Sitting of 18 November 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Housing
    Mr. David Heath: What plans he has to review the methodology used to calculate anticipated housing need in non-metropolitan counties. [14842]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The methodology used to produce the latest household projections for the regions, counties, metropolitan districts and London boroughs is set out in "Projections of Households in England to 2016" published by the Stationery Office in March 1995. That methodology has been subject to extensive public scrutiny. My Department is continuing to examine the extent to which household formation is affected by economic and social factors, in line with recommendations in the 1996 Environment Committee report on housing need.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he accept that everyone agrees that there must be enough houses for local people to live in, but that not a single local authority in Somerset—I am sure that we are no exception to the rest of the country—believes that the inward migration figures without employment are sustainable, that brown-field sites are available in rural areas, and that our green-field sites should be taken up in a suburbanisation of Somerset? Will he change his view?
    Mr. Prescott: The matter is under consideration by the regional planning council, whose projections are 11 per cent. more than the councils in the area accept. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, such matters are decided by a panel that is set up to consider the disagreement between the regional planning council and Somerset council. As soon as the panel reports, I am sure that it will make its recommendations to the council. It is to meet first in January.
    There is clearly a conflict between inward migration and the control of the figures for housing. If housing were allowed to develop in line with the figures recommended by the regional planning council, that would avoid some
    132
    of the difficulties by limiting the number of houses available and increasing the cost of houses in an area where inward migration becomes a problem.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if the figures that are projected for Devon are accepted, the increase in the population of Devon will be approximately 30 per cent? That is an impossibility, if we are to keep the country heritage of the county. All Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, ask the Government to reconsider.
    Mr. Prescott: The Government are always involved in considering such figures, but the regional planning council examines all the considerations to be taken into account and arrives at those figures. We do not limit people's movements in this country; people are free to move where they wish, and we must try to meet their requirements for housing. That brings us to the conflict between green-field and brown-field sites, about which there is so much controversy. Those are matters for public debate, and the debate is clearly under way.
    Mr. Yeo: Does not the Secretary of State understand that the Government's refusal to raise the 50 per cent. target for the proportion of new homes to be built on previously developed sites will not only destroy huge areas of beautiful countryside, but reflects the fact that this Labour Government neither care nor understand anything about rural life?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the Government's position. We have adopted the figure of 50 per cent. set by the previous Administration; the previous Administration aspired to 60 per cent. in brown-field sites; and the round table on sustainable development suggested 75 per cent. We are reviewing the options under the Green Paper on household growth that was produced by the previous Administration. There have been more than 700 responses and the Government have not yet taken a position on the matter, except to endorse the present 50 per cent figure. We think that right and proper. We think it right to have proper consultation, as we are doing. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman got it wrong.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. Connarty: What representations he has received regarding the structure and functions of the proposed regional development agencies.[14843]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): We have received around 1,500 responses to the issues paper on regional development agencies, which we published on 11 June. I have today placed in the Library of the House a list of those responses, and copies are available for inspection at my Department's library.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that these matters were high on the agenda of the recent conference of the Yorkshire Tourist Board, at which I spoke? Is he aware of the excitement with which tourist operators particularly view the prospects for the proposed regional development agencies? Will he

    133
    ensure that the best of our private enterprises are allowed to operate on and with these regional development agencies within the guidelines set by the Government?
    Mr. Caborn: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, which are reflected in the 1,500 responses that we have received. There has been detailed dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I think that my hon. Friend will find that the White Paper reflects those responses and reacts to the very positive mood of the private sector in the regions.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great deal of concern that the regional development agencies may be used as a basis for regional government? Will he please confirm that that is not the Government's intention? With regard to Lincolnshire, will he accept that it is best grouped with Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk rather than with the east midlands counties of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire?
    Mr. Caborn: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that we won the general election on 1 May, and that we won it on the basis of our manifesto, which spells out very clearly the Government's devolution strategy. We have embarked upon that strategy, which has been endorsed by Scotland and Wales—and London will be given the opportunity to do the same.
    As to the English regions, we have said that we will start with regional development agencies that will address the economic deficit—which is the legacy that the previous Administration left to those regions. We shall then continue, through indirectly elected regional chambers, to a position when, in the fulness of time, the people in the regions will be given the opportunity to say that they want to have directly elected regional assemblies. That is the position spelled out in Labour's manifesto—and I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we won the election.
    Mr. Cunliffe: How soon can the Minister place on a fast track regional government for the north-west region? Does he accept that limited self-rule is imperative and that there is unanimity among the Confederation of British Industry, all employers federations, local government, trade unions and Members of Parliament about the need to get it off the ground as quickly as possible? Is it really necessary to hold a local referendum before we do that?
    Mr. Caborn: The simple answer for my hon. Friend is the same as that which I gave to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: we have made a commitment to the British people and we will live by the contract in our manifesto. If my hon. Friend waits to see the White Paper that will be published later this month or in early December, I think that he will find answers to the many questions raised by his colleagues in the north-west.
    Sir Norman Fowler: As to the democratic deficit to which he alluded, will the Minister confirm that regional development agencies are simply appointed bodies or quangos? Taking up the point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), will the Minister confirm specifically whether he is planning to have any elected regional assemblies in operation in the course of this Parliament?
    Mr. Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it perfectly clear on the record a few weeks
    134
    ago that there will be no directly elected regional assemblies until after the next general election. That is the position. Quite honestly, we do not need any lectures from Conservative Members about establishing quangos—we are in the process of rationalising them, thank you very much.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Sir Robert Smith: If he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for meeting the target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels.[14844]
    Mr. Prescott: We shall consult next spring on a programme that will address our 20 per cent. target and the legally binding commitments that we shall have as a result of the Kyoto conference. All sectors of the economy must be prepared to play a part. I welcome the willingness of the chemical industry, for example, to make a commitment to reduce its specific energy consumption compared with 1990 levels by 20 per cent. by 2005.
    Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for his answer, as far as it goes. Does he accept that the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to reduce energy consumption, and in particular carbon-based energy? To that end, will he join us in supporting—next week rather than next spring—the national home energy conservation week by lobbying the Chancellor to cut VAT on energy insulation materials to the same level as energy supply in his green budget later this month?
    Mr. Prescott: All these matters will be considered at the appropriate time. Taxation changes will be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has made a start in considering taxation with regard to environmental gains, as he did with the charge on petrol. There are many other things that we must actively consider in these matters. Transport has a very important part to play in reducing CO2 gases. Our White Paper will be published in the spring. We are looking at renewable energy and at more efficiency in energy production. All these areas are actively under review, in line with wanting to meet the target that we set ourselves of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. of 1990 levels by 2010.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Deputy Prime Minister remember the special contribution that coal and the coal energy generation industry has made in reducing targets? Will he accept my backing of everything that he is doing to protect the coal industry and coalfield communities?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes. It does well for the House to remind itself that one of the consequences of meeting our environmental target, which we are so proud to proclaim internationally, as one of only three countries to do so, was the considerable destruction of the coal industry. That has had tremendous detrimental effects on coalfield communities. That is why I set up a task force to deal primarily with this problem, because we have a responsibility to deal with the consequences of climatic change on the areas that are detrimentally affected by it.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Deputy Prime Minister share the keen disappointment of so many people

    135
    that President Clinton has reneged on the United States Government's commitment at the Rio summit to stabilise emissions by 2000 AD on 1990 levels, by putting it back by 13 years? Will the Deputy Prime Minister use whatever influence he has to try to get a change of opinion from the United States Government?
    Mr. Prescott: We should recall that only three countries achieved the target that was set at Rio. That is why all the nations have agreed the legal targets that we are attempting to impose now with the Kyoto conference. Although the Americans have said that they now accept those legal targets, to accept the zero target that they set themselves will mean a reduction in CO2 gases of 25 per cent. —an even bigger cut than has been witnessed in some European countries. Nevertheless we must encourage them to do more.
    Indeed, I recently met Vice-President Gore to talk about precisely that. I leave on Thursday to talk to the Prime Ministers of India, New Zealand and Australia, and to talk to the Environment Minister in Japan to see how we can get an agreement and encourage people to do a lot more to meet the targets. We are doing that, and Britain is playing a leading part in attempting to achieve it.

    Businesses
    Mrs. Brinton: What plans he has to encourage businesses to adopt environmentally friendly practices.[14845]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government are providing advice and guidance through the energy and environmental best practice programmes; promoting the take-up of accredited environmental management systems and encouraging public reporting by companies on their environmental performance. We are also increasing consumer awareness so that companies have better incentives to produce environmentally friendly products.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that in my constituency many small and medium businesses are working very hard, in association with the authorities and other organisations, to develop environmentally friendly practices? Is he further aware that all our efforts will be set at naught unless these are complemented by similar action from some of the global industries, in particular the large oil companies? How does he plan to respond to some interesting overtures that are being made by some of these industries, in particular BP and Shell, to develop policies and ways of working to combat the terrible effects of global warming and associated climate change?
    Mr. Meacher: I am certainly aware of the initiative taken by the Supersavers project in Peterborough, where very substantial savings have been achieved through the employer involving employees, in particular the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, in that project. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The leading companies have to be involved. She mentioned Shell. In fact Shell recently launched new, renewable businesses, and plans investments of more than half a billion dollars over the next five years.
    136
    My hon. Friend also mentioned BP, which, incidentally, has left the Global Climate Coalition. I hope that Shell will soon do the same.
    BP has made a substantial investment in solar energy. Only today, the Chemical Industries Association signed an agreement—voluntarily—to achieve a 20 per cent. cut in energy consumption, and hence in carbon dioxide emissions, by 2005. So it is beginning to happen, but we must go a great deal further. We will publish our White Paper soon after Kyoto, setting out what we expect from each sector of business.
    Mr. Pickles: At a recent meeting of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the Minister explored the possibility of fiscal incentives for companies. Does he agree with the general principle that any shift towards green taxation should be neutral, and that it should not increase the general burden of taxation?
    Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said in his first Budget that he will pay particular attention to the issues of quarrying, water pollution charges and the landfill tax, which was introduced by the last Government at a low level. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any commitment that an increase in green taxes would automatically be offset, but I believe that there is a case—as there was in regard to the landfill tax—for giving companies an incentive by enabling them to make contributions to environmentally sensitive alternative objectives. That is a good model, and one that we will follow closely.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the successful efforts of small firms such as Cambridge Econometrics and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre—both of which are in my constituency—to persuade employees to walk and cycle to work rather than using their cars?
    Mr. Meacher: That is extremely desirable. I was asked earlier whether Ministers would participate and give a lead. I think that everyone who is in a public position should try to give a lead, and one of the best ways of reducing greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions—especially in the context of transport—is not just driving vehicles that are cleaner or more fuel-efficient, but using cars less: walking more, cycling more or using public transport. All of us, without exception, should be doing that.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister consult a small company in my constituency called Environmental Engineering Concepts? Will he also consult the local council and the education and library board? They have produced a product which, when added to fossil fuels, causes almost complete combustion, reduced emissions and greater efficiency, and also pays for itself. It is so good that it has not been taken seriously. The last Government had an opportunity to examine the product, but I heard no more about it. I appeal to the Minister to follow the project through.
    Mr. Meacher: I would be extremely interested if the hon. Gentleman would send me details of that project. It is exactly the kind of initiative and breakthrough that

    137
    we wish to support. I am saddened, although not surprised, that the last Government were so indifferent, but the hon. Gentleman will find that the present Government have a very different attitude. If he sends me the details, we will act on them.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Viggers: When he next plans to meet representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss local government finance.[14846]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already met the association a number of times to discuss local government finance, and I shall be seeing it again in December at a sub-group meeting of the central-local partnership to discuss the review of local government finance. We intend to meet the association regularly, and to involve it fully in taking forward policies that affect local government.
    Mr. Viggers: Did the Local Government Association, at its meeting with the Minister, repeat its estimate that local authorities will be about £1 billion short of funding this year? That shortfall does not take account of either the extra burdens put on local authorities for crime prevention and education, or the change in the Budget to advance corporation tax, which imposes a pension tax liability on local authorities estimated at £300 million a year. What will be the Government's attitude? Will they recompense local authorities for those extra burdens, or will they stand aside and watch what must inevitably be an extremely large rise in council tax rates this year?
    Ms Armstrong: In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a further £1 billion for local government to spend on education. If the hon. Gentleman cares to wait until the week beginning 1 December, he will hear how that money has been allocated.
    We are discussing pensions with the Local Government Association, but it knows as well as we do that that measure will have no impact on local government in 1998–99. The association is seeking a revaluation, and wants to work with us on that.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend accept that Labour Members realise that she inherited a difficult task from the previous Government? Metropolitan authorities outside London face substantial difficulties because of the previous Government's attitude to them. When she allocates resources for the coming financial year, will she give careful consideration to the representations that have been made by the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities, which represents metropolitan authorities outside London?
    Ms Armstrong: I have received representations from a number of organisations and representatives of local government. They have all put a telling and pressing case to us. I assure my hon. Friend that we have listened to the points raised, and that we shall take them into consideration. We made a commitment in our manifesto to a fairer settlement this year. Hon. Members will be able to judge for themselves in the week beginning 1 December.
    Mr. Burstow: Before the Minister next meets the Local Government Association, will she and the Secretary of
    138
    State give an undertaking that, at the time of the announcement of the settlement, they will publish figures that show the real impact of the grant settlement and the capping rules, rather than adopt the smoke-and-mirror tactics that the previous Government used time and again, and which the Minister always condemned when in opposition?
    Ms Armstrong: We shall endeavour to make what is an exceptionally complex system as straightforward as possible. We are also conducting a review of local government finance generally. We want to enable the ordinary council tax payer to understand the system. That is a difficult task, given the complexity of the system that we inherited, but it is one of our aims. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues assisting us in that process.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the election result on 1 May gave her and every Labour Minister the power to do something different? We had massive victories in parts of the country where we never expected them because people were aware of the distribution of money to local authorities, such as the fiddles for Westminster council and the paltry decisions for Labour-controlled authorities. Now that we have the power, and we are not a party of protest, let us ensure that we change those priorities, and that we also get rid of rate capping.
    Ms Armstrong: You, Madam Speaker, would not want me to reveal precisely how we have sought to make the system fairer. That will be revealed in time, and I trust that my hon. Friend will note that we have heeded our manifesto and have sought to ensure that the distribution of money is fairer than ever it was under the previous Administration.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister reconsider the answer that she has just given on pensions? Is she not entirely wrong to say that the pensions tax will have no impact on local authorities? That is what she just said, but what she means is that there will be no actuarial review until 1998. However, the impact of the pensions tax has effect now—it starts now and goes on next year and the year after. Will she reconsider her reply?
    Ms Armstrong: The impact of the changes in the Budget will not have effect in local government in the coming year. We have agreed the way forward with local government and the Local Government Association, and they are perfectly happy with what has been suggested. They know that there is going to be a review of the actuarial position over the next year, and we have said that we will take it into account when deciding next year's settlement.
    Mr. Watts: In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's having said that he wanted to help coal mining areas, can we expect any improvement in the standard spending assessments for those areas, bearing in mind the fact that some of them have the worst SSAs in the country?
    Ms Armstrong: I must ask my hon. Friend to wait until he sees the settlement. We have made it absolutely clear that this is a very difficult year for local government

    139
    because we inherited such a mess. Because it is such an important matter, it cannot be sorted out over night. There is an incredible deficit which local government knows must be tackled. We are determined to tackle the dreadful state in which the previous Administration put local government and to make sure that local government is able to determine how to meet the needs of the population.

    Advance Corporation Tax
    Mr. Townend: What assessment he has made of the estimates made by local authorities of the costs to them in 1998–99 from the changes to advance corporation tax.[14847]
    The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Local Government Association, with the assistance of the United Kingdom steering committee on local authority pensions and my Department, is conducting a survey of local government pension scheme administering authorities to assess the impact of Budget tax changes on their pension funds, both for the current financial year and at 1 April 1999. The results will be available shortly.
    Mr. Townend: Would the Minister be interested to learn that I have a letter from the director of finance of East Riding council, which says that in 1998–99 the additional contribution required will be £2.55 million? If that contribution is delayed until the following year, a further £75,000 will be needed every year. How does the Minister expect my council to find the cash? Are the Government going to increase the revenue support grant by £2.55 million, or will they expect the poor council tax payer to shoulder the burden of the first Labour Budget and another Labour tax increase?
    Mr. Raynsford: When the figures are analysed in detail, the hon. Gentleman will find that he has referred to the gross costs—no account has been taken of any off-setting savings. A net figure will be necessary before an informed conclusion can be reached. The contribution of local government employers was fixed in 1995 for the four-year period to 1999. There are no powers to change contributions during that period. The impact of the changes, to which I referred earlier, and offsetting savings will be taken fully into account by the Government when we have received the full response to the survey from the Local Government Association. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing said, we have already made it clear that we will take full account of that when assessing financial contributions for 1999–2000 and years beyond.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Barnes: What representations he has recently received concerning opencast mining planning policy in England; and if he will make a statement.[14848]
    Mr. Raynsford: My Department has received a large number of representations in response to the consultation paper on opencast mining planning policy, which we issued on 30 July. In the light of responses to that
    140
    consultation, the Government will decide what changes to policy guidance could and should be implemented in interim planning guidance.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that we have had more than enough opencast mining in north-east Derbyshire, and that we are currently fighting off three proposals—at Avenue Cokeworks, the Breck and junction 29? Would it not help us tremendously if the planning guidance notes contained a presumption against opencast mining—as was promised in the preamble to the 10 points that Labour issued at the general election? Will we be living up to our commitment?
    Mr. Raynsford: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government acted very swiftly to give effect to our manifesto commitments and issued a consultation paper on possible changes to mineral planning guidance. We have had 380 responses to that consultation, and consultation in Wales is still not complete. We are therefore analysing carefully the responses before deciding what changes may be appropriate in interim planning guidance. We shall take appropriate action. I assure him that, since the Government have come to power, no further opencast mining applications have been approved.

    London Underground
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: What proposals he has for the future of London Underground.[14873]
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What is his policy on (a) privatising London Transport and (b) London Transport fares.[14874]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Today is the 10th anniversary of the King's Cross disaster. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to remember the victims of that terrible night, and, with gratitude, the heroism of the emergency services, who worked with such courage in their attempts to reduce the terrible toll.
    We are developing our manifesto proposals to improve the London Underground through a public-private partnership. We have ruled out wholesale privatisation. London Transport fares are the statutory responsibility of London Transport, which has to strike a balance between keeping public transport affordable and raising revenue for investment.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I preface my question by whole-heartedly endorsing everything that the Minister has said about the 10-year anniversary of the King's Cross disaster, and pay a sincere tribute to the members of the emergency services who fought so bravely that night to contain the fire and reduce the loss of life.
    As the Government have introduced an integrated transport system, it is essential that we encourage people to leave their motor cars at home and use the London Underground system. If the Government are intent on that action, will the Minister encourage the London Underground executive to keep fares at or below inflation over the next few years?
    Ms Jackson: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has already recognised the major improvements

    141
    that the Government have made in an integrated transport system. I am somewhat surprised that he does not welcome the lowest average increase—merely 1 per cent. over the rate of inflation—in the past decade. Under a Conservative Administration, that decade—for year upon year upon year—was marked by neglect of London Underground.
    Mr. Hughes: Do the Minister and her colleagues accept that the strongest reason imaginable for retaining majority public-sector control of London Underground is the King's Cross tragedy and the need for parliamentary accountability by Ministers for the safety of the capital city's public transport system? Will she confirm that the Government have ruled out not only total privatisation but majority privatisation? If not, why not?
    Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have made a commitment not to go down the road of wholesale privatisation. We are examining the proposals of the financial advisers Price Waterhouse on the best way to proceed to ensure the future of London Underground but, whatever decision is taken, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, the House and London that safety and the improvement of safety will be a priority.
    Ms Perham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the state of the underground was an important issue in my constituency and throughout London during the general election? Is she also aware how much the Government's determination to secure the future of London Underground is welcome in my constituency, which relies on eight Central line stations?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend expresses a sentiment that is shared across London on the importance of our underground system in the creation of a properly integrated public transport system for this great capital city. Both I and my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the support that we are receiving from Londoners in our attempt to ensure that the underground is fit for them and for the 21st century.
    Sir Norman Fowler: I begin by associating myself entirely with the Minister's words about King's Cross, which was a terrible night that we all remember.
    On future policy, does she recognise that Railtrack plans to spend £10 billion on investment, including safety investment, over the next years, and that the rail operating companies plan to spend £2 billion on new trains and rolling stock? Does that not show the success of rail privatisation and the way forward for London Underground?
    Ms Jackson: So they should, given that £1.8 billion of public money is going into the railway system.

    Trunk Roads
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on investment in the trunk road network. [14875]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Capital expenditure on the trunk road network is planned to be some £1.4 billion in the current financial year,
    142
    which includes investment in renewing roads and bridges. Investment plans for future years will depend on the roads review and the comprehensive spending review.
    Mrs. Winterton: As an efficient economy needs an efficient transport infrastructure, does the Minister realise that, if the Government proceed with the moratorium on future road building, business will pay the increasing cost of continuing congestion?
    Dr. Strang: I can only assume that that is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Government's position. The hon. Lady is surely aware of the road schemes that we have announced and I am sure that she appreciates that we are carrying out a thorough review of the trunk road programme, as we promised during the general election.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I know that my right hon. Friend, of all people, will understand the importance of road links between England and the rest of the United Kingdom. Is he aware that the long single-carriageway section of the A 1 through Northumberland is a serious handicap to both the local and the national economy, including the whole of the east of England and Scotland? Will he bear that in mind during the review?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, even against a background of the cuts that have been made in the roads programme over the years, and the growing recognition that we cannot continue to build more and more roads to meet the projected growth in traffic, real investment is needed in the existing network, including the Al.
    Mr. Chope: The Minister refers to cuts in the roads programme. Does he remember that, this time last year, his party condemned the Conservative Government for not having kept more schemes in the road programme? Does he agree that it would be folly for this country to cut roads investment when our competitors throughout Europe are spending more?
    Dr. Strang: No, I cannot accept that. We all know that, under the Conservatives, the road schemes were decided on not by objective appraisal, but by Treasury diktat. That is why we are looking thoroughly into which roads to build. We make no apology for that. We promised it in the manifesto. We are considering accessibility, safety, economic development and environmental impact.
    Mr. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the existing road network is neglected and worsening, with roads not repaired? The Government have inherited a major problem, and a lot of money will be needed to bring our roads up to standard.
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There can be no doubt that the maintenance of our roads has been neglected, particularly the basic network. It is vital that we continue capital investment to ensure the adequate maintenance of our roads.

    Road Transport
    Mr. John M. Taylor: When he next plans to meet representatives of the British Road Federation to discuss road transport issues. [14876]
    Mr. Prescott: I met representatives of the British Road Federation and other transport organisations at a seminar to discuss freight issues on 29 October and on other occasions. My Department has held a number of meetings with the BRF and other organisations as part of the current roads review and to discuss the integrated transport policy.
    Mr. Taylor: As the Secretary of State has had the advantage of hearing the opinion of the federation, will he confirm that the Birmingham northern relief road will retain the utmost priority in his roads programme?
    Mr. Prescott: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made it clear to the House that we intend to continue with the Birmingham northern relief road. It is in the programme and dates are being set. It is part of the strategic network and we have decided to continue with building it.
    Mr. Blizzard: In the process of integrating our transport system with Europe, will my right hon. Friend recognise the important role of east coast ports such as Lowestoft, in my constituency? Does he accept that we need to improve the way in which those ports are linked to the trunk road system?
    Mr. Prescott: Those are some of the strategic decisions that we have to make. To be fair, there has been a programme for some decades giving higher priority to the development of roads to ports. My Hull constituency benefited from that with the M62. We are bearing in mind those important strategic freight considerations.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: In view of the comments from the Opposition Front Bench a few moments ago, no doubt the Secretary of State will wish to remind the British Road Federation that the Conservative party made the biggest cuts in history in this country's roads programme. Will he also tell the federation that the Government will accept the national road traffic reduction targets proposed in a current private Member's Bill?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, we have talked to those organisations about all the aspects that are in our minds. Traffic reduction is crucial. An integrated transport system is about finding out whether we can give more priority to the movement of freight on our roads by better management of the road system. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Tories, who have clearly forgotten that they were in power for 18 years.
    Mr. Leslie: Will my right hon. Friend also discuss with the British Road Federation the welcome input on environmental impact and an integrated transport strategy
    144
    in the roads review? Will he ask the federation its opinion of the Bingley relief road in my constituency, which meets environmental and integrated transport criteria?
    Mr. Prescott: How did I know that that would come up? We are considering that in the roads review. When it is complete, my right hon. Friend will give his final statement to the House.
    Mr. Ottaway: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will discuss with the federation what has been described as a "parking blitz" on London, including draconian restrictions and sharp rises in parking charges? Does he accept that a car is still essential for many?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, the car is still an essential component of movement, and it certainly will be. We are asking people to use them less and to use public transport more.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Get to the point.
    Mr. Prescott: I am coming to the point.
    Parking charges are being advocated by business as one way to deal with London's problems. We are looking into those proposals, and at a range of issues to be considered in an integrated transport system that would encourage more people to go on public transport and to use their cars less. That is essential to ensure the necessary environmental changes that will be agreed at Kyoto in December.

    Rail Engines
    Mrs. Dunwoody: How many American-manufactured engines are awaiting the granting of a safety case for use in British railways. [14877]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: About 250 freight locomotives are on order from the United States of America. The first are expected to be delivered to English, Scottish and Welsh Railways early next year. They will require both approval by the Health and Safety Executive and acceptance by Railtrack's new rolling stock acceptance board. That cannot be completed until the first locomotives have been delivered and tested.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but she will be aware that this is not simply a question of resupplying existing rolling stock. In my constituency, we make the best railway engines in the world, and we certainly repair them even better; under privatisation, that is essential. Will my hon. Friend therefore bear in mind the need, before we start importing other nations' rolling stock wholesale, to consider carefully the ability of British manufacturers and, above all, of British workers, to provide the best railway engines for our railway system?
    Ms Jackson: I appreciate the point of my hon. Friend's remarks, but equally she will appreciate the fact that a commercial decision was taken by a private company. Unlike franchisees, EWS does not enjoy special rights granted by Government. None the less, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the opportunity presented by

    145
    EWS's order for 2,500 wagons, which will be constructed at the old Adtranz works in York, thus providing 300 additional jobs for British workers.
    Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that, in my constituency, we would welcome some new rolling stock, whether it were made in America, in Britain or anywhere else? Will she discuss the matter with Connex South Central, which is still operating ancient slam-door stock, so as to ensure that we have some modern rolling stock that will encourage more people off the roads and on to the railways?
    Ms Jackson: We strongly endorse the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure him that I have regular meetings not only with the train operating companies but with the rolling stock companies, and that we are as concerned as he is to ensure that the vast amounts of public money that go into our railway system produce a high-quality public service.
    Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, for the first time for about 50 years, we are seeing an increase in rail freight? Is not the reason why EWS orders locomotives from the United States the fact that the British locomotive industry has not made a genuine rail freight locomotive since the days of steam, whether in Crewe or anywhere else?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend highlights the fact that, as I believe, the last order for engines in this country was made in 1980. For almost two decades, the Conservative party totally ignored the major contribution that could be made not only to the economy but to the environment by greater movement of freight on our railways. In common with my hon. Friend, I welcome the changes that are being introduced into the freight industry.
    Mr. Malins: Does the Minister know why or how leaves on a railway line can apparently render the whole line non-working? Can the Government suggest a remedy? Connex South Central could not get a train into London from Surrey today, because of leaves on the line. Is there an explanation?
    Mr. Skinner: New Labour, new leaves.
    Ms Jackson: I hear what my hon. Friend says. As I am sure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is aware, the basic reason is the fact that I mentioned in my response to the previous question—the Conservative party's complete failure, in almost two decades in office, to invest adequately in our railway system. Its only answer was to break up an integrated railway system, and £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money is now going into that railway system.
    My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport instituted a review of the existing powers of the regulator under the new railway system. If it is deemed by the Government that the regulator requires additional powers to ensure that the highest possible quality of service is provided to the travelling public, that is what we will introduce.

