powers given under the Bill. I welcome the ability of third parties to take action under the Bill but I think it has to be moderated by good sense. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: Perhaps I may confirm for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this is the only part of the Bill which refers to the appeal process for third parties. He has no need to look elsewhere for the third party appeal process.
I thank the noble Lord for his suggestion that the formulation "insufficient reason" should be used for consistency, particularly to be consistent with Clause 46(4). The test in that clause relates to the substance of a decision, and not whether, as here, the grounds for appeal are admissible. I have some difficulty in thinking that there is in practical terms any significant difference between the formulation "no valid" and "insufficient".

455
"Valid" is the right word because what the tribunal will be looking at is whether the appellant has a basis for appealing, and not how strong his case is.
To the extent that the amendment may have an effect in practice, it would probably tend to make it more common for the tribunal to reject appeals. I am not persuaded that that would be right. The provision is directed at disallowing appeals based on grounds which are simply not proper grounds for the tribunal to deal with. At an early stage that would be a decision thus saving costs for everyone. It is very important that we do not undermine the arrangements in the Bill which ensure that there is effective recourse to appeal under the new regime.
At this stage debating the words "valid" and "insufficient" would get us into considerable trouble. We take the view that "validity" is the right word because we are looking at whether the appellant has a basis for appeal and not the strength of the case.
Lord Lucas: I thank the Minister for that explanation. Before withdrawing the amendment there are two things I would like to leave on the record. The first is that my question was not whether this is the only appeals mechanism in the Bill for third parties, but whether this is the only part of the Bill which gives additional rights to third parties to attack the evils which are identified particularly in Clauses 2 and 18 of the Bill; in other words, whether in the interstices of this Bill third parties are given the right of independent action through the courts. I do not necessarily require an answer now, but if the answer is yes I would very much like to have it before Report stage.
Secondly, let us suppose we have a third party appealing on the basis that the market share which the director general said existed was 17.9 per cent. when in
456
fact it was 18.3 per cent. Under those circumstances where there is a very minor allegation of error of fact, but possibly a quite correct one, which is unlikely to make any major difference to the findings, will the competition commissioner have to go through the whole panoply of a monopolies commission investigation, or is there in the Bill—and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can point it out—some power other than that contained in paragraph 7 to exercise summary judgment? If there is no ability to do that, and if the smallest error of fact under paragraph 2(a) is sufficient to trigger a complete investigation, then that needs looking at. I am happy to leave those points to Report stage.
Lord Simon of Highbury: Perhaps I may take up the point again on third party rights. I want to make it absolutely clear that the only rights of appeal for third parties in this Bill are set out in this schedule, as I have said. It is true that third parties have rights to seek damages in the courts as a result of actions held here. As regards the wider point on third party rights under the Bill other than by appeal, I should like to respond to the noble Lord on that subject separately. That point having been made for the record, I shall be delighted if the noble Lord withdraws the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past ten o'clock.

  Crown Servants: Foreign Honours
  Crown Servants: Foreign Honours
  Gulf War: Immunisation Programme
  Gulf War: Immunisation Programme
  Scotland: Preservation of War Memorials
  Scotland: Preservation of War Memorials
  London and Continental Railways: Sale of Land
  London and Continental Railways: Sale of Land
  Local Government Commission for England
  Local Government Commission for England
  HM Coastguard
  HM Coastguard
  Filwood/Hengrove Playing Fields, Bristol
  Filwood/Hengrove Playing Fields, Bristol
  Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Act 1997
  Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Act 1997
  Prison Ship: Facilities
  Prison Ship: Facilities
  Foreign Nationals in UK Prisons
  Foreign Nationals in UK Prisons
  Mr. Reginald Buckland
  Mr. Reginald Buckland
  Firearm Certificate Variation: Appeals
  Firearm Certificate Variation: Appeals
  Abortion: International Comparisons
  Abortion: International Comparisons
  Breast Cancer Screening: Quality Assurance
  Breast Cancer Screening: Quality Assurance
  Pet Quarantine Laws
  Pet Quarantine Laws
  Animal By-Products Legislation Review
  Animal By-Products Legislation Review
  Miners' Claims against British Coal
  Miners' Claims against British Coal