    Concessionary Travel
    Mr. Patrick Hall: If he will make a statement on the Government's support for concessionary travel and community transport schemes. [14878]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Concessionary travel schemes are a matter for local authorities. On community transport, my Department provides grant to the Community Transport Association's information and advice service, and to the rural transport development fund, administered by the Rural Development Commission.
    Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend will be aware of the many concerns expressed by my constituents in Bedford, especially pensioners, at the proposal of the Conservative-controlled Bedfordshire county council to cease funding the concessionary fares scheme in Bedfordshire from next spring. Does she share the concerns of those people, and will she join me in asking the local authorities in Bedfordshire to work together as constructively as possible to ensure the continued safe existence of the concessionary fares and dial-a-ride schemes in my constituency, which are so important to the disabled and pensioners and so good for the environment, public transport and the local economy?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend will be aware that all such decisions are matters for local authorities, but I have little doubt that, with his commitment to his constituency and his constituents, he will do all in his power to ensure that the relevant authorities are brought together to discuss this issue.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can the hon. Lady say whether, in her guidelines to the consultants who will be studying the future of London Underground, she has made it a requirement that the concessionary fare for old-age pensioners will be retained by the London boroughs? If not, from next year, old-age pensioners and other members of the travelling public will face diabolical fare increases, well above inflation. To be candid, something needs to be done urgently to put London Transport to rights.
    Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a decision on the way forward for London Underground has still to be taken in the light of the options being examined by the Government's financial advisers. On concessionary fares, he does no service to the pensioners of London by raising the possibility that they will be lost. As he well knows, the concessionary fare scheme is funded by all boroughs, which have managed to fund it every year.

    Rail Regulation
    Mr. Allan: What steps the Government are taking to meet their commitment to establish more effective and accountable regulation by the Rail Regulator. [14879]
    Dr. Strang: On 6 November, I announced three measures designed to strengthen railways regulation. The measures—new objectives for the franchising director, the publication of new guidelines on railway investment and a framework for co-operation between Ministers and the Rail Regulator—are the first fruits

    147
    of our on-going review of railway regulation. We are committed to establishing a new strategic rail authority on which we will publish proposals next spring, linked to our White Paper on integrated transport policy.
    Mr. Allan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many members of the public are put off using the rail system by their inability to get accurate information and the right ticket? Does he therefore regret that the franchising director appears to feel unable to publish the full details of the survey that he carried out recently into the mis-selling of tickets?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is right to be critical of the present arrangements. The interim package that I announced is a significant step forward. Information is vital, but we shall need legislation to put things right.
    Mr. Grocott: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's strategy of moving both freight and passenger traffic from road to rail wherever possible, but does he agree that that policy is made immeasurably more difficult
    148
    by the ludicrous fragmentation of our rail network that occurred under the previous Government, which makes any coherent transport policy harder to apply?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is correct. That is why we have set out clear objectives for the franchising director. It is very important that the franchising director talks to local authorities. If we are to invest more in the network, build the new stations and get more freight on the railways, which is vital, we need a new start. That is where we are going.
    Mrs. Laing: The Minister's answer makes it clear that the Government, by their actions in changing the Rail Regulator and the franchising authority, are building on the success of the previous Government's privatisation policy. It is therefore implicit that they are endorsing railway privatisation; why will they not do the same for London Underground, which is so much in need of further investment?
    Dr. Strang: Where has the hon. Lady been for the past three years? Is she unaware of all the reports? Does she not appreciate the fact that, under the current arrangements, an operating company can cancel trains for months on end without the franchising director being able even to fine it?

Egypt (British Citizens)
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Howard(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the attack on British citizens in Egypt on 17 November.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): On the morning of 17 November, six armed men went on a killing spree on the west bank of the River Nile near Luxor. At least 60 foreign tourists are reported to have been killed. Six Britons were confirmed to be among them. Three Egyptian policemen and the six gunmen also died. On behalf of the Government and, I am sure, of all hon. Members, I extend my heartfelt sympathies to the families bereaved by this atrocity and to those injured.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Mubarak of Egypt yesterday afternoon and expressed his condolences and our support in the fight against terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed our condemnation of this barbarous act yesterday.
My noble Friend Baroness Symons is discussing the situation with the Egyptian Minister of Tourism, who is currently visiting London. The British embassy in Cairo and my Department have taken urgent action to discover the extent of the atrocity and whether there are any other Britons among the dead or injured. The British consul in Cairo has gone to Luxor to assist with repatriation of the British victims and to advise British visitors and holiday companies. There is also a consular representative at Cairo airport to assist those Britons who wish to leave the country.
The consular division of my Department is keeping its travel advice constantly under review. In April 1996, following the attack on Greek tourists in Egypt, the travel advice stated that security could not be guaranteed. In March this year, that advice was amended to recommend that travellers should respect advice on their safety from local security authorities. That reflected the fact that during the previous 11 months attacks in Egypt had been only on the security forces.
In September this year, following the attack on German tourists, the advice was strengthened to recommend that security could not be guaranteed. Yesterday afternoon, we issued revised travel advice, advising against visiting the Luxor area. Today, that advice has been further updated, to the effect that British visitors are advised to exercise great caution over visiting upper Egypt. Meanwhile, they are strongly advised to avoid the Luxor area until further notice. Visitors to all other parts of Egypt are advised to be vigilant and to respect any advice from the local security authorities.
In London, we have set up an emergency response team to deal with inquiries, which has already received around 1,000 calls. The team is also liaising with tour operators and the Association of British Travel Agents.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his answer. I should like to associate Her Majesty's Opposition with the sympathy that he expressed to the families of the victims of this brutal attack and also the sympathy that he extended to the Government of Egypt.
150
There are reports that a Swiss medical team has been dispatched to Egypt. Are there any plans for the United Kingdom to offer medical assistance to the Egyptian authorities and the victims of this outrage? The hon. Gentleman was right to condemn the attack in unequivocal terms. What active steps do Her Majesty's Government propose to take, to help the Government of Egypt to counter such attacks? What progress has been made in following through the recommendations of the ministerial conference on terrorism, which I attended in Paris in July last year? In particular, has the recommendation for the setting up of a directory of competencies on counter-terrorism, which was proposed by the previous Government and accepted in Paris, been implemented?
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his questions. I can confirm that no request for British medical assistance has been received, but were it to be, the British Government would, of course, do what they could to assist the Egyptian authorities. I can also tell him that steps are being taken with the Egyptian Government—there is a constant dialogue to identify where there are terrorist dangers. As I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his previous responsibilities, this Government will be doing everything they can to work with the Egyptian Government to minimise risk.
Again, I can reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that every effort will be made to counter international terrorism at every international forum. It is a top priority of the Government; and it will continue to be so.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I should also like to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy and condolence voiced by the Minister and by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
While the causes of fundamentalism, which gives rise to atrocities of this type, are extremely difficult to ascertain, does the Minister accept that the efforts of President Mubarak and the Egyptian Government to control fundamentalism are by no means made easy by the fact that there is, as yet, no lasting, just peace in the middle east, and the Oslo agreements have not been implemented either in fact or in spirit? What efforts will the Government make—particularly as Mr. Netanyahu is apparently in London again this week and the Foreign Secretary met Madeleine Albright last week—to impress on both the United States and the Government of Israel that fundamentalism in the countries of the middle east will be better controlled when there is a just and lasting peace for the Palestinians?
Mr. Henderson: There is no excuse of any kind for the atrocity that occurred in Egypt yesterday—no justification. Having said that, the Government will continue to do what they can in the various international forums to bring pressure on those involved in the middle east peace process to make progress towards at least an interim solution that can, I hope, reduce tensions.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman may know, a meeting was held last week between my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Netanyahu. At that meeting, it was stressed that there

151
should be full implementation of the interim agreement, especially provisions relating to Gaza air and sea ports and transit arrangements for Palestinians between Gaza and the west bank; that substantial further deployments of Israeli troops from the west bank should take place; and that time out on settlement building and unilateral action in Jerusalem, which prejudices final status talks, should also be given the highest priority. We shall continue to press those points at other international forums.
Ms Chris McCafferty: Is my hon. Friend aware that three generations of one family in my constituency—mother, grandmother and five-year-old daughter—died in the tragic events at Luxor? I welcome his message of condolence to the family, and wish to associate myself with it. I also welcome his unequivocal condemnation of terrorism when it is so fanatical and destructive. Equally, it should be said that the vast majority of Egyptian people are democratic and peace-loving, so I welcome the statement of support for the Government of Egypt in their determination to maintain democratic government and secular democracy.
Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments: I am sure that the whole House would wish to repeat its horror at the events that have caused such huge grief to her constituents and constituency. There is a continual dialogue with the Egyptian Government, and one of the important issues discussed is to agree with the Egyptian Government what measures can be taken to ensure that democracy is reinforced at every opportunity in a difficult situation in Cairo. That is this Government's top priority, and we have taken the opportunity on several recent occasions to express it to our Egyptian friends.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Minister aware of the widespread shock and grief in Swanley today that a dream holiday for two pensioners should have ended in murder? Does he think that there is any general case for reviewing the way in which travel advice is issued to tour operators by the Foreign Office?
Mr. Henderson: I repeat my condolences to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and constituency, who have also faced terrible tragedy. Advice is given to travellers, travel agents and travel companies on a regular basis and a wide area of interest. In most circumstances, the degree of risk is explained to those involved, but ultimately it is for those who wish to travel to make a decision based on the information that they receive. It is my Department's intention to make sure that they are furnished with every piece of information that might be of help to them.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The Minister will know that this is not the first time that Islamic fundamentalist movements have organised a terrorist incident, and he will know that it will not be the last. Is the Foreign Office developing a pool of expertise—that is, people who really understand what motivates those groups and who have studied the background to them—to meet that threat in future so that, as and when, inevitably, we are faced with more incidents of this nature in the western world, we shall be equipped with the Foreign Office expertise to deal with them?
Mr. Henderson: I can reassure my hon. Friend that my Department is fully briefed, not only on the factual
152
situation in those areas of the world, but on political opinions expressed by the widest range of sources. I have every confidence in my Department's ability to brief Ministers and to provide advice on which the people of this nation can base their decisions.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister accept that while I agree with him about terrorism, I endorse the views of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on the peace process and the difficulties that that makes for Egypt? Does he agree that Egypt holds a pivotal position in the middle east and that the Egyptian Government deserve whatever support we can give? Is he aware that, from time to time, we have been able to provide them with training from the Ministry of Defence? Will he examine whether there is a case for reviewing the training that is currently given, to see whether more training—or some of the more sophisticated techniques on which we are great experts—could be offered to our Egyptian friends?
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I assure him that they are well taken. His points constituted part of our dialogue with the Egyptian Government. Where we can provide assistance, we would want to do so.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to associate myself with the sympathy that has been expressed, and with the Minister's views on terrorism. Luxor is a fine place with fine people, many of whom are impoverished. They will be devastated by what has taken place and its effect on tourism. After considering the terrorist situation, will the Government examine how help may be given to the people and economy of Egypt? Do the Government recognise that Islam was not a key link in this act? It is like the link that exists between some terrorist groups and Christianity in the western world. Most of Islam abhors such acts.
Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I am sure that it is true that the vast majority of the Islamic world condemns this atrocity in the same way as we do. He should address his remarks on assistance to Egypt to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, but assistance is part of the regular dialogue between our two countries. I am sure that that will continue to be the case.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: While it is right to support the policies of the Egyptian Government that are designed to root out terrorism, may I support the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) about the importance of pushing forward the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians? That is critical if there is to be an end, or at least a reduction, of tension and of the underlying support for Islamic fundamentalism. It is important that, wherever possible, we try to encourage regimes in the middle east to make themselves more accountable and representative, because that also tends to diminish the support that underpins Islamic fundamentalism in the region.
Mr. Henderson: 1 agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, which is essentially the same as that of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife

153
(Mr. Campbell). The Government will take every action to try to push forward the peace process. I again refer to last week's important meetings between my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Netanyahu.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Is the Minister aware that, over the past decade, hundreds of thousands of British people, including me, have visited Luxor without any threat to our lives, and that Egypt depends greatly on international tourism? Is he also aware that the domestic roots of Islamic terrorism go back many years and that it is a little glib to associate this incident simply with the current difficulties of the middle east peace process? Does he agree that it is not helpful to try to blame the Israeli Government, directly or indirectly, for the actions of a small group of fanatical terrorists who do not represent any large number of people in the middle east?
Mr. Henderson: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is less important for us to attribute blame for inactivity in the peace process and more important for us to encourage the Israeli Government, Arab Governments and our Palestinian friends to push forward the process so that general tension is relaxed, enabling progress to be made towards a more permanent peace. That is the relevance of the current situation to the peace process.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the Minister agree that it is important that responsibility for an atrocity of this type falls solely on those who caused it, not on anyone else? Will he acknowledge that the Foreign Office does all that is humanly possible to give the best possible travel advice, and that its advice is regarded throughout the world as of a very high quality, regularly updated?
When I had some responsibility for consular affairs in the Foreign Office in 1994, I visited Egypt to see what the Egyptian Government were doing to protect United Kingdom tourists. Does the Minister accept that it was obvious that the Government of Egypt were doing all that was possible to protect UK and other tourists? Does he agree that it is very important that we do not allow the people or the Government of Egypt to be isolated now? It is one of the terrorists' objectives to bring about such isolation, and if we allow the Government or the people of Egypt to be isolated or more isolated as a consequence of the tragedy, the terrorists will partly have succeeded.
Mr. Henderson: It is clear from the response of the whole House, which I believe reflects the view in the country, that all of us want to do what we can to help the Egyptian Government to improve security, so that foreign tourists can travel in Egypt and relax. As I mentioned in my response to some other hon. Members, there is a constant dialogue with the Egyptian Government on such matters, and if there is any way in which we can help them to improve their security, we shall do so.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-
154
Sussex (Mr. Soames), the former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), does the Minister accept that the visual image of Israelis building settlements in Palestinian territory is the root cause of this problem, and that it is that image that inflames the fundamentalists' cause?
Does the Minister accept that, ghastly though the tragedy at Luxor was, it occurred on the edge of what is really Greater Luxor, some distance from the city on the other side of the Nile? Can he reassure British holidaymakers in residence at Luxor now that the town is comparatively safe, and that we are talking about the small area of temples in the west, up against the hill?
Mr. Henderson: The advice that I gave in my original remarks was that the area of Luxor is not safe and persons travelling should be extremely wary about entering that territory.
I repeat that there is no justification at all, under any circumstances, for the action that was taken yesterday and the horror that it caused to families and citizens of this country and others. If one were to ask an analytical historian the cause of troubles in the middle east area over the centuries, one would be unlikely to receive one response, as there are many approaches. Obviously, however, it does not help for the peace process to be logjammed, and something must be done to get things moving, so that people in these areas have greater hope and reassurance.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister agree that the worst outcome would be for the tourist industry in Egypt to be destroyed? Does he further agree with my rough calculation that, even in the wake of yesterday's appalling and tragic events, a visitor to Egypt is 30 times more likely to die of natural causes than to be involved in a terrorist incident? Will his advice to travel companies reflect what is statistically likely to happen to people?
Does the Minister agree that the British people must stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends in Egypt against terrorism—a scourge that, unfortunately, we have both endured—and that the Foreign Office must be as robust as possible in its advice to tour operators and individuals, so that the risks are understood but encouragement is not given to unnecessary panic, which seems to have happened this morning?
Mr. Henderson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no panic reaction by my Department, but we have a responsibility to provide advice to British tourists on the dangers that they may face when they travel. Our assessment is that there are serious dangers at the moment in Egypt, and there have been for some time. I explained in specific terms in my initial remarks what those were. We shall continue to monitor the situation day by day, and continue to give the best advice that can be given. Nevertheless, we shall want to help to promote tourism to Egypt, and that will be a continuing item in the dialogue with the Egyptian Government.

Personal Pensions (Mis-selling)
3.54 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a further statement on the mis-selling of personal pensions.
On 9 July, I reported to the House on the progress being made by individual firms with most cases to put right in what is possibly the most extensive scandal ever seen in our financial services industry. Each month subsequently, I have published the latest facts available to me. Today I have placed in the Library further information about the progress being made.
We are now seeing positive results from the pressure applied since this Government were elected. In May, only 2 per cent. of cases had been compensated. Now there has been a sevenfold increase in the number of people receiving compensation—proof that, in the cold glare of publicity, firms can raise their game and make progress. However, more could and should be done.
Before I go into more detail, it might assist the House if I recall the events that led to this scandal. The Social Security Act 1986, a much-vaunted piece of legislation by the previous Government, encouraged millions of people to change sound pension arrangements for something different, in the belief that they would be more secure in later life. Some will be; not all, however. For some, the change meant a future less secure, not more so.
Between 1988 and 1994, life insurance companies, independent financial advisers, banks and building societies, through vigorous marketing, sold more than 5 million personal pensions. It soon became clear that that meant disaster for many, including hundreds of thousands in the nursing, teaching and other professions, who had been persuaded against their best interests to abandon the safety of their occupational schemes.
The truth is that many firms did not abide by the regulatory rules then in force, requiring them to give suitable advice. Among those firms failing their customers were many household names. The Securities and Investments Board in 1994 took the unprecedented step of requiring firms to review the cases of those most likely to have suffered. The scale of the problem can now be seen. Some 600,000 cases are currently being reviewed, and on current indications the cost of compensation will be at least £2 billion.
Deadlines were set for completing the most urgent reviews. Those were well missed, and the previous Government stood by and let that happen. On 14 May this year, I met heads of 24 firms, responsible for about three quarters of the total of cases. I left them in no doubt about our determination to ensure that those wasted years would be redeemed.
Most of the big firms are making headway—indeed, some of them have made large strides—but far too many firms, from large insurance companies to small independent advisers, have been far too slow to act, and some have hardly even started. They have failed to grasp the severity of the situation.
The experience of the past few months shows that pressure from the Government, the regulators and the public is working. I intend to maintain that pressure until the review is completed. In May, the regulator set hard
156
but realistic new targets for all the firms concerned, and made it clear that there would be robust disciplinary action. For most firms, the first of those targets is to complete 90 per cent. of the most urgent cases by the end of next month. Beyond that, they must complete all their priority reviews by the end of next year, at the very latest. When they reach that target, I shall remove their names from the list that I publish each month—although they must continue to update me on their progress.
The recent reprimands and fines against firms such as the Prudential, Friends Provident and DBS have attracted wide publicity. This disciplinary rigour will continue. However, the Government and the regulators recognise that, in respect of some companies at least, those sanctions may not be enough—they are not galvanising the laggards. For them, a stronger armoury of sanctions is required. The Personal Investment Authority is working to achieve that through individual registration, and the new regime will come into force as soon as possible next year.
Once that regime is in place, sanctions can be fine-tuned to apply pressure directly on those responsible. Individual directors, managers or sales people found to be at fault will face the prospect of fines, public reprimands or restrictions upon the type of work in which they may be involved. In extreme cases, they could be expelled from the industry.
The public have a right to know about these failures. At present, the PIA has the power to require firms to advertise their misconduct and the grounds on which they have been disciplined. That power has been kept in reserve, but there is now every reason to use it to the full. The PIA is currently examining ways of ensuring that customers are informed directly of a firm's failings. The Government believe that the time has come for a tougher range of sanctions to come into play. The only way for a firm or an individual to avoid disciplinary action is to avoid the conduct that warrants it.
While putting right the wrongs of pensions mis-selling has been the priority, the Government have not lost sight of the fact that the financial services industry is central to our economic prosperity, and to the welfare of millions of people. However, its prosperity requires the confidence of the public. That is why the industry must act quickly to restore that confidence. If there is continuing evidence that some firms have refused to learn the lessons of the past few years and are still harming investors, we shall act to clean up the industry.
To this end, the PIA has the authority to intervene on behalf of the public and require that a firm ceases to market or sell some or all of its investment products for a period, and puts its house in order. Firms whose compliance with the regulator's requirements is so poor that investors are put at risk can effectively be put out of business. The PIA will use that power wherever it is warranted. Candidates for that action will include any independent financial adviser or any other firms found to be using the review process as a foot in the door to sell more products.
The regulators and the Government also have powers to protect the public by taking action to exclude senior people who are not fit and proper from involvement in financial services business. Those who are not fit and proper can be removed from their posts—and we shall see that they are removed. In the years ahead, the Government plan to introduce legislation that will have a profound

157
impact on the financial services environment. Lessons learned from the pensions mis-selling episode will be in all our minds as we go about that task in relation to stakeholder pensions and individual savings accounts, and as we reform the regulatory regime itself.
So far as pensions policy is concerned, we will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government. We will not set people up to be fleeced. We anticipate that future decisions on the regulatory approval of stakeholder pension schemes will take into account the conduct and the corporate governance of all those involved. That would, of course, include their record in settling cases of mis-sold personal pensions.
I hope that, through the combination of measures that I have outlined to the House today, we can ensure that never again will the public be exposed to such a scandal as that which I have described, and that those who have suffered can now look for speedy redress. Justice for them has been too long delayed: this Government are determined to ensure that it is delivered.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Economic Secretary accept for a start that we on the Conservative Benches entirely share her desire to rectify the consequences of pensions mis-selling as speedily as possible, consistent only with the proper discharge of the wider responsibility of insurance companies for the sound conduct of their business. We believe that the proper approach is through the regulatory mechanisms that we largely put in place—every one of those to which she referred were already in place. Those actions were taken further by Angela Knight, who was then a Minister in the previous Government.
Will the Economic Secretary acknowledge that, although the targets had been set by the regulator, most of these are for completion next month at the earliest; that neither she nor we are yet in a position to say that most individuals or companies have failed to meet their current targets; and that many will in fact meet them?
Will the hon. Lady also concede that the proper approach to the problem of pension mis-selling is through the regulator's steady and objective work, and the progressive use and tightening of the powers of sanction available to him, rather than through an approach that could be described as confessional, based on the naming and shaming of individual companies by a Minister? Does not her role in this increasingly resemble that of a public relations stunt, by a Minister who was herself employed in public relations by the late Robert Maxwell, one of the biggest mis-sellers of all?
Can we have a further assurance from the Economic Secretary that in no case will a company or individual who is likely to be in the frame for her naming and shaming be treated softly on the grounds of any association with, donation to or work for the Labour party or the Government? In particular, is it not interesting that her statement refers to the Prudential Assurance company, of which Peter Davis—he is well known to many of us, too—is chief executive? Is it not odd that she is shaming him while, simultaneously, the Government are prepared to condone him as the leader of the team on welfare to work, dealing with some of the most sensitive and underprivileged members of our society?
158
More widely, perhaps, will the Economic Secretary accept that, although the mis-selling of some private pensions and personal pensions was wrong and must be rectified, the United Kingdom is in an enviable position internationally, both with the strength of the financial services industry, to which she referred, and with the accumulation of some £650 billion of pension fund assets; and that only today representatives of German banks were reported as pressing their Government to enable the early establishment of what they described as Anglo-Saxon type pension funds?
Will the Economic Secretary acknowledge—it will be the first acknowledgement to come from the Government if she does so—that the present Government's smash and grab raid on pension funds through the pension tax in the sum of £5 billion a year, which they imposed in the last Budget, has cost every pension holder in the land a significant amount of their future pension? To be more specific, does she accept that the average cost to county council pension schemes, three quarters of which were in deficit at the last actuarial revision, is £3.7 million a year?
Will the Economic Secretary also acknowledge that the Government's proposals in the Budget have made opting out from the state earnings-related pension scheme much less attractive, and that, as a result, many people who have taken a personal pension would be better off in the SERPS scheme? Perhaps she will tell me that the Government will commit themselves to a public information programme to explain the implications to people who in effect have been mis-sold a personal pension by the Government. Would that not be a contribution to truth for the pension holder?
Finally, will the hon. Lady explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to give a straight answer to the questions that we have asked him? Is it not, in fact, the Chancellor—who is sitting next to the hon. Lady—whom she should be considering for naming and shaming?
Mrs. Liddell: We have just seen a manifestation of why, when we were elected in May, fewer than 2 per cent. of pensions cases had been dealt with. Under the last Government, there was a complete failure to take into account not just the fact that 600,000 people had been mis-sold personal pensions, but the fact that 18,000 had since died without securing redress. Today, we have seen an Opposition wriggling on the record of their own performance in government. We took the action we did because of our determination to see innocent people receive redress.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the Prudential. The Prudential will be dealt with by the regulators as they see fit, but the Government have decided that the structure of regulation needs to be reformed. The hon. Gentleman might have served the House better if he had come to the Dispatch Box and apologised for the performance of the previous Government.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the guilty people are the insurance company chiefs, many of the guilty people sit on the Opposition Benches? Scores of Tory Members were associated with those companies when the Tory Government were in power, and it was they who believed that market forces could allow people to change their pensions in such a fashion.

159
I stand up today because I remember when the miners, having ripped their guts out in the pits, saw those pits closed by that lousy Tory Government. Then these people came knocking on their doors—sent by Opposition Members, or their friends—saying, "Transfer your pensions, and you will get more money." The net result is that many of them have lost thousands.
I suggest that, if we do not get all that money back from those insurance companies, we should surcharge that lot over there, because they were instrumental in carrying out the mis-selling.
Mrs. Liddell: I could not have put it better myself. As one who represents a mining constituency—as, indeed, does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—I know the hardship that has been caused to the families of miners, and the great distress that has been caused to, in particular, the widows of miners whose husbands thought that they had left them well provided for, but who now find that they were duped because of actions taken by the last Government.
Mr. Edward Davey: Liberal Democrats welcome today's statement. Many people throughout the country are delighted that the new Government are taking the mis-selling of pensions seriously, although for far too many their action has come too late.
Has the Economic Secretary considered other measures to tackle the problem—for example, the reform of training and of the requirements for professional qualifications in those who are involved in selling financial products such as personal pensions? If the hon. Lady has not considered those measures, has she considered giving such a remit to the new Financial Services Authority, so that, in future, the financial services industry can proceed with confidence, and consumers can buy its products knowing that those who sell them have been properly trained and are competent?
Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have had extensive discussions about matters relating to training, and about the standards of those who give financial advice. I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) gave some financial advice himself; I wonder whether he is registered to do so.
As for regulatory reform, we intend to look closely at ways of improving the standards of financial advice—and, indeed, the standards of consumer education in relation to financial services products.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I, too, welcome the statement. I am sure that, like the rest of the House, my hon. Friend will be aware of the public apology made by Peter Davis, the chief executive of the Prudential. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not, actually.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prudential is still failing victims, and is likely to continue to do so, and to miss the targets for next March? What does she plan to do about that?
Mrs. Liddell: It is interesting to note the discomfort that is experienced by Conservative Members when important points are being made about ensuring that people meet targets. The purpose of today's statement is
160
to concentrate the minds of those who think that the Government are not serious about ensuring that the targets are met. They cannot now be left in any doubt about the seriousness with which the Government and the regulators treat these matters.
Mr. Peter Brooke: The way in which the Minister plays her hand is for her to decide. Is she implying that she is against the principle of the Social Security Act 1986?
Mrs. Liddell: Yes: that is why we are reforming it.
Mr. Jim Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done on this important issue. Will she confirm that the inability of companies to meet their targets for compensation, and the inability of the Conservative party to deal with this matter while in government, has led to many thousands of pensioners dying without receiving any compensation?
Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, nothing that we have done could not have been done by the previous Government. They failed to take action, because they turned a blind eye to the crisis, despite the fact that everyone knew what was going on. The Conservative party's behaviour is shameful.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Economic Secretary share my concern about recent reports that financial advisers are still advising people to move their savings out of company schemes and into personal plans, to a value of almost £100 million this year? They are mainly people who are approaching retirement age and want access to income draw-down and phased retirement schemes. Potentially huge commissions are involved. Will she undertake to reinforce the work that has been done by the Personal Investment Authority to ensure that there is no phase 2 of this scandal?
Mrs. Liddell: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his expertise in these matters. He makes an important point, which allows me to highlight the fact that, in addition to the 600,000 people in the priority categories who have been mis-sold personal pensions, we estimate that there could be between 1 million and 1.5 million non-priority cases involving younger people who have bought personal pension products. I urge people to check personal pension products to ensure that they have not been mis-sold, so that we do not have a time bomb for the future. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made.
Jacqui Smith: As a teacher in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, I was conscious of the hard sell by many pension companies to try to persuade teachers to move out of what my hon. Friend has described as a good pension scheme, and into a private pension scheme. My hon. Friend has given us some idea of how many people may have been affected, but does she agree with me that there could be even more people than we are currently aware of, because some companies and some sections of the industry are still failing to warn their customers that they may have been mis-sold pensions?
Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not just companies that are failing to warn their customers that they may have been mis-sold pensions. It is important that people check any material they receive from pension companies. As a result of my statement, I hope that the Personal Investment Authority will insist that marketing material contains details of any penalties that companies have incurred through the mis-selling of personal pensions.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The Minister said that 600,000 cases are being reviewed, out of a total of 5 million. Does that not imply that more than 4 million of those who were sold personal pensions were not damaged as a result of the previous Government's initiative, and that, for some people, personal pensions were a good choice and a benefit? Would the Minister care to contrast that experience with the universal suffering caused by the present Government's manifesto mis-selling, given that they have imposed a pensions tax on every pension scheme?
Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is an apologist for those who have mis-sold personal pensions. He does not understand the position. The 600,000 who are currently being reviewed are at or near retirement. The point that I made in response to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was that there could be an additional 1 million to 1.5 million younger people who have been mis-sold personal pensions, which is a substantial number out of 5 million. Rather than act as an apologist, the hon. Gentleman should do his bit to ensure that this matter is resolved.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Unlike many of my colleagues, I wish not to praise the Minister but to criticise her, for being too soft on the people running the pensions industry. Will she stop using euphemisms such as "mis-selling", as if it was in some way accidental? Why does she not just describe it as theft, which is a much more accurate description of what actually took place?
Why do Governments continue to be mealy-mouthed when it comes to white-collar crime? In my view, many of the people responsible deserve to be in gaol. If any of my constituents stole an equivalent amount, they would end up in the courts and then in gaol. Why is white-collar crime treated more leniently than other types of crime?
Does the Minister agree that those firms which do not put things right within a very short time should be disqualified from participating in stakeholder pensions and frozen out of the industry altogether as unsuitable? Should not the brand of Cain be stamped across the forehead of their chairmen to ensure that they do not do business in future? That is the only way that the companies will take the Minister's strictures seriously.
Mrs. Liddell: I see that my hon. Friend is behaving with his customary moderation. Indeed, the nicest thing that has been said about me in this episode is that I have been mealy-mouthed.
The action that I am proposing today will guarantee that those responsible for the running of companies involved in mis-selling will themselves pay a penalty if they do not meet the targets and ensure that redress is made.
Mr. John Swinney: I support the Minister's statement but would like to ask two questions. First, when tackling networks like DBS, have the Government considered differentiating between the company or network and individual agents, some of whom will have a clear and commendable record? Secondly, in relation to stakeholder pensions, what consideration have the Government given to providing protection from excessive costs which will have to be borne by the consumer from products to be available for the market?
Mrs. Liddell: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point first. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, may be making a statement about stakeholder pensions soon. I have had lengthy discussions with him about the lessons that have to be learned about the mis-selling of stakeholder pensions.
There have already been fines on networks as a consequence of their failure to meet targets. They have been disciplined by the regulatory authorities. Regulation covers the management practices that networks and, indeed, individual financial advisers have been using. There are many lessons to be learned from that. The regulators are conscious of cases in which discipline may need to be applied; indeed, that discipline has been applied.
Mr. John Smith: As someone who was actively involved in a campaign to discourage people from giving up their occupational pensions for private pensions, I thank my hon. Friend for her statement on behalf of my constituents. Does she share my view that the previous Tory Government were effectively guilty of conspiring to rob millions of British people of large chunks of their life savings, in that they created a climate that encouraged mis-selling and then did absolutely nothing when the problem was discovered?
Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's thanks. The Government will really be thanked when all the cases of mis-selling have been resolved. Yes, the climate at the time did encourage it to happen. The devil-may-care, get-rich-quick days of the Thatcher Government certainly encouraged the problems—[Interruption.] As some of my hon. Friends are saying from a sedentary position, some Opposition Front Benchers have a specific responsibility for what happened.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Minister arrange for discussions to be held with both miners' pension schemes? In the light of the information that she will be given, that 7,000 miners can be identified—their addresses are known, as are their pension shortfalls—will she take quick and severe action, with the regulator, against companies such as TSB and the Prudential, which seem unwilling to set matters right?
Mrs. Liddell: I am conscious of the difficulties that are being experienced in some cases with occupational pension schemes, and I have heard what my hon. Friend has said. There have been some improvements in the information available from occupational schemes

163
and some companies—for example, the Pearl Assurance—are making their occupational pension scheme databases available, free of charge, to other companies. That is a very useful development.
At the start of this year, however, there were considerable difficulties with occupational pension schemes. Many of those difficulties have been resolved, but I will certainly be vigilant and do what I can to assist with the occupational pension schemes that my hon. Friend mentioned. I have heard the point he has made.

Formula One
4.25 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I should stress that it does not deal with a cheap or party political point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If it did, I would not have raised it on an afternoon when the House was bound to be three quarters empty.
It deals with a subject that will concern hon. Members from both sides of the House, and with a matter that undermines the rules of the House. The matter strikes at the entire purpose—it negates the purpose—of having a Register of Members' Interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] Far from being boring, it is very important.
In last Thursday's edition of The Times, there was a report that the Prime Minister had gone to last year's Silverstone grand prix as a guest of formula one, yet had not entered the visit in the Register of Members' Interests. I have checked with the Registrar of Members' Interests, and he stated that the rules of the House are quite clear. The rules are that, if the visit were a gift of hospitality worth more than £215, it should have been entered. I checked with the Silverstone authorities, and they told me that it is likely to cost more than £215 to take only one person to Silverstone, and that it would cost a great deal more than that to take two people or a family.
Since I have been making the investigations, I have discovered that one David Ward—a professional lobbyist employed by the Formula One Association—arranged for the Prime Minister to go to the Silverstone grand prix as a guest of Max Mosley, and that that is when he met Bernie Ecclestone.
Some people will say that the matter is old hat and last week's news. There has, however, been no explanation or discussion of the matter. I seek your advice, Madam Speaker. It seems that all hon. Members—not only Opposition Members—should be given an explanation of why the Register of Members' Interests is not up to date.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, a senior officer of the House whom we employ to deal with such matters. As the hon. Gentleman is also aware, such matters should not be raised on the Floor of the House. He may wish to put the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner

National Health Service (Equity of Funding)
4.27 pm
Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set up an independent National Health Service Funding Advisory Body charged with the task of ensuring an equitable formula for the funding of local health authorities.
The Bill is relevant to hon. Members from across the country, because its purpose is to deal with the recognised failings of the current formula. Although I support initial ministerial proposals to establish an advisory body that would report next autumn, my Bill would go further by providing a continuing statutory requirement for such a body. Many health authorities—for example, in Cornwall and in Lincolnshire—face unnecessary funding crises, and hon. Members on both sides of the House know that such a crisis could occur in any place and at any time.
I tabled my Bill because of recent proposals—which are a consequence of projections for a budget-driven crisis for next year and subsequent years—to slash Cornwall's health services. The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority must make a £5 million year-on-year saving. The need for such cuts has not only sent a shock wave through the Cornish community and been widely and justifiably derided: it has brought into sharp focus the very funding formula used by the Government in deciding local health authorities' apportionment of NHS funding. Last week, the formula was used in Lancashire, and, in the weeks and months ahead, it will affect other places.
For the benefit of hon. Members, I should perhaps explain a little about Cornwall and its people. Historically, we have had not only the lowest wages in the United Kingdom but very high levels of unemployment, a high cost of living, the highest water rates, and pressure on our housing stock from second and holiday homes. It is a difficult place in which to be poor.
This summer, even after the suffering caused by factory closures, job losses and the failure to obtain adequate investment in Cornwall's economic infrastructure, Cornish people would probably say philosophically, "Well, at least we've got our health." They might also say, "At least we have the national health service," but serious doubts now exist that many parts of Cornwall even have that.
Hospitals in small towns, which have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for specialist and essential equipment, are destined to close. Under the proposals, four non-acute community hospitals would close. Up to 130 beds would be axed, and 400 people would lose their jobs. Essential casualty services would be downgraded. If the House thinks that I am angry, it is wrong—I am very, very angry. I am angry with my people for being so good about the cuts, for never wanting to make a fuss and always being grateful. They do not want to complain, and, until now, they have never properly expressed the deep injustice they all feel.
Before hon. Members make the often felt but rarely stated assumption that we should not complain because we live in a beautiful environment in Cornwall, I ask them to stop and think. The beauty of a rural or any other environment should not mean that its people are a soft touch for hard decisions.
166
The hard decisions we face in Cornwall would involve, in some places, the complete removal of health services that most other parts of the country take for granted. They would mean damage to the health, well-being and care of many vulnerable people, especially older people and their carers, and the needless loss of life.
I shall explain. One of the proposals would involve the serious downgrading of casualty services in the small general acute hospital in Penzance in my constituency. I must declare an interest, because my wife is a nurse there. However, she does not work in the casualty service, in which an average of 18,000 to 20,000 new cases are seen each year.
Every year, there are many cardiac arrests, approximately 30 cases of cardiac arrhythmia, 10 road traffic accidents—after which, following triage by paramedics, patients are admitted for emergency treatment—10 ruptured aortic aneurysms, and 30 cases of peritonitis with septicaemia. While some of those cases might make it to the only casualty service left, which is nearly 30 miles to the east, higher mortality rates will inevitably result. That will mean more deaths.
Yes, people will die as a result of the cuts, and no one should be in any doubt about that. What good will a beautiful environment be to those who die because their local casualty service has been taken away? I am sure that hon. Members will understand that that is a serious matter. I want local people to get angry, and to get even. They should get angry about the threat to local services, and get an even deal from the funding mechanism.
The present formula does not take proper account of the heavy pressure from holidaymakers who use accident and emergency services in the area. It fails to recognise that the market forces mechanism cannot cope with the problems of a low wage area. Above all, it fails to recognise the special geographical problems in places such as Cornwall. If one looks for a hospital or health service to the north, one finds sea. To the south, it is the same. In my constituency, in west Cornwall, one would need to go to Newfoundland to find a hospital to the west and, as we all know, Cornish people are not keen on going east into England.
I fully appreciate and accept that there is no such thing as a perfect and objective formula waiting to be miraculously discovered, but I know that hon. Members will agree that it could be greatly improved. Frankly, we have gone in the wrong direction, in response to an increasingly litigious society. We have seen more paper, more patients charters, more visions, more performance tables, more missions, more business plans. What has all that created?
All we have achieved is a more remote, out-of-touch and unaccountable system. For all its inhumanity, it should have created efficiencies, but we all know that it did not. Incidentally, I welcome the Government's efforts to remove the absurd purchaser-provider split from the health service. It has created a self-perpetuating culture of centralised management. The corollary is a distaste for and private derision of community facilities and values, and the treatment of patients as human beings rather than as statistics.
It is time to challenge the trend towards treating patients as remote tamagochi pets. It is time to fight back, as we are doing in Cornwall. It is time for a funding

167
formula that recognises the wide diversity of communities, geography and needs across the land. That is all I ask, and I do not think it is too much.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew George, Mr. Simon Hughes, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Bob Russell and Mr. John Burnett.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (EQUITY OF FUNDING)
Mr. Andrew George accordingly presented a Bill to set up an independent National Health Service Funding Advisory Body charged with the task of ensuring an equitable formula for the funding of local health authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February, and to be printed [Bill 84].
Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has two aims: to ensure that the criminal justice system and the security forces in Northern Ireland continue to have available the measures that they need to counter terrorism; and to protect the rights of individuals directly affected by the operation of the counter-terrorism provisions. It achieves those twin aims by extending the life of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which otherwise would expire in August next year, and by making some important amendments to the existing provisions.
  It is important to place the Bill in the context of developments in Northern Ireland. Steady progress has been made in the peace process. The loyalist ceasefire of 1994 is holding and despite the recent speculation about resignations from the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein, the renewed Provisional IRA ceasefire is also intact. All but two of the local parties are engaged in talks aimed at achieving a lasting political settlement by May of next year. While we wish all parties to be present and to have their voices heard at the talks, we have a duty to press on in the negotiations with those who are willing to participate.
  The most difficult tasks lie ahead. It would be misplaced optimism to underestimate the challenge that faces the two Governments and all the parties engaged in the talks. They will require vision and courage in their quest for peace. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing them continued steady progress and success.
  On the security front, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Mr. Ronnie Flanagan, said recently that the Provisional IRA's ceasefire remains remarkably stable and that that has resulted in a significantly reduced level of terrorist activity. That is certainly the case, but some terrorist groups on both sides remain active and could destabilise the peace process. The Government are clear that there can be no question of leaving the security forces without the resources that they need to counter such activities.
  I do not intend to catalogue recent incidents. Hon. Members are only too well aware of what has happened recently. However, I shall mention one incident to illustrate my point. On 30 October, the Continuity IRA left a holdall bomb in a public office of the Department of the Environment in Derry. Only the detonator of the device exploded. It contained a quantity of Semtex and petrol. Had it properly ignited, it would have caused serious damage to the building, and very possibly serious injury or death. The fact that that did not happen should in no way obscure the intent and purpose behind the planting of the bomb. It was carried out as a blatant calculated act of terrorism, with the underlying aim of derailing the talks process.
  Mr. David Trimble: The Minister pointed out that the holdall bomb in Londonderry was

  169
  claimed by the so-called Continuity Army Council. Yet as he said, the bomb contained Semtex, and there is only one known source from which that Semtex could come—the Provisional IRA.
  Will the Minister comment on that aspect, because the presence of Semtex in the bomb suggests that at some level within the IRA assistance, in terms of material, and perhaps more than that, was being given to that other organisation. What does that suggest about the strength of the IRA ceasefire?
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is, in one sense, speculating on the basis of what may be a possible fact—that the Provisional IRA is the only known source of Semtex. I mentioned the possibility of fragmentation and what may flow from that. We have no direct evidence that there was a transfer of material from the Provisional IRA to the Continuity Army Council—or the Continuity IRA, as it is otherwise known.
  As for the status of the existing ceasefire, I have said that the Chief Constable, who has a responsibility for assessing the security aspects of the situation, is clear that that ceasefire is still being maintained. It is a ceasefire very different from the previous one, and we all hope that that continues to be the case.
  I have already pointed out that the device in question, and the other devices planted at Markethill and elsewhere, represented blatant calculated acts of terrorism. The terrorists have not gone away.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is about time that the Secretary of State and the Minister, who has responsibility for security, made some calculated judgments on their own account. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he says with the words of Francis Molloy, who was sitting negotiating in the talks on disarmament yesterday, yet reassured IRA members that
  "Sinn Fein's political policy 'was a tactic rather than an end in itself".
  I do not need to say more to the Minister. He understands the significance of those calculated words of Mr. Molloy.
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to make an independent judgment of the security situation as I understand it, but I am sure that he is all too well aware that when assessing security events on the ground it is important to take proper advice from people such as the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. At the end of the day it is for Ministers to weigh such advice and to make judgments accordingly. However, the judgments have to be based on facts, not on leaps of supposition.
  Mr. Maginnis: And my second point?
  Mr. Ingram: I am coming to that. From here I cannot see for sure, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to be quoting from a press report of what was said. If he has a transcript—
  Mr. Maginnis indicated assent.
  Mr. Trimble indicated assent.
  Mr. Ingram:—that may prove helpful. However, what I said at the beginning still holds. In the view of the
  170
  practitioners on the ground, in the view of the RUC, the existing ceasefire is of a substantially different nature from the previous one. In terms of the quality of advice coming to Ministers, that is indeed the case. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) would prefer judgments to be made on such advice rather than on reportage in the press, or on interpretations thereof.
  Mr. Maginnis: The Minister challenges me on my point. But I can tell him that there are those who have lived with the situation for years. May I explain my credentials? In June 1995 I told the Minister and other hon. Members that Martin McGuinness had said that the ceasefire had effectively ended. Now, with the same authority and the same background, I tell the Minister that there are those, such as Councillor Francis Molloy, who are reassuring the IRA that the political process is but a tactic, and that those people will go back to doing what they did best—they will use the iron fist. The Minister cannot deny that. He does not look like an ostrich, so he should not talk like one.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions must be brief, especially if the hon. Gentleman wants the opportunity to put an argument himself in due course.
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has never made a brief intervention in his life.
  Mr. Ingram: Some of the hon. Gentleman's interventions may be brief, but they are certainly full of insults. He is right that I am not an ostrich, and I do not intend to act like one. That is why we are, as I said, taking the best security advice. Of course I will listen to what the hon. Gentleman says about his experience, but the fact that in the past what was predicted came to pass does not mean that the same will inevitably happen a second time. A judgment must be made on the quality of the ceasefire as it currently exists.
  It would be wrong for those who wish to move the peace process forward, constantly to try to be too predictive and gloom-ridden about what may or may not develop—
  Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
  Mr. Ingram: I shall make some progress now. We have a long time for the debate and there are not many hon. Members in the Chamber. Those who are here will have the opportunity to make their own points in the debate—
  Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
  Mr. Ingram: I may return to the hon. Gentleman later.
  What I now wish to do—it follows on from what we have been saying—is to pay tribute to the security forces. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Ulster Unionist party will support me in that. In extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances, the security forces have striven with great professionalism to maintain order and to protect the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

  171
  I include in that tribute the Army, whose support has been necessary in tackling the threat posed by the terrorist groups. The police and the Army have sustained severe losses in the line of duty—along with many civilians in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years or so. It is therefore the duty of the Government and of the House to ensure that they continue to have available the means that they need to deal effectively with terrorism.
  Against the backcloth that I have painted, there can be no question but that the case is made for the retention of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act in the short term. In the longer term, the Government wish to see an end to the present temporary arrangements, and our intentions are as set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the House on 30 October—the same day that the Continuity IRA left a bomb in the motor tax office in Derry. I shall return to my right hon. Friend's announcement on that occasion in a moment.
  There will be those in the House who question why the Government are renewing provisions against which its members voted when in opposition. Let me make it clear that as a party we have never questioned the need for effective counter-terrorism legislation.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said from the Opposition Benches on Second Reading of the current EPA on 9 January 1996:
  "We do not oppose counter-terrorism legislation; we oppose the nature of the Bill."—[Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 42.]
  My party in opposition voted against the legislation in the past because of what we saw as particular basic flaws that it contained.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Come on, try harder.
  Mr. Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the previous debate he will find that flavour running through it. My quotation was not selective. The Secretary of State and the Under—Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who will wind up the debate today, made such points throughout the debate, explaining why they opposed the legislation as it then existed. We are seeking in the Bill to address those flaws and to place the measure within the context of the Government's longer-term approach towards effective, permanent anti-terrorist legislation.
  Let me return to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who told the House:
  "My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I therefore intend to present proposals to replace both the current Acts with permanent United Kingdom-wide counter-terrorism legislation. We intend to publish the proposals in the form of a consultation paper early in the new year. The paper will draw on Lord Lloyd's most helpful analysis and recommendations."— [Official Report, 30 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 1029.]
  The Government's aim is to end the temporary arrangements that we have inherited and to put in place the best permanent legislation that we can devise for countering domestic and international terrorism. The new legislation must be flexible; it must address the changing situation in Northern Ireland and the changing nature of terrorism worldwide. The consultation exercise that we propose to launch in January will be an important first step.
  172
  Some will argue that the Government are taking a soft line on terrorism; I would argue that the contrary is the case. The Government's aim is to give the security forces permanent, effective powers to fight terrorism from whichever direction it may come. The Government are resolute—we shall never drop our guard in the fight against terrorism.
  We are grateful to Lord Lloyd for his independent and comprehensive review last year of existing legislation. His recommendations were predicated on there being a lasting peace in Northern Ireland—a situation for which all of us in this House earnestly hope. As all of us know, however, that we remain some way from that position. The Government nevertheless consider Lord Lloyd's analysis of the existing legislation, and his recommendations for the shape and content of future legislation, to be very helpful. We shall be building on his ideas in the construction of that new legislation.
  Let me now explain the specific provisions of the Bill. The Bill extends the life of the current Act by two years to 24 August 2000. It also maintains the arrangement whereby its temporary provisions, which form its substantive part, are subject to annual renewal. As the House is aware, for the purpose of the annual renewal of the temporary provisions, the Government appoint an independent reviewer, who reports to Parliament. In recent years, that duty has been admirably borne by John Rowe QC.
  I remind hon. Members that the current Act contains a power to suspend many of its provisions. That power will be maintained; it is exercisable at any time during the lifetime of the Act if justified by changed circumstances. Therefore, should a political settlement be achieved, it will be open to the Secretary of State, when she judges it right to do so, to act to let lapse such provisions as she sees fit.
  Further to that, other features of the existing Act are retained: the schedule of terrorist offences; the mode of trial for such offences, the Diplock courts; the additional powers of arrest, search and seizure for the police and the Army; the specific offences against public security and public order, including offences relating to involvement with proscribed organisations; the regulatory provisions for the private security industry in Northern Ireland; the regime for terrorist suspects held under section 14 of the PTA in the holding centres, together with the safeguards in the related codes of practice; and the appointment of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures—an important position, which will continue to be filled while the Army are needed in Northern Ireland.
  The changes that the Bill makes to the current Act are small in number, but significant and in line with commitments given by the Labour party when in opposition. An important underlying aim of the Act is to ensure that the treatment of persons charged with terrorist crime is as close as it can sensibly be to that which applies in ordinary criminal cases.
  The amendments that we propose move the legislation even closer towards that objective. In essence, this Bill amends the EPA in three critical areas: the scheduling of offences and the facility whereby offences may be certified out; executive detention, or internment, as it is known; and the operative regime in the police holding centres.

  173
  Let me deal with each of them in turn. First, on the question of scheduled offences, the Government accept that, for the time being, the Diplock court system must continue for terrorist crime; there is nothing to show that the system has produced perverse judgments or that it has lowered standards. The Government hope that, eventually, it will be possible to return to a system of jury trial. However, it is our judgment that that is not possible at present. We have therefore considered what steps we might take at this time legitimately to reduce the potential for cases to be heard by Diplock courts.
  At present some scheduled offences must automatically be tried by Diplock courts; yet it is conceivable that, in certain cases, some such offences could be committed in circumstances not connected with the emergency. The Bill therefore amends schedule 1 to the current Act to add to the number of scheduled offences that can be certified out of the schedule at the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and thus be tried by a jury.
  The effect is that, of the scheduled offences, only those which are PTA and EPA offences—and indeed, not all of the latter—will in future be tried automatically by a Diplock court. It will be possible for all other scheduled offences that are committed in, say, a domestic or non-emergency context to be certified out for trial by jury. I shall not list the offences which by virtue of the Bill will become certifiable out; but offences such as the common law offence of riot and some firearms offences are examples.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister include in the list of terrorist crimes the continued punishment beatings which, according to my information—and despite the fact that people are trying to cover them up—are up by about 75 per cent? Will punishment beatings be scheduled out?
  Mr. Ingram: For one thing, I would not call them punishment beatings, as that term implies a justification for the action. I constantly refer to them as paramilitary assaults, as that describes more graphically the actions carried out. Where there is evidence that such an act has been carried out by a terrorist or paramilitary group, the perpetrators must be brought to justice. It is helpful if we put those actions in their proper context and do not classify them as punishment beatings—that is loose terminology which detracts from the seriousness of the acts.
  In terms of the figures that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has given, the quality of the ceasefire—that includes such things as paramilitary assaults—is different on this occasion. There is no evidence this time that the ancillary or related activities of the paramilitary groups have continued as they did last time. We will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that information is made as widely available as possible if we are able to so identify the nature of the action carried out.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with his comments on punishment beatings. May I return to the question of certifying out? When Peter Archer—now Lord Archer of Sandwell—was shadow Secretary of State, it was the
  174
  policy of the Labour party to argue for certifying in, rather than for certifying out. Can my hon. Friend outline the difficulties that made him abandon that policy?
  Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know of his long-standing interest in the issue. We examined the idea in considerable detail and it is not for want of trying to find a formula for making progress that we have not proceeded with it. We decided that it was too complex and could cause difficulties when the judicial system had to be involved in judgments about what should be subject to a jury trial. Following advice from judicial colleagues, or from those with responsibility for such matters, we decided in the meantime not to proceed in that way. I will explain the background to that decision in more detail.
  The change in scheduled offences will undoubtedly increase the work load of the Attorney—General, but that is the price to be paid for ensuring that, when it is at all possible and correct to do so, the normal criminal procedures are applied. We must take appropriate advice from those who have responsibility for such matters in Government, to ensure effective delivery of the judicial system.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I note the Minister's point about how onerous it would be for the Attorney-General and his office if certifying in rather than certifying out were to be the standard. Does he accept that at present about 85 per cent. of scheduled cases are certified out by the Attorney-General's office and that certifying in the other 15 per cent. would be less onerous than certifying out 85 per cent.? The argument is really in the opposite direction.
  Mr. Ingram: The harsh reality is that terrorist crime is a different type of crime, and that must be taken into account in making judgments. If terrorist crime disappears as a feature of Northern Ireland, the issue becomes less relevant. The problem for the Attorney-General's office is not only work load, but the way in which it could be compromised in making judgments about jury trials. That is the view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) may be able to cite previous shadow Attorneys-General, but the current one is giving us the advice, and we want to proceed on the basis of that advice.
  Mr. McNamara: I am sure that I am being thick, but I simply do not understand. If a judgment has to be made to certify out, and everything else goes in, why cannot a judgment be made to certify in? It would be the same judgment about jury trials, one way or the other. If the Attorney-General merely leaves a case in, he is saying that it is a terrorist offence, and if he certifies it in he is saying the same thing. There is no difference in the application of his judgment in that case. Whatever view former shadow Attorneys-General took, the logic of the present Attorney-General's case, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister, simply does not stand up.
  Mr. Ingram: We could spend a long time debating the matter, but I think that I have set out the background. My hon. Friend will no doubt return to the matter and make his points forcefully in his speech, but for now I can

  175
  add nothing new to what has already been said. We gave serious consideration to his proposition and, on balance, we decided not to proceed with it.
  The Government's position on internment is clear. The retention of the provisions, albeit in a lapsed state, was the single most compelling reason why the Labour party voted against the renewal of the legislation in the past. The truth is that the powers are draconian. They have not been used in more than 20 years, although of course the past 20 years has been one of the most active periods for terrorism in Northern Ireland. The fact that the provisions were not used during that period and did not prove a deterrent against terrorism exposes their redundancy.
  The Government's clear view is that internment did not represent an effective counter-terrorism measure in the past; does not represent one now; and is not likely to do so in the future. The reality is that internment involves a decision by Government to deprive individuals of their liberty without trial and without the normal safeguards that the law provides for the protection of the accused. Its use would only ever have been justified as a last resort; it has never been seen as a means of achieving stability within the community. The Government believe that the effect would be quite the reverse: it would increase community tension; cause serious damage to respect for the rule of law; strengthen the terrorist organisations; create political prisoners; and ultimately prolong the violence.
  Pending the introduction of permanent legislation, the package of provisions contained in the PTA and the EPA, as amended by the Bill, together with the experience and professionalism of the security forces and practitioners within the criminal justice system, will provide substantial measures for dealing with terrorism in a much more effective way.
  Mr. Roger Stott: Unlike hon. Members who have cross-examined him during his speech, I congratulate my hon. Friend—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend—on fulfilling a commitment that was given in opposition and is being brought to fruition in government. Some of us who have been dealing with Northern Ireland matters for many years have consistently stood out against internment, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on its discontinuation.
  Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to all his work on the matter, and to the work of those who served with him on the Opposition Front Bench. Our fundamental objection to the previous legislation was that it included the internment provisions, and we are now removing them from the statute book.
  Mr. Godmanrose —
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Can the Minister conceive of no circumstances in which the Government would want to reintroduce internment?
  Mr. Ingram: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the issue, and of many related issues, because he served as a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am sure that, when he was doing that job, he would not have joined the "what if?" school
  176
  of politics. People keep asking, "What if this or the other were to happen?", but we cannot proceed if we focus constantly on the negatives. We must consider the positive measures in the legislation.
  Conservative Members should not be surprised at the measure. It was well trailed in advance of the general election, and independent experts have commented on the need to remove internment; or, to be more accurate, they have said that they see no purpose in its remaining, so the logic would be to remove it. We are doing that very thing and so sending a significant message, based on what I have said about respect for the rule of law and the way in which internment could exacerbate, rather than help, the situation.
  I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) still wants to intervene—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is asleep."] Well, that is not my fault.
  The third area in which we are seeking to amend the emergency provisions Act is in the introduction of audio recording in police holding centres where terrorists are taken for interview. Again, that should come as no surprise, since it was one of those issues for which the Labour party campaigned in opposition and which is now being delivered in government.
  Mr. Godman: I can assure my hon. Friend that, as always, I have been listening to him very carefully. I welcome the proposal on audio recording in clause 5 of the Bill, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I am sure, but when will such recordings be introduced—long before 2000, I hope?
  Mr. Ingram: Yes. Clearly, the systems must be put in place. Also, silent video recording—a proposition that we inherited—is still not in place. The mechanism had to be assessed and we had to study ways in which it could be implemented.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of the proposal. The independent commissioner for the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and his deputy Dr. Bill Norris, have for many years argued the case for such recording. We are grateful to Sir Louis and Dr. Norris for their continuing work and for their thorough reports into that matter and to other aspects of the holding centres. I am pleased to be acting to put in place measures that they and others have long advocated.
  The introduction of audio recording will provide additional protection for both interviewees and police interviewing officers against claims of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment. It will also assist the judicial process by providing the best possible record of interviews conducted, in the event that a criminal case ensues.
  Those are the three main areas of amendment to the legislation. The Bill also makes a minor amendment to the existing provision on silent video recording, which will run separately and alongside the audio recording system because of the inherently separate purpose for which it is intended. The amendment addresses an omission in the current Act.
  Occasionally, the police require to interview at a holding centre a person who is in custody in the care of the prison authorities. Also occasionally, a magistrate may

  177
  order a person to be produced at a holding centre for questioning. The amendment will give authority for such interviews to be recorded on silent video in the same way as other interviews conducted in the holding centres.
  I call on the House to support the Government in their move to renew the existing Act for a further two years and to support the changes that I have described. That will ensure that the criminal justice system and the security forces in Northern Ireland continue to be equipped to deal with the level of terrorist threat applying.
  The measures set out in the Bill are sensible, constructive and consistent with the Government's overall aim of putting in place an effective and balanced approach to tackling the evil of terrorism. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am grateful to the Minister of State for setting out the main provisions of the Bill and the principle changes that the Government propose to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
  I must say at the outset that, as a responsible and constructive Opposition, we have no hesitation in supporting this vital legislation. Unlike the Labour party when it was in opposition, we shall not shirk from our fundamental responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. We have never had any doubt about the importance or the necessity of the emergency provisions. They are vital for the protection of the public and a crucial weapon in the fight against terrorism.
  For 18 years, successive Conservative Secretaries of State came to the House to renew the powers contained in the emergency legislation. Year on year after 1981, Labour Members trooped into the Lobby to oppose us. More recently, they had a sudden change of heart and summoned up the courage to abstain. Many colleagues will recall their more lurid descriptions of the evils of that legislation as "draconian" and "repressive". Lame and pathetic excuses were ritually trotted out by Labour Front-Bench Members to excuse their behaviour and to appease the hard left on their Back Benches, even during the darkest days of the troubles internment. Finally, they came up with the issue of internment. For the sole reason that the power remained on the statute book, albeit in a lapsed form, they refused to support us.
  I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand me. I cast no aspersions on his abhorrence and that of his ministerial colleagues of terrorism, or on their commitment to defeat it, but the defeat of terrorism requires more than condemnation. As we have always recognised, it requires a willingness and a commitment to act. So it is not without a certain irony that we now see a Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box introducing another emergency provisions Bill.
  Perhaps the most important area of bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland is the fight against terrorism. It demonstrates the total determination of both major parties in the House that terrorism will never succeed and that parliamentary government throughout the whole of the United Kingdom will be vigorously defended. Make no mistake, we do not like emergency provisions—no party does. They contain powers that, in normal circumstances,
  178
  any democracy should abhor. We would prefer that they were no longer required, but they are required in Northern Ireland today, so I can assure the Government that, as long as they continue to sustain effective anti-terrorist legislation, even though we might differ on certain details, they shall have our full support.
  Mr. McNamara: Where in his range of importance does the hon. Gentleman put the peace process?
  Mr. MacKay: High, but the first and most fundamental duty of the House is to protect the people of Northern Ireland from terrorism and to ensure that we have a democracy there. That is the most fundamental part of the bipartisan policy, and I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman—as he well knows—that we fully support the political talks that are being engaged in. If he is talking about priorities, the first priority must be the fight against terrorism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his considerable experience of those matters, will concur.
  Mr. McNamara: The peace process is the most important thing, because that is what will lead to an end to terrorism.
  Mr. MacKay: That is as may be, and that is very trite. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is to be peace at any price, he is very much mistaken, as his Front-Bench team will agree. The first duty of the House is to protect the people of this country from terrorist attack and to ensure that we have democratic institutions in all parts of the United Kingdom. I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and I would have hoped and expected him to agree.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: It is a small point, perhaps, but surely it is important that, while the terrorism legislation that we are discussing is tactical—trying to prevent things from happening—the settlement talks are the strategic element and so come higher in the list of priorities.
  Mr. MacKay: With the greatest respect, as I told the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), my highest priority and, I should have thought, that of every hon. Member, is to defend the whole of the United Kingdom against terrorist attack. On reflection, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) might like to agree, as his predecessors on the Liberal Democrat Benches have done.
  Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Gentleman is shifting his ground. He is talking about the defence of democracy as well, and he said so in the first and second responses, but not in the third. The defence of democracy requires a respect for the rule of law. The Labour party challenged the temporary provisions Act precisely because locking up people without a trial is opposed to the rule of law and democracy and did us enormous damage, as well as undermining the fight against terrorism. Will he commit himself, in the fight for the rule of law and democracy, to getting rid of internment provisions?
  Mr. MacKay: There is a role for internment and, if the hon. Gentleman contains himself for a minute, he will hear me develop a clear case for that.

  179
  I shall come to the details of the Bill shortly, but first let me say that today's debate provides the House with an opportunity to consider the wider security and political context in which the Government are required to introduce the legislation. As the Minister pointed out, the most significant development has been the restoration of the IRA ceasefire on 20 July this year. We also note that the loyalist ceasefire has been maintained since October 1994. The Opposition welcome the IRA ceasefire and the fact that it has since been maintained; we also welcome the fact that Sinn Fein has now signed up to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and has, on that basis, been admitted to the Stormont talks.
  We hope—as must the whole House—that that represents a genuine commitment, for we must all stand firm on the principle that there can never be any justification for the use or the threat of violence. Violence for political ends in a democracy can never be allowed to succeed. The IRA will never bomb Britain out of Northern Ireland, nor will it ever bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That message should continue to ring out from this House, loud and clear. Sinn Fein should take this opportunity to turn its back on violence for good and it must stick rigidly in the talks to the Mitchell principles—there can be no fudging on that issue.
  In their response to the Ulster Unionist party's submission on Sinn Fein's continued participation in the talks, the Government said that both the British and the Irish Governments would
  "react firmly to any infringements of the Mitchell principles".
  I look forward to the Minister reiterating that commitment when he makes his winding-up speech. There can be no equivocation on the part of Sinn Fein in its attitude towards IRA violence. The commitment to democratic and peaceful methods, as set out in paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration, means precisely that.
  The Opposition wish the Minister and his colleagues well in the political talks. We share his objectives of a comprehensive political settlement and a lasting peace. The people of Northern Ireland deserve nothing less. However, stability will be established and new political arrangements will last only if they are built on the right foundations. The most important of those are the principle of consent and the triple lock of parties, people and Parliament. We look to the Government for a reassurance that the principle of the consent will remain paramount and that there is no question of breaking the triple lock. In particular, I ask the Minister to state categorically that, in the absence of agreement next May, the Government will not try to appeal over the heads of the parties and that consent, as it applies to the second element of the triple lock, means the people of Northern Ireland alone.
  In addition, we believe that there will be serious engagement in, and a successful conclusion to, the talks only with confidence-building measures on both sides of the community. That includes the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives, without which the shadow of the gunmen will be cast permanently over the political process in Northern Ireland. So far, there have been no assurances from Sinn Fein that the IRA will contemplate decommissioning in parallel with the party talks—far from it. We therefore look to the Government to ensure that no party is allowed to stall on that central issue and that early progress is made in the decommissioning sub-committee and the independent decommissioning body.
  180
  Despite the welcome progress that has been made, it is vital that we do not lower our guard—after all, we have been here before. The Conservative Government took a number of justifiable risks and showed real political flexibility. For the period of the ceasefires, there was hope that the nightmare of violence had ended for good; but that hope was blown apart in the murder and rubble of Canary wharf and Manchester. The return to violence had no justification and demonstrated the enduring contempt for democracy that characterises the IRA. The Government should therefore not be deluded about the potential difficulties that might lie ahead in the political negotiations at Stormont.
  The Government should recognise the misgivings of many people in Northern Ireland about whether their elected representatives are participating in the same process as Sinn Fein. There can be few more difficult acts for a politician in a democracy than to sit across the table from people who have so recently acted as apologists for terrorism. In the Government's own words, Sinn Fein and the IRA remain "inextricably linked". In that context, I pay special tribute to the way in which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has led the Ulster Unionist party through such a difficult few months.
  During those months, and since the announcement of the ceasefire, there have been several developments that give cause for continued concern, some of which the Minister mentioned. So-called punishment beatings have continued-the latest count attributes about 30 to the loyalists and 21 to republican groups. We condemn unreservedly those vile and vicious acts, from whichever side of the community they come. They are clearly incompatible with a commitment to democracy and should cease immediately. I trust that the Minister will remind those parties in the talks that claim to have an influence with the paramilitaries on both sides, of their responsibilities in that respect.
  We have also seen in the past few days reports of serious resignations from Sinn Fein and the IRA—including a purported member of the IRA Army Council and an entire battalion in south Armagh—opening up the prospect of more serious fissures in the republican movement in future. The Continuity Army Council and Republican Sinn Fein—itself the product of previous splits—remain implacably opposed to the ceasefire and have demonstrated their ability to threaten life and property. Only by good fortune has that threat been averted.
  Meanwhile, representatives of the IRA told a republican newspaper that they would have problems with the Mitchell principles, so the Government must remain vigilant. They should not relax any security measures that cannot swiftly be reversed, nor should they be tempted to take decisions for political reasons. We want no more fiascos like the one over the proposed transfer of Jason Campbell. I want the Minister to reassure the House on that point and to reiterate that any measures to ease security on the ground should be taken only following the closest consultation with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable.
  In that context, and on behalf of the Opposition, I pay a special tribute to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces. It is they who have stood on the front line against terrorism for 27 years, carrying out their duties with the greatest skill, dedication and professionalism. We have always expected, rightly,

  181
  the highest standards of them, and in all their activities they have been subject to the discipline of the rule of law. That is how it should be in a democracy. All of us owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. In turn, they deserve the support of all the people of Northern Ireland and all parties in the House.
  We currently have peace in Northern Ireland, but, as the Minister will acknowledge, it remains a fragile and imperfect peace. That is the justification for our support for the Bill, to which I shall now turn my attention. In doing so, I express our gratitude for the work of Lord Lloyd in reviewing all the anti-terrorist legislation. As the Minister explained, the Bill extends the 1996 Act for two more years. It retains most of the powers contained in the Act passed by the last Conservative Government; but the Government also seek to make three key amendments.
  The first amendment is made by clause 2, which amends schedule 1 of the 1996 Act, which deals with scheduled offences, so as to increase the number of such offences that can be certified out, at the Attorney—General's discretion, to be tried by a jury.
  Secondly, as the Secretary of State foreshadowed at a Labour party conference fringe meeting, clause 3 repeals section 36 and schedule 3 of the 1996 Act, which provide for executive detention, or internment, of terrorist suspects. Clause 5 provides for the audio recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects, following the previous Government's introduction of silent video recording.
  I shall deal with the second and most controversial of those points in some detail later. On audio recording, our approach in government was always largely guided by the advice of the Chief Constable. We recognise that the present Chief Constable has now concluded that he sees no obstacle to its introduction, and we accept his and the Government's position.
  On certifying out, the Bill lists a raft of serious offences that will henceforth be eligible for trial by jury rather than through the Diplock procedure. I listened carefully to the Minister's justification for extending certifying out and to his exchanges with Labour Members, and I acknowledge what he said about such cases being a matter for the discretion of the Attorney-General, but I have several questions. Why do the Government consider it necessary to amend the 1996 Act in such a way now, especially in the light of the Home Secretary's welcome announcement of a review of all anti-terrorist legislation? How many charges have been brought under any of those offences in recent years other than those specifically related to terrorism?
  It is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the Government are making unnecessary concessions to those who have always opposed the Diplock system, no matter how necessary it is and despite the fact that it discharges the highest standard of justice. We believe that the Government are being precipitate and engaging in the politics of tokenism—a very dangerous approach to Northern Ireland affairs.
  The same is true of clause 3, which will finally remove the power of executive detention or internment without trial from the statute book. Let me make our position clear. No party can approach this subject lightly. Throughout our period of office, we were urged, not least
  182
  in the aftermath of terrible atrocities, to consider introducing internment. We were also advised by several sources, regularly including the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), to repeal those powers.
  At all times, our approach was consistent. Governments should consider invoking the power only if there were a serious deterioration in the security situation. It would be self-defeating to spell out the precise circumstances in which that would happen, but the facts that the power has not been used since 1975 and that it has technically lapsed, are not compelling reasons to warrant its removal altogether from the statute book.
  It is worth pointing out that the equivalent power in the Republic of Ireland has not been used, to my knowledge, since the 1950s, but the power contained in the Offences Against the State Acts of 1939 and 1940 remains in force. It ill behoves this House to remove internment from the statute book when our friends south of the border are not planning to do the same.
  At present, the Secretary of State can sign the order for internment, which then has to be approved by resolutions of both Houses of this Parliament within 40 days. Clause 3 will make such action impossible without the introduction of primary legislation, robbing the Government of the key element of surprise.
  The history of Irish republicanism is littered with historic and bitter divisions. Does the Minister imagine that, in the event of an overall settlement, there will not be people in Northern Ireland, on both sides, who, following many precedents, cry betrayal and return to violence? Recent days have shown the potential for that to happen if a comprehensive settlement falls short of what is expected by some in the republican movement.
  Does he not believe that, in such a scenario, the power to intern may prove necessary, or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, can he envisage no circumstances in which it would be necessary and right to use that power, particularly if he obtains a political settlement? It is naive beyond belief at this crucial time to take internment off the statute book when the Minister could easily keep it there without using it for the time being, as we did.
  Mr. Ingram: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is going down a dangerous road. He says that, in the event of a lasting settlement, schisms in the republican movement are inevitable, and that it should be inevitable that internment should be applied in such circumstances. He obviously did not hear what I said. Internment creates divisions. It brings friends to the terrorist movement. I therefore caution the hon. Gentleman about the line he is adopting. I do not think that it will help the peace process or the current talks process.
  Mr. MacKay: With respect, the Minister has not been listening carefully. I said not that I believe that a political settlement will automatically lead to splits among loyalist or republican paramilitaries but that history suggests that it is possible. It would then be up to the Government to consider internment. I am not telling him that he should automatically intern people in such circumstances but cautioning him that it would be wise to have the option of internment available. It is he who is making the mistake by removing it from the statute book.

  183
  To summarise, I believe that to throw away such a weapon of last resort is foolish and wrong. It is yet another example of a Government concession to republicanism that brings no tangible benefit. I hate saying this, but I regret that it is true: it is merely token politics.
  Mr. Mallon: I listened with interest to the discussion of the hon. Gentleman and the Minister about what may happen after an agreed political settlement. Has it dawned on the hon. Gentleman that, under the terms of a new political dispensation, the process of justice might be dispensed not from this House but from within a new political settlement? Does that not reinforce the wisdom of the Government's decision to remove this power, which will never again be used in Ireland, from the statute book, here or elsewhere?
  Mr. MacKay: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to second-guess what will happen at the political talks, what conclusions will be reached and whether they will be endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. I am saying that now, in November 1997, perhaps six months before the conclusion of those talks, there is no need to take internment off the statute book. We know that the Minister is not going to intern people in the foreseeable future; we did not use the power. We are saying that, if the political talks in which Ministers are engaged prove successful, and I pray that they will, there could be circumstances where terrorist splinter groups of both communities behave in such a way that the Government in the south and our Government might possibly think that internment was a suitable measure to introduce. I ask him to keep that option open. That is not an extreme or unreasonable request.
  Mr. Soley: I hope that I may persuade the hon. Gentleman of something, because I get the feeling that he is persuadable. Is he so pessimistic and full of doom and gloom that he must assume that Northern Ireland will never be a normal society again? We believe that we should move forward by a series of steps and, above all, that we should restore the rule of law. Internment involves people being locked up without trial. It is inimical to the rule of law, and therefore to democracy. That is why it is important. I ask the Conservative party to try to come on board on this. It is a small but important step to say to the people of Northern Ireland, Unionist and republican, that they are not killing each other as they used to, so let us keep moving in that direction to make it a normal society once more.
  Mr. MacKay: I respond to the hon. Member for Hammersmith by saying that I am not being—
  Mr. Soley: I am not the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
  Mr. MacKay: I am afraid I am not up to speed with the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in Northern Ireland matters throughout the time that I have been in the House and he used to represent Hammersmith.
  I believe that I am being not pessimistic but realistic. I am not saying that internment is a good idea; I am simply saying that it is not inconceivable that, in certain circumstances, the Government and—equally important—
  184
  the Government in the south, who are not removing internment from their statute book, might need to use it. Of course I hope that they will not. Of course I hope that the men of violence will never resort to violence again. Of course I am pleased that, at the moment, there is a ceasefire and there are political talks, but the House must be realistic, not naive.
  In Committee and on Report, we shall table amendments that we hope will alter the Bill for the good. We shall do all in our power to persuade the Minister that we are not asking him to make a major reversal, but saying that those things should be delayed until there is a permanent peace.
  Surely the right time to pass this measure would be when a real measure of political settlement had been agreed, and when new political arrangements in Northern Ireland had a degree of stability. At that time, we could think about scrapping internment permanently. Now is not the time to do that—especially not, as appears to be the case, for political rather than security reasons.
  We have misgivings about the Government's wisdom in this matter and we shall ask them to reconsider. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government are right to re-enact the legislation, and we shall not use our objections to certain elements as an excuse to oppose the entire Bill. The legislation remains essential, and we shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government tonight.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Clause 3 reads:
  "Section 36 of, and Schedule 3 to, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (detention orders) shall cease to have effect."
  That clause alone justifies support for the Bill.
  I listened to what the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said. I had not intended to quote my past words—I find it repulsive when politicians do that, but I shall be repulsive on this occasion—but I find that my past arguments match his arguments today.
  "The first reason why we are dividing the House tonight is that we are against internment in principle. It is wrong, and it cannot hope to succeed. It will not succeed. If we uphold the rule of law, we cannot suspend it when the situation becomes a little bit ugly. We have to go through with it. We are against internment in principle whether on this side of the Irish Sea or in Northern Ireland, or if it exists in Southern Ireland."—[Official Report, 23 September 1971; Vol. 823, c. 274.]
  It was, and is, a matter of principle.
  It is a matter of record that the worst disturbances—the killings, the shootings, the explosions—from both sides of the community took place while internment was in force. Only when the present Lord Rees started the process of ending internment in Northern Ireland did the incidents start to decrease.
  The reason was that internment, like two other issues, became a recruiting cry, a rallying cry, for Provisional Sinn Fein.
  "Armoured cars and tanks and guns
  Came to take away our sons"
  was sung in clubs throughout Northern Ireland. The issue united a peaceful community against the Government because, no matter how many people from the other side might later have been interned, internment was regarded as patently unfair. The arrest of people in such circumstances was seen as fundamentally unjust.

  185
  Labour Members complained that the British Army was carrying out that task and we could not question it because it was being done under the auspices of the Northern Ireland Government. It took the case of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), which went to the House of Lords, to upset that situation and to get legislation through the House.
  Interestingly, handwritten legislation passed through this House and the other place in 24 hours. The then leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, tabled the only amendment—which was not passed—and 15 of us supported him in the attempt. I am happy to say that there remain in the House nine hon. Members who voted against internment on 23 September 1971.
  Internment became a rallying cry, as did two other things: Bloody Sunday and the hunger strikes. Sadly, all three happened when the Conservatives were in government. We are now rectifying the situation and ridding the statute book of one of the principal causes of recruitment to Provisional IRA. I hope that, later this year or early next year, we shall have a positive statement about Bloody Sunday, because that will do a great deal to heal community illnesses.
  Unfortunately, we cannot resurrect people who have died. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State and the Minister are to be congratulated on this positive step. If for no other reason than the abolition of internment, the House should pass the Bill by acclamation.
  I support the introduction of audio recording into interrogation centres. Combined with video recording, it will provide a powerful boost. It will protect the security forces without affecting their ability to inquire and find and interrogate suspects. In every terrorist case in this country, audio recordings have been taken at Paddington Green police station.
  Most policemen I know wonder why they ever opposed audio recording, because it has proved a great tool when they interrogate suspects. Now people cannot say, "I never signed that document" or "I never made that sentence"—the evidence is there. It is a great safeguard for the police. It is a great safeguard for people who are detained.
  I wonder what the outcry would have been if we had heard the statements that Roisin McAliskey alleges were made to her when she was first arrested and taken to Castlereagh. I wonder whether she or the police would have been proved correct. If she is correct, the police conduct was outrageous; if the police are correct, what she said about them was outrageous. In any event, the Bill will bring an end to public suspicion about what goes on in Castlereagh and elsewhere. We should welcome what has been decided. Not only Louis Blom-Cooper has commented about the need for the measure; Lord Colville and others did so in their reports.
  I am sorry that I was perhaps a little vindictive towards my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the question of contracting out and contracting in. I am sorry that he has been sent to the House to do the Attorney-General's job for him. As we now know, it was the Attorney-General's decision that we should not have certifying in, but should maintain the present system.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General cannot have it in this way. An important matter of principle is involved. It is a question of getting as many
  186
  cases as possible in front of juries in Northern Ireland. It is about seeking to achieve normality. His claim that it is because of the work load in his Department, when Northern Ireland by any account—even taking into consideration alleged terrorist offences—has the lowest rate of criminality anywhere in these isles, does not stand up as an argument. Even if it did, in terms of the enormous sums going into Northern Ireland, the cost of extra staff in the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with those cases would be insignificant compared with the boon of going back to proper jury trials.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend did not advance the argument, as has been done from other Benches, that all the offences are really terrorist offences, so to certify some in as terrorist offences would be to point a finger at those particular offences. The finger is pointed by the fact that they are not certified out, so that decision is already made. The decision has important ramifications for the powers that are to be kept. It affects the admissibility of evidence, the loosening of the rules of evidence, changes in cases, and the burden of proof. Those are important matters. It would be far better to get back to normality.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to convey to our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General the anger that is felt by his colleagues on the Back Benches who believe that he has made a serious error—or has he? I ask because I wonder what will happen under Lord Lloyd's proposals, and the decisions and the White Paper that will be issued by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  To what extent will Lord Lloyd's proposals be put into legislation? Although they introduce changes, they are not as liberal as they appear. One has only to read his footnotes on internment. Will the Diplock regime, for example, become the mode of trial in the United Kingdom if there is to be a universal system—if terrorist or terrorist-related offences or drug offences are included within an all-embracing piece of anti-terrorist legislation? It is not an easy matter.
  Because we have not had in the United Kingdom the problems of jury nobbling or witness nobbling in terrorist cases, it is wrong to think in terms of an all-embracing Act. It would be far better for the legislation to apply only to Northern Ireland, where there is a special and different problem. Terrorism in the United Kingdom that is not Irish-related will be subject to the ordinary criminal law, as is Irish terrorism at present.
  We have had no difficulty in the United Kingdom dealing with Irish terrorist offences under our rules of law, our rules of evidence and our system—except, perhaps, when the prosecution has been so perverse in the evidence that it has presented that it has produced the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire family. Generally speaking, however, there has been no undue difficulty with jury trial.
  If we want to return to a system of jury trials in Northern Ireland and get people ready to accept such a return to normality, we must surely have a system of certifying in and not certifying out.
  I do not intend to delay the House much longer. I have put down markers about what I fear may be the result of implementing some of Lord Lloyd's proposals. I hope that as liberal an attitude as possible will be adopted in what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes in his White Paper.

  187
  I give two and a half hearty cheers for the Bill, but not the three cheers that I would like to give because of the failure over certifying in. Nevertheless, the decision on internment is historic and important, and should be welcomed by anybody who wants a return to normality and the rule of law in these islands.
  5.55 pm,
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I have some sympathy for the Minister. Introducing the Bill, he has been required to give a backdrop to the situation in Northern Ireland, and he has been constrained by the fact that the talks process is taking place. He certainly does not want to do anything that would jeopardise those talks, and neither do I. I, as much as he, want success in the talks process, but I cannot afford—and the Minister will be judged foolish by history if he tries to achieve—a virtual whitewash of the continuing problems that we face in relation to terrorism.
  Terrorism is not peculiar to the republican movement. Serious terrorism has emanated from both traditions in Northern Ireland. Nobody tries to hide that fact. The better organized—not the more deadly, but the more sustainable—terrorism emanates from the republican movement and from the IRA, because it approaches its terrorism strategically. It is not reactive; it is not tactical; it is strategic and is based on the Armalite and ballot box philosophy which enables the IRA terrorist to use as much force as he considers necessary to make an impression on society in Northern Ireland and on the Government here in Westminster.
  The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the factors that motivate terrorism. I know that he would be deeply offended if I suggested, and I will not for a moment suggest, that he is excusing terrorism on the basis of internment or Bloody Sunday or the hunger strike. When the hon. Gentleman talks about that, he should also mention Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Warrington, Regent's Park, Droppin' Well Inn and Warrenpoint. In those instances, there might have been an upsurge by the entire Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland, but that did not happen.
  Despite the tragedy and suffering caused by those events, the greater number of people in the Unionist community said that violence was not the way forward. They want to support democracy and see it at work, but they expect their Government to provide adequate law and order enforcement measures.
  I would like to be able to tell the Minister that he is not doing as well as the previous Government, but I think that he is probably doing just as badly. The previous Government did not meet their obligations in terms of the serious violence in Northern Ireland. The RUC and the Army are always expected to behave like a fire brigade: they rush out when something happens, but they do not have a strategy for dealing with terrorism, because successive Governments for the past 37 years have failed to provide that strategy and the political backcloth against which it can operate.
  I return now to the IRA and its Armalite and ballot box philosophy. My party and I must judge the IRA on what it is doing today. Has it changed its strategy? Is it trying to adjust to the circumstances and opportunities that are presented through the talks process? The answer is clearly no. The IRA leaders, who are now sitting at the table
  188
  of democracy—the unreconstructed terrorists are sitting among those who, throughout their political lives, have been dedicated to democratic methods—have not told the rank and file, "You cannot achieve your objectives through violence."
  The past 27 years have proved that decent people in both traditions in Northern Ireland are dedicated to a peaceful way forward, yet Gerry Adams stood in front of the city hall in Belfast and said, "The IRA hasn't gone away, you know." In Coalisland, Martin McGuinness said, "We intend to smash British rule in Northern Ireland." Only last weekend, a leading spokesman for IRA-Sinn Fein addressed a meeting of 150 IRA men in county Armagh. He referred to what would happen if the talks ended, and said:
  "Whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best".
  Will the Minister tell the House that that will not involve violence—shooting, bombing and holding the civilian population to ransom for as long as the IRA can sustain it in the face of inadequate reaction by Government, who do not have a comparable strategy? This man has called for IRA, Sinn Fein and republican prisoners to unite as a "clenched fist" to force an end to British rule in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister pretend that that is not a threat to shoot and bomb the civilian population in Northern Ireland? Mr. Molloy, who thought that he was talking to his own people and did not realise that two journalists were in the room, then said:
  "Sinn Fein's political policy was a tactic rather than an end in itself'.
  It is the Armalite and the ballot box—I cannot emphasise that enough.
  If the IRA does not condition its rank and file to move away from reliance on the Armalite and towards a total commitment to democracy, it is saying that the ballot box and the ballot paper are valid only so long as the Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and members of the Government are prepared to pay a ransom to keep the IRA at the table of democracy.
  I shall not delay the House by rehearsing the ransom that has been paid—the danegeld that is paid weekly—to keep Messrs Adams and McGuinness at the table of democracy. The Minister knows as well as I do the reality of the situation. I see that the Under—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who has responsibility for education, is looking rather sceptical. I suggest that there will soon be an announcement regarding the creation of a university campus in west Belfast in order to provide jobs. Have hon. Members ever heard of creating a university in order to provide jobs?
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: No, I shall give way later.
  I thought that university campuses were created to provide educational opportunities.
  Mr. Mallon rose—
  Mr. Maginnis: I shall give way when I have finished this point. Will the Minister tell us whether that university will be created? We know that a large part of the capital funding for the project will come from a source outside

  189
  the Government's immediate budget, but revenue used to sustain that campus will have an effect on primary schools, which are increasingly underfunded, and on secondary schools.
  Mr. McNamara: Order!
  Mr. Maginnis: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not be intimidated. This matter is relevant to how we deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  Will the Minister try to tell me that secondary education is sustained at an adequate level in Northern Ireland and that the record is good? Has he not decided on swingeing cuts for grammar schools? Does he claim that he and previous Governments have not underfunded colleges of further education? Will he tell me that our university students will not have to pay tuition fees—initially £1,000 a year, but increasingly more than that?
  For political reasons, the Minister is going to put an extra campus in Northern Ireland. We have one at Queen's. We have one at Jordanstown. We have one at Coleraine. We have one at Magee. We have a teacher training college at Stranmillis; and one at St. Mary's; and there are 1.6 million people in Northern Ireland. What nonsense are we getting into to pay the danegeld to the terrorists in west Belfast? I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) if he wishes.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman posed a rhetorical question: did we ever hear of a university being set up to create jobs? Yes, it is called the university of Ulster, which was set up by a Unionist Government in the north of Ireland when, by any standard of justice, it should not have gone there. I thought it only right to remind the hon. Gentleman of his party's role in doing exactly that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We should draw a line under that part of the discussion and come back within the terms of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will not respond further to that point.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not respond to it. I think that I have made my point.
  I implore the Minister to make his own judgment based on three things. He can look at the signs. He can decide whether he sees any evidence, in terms of the future for terrorism in Northern Ireland, that terrorism has been abandoned. I want him to look at history and ask himself whether, in terms of predicting what is happening and is likely to happen in respect of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we on this Bench have not done our best to give substantive guidance to the best of our ability. I think that we have been justified. I put it no stronger than that. The third piece of advice that I would give him is that he has to start thinking like a terrorist. He has to get into the psyche of the terrorist, because if he believes all that he is told he will eat all he sees, as the saying goes.
  I do not know why the Chief Constable continues to tell us that the ceasefire is holding, when every signal that we are getting throughout the whole of Northern Ireland suggests that it is holding only because there are one, two,
  190
  three, four—I do not know how many—further concessions that can be taken, which can be banked, before the terrorists return to the Armalite, as they have promised.
  I shall deal now with loyalist terrorism. Their ceasefire is clearly becoming less stable, as much because of drugs and racketeering as of politics. Some horrible things are happening. The beatings and the intimidation are quite intolerable. I believe that it is happening because there is nothing to indicate to the people who organise such crime that the Government have real resolve. I say again that this Government are no different from previous Governments in that respect.
  Having given the background to what we require, I shall look at one or two of the measures that we welcome in the Bill; one or two of the things that are missing; and one or two of the areas where I believe there has been an error.
  I am delighted that the Minister has removed internal exile. It was an absolute insult to have internal exile within the United Kingdom. It is divisive and unnecessary.
  As for the things that I believe are unwise, when video recording was introduced, we were told that it would protect those with responsibility for questioning terrorist suspects. Well, perhaps it protected the suspect and the person doing the questioning, but it was always dangerous for the police, because there are occasions, as history shows, when terrorists, faced with the reality of years—potentially—in prison, are willing to talk to those who interrogate them and become, to use the simple term, informers; to provide information and intelligence that is useful in the overall battle against terrorism.
  Video recording makes that difficult, but it does not make it as difficult as audio recording. An audio recording can be sent for, I must assume, by the lawyer defending the accused person. That means that nothing can take place in the interrogation centre that will be of assistance to the police in the prevention of further terrorism. They cannot gain the confidence of perhaps relatively low-level terrorists, because, as soon as they are destined for court, they are told by their godfathers, "You must instruct your solicitor to get the audio recording." Knowing that, they will simply not be able to provide information that is of help.
  Who is being helped by the audio recording—the terrorist or the ordinary member of society who depends on the police to do a very difficult job of bringing the villains to justice? If we are to have audio recording—the Minister tells us that we are—why does he stop at that? Why has he not considered the possibility of admitting telephone wiretaps as evidence? We know that if, as in the case of Adair, a policeman is wired for sound and has a tape recorder in his pocket, he can speak to a suspect and use the conversation as evidence in court. We know that he can bug a room and record what has been said in it and use the evidence in court, so why do we not give the police the opportunity to bring evidence that could be obtained through telephone wiretaps into court in the same way? It makes sense to me. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point.
  Why has the Minister still failed to consider the issue of identity cards? He and I have identity cards—our driving licences. Most people who work for large companies have identity cards as part of the security of the company.

  191
  The Home Secretary has said that he will introduce a card to identify those who are old enough to buy cigarettes and alcohol. I am not sure of the details of his proposal but, given that such a card is apparently to be introduced, why is the Minister still failing to introduce an identity card that would help the security services to deal with terrorism?
  Let me remind the Minister, in the words of Gerry Adams, that the IRA has not gone away. Let me add—in the context of the emergency provisions legislation and the way in which it works—the words of Mr. Rowe, who said in his report earlier this year:
  "Undoubtedly the powers and provisions of the Act are required for another year."
  That is why we will support the Minister tonight, despite what we consider to be flaws in the legislation.
  There is continuing terrorist activity, and there is a real threat of more. I agree with Mr. Rowe: as far as I can see, the EPA has been used fairly and carefully: I have observed no examples of abuse, nor have I been told of any. I believe that, if Mr. Rowe is right, we should endeavour to make the Act more, not less, effective. The terrorist will not respond to the payment of danegeld.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: The gloomy forebodings expressed by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) sit ill on his shoulders. He is normally a good-humoured, affable man, and I sincerely hope that he is wrong on this occasion.
  Mr. Maginnis: So do I.
  Mr. Godman: As the hon. Gentleman implies—from a sedentary position—we all want the peace talks to be brought to a successful and satisfactory conclusion: satisfactory, that is, from the point of view of all the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland.
  I look forward to the day when Northern Ireland has an assembly of its own, based on proportional representation, and with a power-sharing constitution. I am only sorry that some of the secessionists in Northern Ireland who seek to separate Northern Ireland from Great Britain are utterly unpeaceable—unlike those in Scotland who seek a similar separation, but through entirely peaceful and democratic measures.
  Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I—who have long had reservations about the powers in the Act—will support the Bill, because of clause 3. Incidentally, I should point out to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that the very welcome proposal to abolish internal exile is not in this Bill, but in the prevention of terrorism legislation. Nevertheless, that proposal must be welcome to all who live, as we do, in a mature parliamentary democracy. Internal exile has no place in a society such as ours.
  I welcome the proposal relating to the audio recording of interviews with those in detention centres. As I told him in an intervention, however, I hope that the procedure will be introduced long before 2000, because it will protect not only the rights of the person being cross-examined but the criminal legal procedure system itself.
  192
  May I ask my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who will wind up the debate—a question about access to legal advice? In the brief that it sent to the usual suspects, the Committee on the Administration of Justice claims that the number of deferrals of access to legal advice has increased recently. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to that claim. According to the committee, its members
  "have viewed with considerable concern the government's inaction in this regard especially in light of recent figures, which indicate an increase in deferrals of access to legal advice. The whole of 1996 saw some 13 deferrals. However, the statistics for the first half of 1997 show an increase, with 19 individuals being refused immediate access to a lawyer."
  If that allegation is true, there is a serious issue to be sorted out by my hon. Friend and his officials.
  I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North about scheduled offences, and about Bloody Sunday. I have made my views known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: I believe that the matter should be reinvestigated, but not under the aegis of a member of the English legal establishment.
  Finally, let me impress on Ministers that the procedures contained in the Bill must be administered very carefully. Serious concerns have been expressed recently about heavy-handed policing in south Armagh and west Belfast, to which I am sure the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will refer if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Bill's proposals must be implemented in a way that does not infringe the human and civil rights of ordinary, decent citizens as they go about their business. We must make Northern Ireland as tolerable a community as possible, and that means that these measures must be implemented carefully.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Like the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I am almost tempted to give two and a half cheers for the Bill. I say "tempted", but I shall not succumb to the temptation, for reasons that I hope to be able to clarify.
  As one who has been involved in debate about legislation such as this for many years, inside and outside the House—on the Floor of the House, in Committee and elsewhere—I do not want to be churlish. I hold strongly to the view that, once the highest standards of justice are deviated from in a way that makes the process of justice one of trying to solve political problems, the real sufferer will be that process of justice.
  Let me emphasise that starting point again. Had I the opportunity—despite the changes that have been made—to vote against the legislation tonight, I would do so: I make no bones about that. I would do so on the ground that, especially now, there is an absolute requirement for us to move in the direction not of restating the need for emergency legislation—not of reinventing a wheel that has not been able to circumvent the problem with which it was designed to deal—but of starting to create, imaginatively and courageously, an arrangement that would be adequate in the context of the new system for which we are aiming.
  I note with interest the use of the term "peace process": a term of which I am not terribly fond. We have a thing called "peace", which is a valuable commodity where I come from, and a thing called "the political process",

  193
  without which peace will be unstable. I make that point as the representative of the constituency of Newry and Armagh.
  Peace is valuable: it does not belong to a Government; it does not belong to an Opposition; it does not belong to a political party; and it does not belong to a paramilitary grouping. Peace belongs to people: it is a basic, God-given human right. It is not to be doled out like lollipops by those who believe in violence, and it is not to be used by anybody.
  I believe that every person in the north of Ireland must benefit from peace: not just where it is selected that they should, and not just in the places where there have been fewer problems on the ground. The people who should experience peace and should benefit most are those, like me, who live in my constituency and have suffered most from the implementation of emergency legislation that has deviated from the highest standards.
  This thing called the peace process will not all of a sudden arrive on everyone's doorstep. It will have to be worked at carefully, for there is something more that the House, the Government and the Opposition parties have agreed. It will have to be validated not by Governments but by people in referendums in the north and the south. The referendum in the north has been agreed. Who will validate the peace? Whose validation is most important? Is it the people who have not been much affected by the problem these past 27 years, or the people who have got it in the neck from paramilitary groupings, from security forces and from emergency legislation? Their validation will, in my opinion, be much more valuable than that of those whom the troubles have not terribly affected. Let us not forget that.
  Unless we make changes that are apparent, dangerous situations will develop. It has been proven that legislation such as this does not stop terrorism: not now, not in the past or in the distant past. One of the measures that I welcome immensely is the removal from the statute book of internment without trial. Many of us are products of a society or an environment that has experienced internment. Let us not forget that we had internment in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s: it was not thought up only in the 1970s. Internment failed in each of those decades: it failed to give peace, it failed to solve security problems and above all it failed to have the political effect that it was intended to have.
  Mr. Maginnis: Was internment used more viciously and strenuously in the Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland? Is it not a reality that, when a terrorist organisation goes to war with society, society requires internment to protect itself?
  Mr. Mallon: I make no defence of internment in the Republic of Ireland, now or in the past. It did not deal with IRA violence in any of those past decades, because if it had done so, we would not be debating this legislation now.
  There is something much more important at stake: the absolute integrity of the process of law and justice. As individuals and as a community, ultimately our only protection is the system of justice under which we live; otherwise, we would be part of a Kafkaesque society. Many people in the north of Ireland know how Kafkaesque it has been.
  194
  The Minister said that there was no evidence that Diplock courts had produced perverse judgments or had lowered standards. We should remember that Lord Diplock said that any court that did not comply with the minimum requirements of the European convention on human rights was not worthy of the name of court of law, should not form part of the ordinary criminal justice system, and should not be staffed by ordinary judges who sit in other criminal courts. That is not my view, but the opinion of Lord Justice Diplock, after whom those courts are named.
  Have they complied with European standards? There have been derogations, and they must be rectified. It has been rightly said that those courts come under different legislation, but the implementation of the part of the prevention of terrorism Act that deals with arrests applies to and interlocks with the emergency provisions Act.
  I welcome the fact that internment has gone. I am quite sure that it will never be used again, because its failure as a method has been proven by successive Governments in this country and in the Republic of Ireland. The jury of public opinion and experience has accepted that verdict.
  I welcome the prospect of a review of the panoply of—dare I say it, because I am beginning to wonder what term I should use—legislation that is not normal as it applies here and in the north of Ireland. I welcome the fact that internal exile in the form of exclusion orders has been suspended, and that none is in operation at this moment. I hope that those measures disappear. While that is being done, what people who come from the north and the south of Ireland are required to do at some ports must be examined, because it is not compatible with standards of justice. That is on the record in the House and outside. If we are to deal with this problem, we should consider that aspect. I ask the Minister to ensure that that matter is included in the review.
  I very much welcome clause 5, which provides for the audio recording of the interrogation of people detained under the prevention of terrorism Act. It is a measure for which some of us have been pressing for many years. It has been dealt with in Committee and elsewhere in a way that has proved that the argument for it is irrefutable. Of course, there is one difficulty, which is when it will be implemented.
  The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 has been in existence for 15 months, but the codes of conduct for video recording, as provided for in that Act, are still not in operation. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) asked the valid question when audio recording would become a reality. Is that the urgency that should underpin emergency legislation? If there is an emergency, there should be urgency, and that urgency should work both ways. I urge the Minister to deal with that matter quickly and explain why the 1996 EPA codes of conduct have not yet been implemented.
  I refer in passing to the question of certifying in and certifying out. Like the Minister, I am not a lawyer, so I will not involve myself with the legalities. I think that I have also proved that I am not a mathematician but, in view of the figures that we have, it seems that certifying out is much more cumbersome than certifying in. If we start with that clean slate, it may not have any material effect on the cases that will be certified in as opposed to certified out, but it will be an indication, in the Bill, that there is in effect an intention to move towards jury courts.

  195
  The significance of certifying in will be that it is a declaration of intent to move not towards something radical, enormous or new but simply to the principle that people in court will be tried by a jury. Of course, in the context of Northern Ireland, that is new in many ways.
  Cases in my constituency have been referred to the Attorney-General's office and to the Lord Chancellor's office. Applications have been made to have cases tried outside of the Newry courthouse, for them to be held elsewhere and a jury from another place to be sworn in to try them. There is the confidence in the court system and the jury nobbling, not by paramilitary groupings but by the legal process itself. It is a matter of record, but when it comes to jury nobbling, there are those in the north of Ireland justice system who can do as well as or better than those one would expect to be involved in jury nobbling. Abnormalities have developed in the operation of an abnormal system, and we have to take account of them.
  I must express my disappointment that the question of emergency legislation is not dealt with in the Bill. Perhaps it could not be dealt with, but the signals being sent out at the moment should carry hope that we are moving to something new. I do not believe that there are any circumstances in the modern world in which there will be no legislation to deal with terrorism, be it national, regional or international, but that is a different matter. Here, we have a legal system that is abnormal; we have a system of implementation of that legal system that is wholly abnormal; and we have legislation that is abnormal. In that abnormality, those of us in the political process are charged with creating a normal political situation. That is the crux of the matter—that is the difficulty we face.
  I must refer to the situation in west Belfast and south Armagh and the fact that they are saturated with security. This is not Sinn Fein propaganda, although Sinn Fein uses it as such; nor is it a stick with which to beat the legislation—it is simply my experience. I look out of my window when I am having breakfast and I see lookout posts on the hills. They are doing nothing, and never have done anything. They are there for the optics, yet the land was taken from the people. It was not asked for or bought, but taken.
  What about the holding centres? I suggest that the Minister considers what was said about them by the independent commissioner for the holding centres, who pointed out that they were not suitable for the holding of people for the length of time possible under emergency legislation. Do those centres have to remain? Does Castlereagh have to remain as a monument to the failure of emergency legislation through the years? Does the Gough barracks have to remain in that shape or form, or is there the courage to take another little step into the future as another declaration of intent to ensure a new beginning in every sense of the word?
  The Government should be commended on the changes. In many ways, those changes were courageous. I believe that the Government, coming from where they did in relation to this legislation, have shown courage. I ask them to take their courage in their hands, move a little further to that declaration of intent and give us all a chance to make a new beginning. I know of the difficulties and I know the advice that the Government will receive—I heard some of it tonight. I know the risk involved.
  196
  The Minister said that this was a very different ceasefire. He must have intelligence to which I do not have access and assessments that I have not seen. What I know about ceasefires is that they are all acts of faith in the future. They require confidence that simply cannot be quantified in terms of support, but what chance have we if we do not believe that peace can be a reality? What chance have we of solving any problems if we do not have the conviction that peace is something that we all can bring to the place in which we live? If we do not have that, we are simply wallowing in the failures of the past. That is why I regard this type of legislation, with its deficiencies, as an indication that there is a temptation to hold on to the past and not take the quantum leap into the future, a leap that will have to be made by all of us sooner or later.
  6.48 pm
  Ms Margaret Moran: Some hon. Members have been slightly reserved in expressing their appreciation of the Bill—but I say three cheers, primarily because we can celebrate the end of internment. I understand the reservations that have been expressed by some hon. Members, but, with this Bill, we are rapidly moving in the direction that most hon. Members desire.
  The Bill represents the first opportunity that our new Labour Government have had to take the action we have for so long advocated: to remove the worst and most obvious injustices in the emergency provisions. It is a tragedy that the provisions have existed for 20 years. At last, however—at their first opportunity—a Labour Government have removed the aspects of the provisions that most people find so abhorrent, especially internment without trial.
  In opposition and now in government, Labour has consistently highlighted the fatal flaws in prevention of terrorism legislation—especially internment without trial, Diplock courts and a lack of safeguards in interrogation. I am pleased to note that the Bill will remedy some of the worst injustices.
  The House must realise that the Bill takes only the first steps. Moreover, some Opposition Members may be planning to table amendments to remove the Bill's provision ending internment. I realise that internment is an important issue, but—in the interests of the peace process and of building confidence in the community of all Northern Ireland—it is essential that it is ended.
  Not one section but all sections of the community have been affected by internment over the years. Furthermore, often the parts of the community that are least able to speak for themselves have been most affected. The worst aspect of internment is the fact that those who are truly guilty of crimes have been allowed to hide behind perceived human rights injustices. Internment has also earned us the international community's opprobrium, because it has been perceived as contrary to human rights.
  I ask Opposition Members to rethink their objections to ending internment, and to think about the confidence that will be needed in the peace talks. We must ensure that we send all participants the message that we are intent on building confidence—not in one part of the community, but across the entire community of Northern Ireland.
  It is wrong and unjust to say that the new Labour Government are soft on terrorism. I welcome the Government's announcement that they will introduce

  197
  anti-terrorist measures for both Britain and Northern Ireland, and I look forward, in the new year, to seeing that consultation document. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has given assurances that the measures will contain safeguards for the community of Northern Ireland.
  We must make progress, and today's announcement that internment will end represents real progress for all of Northern Ireland. Ending internment will do much to restore confidence in legislation that has widely been regarded as unfair. The legislation has exposed Britain and British Governments to allegations of abusing human rights.
  The Government have a clear human rights agenda, and I am proud to be a part of a Government who are adopting the European convention on human rights. This Bill accords entirely with our commitment to human rights—not only in our own backyard but around the world.
  I remind hon. Members who oppose not only the removal of internment but other human rights measures that we are past mediaeval times. Britain must modernise its legislation and constitution, enabling us to be proud of our human rights record. The Bill represents a significant step in that direction.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Let us remember what this Bill is all about. When I was seven, I lived on the outskirts of Belfast, and did not watch the news much or listen to the proceedings of Parliament. I knew, however, that there was something called the troubles, and that I lived in them. One night, I was woken by my mother, who was hanging blankets across the windows, because there had been a bomb scare. There was a chance that the windows would be blown in, and she did not want glass shards to go through the house. I asked her what she was doing, and she simply said, "This is Northern Ireland." That is what the Bill is about.
  The Bill deals with a place where life is not normal—although it is more normal now than it has been for two decades. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland is still not normal. The Liberal Democrats are willing to support the Bill because of the current situation. We are not pleased to be supporting the Bill, however, because to be pleased to support it would be to welcome the reasons for it. Surely no hon. Member believes that it is laudable that such a Bill is required.
  The House seems to be united in the belief that we need such legislation. Although the Liberal Democrats think that such measures are a regrettable necessity, they are a necessity. We shall therefore be voting to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  As there currently does not seem to be an emergency, are emergency provisions justified? The Lloyd inquiry answered the question well, saying:
  "Once lasting peace has been established in Northern Ireland there will continue to be a need for permanent counter-terrorist legislation to deal with the threat of international and domestic terrorism."
  Lloyd's advice is doubly sound. It is not only the conclusion of an extensive and well-conducted inquiry, but the lasting peace described during its deliberations was abruptly ended by a series of bombs marking the end of that IRA ceasefire.
  198
  As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) eloquently said, we must have faith in the peace process. However, although it might be appropriate in the political context for us to regard both the loyalist and the republican ceasefires as permanent—as desperately as we might want that to be so—it does not follow that they should be regarded as permanent when framing security legislation.
  Emergency powers should be kept to a minimum, and we should give the security forces all the powers they need—not all the powers they might need. There must be a balance. We must also remember the effect that some of the powers can have on some people in Northern Ireland. Misuse of brutal powers can create a brutalised society.
  We welcome many of the Bill's changes to the emergency powers. More specifically, we certainly welcome the change in clause 2, because of concerns over Diplock courts, which have one judge and no jury. Northern Ireland's judicial system is simply not comparable to that on the mainland. Regardless of whether concerns over Diplock courts are justified, such concerns can undermine the objective of ensuring that justice is seen to be done. Such concerns can damage the outlook of those we must most encourage with confidence-building measures.
  Although there are concerns over jury trials, the Bill's amendment of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 will provide welcome flexibility, easing the way towards a more normal judicial process in Northern Ireland.
  I was confused about why, earlier in the debate, the question of opting in or out should have become such a big deal. Surely it is a matter of logic and of common sense to establish the most sensible route forward. There may be arguments on both sides, but please let us not pretend that deciding one way or the other is a major political problem. The problem could indeed be a logistical one.
  Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is most desirable, if we can achieve it, is more trials before a jury?
  Mr. Öpik: I and the Liberal Democrats agree that anything that we can do to create a normalised judicial process in Northern Ireland is to be welcomed—which is why certifying in has such an appeal. It makes the absence of a jury the exception rather than the rule. I welcome his intervention, so that I can emphasise that point.
  I shall now turn to the clause that will remove the internment provisions. Those powers were last used in the early 1970s, and were widely regarded as counter-productive. The politics of internment come from the dark ages. In simple terms, internment converted terrorists into martyrs. That is why, as a matter of principle, and as a matter of strategic common sense, it is right to banish it for ever to the history books of Northern Ireland.
  Because the powers have not been used for a long time, everyone presumes that they will not be used in the future, but that is not good enough. We have to make a statement, and I do not agree that such a statement is merely tokenistic. It is a profound statement of faith in the fact that Northern Ireland must become a more normal place to live, and that such kangaroo-court behaviour is not acceptable.

  199
  Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the recording, both audio and video of police interviews. It was once the prevalent view that taping of interviews would not be helpful, in part because interviews were a good environment for informers to provide information about terrorist activities. However, if the interviews were recorded, there is no reason to believe that valuable sources of intelligence would dry up.
  While that argument was important, we always believed that it was overrated. Informers can inform in many other ways, but taped interviews may have other benefits, such as discouraging rough treatment by the interviewers. They also prevent interviewees from making mischievous claims that they were treated roughly. It works both ways.
  The Liberal Democrats were pleased that silent video taping was included in the 1996 Act. However, it is a shame that it has taken so long for it to be introduced. I accept that the process set out in the legislation was lengthy, including the drawing up of a draft code of practice; public consultation; consideration of the replies; a new draft code; and instructions to the individual men and women who have to operate the new procedure.
  Where has that process got to? The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made that point eloquently. It would be helpful if we could have a specific commitment on when video taping will be introduced in the Province.
  There are some omissions from the Bill, and I shall cite two specific concerns. First, stop-and-search powers were introduced for good reasons. If applied diligently and cautiously, they are an important tool in the fight against terrorism.
  The Bill does not include a reduction in the stop-and-search powers of the police and the Army, but there are currently reports of high levels of harassment by both services. That harassment normally takes the form of repeated stopping and questioning under the provisions of the emergency provisions Act. There are also reports of some demeaning stop-and-search incidents.
  Although we may question the veracity of some of those reports, it is likely that the claims have an element of truth, and the stop-and-search powers can certainly cause deep resentment. When the Minister winds up, I should be grateful if he could summarise the plans, if any, to review the stop-and-search procedures.
  Secondly, under the emergency powers, an interviewee has no right to a solicitor in the first 48 hours of police questioning—once again, for reasons of security. It is feared that the solicitor may warn other suspects. However, since 1991, inferences of guilt can be drawn from an interviewee's silence and having a solicitor present has become much more important. Otherwise, the weak-willed and the impressionable may be pressured into a false confession and the malicious and mischievous may be able to cry foul and pervert the course of justice. Some 19 people were refused immediate access to a solicitor in the first half of 1997 alone.
  In a legal case, Murray successfully took the issue to the European Court of Human Rights, but the Government do not appear to have amended the legislation in accordance with its ruling. When the Human Rights Bill comes through the Lords, that problem will become apparent and pressing. Amending the situation will
  200
  involve legislative complexities, because the legislation that allows inferences of guilt to be drawn is different from the legislation that restricts the right to a solicitor.
  However, I should like to know what plans, if any, the Government have to bring the legislation into line with the Human Rights Bill. I believe that to be a necessity, and time will dictate that it must be addressed. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment in the other place on the previous occasion that the emergency powers were discussed, which would have provided either that interviewees were denied a solicitor or that no inferences of guilt could be drawn from their silence. That issue must be resolved by the House.
  The most important element in the question of Northern Ireland is not the Bill, but the need to solve the problems of the area. It is not enough to try to contain it through the emergency provisions.
  We have seen some remarkable developments in Northern Irish politics. The settlement talks are a great endeavour, and the difficulties faced and risks taken by both sides cannot be overstated. Both sides have made themselves vulnerable in the search for peace. It takes courage and conviction to be involved in the process, and the participants can feel uncomfortable when justifying it to their supporters. To that extent, I have nothing but praise for the courage of those Ulster politicians who are trying so hard—with a genuine commitment to the settlement talks—to find a solution.
  Set against that background, the Bill is a tactical but regrettable requirement It will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland, but it might provide the space for them to be solved. If that happens—I personally am optimistic that we will get a settlement of some sort—we must be optimistic that Northern Ireland will take vital and permanent steps along the road to peace. In that context, there might be a case for the early repeal of many of the provisions, which would be a further confidence-building measure for the people of Northern Ireland.
  If everything goes to plan, I hope that we will find ourselves on the brink of a lasting settlement, in which tensions are recognised, acknowledged and accepted, differences are respected and valued, and communities are allowed to be sympathetic to each other without fear of retribution or being undermined by their own side. I know that that is how the residents of Northern Ireland feel. They love their country and are deeply committed to it.
  It is our responsibility in Westminster and in Dublin to conspire to overcome the barriers, many of prejudice, that remain, in order to render the Bill obsolete. That challenge transcends party politics and if ever there is a subject about which we must be mature, it is this. I hope that the Bill will do its job, but more than anything I hope that the settlement talks will give us an opportunity to create an environment in the Province in which no child in future will be woken by his mother hanging blankets across the windows of his bedroom in case the bomb scare is not a hoax.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Roger Stott: I commend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on his consideration of the issue. He has a background in the matter, and I largely concur with his analysis.
  I am a reasonable man, and I thought that the majority of the speech by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was measured, reasonable and appropriate

  201
  for someone speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Regrettably, his opening remarks were typical of those made by members of the previous Government about the Labour party being soft on terrorism.
  I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I stood where he stands for five years, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). There was no ceasefire then, and I had to look under my car every day of the week when I took my children to school. I went to Crossmaglen, the Bogside, the Creggan and Turf Lodge, and I went to all the places from which terrorism emanated. I condemned them out of hand, no matter where I was. I stood four square at the Dispatch Box and condemned every terrorist atrocity. I was not soft on terrorism, and nor were my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North or my party. I take offence at Conservatives accusing us of being soft on terrorism. We objected to certain provisions in the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act that were corrosive of human rights.
  I went to a dangerous place on the border with my old friend, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), for whom I have a great deal of respect. The hon. Gentleman has been astonishingly courageous throughout his career in his fight against terrorism and in the way in which he has spoken against it. I like to think that I have too, together with other hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North—who is now back in his place—and I are the only two here this evening, I think, who were in the House 25 years ago to vote for the prevention of terrorism Act. We continued to vote for it as a temporary measure, until we discovered that some elements of it were unacceptable for reasons of human rights. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has mentioned exclusion orders—internal exile. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed that they shall no longer exist.
  A young boy from Derry called John Matthews was brought before a magistrate, charged with terrorist offences. He was sent to a high-security prison for three months and then released and brought back to the same magistrate who had sent him down three months before. The prosecution withdrew all charges against John Matthews. I was in the court at the time.
  The stipendiary magistrate said, "Well, you guys were before me three months ago saying this guy was a terrorist." They said, "Your worship, we withdraw all charges." In my presence, the magistrate said, "Young man, you can leave my court without a stain on your character." Five minutes later, he was rearrested, the previous Home Secretary signed an exclusion order on him, and he was sent back to Northern Ireland.
  That is how the provisions have been used. I did not vote for the prevention of terrorism Act last time it was brought before the House, because it included provision for exclusion orders.
  I agree with the Minister that it is essential that anti-terrorist legislation should be available to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced the Government's intention to present new proposals to replace the EPA and the PTA with permanent, UK-wide counter-terrorism legislation, to be published in a joint Home Office and Northern Ireland Office consultation
  202
  paper early in the new year. In the interim, before any fundamental reform of counter-terrorism legislation, a renewed and amended EPA will continue to provide the people of Northern Ireland with vital protection against the terrorist threat.
  Having been involved with Northern Ireland matters for so long, I know that we have made substantial progress. My old friend the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is not content, but I think that most of the corrosive effects of the original EPA are being removed. I hope that we can get rid of the Act and introduce a comprehensive, UK-wide anti-terrorism Bill to deal with the problem.
  I sincerely hope that we shall never again hear the allegation from the Conservatives that we are soft on terrorism, or that we have ever been. I find those remarks personally offensive.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Alan Clark: In coping with terrorism, the House has two principal, but distinct, obligations. Resistance to crude violence, or the threat of violence, must be maintained at all times, but no opportunity should be neglected to utilise and enhance the democratic process to abate that violence. The paradox of the Government's present position is that, by discarding one of their principal deterrent weapons—internment—they are indulging in unilateral disarmament before they have received any concessions.
  I accept the sincerity of the view of the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who spoke movingly on the subject, but I take a more practical attitude. We should never discard any mechanism or disarm in any way until we know what concession we will receive in return—and, hopefully, already have it in the bank.
  I should like to add a short personal comment. Almost all of us have suffered the experience of being deliberately—and with relish—misrepresented in the press. As we all know, there is no point in denying anything, embellishing comments or attempting to put them in context. The media do not want enlightenment; they want controversy. It is safer by far to stay within Jowett's precept—"never explain; never apologise" —with the exception of remarks made in the House, where one can engage in debate with hon. Members of all parties and have one's words accurately recorded by the Official Report.
  I therefore hope to put in context some remarks that were attributed to me at the Conservative conference in Blackpool last month, and to make some further reflective comment on the situation in Northern Ireland. At that time, I drew attention to something that I had written 12 years earlier: that one—one—approach to the problem of terrorism was the instant execution of a large number of known activists. Even then, I warned—this was not reported-that that would buy no more than 20 years.
  Also unreported was my recent assessment that defence planners, faced with chronic infantry overstretch, should consider with as much detachment as they are allowed the fact that, in one small part of the United Kingdom, it is necessary to station 14 battalions of infantry with fully armed weapons and body armour. The policy conclusions that should be drawn from that are uncomfortable, but not necessarily invalid for that reason.

  203
  In neither instance was I recommending a particular course of action. I was simply making observations, as an historian and military analyst.
  Of course, there is not the slightest value in my asserting that. As we all know, it is not actual but perceived truth that counts. Indeed, my own party's press office lost no time in briefing journalists to the effect that I was a dinosaur. That was perfectly all right by me, because the dinosaur has a thick skin, and has been around for 3 million years.
  However, there are certain facts from which there is no escape. The IRA is the most resilient and formidable of all resistance movements in the west. More than 70 years ago, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was shot dead at his front door in Eaton square. Less than 20 years ago, one of our own number was murdered on the exit ramp from the House of Commons car park itself. In addition to those individual acts of assassination, the IRA has taken the lives of hundreds of innocent people, and caused immense misery and suffering.
  It may be that participation in the political process—true and genuine participation—can come only after the combatants have fought themselves to a standstill. We have seen that in European civil wars—in Spain in the 1930s, in Lebanon in the 1970s and in Bosnia in the 1990s. Ho wever, one hopes that things need not endure that long, and that the outcome will not be so wasteful and tragic.
  In the meantime, there remains one curious omission in our line of approach. It is a political omission. Those representing and elected by the people—I designedly employ a term that will be familiar to Labour Members, because they have all been instructed by the Prime Minister to use it as often as possible—in Mid-Ulster and in Belfast, West are prevented from taking their seats, and even from entering this building.
  I have always argued that we in this place have no authority to exclude anyone if he or she has been returned to sit here as a result of due electoral process. I shall remind the House of what I said on 22 June 1981 during proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill, which related to the attempt, contrived as I believed it to be, by the House of Commons to prevent Bobby Sands from taking his seat, although he had been elected for the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
  I said:
  "There are many measures relating to the preservation of the rule of law in Northern Ireland that I would support. Some Opposition Members" —
  the roles of the parties at that time were the reverse of what they are now—
  "might disagree with some of those, but effectively to disenfranchise a part of the Province is not one of them …There is an unhappy mixture between political and constitutional considerations and the House should be extremely wary when a constitutional measure is put before it that has overtly political motivation …
  Every hon. Member owes his position to the corporate wisdom—variegated and diffuse though it may be—of a variety of those entities, with their different characteristics, allegiances and viewpoints, that are scattered throughout the United Kingdom. It is wholly improper and an abuse of our position to isolate one of those units and tell it who it may or may not send to this place." —[Official Report, 22 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 67.]
  I readily understand that there should be concern in some, indeed in many, quarters about the oath of allegiance to the Crown and the high importance attached
  204
  to it. However, I remind the House that when the returning officer reads out the results of an election, he gives the total number of votes cast for each candidate, and then says, "I declare that the undermentioned" —whoever that may be—"shall be returned as the Member of Parliament for the constituency of" —wherever it may be.
  Is it really in the forefront of the minds of all those who return an hon. Member to this place—any hon. Member, let alone the Members who are entitled to sit here and represent the constituencies of Mid-Ulster and Belfast, West—that the person that they have returned will and must take the oath of allegiance? I rather doubt it.
  How many hon. Members in this place were so concerned before they rode away from here in 1642 to do battle with the King's army at Edgehill, Marston Moor and Naseby, that they carried in the forefront of their minds the oath that they had taken to the Crown?
  Many years ago your own predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was put under arrest because he was defending the rights of Members of this place to stand apart and to be distant from the Crown—or the Executive, as it may presently be termed—and to provide a balance.
  Our proper role in this place is to balance the Executive, not to swear allegiance to it. The House of Commons has always balanced to some degree or another the weight and power of the Executive. It has been in existence for more than 350 years in that role. We have in our time had to swear an oath of loyalty in one form or another to the house of Stuart, to the house of Orange, to the house of Hanover, to the house of Battenberg and to the house of Windsor. And for all that time—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clark: In the fulness of time, if my right hon. Friend will allow me to finish my sentence.
  And for all that time, the Catholics in Ireland have suffered, or believed themselves to have suffered, repression.
  Mr. Hogg: I do not necessarily disagree with my right hon. Friend's conclusions, but he has made one mistake in his argument, which he may like to clarify. He is talking about swearing allegiance to the Executive—that is the word that he uses. He seems to be confounding the Executive with the Crown for those purposes, and I do not think that he means to do that. His conclusions may be right; none the less I think that he would like to make a distinction between the Crown and the Executive.
  Mr. Clark rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, may I remind him that he is going rather far from the subject of tonight's debate, which is the Second Reading of a Bill? I would be grateful if he got back on track fairly quickly.
  Mr. Clark: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of course I bow to your ruling. This is a Second Reading, on which some latitude is often permitted. I do not feel that I am straying any further than the

  205
  hon. Gentlemen who spent many minutes of the time of the House discussing the future and validity of higher education in Belfast.
  Whether or not you want me to deal with my right hon. Friend's intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I believe it is relevant to the introduction of the political process into the attempt to find a settlement in Northern Ireland? After all, the Act that we are discussing is closely related to that, and to regulating, restricting and confining within legal limits illegal activity in Northern Ireland. It is my contention that it should also be supplemented by political measures.
  I take no sides in the controversy. Often there are impossible choices to be faced in a true democracy—choices that were exemplified by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said about internment and by what Liberal Members have said. However, always overriding must be one imperative—that there should never be seen to be surrender, or apparent surrender, to naked violence.
  Moreover, where the democratic process has been followed and the ballot box has returned its verdict, we should not be able to interfere. If we deny that right—effectively removing a constituency from the United Kingdom—we are encouraging all those who argue the case that it should no longer be a part of the United Kingdom. That is the essential distinction which we must master.
  As for the oath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which would you or the House regard as more honourable—to refuse to take the oath on the grounds of conscience or commitment, or to take it, as did the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), while smirking at the television cameras with his fingers crossed?
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: As the 1996 emergency provisions Act expires in August next year, I support the Government's decision to place in this year's programme a measure to fill the vacuum that would otherwise exist. I therefore do not quarrel with the bald fact that the Government propose to extend by two years the life of the 1996 Act, making it effective to 2000.
  Continuing in the spirit of co-operation, good will and charity towards the Government, I suppose it could be said that it is a matter of considerable relief that the Bill leaves untouched most of the provisions of the 1996 Act. Their collective value has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, and most are needed and used now—notwithstanding the so-called "ceasefires", which are in any event only tactical. The powers can be used most extensively in the event of a resumption of widespread violence. I note with interest that the Government have not pursued, for the time being, the theme of certifying in rather than certifying out, and I am glad that the powers to stop and search remain.
  I shall be ultra-selective in my remarks on the Bill. I wish to ask some questions on a part of clauses 4 and 5 that I do not understand. The 1996 Act, as the Minister reminded us, provided for silent video recordings of police interviews with persons detained under the 1989 PTA. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill extend the practice in
  206
  two ways, and I do not quarrel with that. First, they provide for video and audio recording and, secondly, they widen their use to
  "interviews held by police officers in such other circumstances as may be specified in an order".
  My question is this—what precisely are we to understand from the words "in such other circumstances"? Do they mean under the provisions of legislation other than the PTA? If not, what do they mean? If they mean other legislation, can the Government be more specific? Will they indicate which provisions of which legislation they have in mind? What criteria will the Secretary of State use to determine what should or should not be included in an order? For instance, would the criteria extend to the criminal record, if any, of the person being questioned, or to his known support of paramilitary organisations? It is not unreasonable to query why such a little-defined executive authority should be given to the Secretary of State.
  As I see it, the key issue of the Bill is internment, and I do not apologise for returning to the subject. The arguments are well rehearsed and there is no need to recite them in detail. It is a fact of life that, although it has remained on the statute book, the power to detain without trial has lapsed technically in the legislative context and practically in the context of its usage.
  For my part, I accept that internment is an infringement of civil liberties, and it is folly to deny that. I agree that internment in the 1970s was counterproductive and the overall effect was to strengthen, rather than weaken, the IRA. However, I reject the proposition that we should therefore now abandon the power to intern. I fear that, in seeking to do that, the Government are making a serious mistake. The fact that internment failed in the 1970s certainly does not mean that it is bound to fail in the future—far from it.
  In the 1970s, we suffered from woefully inadequate and inaccurate intelligence and, to put it mildly, the mood of the time was far from supportive. Internment was not applied even-handedly. In such circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that it backfired. However, times change; such circumstances do not and will not always prevail.
  The principled objection to internment—the civil liberties argument—has strength, but I do not believe that it carries the day. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay); although the power has not been used for 20 years and has lapsed in the technical sense—and although we may dislike it because it infringes civil liberties—it should nevertheless be retained because we cannot foresee the future. We simply do not know what may happen when, and what the turn of events may be.
  We cannot and should not completely discount the possibility—however remote it may sometimes seem—that, at some time in the future, circumstances may arise in which the introduction of internment could be justified as the lesser of two evils because it could save lives—perhaps the lives of innocent bystanders. For that reason alone, I would argue that it is folly to abandon the power now.
  Clause 3 should not and cannot be seen in isolation, and it is an illustration of the Government's underlying approach to Northern Ireland. I do not doubt for one moment that that approach is well intentioned, but I believe

  207
  it to be fundamentally flawed. The Provisionals have not earned their place at the negotiating table. They are not unequivocally and exclusively committed to non-violence and democracy, nor have they any intention of decommissioning unless the talks deliver what they want.
  As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has said, the Provisionals are exploiting the process for all they can, and they are doing so successfully. They won concessions by delaying the first ceasefire, and gained further concessions during that ceasefire. Even more concessions were gained as the price of the second ceasefire, and one can legitimately ask the Government if there is a limit to the price that they will pay to maintain that second ceasefire. That is the wider context in which clause 3 and the ending of the power of internment must be placed—the context of what is in effect, although not intention, a policy of appeasement.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I do not believe that any Member of Parliament could approve emergency legislation with any relish; by its very nature, it shows that an abnormal situation obtains in the section of the community to which it applies. It also requires that the local community be denied rights enjoyed by other parts of the United Kingdom.
  I approach this debate, and the issue of internment in particular, as one of those who opposed the use of internment in the 1970s. I did not oppose then, nor do I now, the provision that permits the use of internment, but I did not believe that the circumstances were right for using it in the 1970s, and I think that subsequent events have shown that to be a fair judgment.
  The circumstances were not right for two reasons: the first was that all other means of dealing with the problem had not been exhausted, and the law was still capable of dealing with the situation; the second, and most obvious, was that the intelligence was not available to get the right people. When 80-year-olds who had been involved in the campaign of the 1920s started being picked up for internment, it suggested that perhaps the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not have available to it the most up-to-date records on the basis of which to take decisions and advise the Prime Minister.
  I opposed the use of internment then, and I do not believe that circumstances are such that it is likely to be used now, but, to answer the earlier question posed by a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I can indeed conceive of circumstances in which it could perhaps be necessary, even though we all hope that it will not be. While that possibility remains, the power should be retained on the statute book.
  People argue—I find it hard to accept—that I should not be pressing for decommissioning and that we should allow the weapons to rust; does that not suggest that the best way in which to deal with internment is to let it wither on the vine? If internment is not needed, it will not annoy anyone, because the power will simply not be exercised.
  It is clear why the Government are introducing the measure. They are removing internment for a political reason, as a sop to the IRA. They have said that specifically: the Minister, who is raising his eyebrows, said that we had to move the process forward. What on
  208
  earth did he mean by that? The hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) explained clearly that it had to be done to win the confidence of the nationalist community.
  I sometimes wonder whether anyone is concerned about winning the confidence of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, the people who have suffered most as a result of the violence. I do not believe that internment should be removed from the statute book, but I am not arguing that the circumstances exist in which it is likely to be used.
  I do not have as much difficulty with silent video recordings as I do with audio recordings. Given the reason for introducing recordings, silent video recordings would in many ways have been better. It was argued that excessive force was being used and that people were encouraged by physical or other abuse to make statements that they would not otherwise have made. That could well have been overcome by silent video recordings.
  The measure does not concern me so much that I would be greatly opposed to its introduction, but I hope that it, and the way in which it is introduced in Northern Ireland, will do nothing to make more difficult the Royal Ulster Constabulary's task of getting the information and intelligence that save lives in Northern Ireland.
  In 1994, Members of Parliament had to make a judgment, as those outside will have done, about whether they considered the Provisional IRA's announcement at the end of August to amount to a cessation of violence. There are clear criteria that could have been used to make that judgment. For instance, was there any repentance on the part of the Provisional IRA for the terrorist activity in which it had been involved? Was there any sign of remorse or expression of regret? Far from it: it congratulated its so-called volunteers on the murder campaign in which they had been involved.
  Did the statement contain a commitment to cease violence permanently? Of course not: it was clear that the IRA intended to use the cessation of violence simply as a means to extract concessions from the then Government, and to resume violence when the tactic was no longer of value.
  There were no apologies in the statement for the victims of IRA terrorism, and it was clear from the wording that there was nothing there to convince anyone that the ceasefire was genuine and would last. I made that judgment at that stage, and the IRA's deeds thereafter could have helped anyone to make a judgment: the Provisionals continued to develop new weapons, target individuals, raise funds and recruit—all activities suggesting that they intended to restart their campaign.
  The IRA once again decided to use tactically, to gain concessions, what it describes as its armed struggle. It switches it off, then on again. When it switched it off on the most recent occasion, the Secretary of State, not having learnt from the 17 months of the IRA's previous tactical cessation of violence, determined that she was much wiser than anyone else and would be able to assess within five weeks the genuineness and permanence of the ceasefire.
  With a five-week timetable, it was not hard for the IRA to send its so-called volunteers on a five-week holiday; but, as sure as night follows day, the Provisional IRA campaign has started to wind up now that that time has elapsed. The Minister is deluding himself, or

  209
  attempting to delude us, by suggesting that the ceasefire is holding; it is fraying all round the edges, and obvious terrorist acts are taking place.
  The Minister is closing his eyes to terrorism. Does he consider what is described as a punishment beating to be a terrorist act? If a gun were put at the back of his knee and his kneecap was blown off, he might consider it a breach of the ceasefire. That would, I suspect, have been the view of Tone Donnelly, a 21-year old from west Belfast, whose kneecap was blown out last night by the IRA's so-called punishment squad. We suspect that he will be permanently crippled.
  That was only one of a number of beatings carried out by the provisional IRA and other paramilitary organisations. It seems that, if they do not claim responsibility, no blame is attached to them. It is not only a matter of paramilitary beatings: a man was killed in Bangor, and the security forces know that a loyalist paramilitary organisation was responsible; a man was killed only last week in Belfast, and the security forces know that the loyalist organisation responsible is associated with people who are sitting at the talks table.
  How on earth can the Minister say, as he did in his opening speech, that the loyalist and IRA ceasefires are holding? They are doing nothing of the sort. The Minister is closing his eyes to obvious facts. Many of us wonder what paramilitary organisations have to do before being considered to have breached the ceasefire and the Mitchell principles. They would have to go a long way before this Government were prepared to face that reality.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) gave some details of a speech made by a leading member of Sinn Fein-IRA at the weekend. When Councillor Francie Molloy spoke in a pub in Cullyhanna, he thought that he was speaking to 150 of his Provo friends. What he did not know was that two journalists were in the crowd, taking a full note of what he had to say. The Minister invites us to find a transcript. I have a transcript of what Molloy said at Cullyhanna, which was taken from one of those journalists, and I will give the Minister the benefit of a few sentences from it.
  Mr. Molloy said:
  "Unity is our strength. We see the obstacles and try to counteract them. If we put up one finger it is a very weak and delicate piece of our bodies. But with our clinched fist it is very strong, hard to break open.
  And we will be strong when we are together, united in one fist facing the British government whether it be Oglaigh na hEireann" —
  my pronunciation is probably wrong, but the interpretation is "Provisional IRA", for those who are not acquainted with the Gaelic language—
  "Sinn Fein, the prisoners, all of the different aspects of the struggle all contained in the one body facing the Brits and taking them on".
  What does it mean if the IRA is taking on the Brits? Is that consistent with the Mitchell principles and with that party's participation in the talks process?
  Mr. Molloy continues:
  "This phase of negotiations may fall apart …And whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best. But we don't go back to the same tactics we used maybe 20 years ago. We go back with new tactics, we devise new methods, new strategies and we go back again to face the Brits again in negotiations."
  210
  The phrasing is clear—if the negotiations do not work, go back to violence, soften everyone up a bit more and then go back to the negotiations. He continued:
  "There's no one asking everyone to take on the role of the volunteer. Those who want, still there's certainly a role for them to play as a volunteer"
  of the IRA. Clearly, he was drumming up support for the Provisional IRA, identifying himself with it and calling on it to take on the Brits, among whom I class myself.
  Those actions are in contradiction of the Mitchell principles. Lest the Minister is not aware of them, principle 1 is a commitment to
  "democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues".
  Another is a commitment to
  "renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force" —
  and so forth. Clearly, Mr. Molloy's remarks were in contravention of those principles.
  What does the IRA have to do, and what do Sinn Fein spokesmen have to say, for this Government to determine that they are acting contrary to the Mitchell principles? Not only are Francie Molloy's statements contrary to those, but they fall within the incitement to hatred legislation. If a Unionist had made those comments in support of a loyalist paramilitary organisation, he or she would have had a visit from the Royal Ulster Constabulary by now.
  Furthermore, the comments were a breach of the local government code that Mr. Molloy was required to sign to stand for election. He is not allowed to support or approve of any terrorist organisation. His speech, from which I quoted only a few sentences, is full of approval for the Provisional IRA. It simply is not good enough for the Minister to close his eyes and pretend that all these events occurring around him have no impact on the ceasefire and the IRA's position.
  I am sure that the Minister has seen in The Irish Times a column written by Jim Cusack, a security correspondent known to have lines into the Provisional IRA, who in the past has been able to break stories as to the IRA's thinking. This week he again indicates that IRA units in the north have been told by their leadership that the ceasefire is temporary. The Secretary of State made her decision because she was satisfied that the IRA-Sinn Fein organisation was exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. Have the Government any cause to doubt whether it is still of the same mind?
  Finally, like many other people in Northern Ireland, I become more and more frustrated with a Government who have eyes but see not, and who have ears but hear not, things that affect so intimately the security of this nation. We wonder when they will put it to the Provisional IRA movement that it will go out of the talks process if it does not abide by the rules. I do not accept that it ever did; it was the Government who accepted it.
  The criteria were set down by two Prime Ministers. They said that anyone participating in constitutional negotiations had to be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. Are the Government telling us that they have a different yardstick against which they will judge the participation of Sinn Fein-IRA? For, if the same judgment is to be made, I await the Government's response on the issues that I have raised tonight, and on

  211
  other issues of which they are well aware, involving the IRA's participation in acts of violence at present in Northern Ireland.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: We have had a typically robust and wide debate, ranging from the potential university campus in west Belfast to fringe meetings at Conservative party conferences, with due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark).
  A number of important questions have been put to the Minister, covering all aspects of security policy and dealing with the peace process. I am sure that the Minister who is to reply will be delighted that he has two hours in which to do full justice to all those pertinent questions. I shall deal with some of the points made, but in a moment.
  This has also been an extremely timely debate, because, if the reports are to be believed, the process could be entering a crucial phase. Of course, I am referring to the widespread newspaper reports of splits within the republican movement—Sinn Fein and the IRA—over future strategy. Sinn Fein now seems to be playing down what appears to be a number of high-level resignations from its organisation in recent days.
  If the reports are true, they are disturbing, to say the least, as indeed are the remarks made at the weekend by the leading Sinn Fein councillor and reputed moderate party strategist, Francie Molloy. The hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made that point. Molloy's comments, which were no doubt intended to reassure republican activists, were full of bellicose and ritualistic anti-British venom. They certainly sit oddly by the side of his party's professed commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence—another point made clearly and eloquently by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
  Let us remind ourselves of what Mr. Molloy said, which was printed in The Daily Telegraph on Monday 17 November. He stated:
  "This phase of negotiations may fall apart, it may not succeed. And whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best."
  Most hon. Members present will have their own ideas as to what precisely Sinn Fein-IRA does best.
  Like the Government, we hope that Sinn Fein's commitment to the democratic process is not in doubt; but such comments hardly inspire the sort of confidence—not least among the other parties participating in the talks process—that will be necessary if those talks are to be successful. Sinn Fein-IRA needs to be clear about one thing: a commitment to democracy and non-violence is not a flexible principle, to be adopted one day and discarded the next when things are not going the way they want. If we are to take Sinn Fein at its word when it professes its democratic credentials, the sort of language used at the weekend has no place and we should have no more of such ambivalence. I trust that the Government will continue to monitor closely such statements.
  The comments serve as a welcome reminder to the House of the necessity of renewing the emergency provisions for a further two years, and they totally
  212
  vindicate the Opposition's approach to the Government's proposed changes, especially the dropping of the power of internment. That approach is based on a hard-headed assessment of the realities of the current situation in Northern Ireland, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, we have been here before, only to see the hopes for a lasting peace cruelly dashed. Like all hon. Members, we hope that Sinn Fein has ceased to be an apologist for violence, but we require a good deal more evidence of its democratic intentions and credentials before we can support a weakening of the powers contained in the legislation.
  Nothing more graphically illustrates the capacity of Sinn Fein-IRA to split than the events of recent days. It is an enduring feature of violent Irish republicanism—indeed, of paramilitary groups from across the community. By seeking to discard the power of internment today, the Government are being over-hasty and potentially reckless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) ably pointed out. For the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that the Government do not come to regret their action.
  Our other concern is the significant increase in the number of scheduled offences that will become eligible for certifying out, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. I know that the Minister of State is on slightly uncomfortable territory here, as it was only in March this year, during the renewal debate on the 1996 Act, that he argued for the system to be changed to one of certifying in. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) embarrassed Ministers by pointing out that that was Labour party policy when in opposition, and he made a strong case for the change to certifying in.
  Judging from the Hansard in front of me, the Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, also made an eloquent case for that policy. When he winds up, I hope that he will explain the change to the House in a way that we can understand, because the Minister of State did not convince me, or the hon. Member for Hull, North, that the reasons for the policy change were valid. We look forward to a full explanation why, within the space of some six or seven months, Labour party policy on certifying out or certifying in has effectively done a U-turn. We welcome that change of heart and hope that Ministers will continue to support the policy as and when the review of the prevention of terrorism Act and associated legislation takes place, some time next year.
  I shall now pick up on some of the contributions with which I concur and I hope the Minister will give full answers to hon. Members in his winding-up speech. Several hon. Members sought an assurance that the Government will not seek to appeal over the heads of the political parties for a solution in Northern Ireland; and that consent, as it applies to the second element of the triple lock, means the people of Northern Ireland alone. We also seek an assurance that any measures to ease security on the ground should be taken only following the closest consultation with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable.
  Why do the Government consider it necessary to amend the Act in such a way now, especially in the light of the Home Secretary's announcement of the review of all the anti-terrorist legislation in the new year? It is only six or seven months since the previous Government brought this legislation to the House, so we are interested in learning

  213
  why the current Government have seen fit to introduce changes at this early date—bearing in mind that there is a full review in process and some of the matters being debated could have waited until the new year. Finally, on the question of scheduled offences through the Diplock procedure, can the Minister tell us how many charges have been brought under any of those offences in recent years, other than those that are specifically terrorist-related?
  Northern Ireland does not yet enjoy a permanent and lasting peace. We wish the Government well in their efforts, through the talks process, to secure those objectives. As long as they respect the fundamental principles for a settlement that have been negotiated over several years between successive British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties, they will enjoy our support. The most fundamental of those principles is consent: nothing must be implemented that contravenes that principle—of that, there can be no room for doubt.
  In the event of a settlement and a lasting peace, it might be that the emergency provisions could be relaxed, although we believe that there would still be a strong case for permanent anti-terrorist legislation to remain on the statute book. We are, regrettably, far from that point today, for all the reasons stated by my hon. Friends and me. Despite our grave doubts about the Government's wisdom in removing the power of internment, we shall not—unlike the Labour party in opposition—use that as an excuse to play party politics. The issues at stake and the legislation itself are too important for that, so we have no hesitation in supporting the Government tonight.
  8.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): I listened with great interest to the debate, as I have retained a special interest in the emergency legislation. I regret that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is not in the Chamber—he has put in his apology for being absent due to other engagements. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and I hope that this is the last time the House will be involved in a Second Reading of an emergency provisions Act.
  The debate has been long and, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) described it, robust, which is consistent with past experience of these matters. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken, expressed their view and contributed to the debate. I shall respond to as many points as possible, but I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me for replying only to the matters that are relevant to the Bill and thus imposing a discipline on myself that not all hon. Members applied.
  Many hon. Members correctly identified the key matter as the removal of internment from British legislation. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) referred to that as merely token politics. That legislation that is deeply disturbing to everyone with any concern about human rights should be regarded as token politics is worrying. Internment is a matter of considerable importance.
  Let me remind hon. Members what internment means: it involves a decision by the Government to deprive individuals of their liberty, without trial and without the normal safeguards which the law provides for the
  214
  protection of the accused. Hon. Members frequently said that we must not surrender to violence, but it is possible to interpret internment as a surrender to violence, because it involves using the methods of violence to deprive people of their liberty without the safeguards of courts of law. That is why it is so offensive. It has never been a means of achieving stability in the community. If we were to use it, the effect would be quite the reverse.
  I was again disturbed by the hon. Member for Bracknell asking why we are removing internment now and his suggestion that, if minority groups became involved in violence after a settlement, it would be time to apply internment. That seemed to be the implication of his remarks. I cannot think of a means by which violence would more surely return than the introduction of internment in those circumstances.
  It is worth remembering Lord Colville' s review of the Act in 1990. He identified and discussed in some detail the difficulties associated with the operation of internment and its repercussions on the nationalist community. He noted that perhaps the most sinister by-product was the tendency to strengthen terrorist networks and to increase hostility and criminal skills among those detained, and that it served significantly to undermine respect for the law and the judicial process.
  We must take seriously the international community's perception of internment. It is important to establish our democratic and law-abiding credentials in this firm way. I was pleased by the praise of Labour Members for our having taken the first possible opportunity to honour our commitment in opposition to remove internment from the Act. That is an important statement of political principle that does honour to this Government and to this country.
  Several hon. Members mentioned audio and video recording. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) asked about the delay in introducing silent video recording. I am pleased to say that it is now being done at Castlereagh. I cannot answer for the delay that occurred before 1 May, but one reason for the delay since is that we knew that we were going to introduce audio recording as well. It was important to ensure that the systems that we introduced would be compatible. It is more complicated than it sounds, because there has to be a code of practice and staff must be trained. We stated in opposition that we would bring in audio recording, which introduces a new element into procedures.
  Mr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response to my intervention. My point is that the audio recording system should be introduced long before 2000, although I admit that the introduction of such technology is complicated, as we know from our Scottish experience.
  Mr. Worthington: We are moving ahead on this. Audio recording will also be an important step forward for the forces of security and justice. One of the most compelling arguments was made by Mr. Justice Kerr in the case of the Ballymurphy Seven when he said:
  "it is my confident opinion that had"
  audio recording
  "been available, this trial could have been completed comfortably within a few weeks instead of the 16 months that it occupied."
  That would not only have saved money but dealt with any specious arguments used against the security forces. It is a safeguard for both sides, and I was surprised that the previous Government did not take that step.

  215
  Let me move on to the tangled subject of scheduling, certifying in and certifying out, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has taken his PhD. All Labour Members agree that it would be most desirable to get away from the Diplock system. We would like to introduce normal law in normal circumstances, and that includes trial by jury. The Government should be given credit for adding to the number of offences that the Attorney-General may certify out at his discretion. That represents a significant move towards reducing the number of potential cases to be tried before Diplock courts.
  As I know from when I led for the Opposition in Committee, we have always argued that it is not feasible to move with a big bang from a Diplock system to a non-Diplock system. We are moving gradually. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will at any time be able by making an order to take a collection of offences out of the Diplock procedure.
  Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend said that this change would be "significant". My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), in a reply that I received today, said:
  "It is not possible to predict the number of cases which will be heard before a jury as a result of the proposed changes. It will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to determine, on the merits of each individual case before him, whether or not to certify it out."
  We do not know whether this is a significant or insignificant step. It would be significant if we went to certifying in.
  Mr. Worthington: If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, he asked me to do the impossible: to predict the number of cases that will be affected. I cannot do that, because I do not know what offences will be committed. I give credit to the previous Government—this was raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—for having achieved some progress towards normalisation: 85 per cent. of the cases that would qualify for scheduling are now taken under normal court procedure.
  Hon. Members are correct to say that, in opposition, we said that we wanted to certify in rather than certify out. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is very alert and can read Hansard. He knows that I made that statement in opposition. Since then, we have consulted on the matter and the Attorney-General has pointed out that it might be regarded as invidious if he had to certify in. As the prosecuting authority, he would be in the position of denying particular defendants trial by jury.
  Mr. McNamara: We have that already.
  Mr. Worthington: With respect, it is not the same. If we pass the Bill, the decision about normality—we all regret this law in a way—would be that of the House, not the prosecuting authority. The Attorney-General has reasonably said that it would look invidious if the decision to deny someone a trial by jury was explicitly his, as the prosecuting authority.
  Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, it is a specific responsibility of the Attorney-General to give a person a trial by jury under the exceptions that he is laying down, so the position has not changed at all.
  Mr. Worthington: I have explained the point, and I believe that I have made it clear. It is a question of
  216
  balance, and I believe that my hon. Friend and I would agree that the key is that, by whatever method, we are moving towards normality, and each year a smaller proportion of cases is held under Diplock procedure. That is the key factor, which we should receive credit for.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde raised the issue of legal advice. He said that, as one of the "normal suspects", he had been approached by the Committee for the Administration of Justice on that matter. I have ceased to be one of the "normal suspects" so I have not received the correspondence from the Committee for the Administration of Justice that he has received.
  I cannot give a full answer to his point now. If the number of cases in which legal advice has been deferred has increased, the increase may or may not be significant. The number of such cases is now very small and information on the nature of each case will help us to understand whether the change is significant. As those figures were not drawn to my attention, I cannot give a full answer at present, but I undertake that a letter will be sent to my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) asked about clause 4, in which there was a point that he could not understand. It is simply an amendment of an oversight in the current Act, regarding silent video recordings of police interviews at holding centres. Occasionally, the police require to interview at a holding centre a person who is in custody in the care of the prison authorities, and also occasionally a magistrate may order a person to be produced to a holding centre for questioning. In such cases, arrest and detention will not have been under the PTA. The clause will ensure that such interviews are recorded on silent video in the same way as other interviews conducted in the holding centres. I hope that that is clear to the hon. Member for Basingstoke, if to no one else.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned the John Murray case. There has been a long period of consideration because it is an extremely complicated case, raising issues regarding the treatment of suspects under emergency and criminal law. The European Commission of Human Rights judgment has required very wide consultation within Government, but I can give the undertaking that the Home Secretary has written to colleagues and responses are being gathered on this matter at present.
  In closing tonight's debate, I ask hon. Members to view the Bill, not in isolation, but in its wider context. The Bill aims to provide a proportionate response to the terrorist threat, so it must be reviewed against the background of the prevailing security and political scene. There has been much discussion of that tonight and I do not intend to rehearse that, but I say by way of summary that, although we are encouraged by the progress that has been made in the talks, and although terrorist groups maintain their ceasefires, we are profoundly conscious of the fact that other such groups, such as the Continuity Army Council, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Loyalist Volunteer Force, have not called ceasefires.
  That means that the people of Northern Ireland, the Government and the security forces who protect us all cannot drop their guard. Only a few weeks ago, on 16 September, a 400 lb bomb exploded in Markethill in the vicinity of a primary school, a police station and a

  217
  cattle market, causing serious damage. My hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke of the great damage that might have occurred in the motor tax office in Derry.
  Postal bombs have been sent to several Unionist Members, civil servants in the Anglo-Irish Secretariat have been told to resign or become legitimate targets, and last week a device capable of exploding was sent to the Conservative party offices in Bangor, County Down. All that is evidence, which we do not ignore, of the aim and ability of some groups to continue to cause disruption and destruction. We are determined that those who are engaged in such vile activities shall be pursued under law, and the renewal for a further two years of the main provisions of the EPA will allow that to happen.
  That brings me to the Government's longer-term plans and the wider context in which the Bill must be viewed. It is an interim measure, pending the introduction of permanent legislation for which I believe that the Government should get credit, because what we promised we will deliver. The permanent legislation will be sufficiently flexible to take account of any continuing threat from terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland and to take account of the current and future threat from international terrorist groups.
  Mr. Maginnis rose—
  Mr. Worthington: In bringing the Bill before the House, the Government are acting to ensure that the security forces and the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland can continue after August 1998 to deal effectively with terrorism and we are acting to correct inherent flaws in the existing provisions. I believe that we all gain from correcting those flaws. In terms of the ability to counter terrorism, nothing is lost and much is gained as a result of the Bill, which I commend to the House.
  Mr. Maginnis rose—
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to the Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State by virtue of that Act. — [Mr. Pope.]>
Question agreed to

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Homeless Persons (Priority Need) (Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 31st July, be approved.
  VALUE ADDED TAX
  That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Appeals) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2542), dated 27th October 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.
  FINANCIAL SERVICES
  That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2543), dated 27th October 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.
  SUMMER TIME
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1997 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 27th October.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING
  That the draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Maritime Differential Correction Systems) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

  PUBLIC HEALTH
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Dounreay Nuclear Establishment) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2622), dated 29th October 1997, which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved. —[Mr. Pope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you were aware that the Minister, when he responded to the debate with an hour and a half left to go, deliberately ignored those Members who speak on behalf of constituencies in Northern Ireland. He responded to every other hon. Member who had spoken, but deliberately ignored two Unionists representing Northern Ireland. There may be little that you can do about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should have thought that, as a matter of courtesy, the Minister might have accorded some recognition to the fact that we have sat in the House all afternoon.
  Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am dealing with that point of order.
  Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that, after the way that I behaved today, I should come to the defence of Ministers and say that I heard my hon. Friend the Minister, in summing up, say specifically that he was not going to refer to some of the matters that were raised by the hon. Gentlemen, so they may not have had the answer they wanted, but they were certainly referred to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The way in which Ministers respond to debates is not a matter for the Chair.

  NHS (North Essex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the situation in the health service in north Essex, particularly in my constituency in the mid-Essex part of north Essex.
  My constituents and I are justifiably proud of the fantastic health service that we have in mid-Essex. More than 60 per cent. of patients are members of fundholding practices. There are two main hospitals in my constituency—St. John's hospital and Broomfield hospital—which are staffed by excellent consultants, doctors and nurses, as well as some very good administrators who try to streamline their operations so that the maximum amount of money available can be spent on providing health care to my constituents rather than on excessive bureaucracy. The way in which all those staff look after my constituents is second to none, and deserves the highest commendation.
  Over the past 10 years, we have witnessed the provision of successful health care and improvements in the services available to my constituents. Until the past decade or so, far too many of my constituents and others in north Essex had to travel to London or up to Addenbrooke's in Cambridge for specialist services. That obviously caused discomfort, not to mention expense, to the patients who had to travel for treatment, and to their family and friends who wanted to visit them while they were receiving treatment.
  In the past 10 years, a plethora of enhanced services and new services has come to Broomfield hospital in particular so as to minimise that movement of patients down to London or outside the region for specialist care. The nationally famous burns and plastic surgery unit is being transferred from St. Andrew's in Billericay to Broomfield in Chelmsford—a move brought about not by cuts or financial considerations, but because it is such a centre of excellence that the site at St. Andrew's in Billericay was too small and the unit needed to move to a green-field site within the Broomfield hospital area to carry on its fantastic work in new premises.
  I was particularly pleased about that decision, because there was at one time a possibility that the unit would not stay within the north Essex area, but would be transferred to the M25 area towards London, which I would have regarded as a retrograde step. In the past five years, as a logical flow-through of the reforms in the health service in London, more and more services have been coming locally to areas such as north Essex to serve its growing population.
  We have benefited from enhanced cancer services in Chelmsford and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). There has been an improvement in breast cancer screening. The clinic in Chelmsford closed down for a few months last year, not for financial reasons, but because a member of staff resigned and another qualified member of staff could not be found immediately. The clinic has now reopened with an enhanced service, larger space and more staff to look after females in my constituency who need that important specialist care.

  221
  There has been an improvement in orthopaedics in the area. We now have our own kidney dialysis unit, thanks to the generosity of the people of mid-Essex who, through the work of Dr. Mike Weston, raised the funds to build the kidney unit which is now being run as part of the costs of the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust for the benefit of my constituents. No longer do they have to go elsewhere for kidney dialysis; they can receive treatment on the premises, close to their homes.
  I am pleased to say that mental health care has also been greatly enhanced, with the building of the Linden centre on the site of Broomfield hospital, providing state-of-the-art premises with one or two secure rooms for patients who need to be looked after in more secure circumstances, rather than the old Victorian buildings that we associated with mental health care until recently.
  St. John's hospital in my constituency offers primarily, although not exclusively, geriatric care, maternity care and children's services. The children's unit has been modernised, partly through the generosity of local people who raised funds a few years ago with the help of a campaign run by the local newspaper, the Essex Chronicle. Geriatric care has also been enhanced. Maternity care in the hospital is extremely good, although I am sad to have to report to the House that far too many of my constituents still complain that, despite the excellent medical care they receive when they go in to have their babies, the food at the hospital is bad. We should be able to improve the quality of food served in hospitals.
  As a result of all those improvements, the service is vibrant. I am not so blinkered as to say that everything is 100 per cent. perfect. Clearly, in any service, especially one as sensitive as health care, where many thousands of patients—in-patients and out-patients—are treated every day of the year, there will be some problems and some mistakes. North Essex is not immune to that, but there is no point in harping on about the few problems that occur in such a service when, as a whole, the health care, it provides is excellent.
  Regardless of whether there is a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, the occasional problem will arise and mistakes will be made, but they must be seen in the context of the vast majority of patients who receive first-rate treatment and care.
  Of course, all the services cost money. Before the reforms and the establishment of the North Essex health authority, there was a serious problem in mid-Essex. Under the old North East Thames regional health authority, the Government of the day gave the regional health authority X hundred million pounds a year to distribute to the districts in its region.
  It was not the Government, but the regional health authority, that determined how much money the district health authority received. That difficulty was compounded by the problems of the resource allocation working party system introduced in the late 1970s, which ran until the early 1990s. As a gross generalisation, it could be said that an affluent area with a rapidly expanding population was linked into a regional health authority with an area such as the east end of London, which had a falling population, social problems and problems of urban deprivation that do not occur in mid or north Essex.
  222
  Under the operation of RAWP, the east end of London, with a falling population, received a disproportionate amount of the funding each year from the North East Thames regional health authority compared with the Essex end of the region, which over the years had a significant impact on the level of funding for mid and north Essex. As long as that system operated, there was no way for them to catch up. There was a ratchet effect, and RAWP dictated how the money was be distributed.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I hope that I am not interrupting the detail of my hon. Friend's speech, but the situation was worse than he has described. Under RAWP, resources were allocated disproportionately to London health districts and, at the same time, money was allocated from the Thames region to other areas of the United Kingdom that had historically been underfunded. The home counties suffered a double whammy: money was squeezed from us and allocated to London, and money was squeezed from the Thames region generally. As a result, we were, by any standards, underfunded.
  Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend who, with his usual perspicacity, has anticipated my next point. He is absolutely right: it was a double whammy.
  The situation improved in the early 1990s, when RAWP was removed and a new formula was introduced. In its dying days, the North East Thames regional health authority had the decency to admit, after many years of denial, that north Essex had suffered as a result of its distribution of Government money. From about 1993–94, the change brought genuine benefits to areas such as mid-Essex and to the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for North Essex, and to that of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and his predecessor, Lord Newton.
  The new formula took into account areas with rising populations and the number of people in the district. In 1993, my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford, and for North Essex, and the former right hon. Member for Braintree, and I went to see the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). We explained, yet again, the problems that our areas suffered as a result of RAWP. My right hon. Friend gave a commitment that she would ensure that, as the reforms came through, areas such as mid and north Essex would begin to make up funding and narrow the gap between the money they actually received and what they would receive if the money were distributed differently.
  To her credit, my right hon. Friend and her successors in the Department of Health delivered on that promise. North Essex has done extremely well in the past four financial years. The level of funding reflected the historic problems in our area—the government of the day made no bones about that. Year after year, we received significant increases in health funding over and above the rate of inflation. The gap narrowed and extra money was spent on the provision of patient care—the purpose for which it is intended.
  The Government have just announced the funding allocations for next year. It does politicians no good to pick holes for the sake of it, so I say at the outset that we welcome the extra money that will be provided for health

  223
  care in north Essex next year. North Essex will receive £14 million, or 5.01 per cent. That is a real funding increase—given that the Government are using 2.75 per cent. as the inflation indicator—of 2.25 per cent. I hope that my maths is correct.
  Mr. Greg Pope: It is 2.26 per cent.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assistance.
  It would be churlish and foolish to criticise that allocation—and I have no intention of doing so. The least one can do is recognise the assistance that is being provided.
  However, that does not mean that I am 100 per cent. happy with the situation. I shall not spoil my speech by beginning to carp, but I know the Minister is aware—his capable civil servants will have briefed him before the debate—that the Government have changed the formula for 1998–99. It has not changed radically—perhaps one could say that the Government have tweaked the formula. The change was forecast in a written answer to me on 8 July this year, and I was told that it would probably occur in time for 1998–99, so it comes as no surprise.
  The tweaking of the formula has altered the change in needs formula and reduced the number of pay zones. That impacts on the amount of money that north Essex will receive next year. The situation is horrendously complicated, and the Minister can rest assured that I shall not rehearse the minutiae of the funding formula and its operation, which is open to interpretation. The bottom line is that, if the formula had not been tweaked this year and we had used the present formula, the North Essex health authority tells me that we would have received £1.2 million more. That money will now go to East London and The City health authority.
  I do not want the debate to degenerate into a party political slanging match, but I ask the Minister, in all seriousness, to re-examine the changes that have been made to the formula. It would be unrealistic to expect the Minister to look at the operation of the formula next year and revisit those allocations. The Government have changed the formula, calculated the allocations to health authorities and announced those sums.
  The Minister may argue, with some justification, that we are talking about a relatively small amount—it is small in monetary terms, but not so small in terms of health care provision next year—but if the formula continues on the same basis beyond 1999, the cumulative effect over several years could be a widening discrepancy. That is why I ask the Minister—he does not have to commit himself tonight to a final decision—to reconsider the tweaking of the formula for 1998–99 to see whether any improvements can be made in future.
  The Broomfield hospital and the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust had a terrible problem last year and the year before over the thorny and difficult question of bed blocking. From my own experience, up to 1 May we heard the same old arguments: social services blamed the health trust or health authority, and the health trust or health authority blamed social services. In all too many cases, they were waiting to see who blinked first, as the one to blink first would probably pick up the bill.
  It has been a problem for many years. The Department of Health is extremely concerned about it and a number of measures have been taken in the past two years to get
  224
  social services and health authorities to work closer together from the top down, but particularly lower down, so that there are no territorial battles, petty jealousies and so on and so that they do not try to avoid responsibility for taking decisions.
  We had a serious problem. It has not gone away. The last figures that I have seen for bed blocking at Broomfield hospital is 91 beds. That is significantly more, if my memory is correct, than this time last year, when I think the figure was about 60.
  The Government announce—late last week, I think—that there is an extra £300 million, which is being distributed to the health authorities and social services to help solve the problem and any crisis during the winter months. I am delighted to see that they are following the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) who, as Secretary of State for Health this time last year, and in February of this year, also provided extra money to help overcome problems with the winter crisis and bed blocking. We welcome the money that the Government have allocated to the health authority and to social services in north Essex. I genuinely hope that it helps to deal with the problems that could arise during the winter.
  All of us are, of course, totally in the dark as to the extent of any problem, because by definition we do not know what the weather will be like over the next four months. I remember that the colder and more difficult it gets, the more strains and pressures are put on the health service and that a large proportion of the people affected are elderly. We welcome the money.
  I shall appreciate it if the Minister will at least look at the formula again to see whether anything can be done in subsequent years to avoid the recurrence of a problem that we thought we had got rid of in 1993–94 but which seems to be coming back.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for securing this debate on a subject of great interest to hon. Members who represent the northern part of the county of Essex. I am also grateful to him for his historical sweep and panorama of the history of health services in the county and his skill with the abacus when trying to ascertain the precise financial calculations. It is a matter that bedevils hon. Members from north Essex.
  The Government have made more funds available for the health service in north Essex. A very substantial sum, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been made available this winter to deal with what is crudely called bed blocking. That sum is now available. Indeed, very large sums are available for the coming year. The figure that I have in mind is £17.5 million for north Essex. In growth terms, £7.8 million is available for north Essex. I do not have the advantage of the instant mental arithmetic necessary to say whether those figures are right or wrong, but I am advised that they are correct.
  Whatever the precise situation, the sums are very much greater than what was envisaged. Notwithstanding that, the health authority has initiated a consultation exercise entitled "Taking the Initiative". Unfortunately, many of my constituents regard that as a misnomer. The term that they would use is taking the mickey—not out of any

  225
  disrespect whatever for the health authority or the trusts. Up to the early part of this year, we were told that everything in the garden was rosy.
  Further south than the area represented by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), things might be somewhat rosier. Indeed, the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust has spent very large sums on extending, to a very high standard—for which it is to be credited—the hospital at Broomfield. That hospital is on the north-west side of Chelmsford and is not in the Braintree, Colchester or Harwich constituencies. As a consequence, those who live in Braintree, or, indeed, other places, are now expected to go to Broomfield rather than their local hospitals. They have a much greater burden on them.
  I am particularly concerned, as I represent Braintree. We have three hospitals, but one of them, Black Notley hospital, was marked for closure long before the present Government came to office. That hospital carried out elective surgery to a very high standard and was enormously popular but, unfortunately, many in my area would concede that the battle is lost. The document "Taking the Initiative" proposes that the health authority considers representations from the trust to close the remaining two hospitals—St. Michael's and, with great insensitivity, the William Julian Courtauld hospital.
  The name Courtauld is probably known way beyond the confines of north Essex. The Courtauld family were very large weavers and millers in the towns of Braintree, Halstead and elsewhere up to the 1960s. They were very large employers of labour and were great benefactors to the town of Braintree. After the first world war, William Julian Courtauld donated the site, at the very least, of the William Julian Courtauld hospital. Thereafter, as I am advised by those more senior than I in the town of Braintree, the rest of the money was raised by public subscription pound for pound between the Courtaulds and those who worked for them. Hence the name William Julian Courtauld hospital.
  Over the years, the William Julian Courtauld hospital has stood the town in very good stead indeed. At one time, operations and all manner of medical procedures were carried out there. It is right to say that the scope is more limited now, but many would say that it is probably one of the finest non-acute maternity hospitals in the county. Mothers who have had their children there will endlessly speak well of it, and will vehemently oppose its closure on that ground alone. What is even more ironic is that, at the beginning of this year, the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust, which now says that it cannot possibly afford to keep any of these hospitals open, spent £360,000 on the William Julian Courtauld hospital on improvements and renovations. That is less than nine months ago from the moment we speak.
  The new extension was opened—proudly, with a fanfare—by the high sheriff of the county. The ceremony was attended by my predecessor, now Lord Newton. Only a few months later, however, the same health trust brought out "Taking the Initiative" —as it called it; the initiative was to close that very hospital.
  I think that hon. Members can imagine the horror with which the move was regarded in Braintree. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich will say similar
  226
  things about what is proposed in Clacton. Very large public meetings have already been held in Braintree, in which the health trust has had to face its accuser—its accusers, of course, being the patients and people of Braintree.
  I give the trust full marks for the courage and fortitude that enabled it to stand before 600 or 700 people, all of one mind, who say that hospitals in Braintree should be retained and people in that town should not be sent down to Broomfield—however wonderful it is—for everything that they need to go there for. Strangely enough, in the smaller print of the document that the trust chose to call "Taking the Initiative", further cuts are proposed in the transport provisions that the trust will provide.
  Braintree is not a wealthy town. Many of those who live in adjoining areas inhabit small villages. Travelling to Broomfield is not an easy ride unless the traveller has a car. Travel by public transport is an expensive and time-consuming business. That will place further strain on, frequently, an elderly relative, if that person's husband or wife is in hospital recuperating after an operation.
  It is accepted that serious operations will need to take place in Broomfield, but there is a great need for recuperation beds in patients' own towns and close to where they can be visited by their relatives. I say this on no medical authority and I am sure that it is not in Gray's "Anatomy", but I have no doubt that those who are close to home, visited daily by uncomplaining relatives, may mend that much faster than those who are in a strange place where their relatives are tired and irritated because the bus did not arrive or it was raining on the journey. I believe that there is a very good case—especially given the extra money that the Minister has provided for Essex—for the present services in Braintree to be retained.
  Finally, I shall make a broader point that emerges from tonight's debate. It relates to the local administration of health services in the county of Essex and, I suspect, in the country as a whole. On 1 May, a different Administration were elected. I make no political point about that, but one of the crucial features of the programme of that new Administration was extra provision for health.
  My colleagues in the Department have made large amounts of money available for health, but that money is now being administered by non-elected bodies, usually composed of people who are not naturally of a progressive persuasion in politics, advised by officers who may also not necessarily be of that view. There is therefore a danger that, unwittingly—I am sure that there is no deliberate intent on the part of those who serve on health trusts—such people will come into conflict with the Government.
  As could be imagined, the health trust sought to justify the draconian closures that it initially proposed. It is fair to say that it has now backed off and proposes to close only one unit, although that involves taking away most of the services. It said, "We did not really mean to close them all to begin with" —but it is there in scripture: it is there in the document, for all to see.
  The fear is that the trust is justifying what appears to be an absurdity. The more money it is given, the more closures must follow. It will say, "Look to your Member of Parliament to explain the answer; ask the Government why it is," but it is the Government who are providing the money and the services.

  227
  We should think long and hard about the future administration of health locally, and the trusts should be accountable not only to the Government who provide money, but to the residents whose wishes and needs they are there to serve.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I hope that unelected individuals who have worked long and hard for the health service will win the trust of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). I realise that he may have found the early months of this Parliament somewhat bruising, given the prospect of so much change in the health service in his constituency. He laments the fact that unelected individuals may come into conflict with the Government, but that seems to show that individuals appointed by whatever party are doing their job to the best of their ability. The usual criticism of appointed individuals is that they are never prepared to come into conflict with the Government, who appointed them.
  I notice a little conundrum in the hon. Gentleman's criticism, and I reiterate that people in health authorities and those who run trusts are doing a good job. They are working extremely hard for the health service, and in some respects are the unsung heroes. It is easy to pay tribute to nurses, doctors and consultants, but it is more difficult to pay tribute to administrators. They get the flak: they are down with politicians, journalists, estate agents and ad men in the public's esteem. I suggest tentatively that politicians have lumbered them with this job, so we should be grateful to them.
  In particular, I should like to pay tribute to Nigel Offen, the chief executive of Essex Rivers Healthcare trust. He suffers the indignities of being in public life and is subject to public scrutiny. If he were in the private sector, he would command a considerably higher salary. He is committed to public service, and he deserves more public support from us than he gets, although I am not criticising the hon. Member for Braintree for that.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing this debate. It is a luxury to have such a long time to debate the north Essex health service. I pay tribute to him, because he has brought to the Chamber not only the Minister, but my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), and the hon. Members for Braintree, for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) and for Colchester (Mr. Russell). This is where decisions are made, and where it matters.
  I have been critical of one or two of our Essex colleagues for attacking those who are carrying out the decisions that are made by the House instead of bringing their complaints to the Chamber. I am pleased to see that so many Essex colleagues are present, so I withdraw that criticism. They are showing their commitment to the proper political process.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: One of my criticisms of North Essex health authority concerns its finances. Its draft business plan of October 1996 showed uncommitted capital for 1997–98, but all of a sudden it was £6 million in debt. It should have shown more expertise in forward planning, and should not have left it until six months later to decide that it was £6 million in debt. I have asked the Minister's Department to look into that issue, because it
  228
  worries my constituents. As a result of that deficit, a review of my two local hospitals was started last April. Questions need to be asked, and we deserve answers from the health authority.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to answers, but I am confident that, if he speaks to North Essex health authority or to the health trusts in his constituency, he will get those answers.
  One of the features of NHS finance about which the Labour party was a little unsympathetic, if I can put it that way, was that NHS finance is extremely difficult to manage. One of the reasons why North Essex health authority has regularly had deficits is that Essex Rivers Healthcare hospital—the Colchester general hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Colchester—regularly treats far too many patients. I say that not because those patients do not need treatment, but because the hospital treats far too many in terms of its budget and forecasts. That is particularly the case in the accident and emergency department.
  It is one of the unexplained phenomena of modern health care that there has been an exponential increase in the number of people who walk into accident and emergency departments every day, to the extent that, during my time as a Member of Parliament for a north Essex constituency, the number of people being treated in accident and emergency departments by Essex Rivers Healthcare has virtually doubled. That is not because more people are having twice the number of road accidents or falling down stairs; it is simply a matter of rising expectations.
  The excess of capital is the result of delays in capital projects. It is something that we struggled with in government, trying to introduce the private finance initiative into the health service to maximise the use of capital. I have no doubt that the Labour Government will have similar difficulties, but I hope and pray that they will be successful.
  In response to the hon. Member for Braintree, I would say that there is a general philosophy in the health service. It starts in the Department of Health; it is replicated in the management outposts, which are in effect vestiges of the old regional health authorities; and it continues throughout the whole culture of the service. That philosophy is that big is beautiful.
  Big is what administrators like; big is what consultants like, because it means that they spend less time driving from hospital to hospital; and big is also what accountants like. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) discovered when he was Secretary of State for Wales, that philosophy often results in expensive readjustments to health capacity and the closure of smaller units. We should ask quite openly—the hon. Member for Harwich should pursue this with regard to the Harwich hospital—whether that is the right philosophy. If it is not, are we right to expect health trusts, which are essentially general hospitals, to deliver small-unit, local hospital care, or should we be more imaginative and find alternative methods of delivery such as GP fundholding?
  Why not extend the principle of GP fundholding beds into the community? Many GP fundholding practices are hungry and ambitious to do better for their patients. They would look after day patients, or even overnight cases,

  229
  perhaps much more effectively and nearer patients' homes than a general hospital could. That would also free up capacity, and such practices could bring in more private capital. I do not want to get bogged down in the usual ideological arguments across the Floor of the House, but we have to be open-minded about such ideas, as they might help the hon. Members for Harwich and for Braintree.
  Mr. Bob Russell: When the Minister replies, will he take due account of how the Essex Members of Parliament across the political divide are all singing the same song? Mention was made of small neighbourhood hospitals. Colchester is indeed blessed with a new hospital, for which we must thank the previous Government. My concern is that it is on a cramped site. Various arms of the national health service, which is one of the largest landowners in Colchester, are busily selling sites at the expense of the general hospital's future. If the neighbourhood hospitals in Clacton, Harwich and, indeed, Braintree were closed, it would have a serious effect on the Colchester hospital.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be very brief, and not be speeches in themselves.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for that admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall take it to heart myself and be as brief as I can. The Minister heard what the hon. Member for Colchester said, and I hope that he will respond positively.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said, spending pressures will have an effect across the north Essex health area, not only on the constituency of the hon. Member for Colchester but on my own constituency—thereby increasing pressure on demand for services at Colchester general hospital and, more directly, affecting residents at places such as St. Osyth and Tendring, in the east.
  Those effects will be felt because, under the Government's new adjusted formula, we are still short by about £8 million. On the original formula, we would have been £19 million short.
  Yesterday, I received from the Minister a written answer in which he said that it is futile to make hypothetical calculations on the basis of a formula that is no longer used. However—without getting involved in party political argument over the size of any increases—the current allocation leaves us £19 million short of what we would have received under our formula.
  We have never been fully funded, and we have always complained that we were not fully funded. The depressing aspect of the matter is that we are going backwards. Whereas, over the years, we were gradually catching up in our formula allocations, the net effect of the formula change is that we are falling behind. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said, the Minister should re-examine the matter.
  I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health to ask whether he would meet a delegation of north Essex Members to discuss the formula. In much the same way that hon. Members had constructive and non-cantankerous
  230
  meetings with the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), we should like to have similar meetings with the new Secretary of State. Although I wrote that letter on 30 October, I have not yet had a reply to it. I know that he is a busy man. I hope, however, that the Minister will take it on board that I made the request on behalf of north Essex Members and that, eventually, we shall be able to meet the Secretary of State.
  The bed blocking issue hangs over us. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said, we are enjoying extremely mild weather, but there is bound to be a cold snap. That is when accident and emergency departments will fill up with extra patients, and bed blocking will worsen. More beds are clogged this winter than at any time since I have been a Member of Parliament. Despite the extra money, therefore, the situation could become more serious than it has ever been before. Unless we deal with the fundamental problem of how resources are allocated, the bed blocking problem will keep recurring.
  I very much welcome the debate and hope that, in the long term, we can resolve the problems. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford on securing the debate
  9.18 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Before the election, my constituency straddled two of the former health authorities in north Essex—the north-east Essex area and the mid-Essex area—and I echo his remarks about the managers who work for our local health service. He is right to say that they often do not receive the recognition that they are due. I join him in paying tribute to all the people who work for the health service, including the managers, in north Essex.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, which is of great importance to my constituents and, of course, to all the constituents of hon. Members who have spoken. I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make a brief contribution. He has already described in some detail the history of underfunding that North Essex health authority has suffered. I do not want to cover the same ground that he has already gone over, but suffice it to say that—for the five years that I have been in Parliament—my hon. Friends and I have regularly banged on the doors of Health Ministers to plead the case for north Essex.
  As my hon. Friends have described, the situation is not new, because north Essex has suffered from underfunding for some time. In the past, our case has been recognised, and the fact that North Essex health authority has suffered a greater shortfall in the amounts actually received compared with the target allocation has led North Essex to receive one of the biggest increases of any health authority in the country. It is for that reason that the change in the formula is so worrying to us.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford in welcoming the extra money that has been provided this year, both in the allocation that has been made for health authority spending and the extra that has recently been announced to tackle the specific problem of emergency

  231
  admissions this winter. However, the target allocation for the health authority has been reduced as a result of the change in the formula that the Government have made. That means that north Essex can no longer look forward to increases on the same scale that it has enjoyed in the past. For that reason, North Essex health authority has really had no choice but to contemplate reductions in facilities and services.
  My hon. Friends and other hon. Members have referred to some of the likely consequences of any reductions. I wish to concentrate on the specific implications for one hospital—St. Peter's hospital in Maldon in my constituency. St. Peter's is a community hospital, in that it serves people living in the district of Maldon. It has extensive out-patient facilities, as well as 58 elderly persons beds, eight general practitioner beds and a maternity unit.
  All those facilities are greatly valued by the people in Maldon, which is a large district with a scattered community. In particular, those living in the Dengie peninsula are a long way from the main general hospital at Broomfield, which has already been mentioned. St. Peter's hospital is therefore essential, so that patients living in my constituency can receive treatment without having to travel an unreasonable distance.
  In seeking to make savings, the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust originally put forward a proposal that would have led to the closure of St. Peter's hospital. I am pleased to say that that option has been rejected by North Essex health authority. Although it would have released some £2 million in savings if the whole closure programme had been implemented, the health authority has said that it is not a realistic option. I warmly applaud that decision, which is admirable common sense. However, there is still a proposal on the table to close the GP beds and the maternity unit at St. Peter's.
  In the year to March 1997, 189 deliveries took place in the maternity unit at St. Peter's. That may not seem very many, but it must be borne in mind that the alternatives available to expectant mothers living in the Maldon district are to have their babies at home or to travel to St. John's hospital in Chelmsford. St John's hospital is some way away, particularly for those mothers in some of the more distant villages in my constituency, such as Bradwell or Tillingham.
  There is also a proposal on the table that, in the long term, St. John's hospital will no longer be available. Eventually, maternity facilities may be concentrated at Broomfield hospital. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) referred to the difficulties that his constituents have in reaching Broomfield, on the north-west side of Chelmsford. My constituents in the further reaches of the Maldon district will find it even more difficult. They may face journeys of up to an hour to get to the hospital.
  In 1993, the Government published a document entitled, "Changing Childbirth", which stated Government policy on maternity services. The document says:
  "Maternity services must be readily and easily accessible to all. They should be sensitive to the needs of the local population and based primarily in the community."
  That document was produced by the previous Government. I wrote to the Minister about that. His reply of 5 October said:
  232
  "I can confirm that the Government fully agrees with the principles of women-centred maternity care, as outlined in `Changing Childbirth'."
  That document still represents Government policy on maternity services. If that is to be a reality and if the Government are to meet the objective of serving the needs of the local population by basing care primarily in the community, closing St. Peter's maternity unit would be a great step backwards.
  The proposal to close the maternity unit at St. Peter's has understandably led to considerable protest in the Maldon district. Two local mothers, Nicky Crisp and Caroline Anderson, have put together a campaigning organisation called MOMMS-Mothers Opposed to Maldon Maternity Shutdown. In just a few months, they have collected more than 7,000 signatures on a petition, which I hope to be able to present to the House in the near future.
  I am encouraged by the assurance of the chief executive of North Essex health authority that the current consultation period is genuine and that no final decisions have been taken. I hope that that is the case, and that there is still an opportunity for the decision to close the maternity unit to be reversed. If St. Peter's is to have a long-term future, the only real solution will be money. That is why I come back to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford and for North Essex.
  North Essex has enjoyed large increases in the past because of the extent to which funding has fallen short of the target level. If the Government's change to the formula means that the area can no longer look forward to the same level of increase that we have enjoyed, I am pessimistic about the future of St. Peter's. I therefore echo the appeal of my hon. Friends to the Minister to reconsider the issue, to see whether the formula can be adjusted to reflect the genuine needs of my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
  9.28 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing time for it. The fact that so many hon. Members from both sides have contributed to this full debate is indicative of the seriousness of the issues raised. I pay tribute to him.
  I also support the tributes that have been paid to all national health service staff. They do an extremely good job, often in difficult circumstances and under enormous pressure.
  It is especially appropriate to record our thanks at this time of year, with winter pressing. One thing is certain in the national health service—that winter inevitably brings additional pressures, not only in Essex but throughout the country. The people who will be on the front line of coping and of delivering high-quality services are the staff who work on our wards and in the community—and yes, those in the offices, too. NHS staff perform a vital function, and it is right and proper that hon. Members on both sides of the House have recorded their thanks to them.

  233
  I assure the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that the Government share his desire to see high-quality health care available to people in all parts of the country. He went out of his way to make the House aware of many of the developments that have taken place in and near his constituency over recent years, and clearly those developments are welcome to his constituents.
  In framing our national policy as a Government, we must ensure that the same advantages that have accrued to the hon. Gentleman's constituents are available to all. As he knows, the national health service was founded on the principle that the best health care should be available to everyone on the basis of need alone; I am sure that that is a principle that all hon. Members share.
  However, the national health service that the Government have inherited is not always providing the best care in all circumstances at all times. Many people within the NHS—the very members of staff whom the hon. Gentleman praised—have become increasingly concerned in recent years about some of the unfairness that has crept into the delivery of care. There are concerns about accessibility and variations in quality—and, of course, there are concerns about the fact that sometimes the NHS has become rather too burdened with unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape.
  However, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the new Government have already taken several steps to remedy that situation. I am sure that he and others will bear with me for a moment if, before dealing with the specific situation in north Essex, I briefly mention some of those developments—not least because many of the policy developments that we have instituted over the past few months have a direct bearing on the situation facing his constituents and those of other hon. Members.
  As the House will know, a wide range of action is in progress, or has already been taken, designed to replace the internal market in the NHS. Guidance has been issued to introduce common waiting lists for non-urgent cases, and to move the health service away from the market mentality that has developed in recent times towards a more co-operative approach to commissioning health services.
  Management costs in the current financial year have been reduced by £100 million, and that money is being applied to front-line patient services. I noted with interest the hon. Gentleman's support for such developments in his opening remarks. I am sure that such support will be welcome both in the Department of Health and elsewhere.
  Only last month, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an extra £300 million for the national health service. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford rather cheekily claimed that that followed the precedent set by the previous Secretary of State.
  Mr. Burns indicated assent
  Mr. Milburn: It is true that the previous Secretary of State allocated extra cash for the winter months last year, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, although his right hon. Friend did that on two occasions, he allocated a total of only £25 million. Of course that money was most welcome in many constituencies, and proved a real
  234
  bonus for the NHS—but I must point out that it is somewhat dwarfed by the £300 million invested this year by the present Government.
  Mr. Burns: Would the Minister be kind enough to check that figure and write to me after the debate?
  Mr. Milburn: I will gladly check the figure—it was two tranches, one of £20 million and another of £5 million. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if that is helpful.
  The money that has been made available—the extra £300 million—is not just to deal with the immediate pressures of the winter, which we recognise. It will help to raise the foundations for long-term developments that will deal with some of the issues raised tonight—the problems which bedevil the delivery of services between the health and social care systems. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State describes this as a "Berlin wall" and we are determined to break down that wall.
  The people who suffer when the interface fails to deliver are the most vulnerable patients—people with mental health problems, disabled people and the elderly. We are determined to improve that situation.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget allocated an extra £1,200 million to the NHS next year, and we brought forward the allocation to the end of last month, to allow health authorities to plan over an 18-month period.
  Finally on the subject of money, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) talked about the problems which have bedevilled the private finance initiative. There have been problems with the PFI, but they are problems of the past. This Government have taken decisive action to unlock the gridlock in the PFI. As a consequence, we were able to announce a few months ago an additional capital investment for the NHS, though the PFI, of £1,300 million for 14 new hospitals. Since then, we have been able to announce a new hospital to be funded through the PFI, which will be built at Greenwich.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friends refrained from wandering down the path of party political comparisons, because we wanted to discuss a particular issue, and I hope that the Minister will not use all his time making comparisons. We could all join in that game, but that is not the point of this debate.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am coming to the issues in Essex, but it is important to place in context the issues that Opposition Members have raised. Many of the issues raised tonight have been questions of funding.
  Since the election on 1 May, the Government have invested an extra £1,500 million in the NHS for revenue purposes, and more than £1,300 million for capital purposes. Those and other policies which we will produce in due course will enable health authorities throughout the country—including those which serve the constituencies of Opposition Members—to provide better care for everyone.
  I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford about the level of funding and the changes to the funding formula for next year and beyond. I listened also to his historical discourse

  235
  about the problems which he imagines have been endured by his part of the world. As he knows from his time at the Department, the funding formula is a fiendishly complex issue, and I thought it might be useful to him and to others if I explained briefly the three main changes to the formula we have made for the next financial year, beginning on 1 April.
  First, we have extended the needs adjustment from 86 per cent. to 100 per cent. of expenditure, in line with advice that the Government received from the expert committee which served under the previous Government. Secondly, we have improved the market forces factor by reducing the number of pay zones from 61 to 51. Thirdly, we have introduced a geographical cost adjustment for the emergency ambulance service, partly in recognition of the need of shire areas. Under that element of the changes, North Essex is a gainer, and I am sure that Opposition Members will welcome that.
  We are making the changes as part of our commitment to making the distribution of resources fairer, in support of our objective of reducing both inequities in access to health services and inequalities in health. The changes will not be the end of the matter.
  I can give an undertaking that the Government will consider further changes to the formula. Indeed, we have established a new advisory committee on resource allocation to do specifically that. Its programme for next year will include a special focus on the market forces factor, which, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford knows, has been the subject of much controversy in the national health service. I shall also ask the committee to consider whether the existing method of counting the population in health authority areas is accurate, as there have been some concerns about under-counting of particular groups in the population.
  The changes are not the end of the matter, but they are a start. We want resources to be more fairly distributed across both primary and secondary care. For 1998–99, beginning on 1 April, every health authority in the country will receive a real—terms increase in its allocation for the delivery of local health services. There will be a minimum growth in allocation of 1.35 per cent. in real terms.
  North Essex does rather better than that, receiving 2.2 per cent. in real terms. That makes it the 26th biggest gainer out of 100 health authorities. We have changed the formula, and that results in changes to health authorities' target shares. I can give an undertaking that we will move health authorities, including North Essex, to those targets over time.
  There was a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the comments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, about the implications of the changes in the formula. As he knows, the matter is fiendishly complex and difficult, but it is simply not the case that North Essex has lost out, for the straightforward reason that we apportion growth according to the distance from target of health authorities as a whole. We cannot view North Essex or any other health authority in isolation. We consider the composite picture.
  Certainly, if there had been a different formula, there would have been different distances from target. As a consequence, there would have been a different apportionment of growth. The hon. Member for North Essex—I think that it was him—queried my answer about hypothetical situations, but it really is impossible to
  236
  compare like with like in the straightforward way that he wants. Perhaps we shall have to confront that problem, but that is the nature of the formula that we have inherited from the previous Administration.
  We have changed the formula and made it fairer, and North Essex is a net gainer this year, especially in comparison with other health authorities.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I understand what the Minister is saying, but our point is that, under the previous formula, North Essex and South Essex were the two authorities furthest from target, and were, as a result, the first and second biggest gainers in allocation of funds. Because the target has been changed and North Essex is no longer the furthest away, it is now, as the Minister said, only the 26th biggest gainer, rather than the first or second.
  Mr. Milburn: North Essex got a 2.2 per cent. real-terms increase, compared with the English average of 1.9 per cent., and I can give the hon. Gentleman the historical context.
  Our allocations for next year, giving a cash increase of 5 per cent., as opposed to the 2.2 per cent. in real terms, are higher than the average for the previous five years. So, the argument that Opposition Members are advancing that somehow—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for North Essex will calm down and resist the temptation to make the statistics squeal until they confess and look at the figures objectively, he will see that the increase of 5 per cent. for next year is bigger than the average for the previous five years. I should hope that Opposition Members would have welcomed that. It is a real benefit to his constituents and to those of other Opposition Members.
  Mr. Burns: Of course the Minister is right, but let us look at the figure. He said "five years", and he did so for a reason, because the first year was the last year of RAWP, when the percentage cash increase was 2.7 per cent. In the remaining four years, until this year, it was between 4.5 per cent. and 6.4 per cent., and that is why the average is so high. Using the first year has brought the average down. If the Minister had given the average over the past four years, it would have been higher. Our point was that that was done to catch up because of what had happened under RAWP until 1992–93.
  Mr. Milburn: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point—it is pretty straightforward—but, however we look at the statistics, North Essex is doing extremely well. Its growth for next year is greater than that allocated for this financial year by his Government when he was a Minister in the Department of Health. I do not want to make a party political point about that. I merely want to make it clear that the Government are committed to the fair distribution of resources, which includes looking after the needs of residents in North Essex on a fair basis, and ensuring that they have the health services they deserve.
  I am aware that there has been a problem in North Essex because of the financial position of the health authority and a number of the trusts, about which several hon. Members have raised concerns. An overspend of about £6.9 million was incurred by the health authority in 1996–97. As a result, it commissioned an investigation by an external agency into its financial planning and

  237
  management systems. The report identified certain shortcomings, and made recommendations to remedy them.
  I understand that the health authority has implemented all the recommendations in the report, and that that has added a robustness to the authority's financial position. However, I recognise, as do other hon. Members, that the authority is facing a complex set of interdependent issues.
  As hon. Members know, it is simply not possible to extract one hospital or one bit of the health authority area from another. Nowadays, the national health service works increasingly as one. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made some of those points about the flow of patients and the fact that care is delivered on a more holistic basis than it has been.
  The ultimate goal is to ensure that sustainable, high-quality clinical and cost-effective services are provided in modern facilities in all parts of the country. Although the consultation to which I will refer shortly will take time, those processes should ensure that whatever solution emerges is based on informed debate among the public and professionals.
  A further financial problem was presented by three of the trusts in North Essex, which got into trouble recently and reported significant financial deficits. Those were carried forward into the current year, but, following work carried out by the trusts, the health authority and local general practitioner representatives, they have been considerably reduced, and are expected to be eliminated completely within the next two years.
  However, I have asked the NHS executive's north Thames regional office to continue to monitor the situation closely. The last thing I want is for the national health service to enter the next financial year in the parlous state in which it entered this year, with record levels of debt.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) referred to the consultation on the subject of changes to acute and community services in north Essex. I have listened to their concerns and the case they outline, and I am aware of the strong local feelings on the proposals. It is vital that plans for service development are determined in a democratic manner and implemented sensitively and appropriately.
  However, as that consultation is still in progress, it would be inappropriate for me at present to express an opinion either on whether or not consultation has been undertaken properly, or on the substantive issues it raises. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford will be aware that, if there is an objection from one of the local community health councils, the issue will end up on Ministers' desks, and it will be for Ministers to decide. I must and will keep an open mind until then, but I have listened carefully to what has been said this evening.
  I will say that it is especially important to have local accountability, which my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree mentioned. The way services are run and the way they develop must be properly in tune with local
  238
  needs and views, and it is extremely important that all those involved in running the NHS should remember that it is a public service. The NHS does not belong to them any more than it belongs to me; it belongs to the local community.
  All those engaged in the processes of consultation and service development should take that as their yardstick. That is what the Government expect, and we will judge proposals accordingly. I can assure hon. Members that there is no fait accompli. We have a statutory responsibility to consult publicly, and we shall weigh the results both fairly and carefully.
  A major challenge faced by the NHS in north Essex at present is that of managing the pressures that are always present in the health service during the winter. Those are being exacerbated in Essex by the large number of people who are waiting in hospital, despite being medically fit to be discharged—a point raised by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. That backlog of people waiting for discharge constitutes a severe pressure on acute services.
  As I said, the Government have allocated an additional £300 million to the NHS to help the services to manage winter pressures. North Essex health authority has proposals, jointly drawn up with Essex county council and the local trusts. As a consequence, I have agreed that £2.8 million will be given to North Essex health authority this winter. More than 60 per cent. of that money will be spent on social care initiatives, which should considerably alleviate the delayed discharge problems by enabling people to be discharged from hospital into more appropriate care.
  I have listened extremely carefully to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford and other hon. Members this evening. This and other debates will inform the Government of the changes we will need to make to restore the NHS to a proper condition.
  I give the House the assurance that those changes will be properly thought through and introduced sensitively; but changes there have to be, to ensure that local hospitals are able to provide a proper health care service in tune with our founding principles of the NHS. It is particularly important that we restore local accountability. The way services are run and the way they develop must be properly in tune with local needs and local views.
  I recognise that the NHS in north Essex, like the service everywhere, is facing challenging times. The Government have recognised the problems, and have moved to help the local NHS by allocating the extra £7.8 million for the next year and the additional £2.8 million this winter. That should enable the NHS in North Essex to rise to the challenges it faces.
  I share the determination of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that high-quality treatment and care are available to the people of his area. I am sure that the trusts in North Essex and the North Essex health authority share those commitments. Whether the proposals before the public will assist that process is a matter on which I shall certainly keep an open mind. I will consider the results with great care.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Ten o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kenya
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what projects the current United Kingdom bilateral aid to the Government of Kenya is being spent. [15013]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Major projects (with commitments of £1 million or over) implemented in partnership with the Government of Kenya are:

  £ million

  Education

  Primary School management Project

  4.8

  Strengthening of Primary Education Phase II

  18.9

  Health

  Kenya Family Health Programme

  11.5

  HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Project

  8.9

  Family Planning Interim Support Project

  3.5

  Natural Resources/Environmental Protection

  National Agricultural Research Programme Phase II

  10.6

  Kenya Trypanosomiasis Research Institute Phase III

  2.4

  Protected Areas and Wildlife Support Project

  2.9

  Small Enterprise Development

  Improving the Regulatory Environment Phase II

  1.0

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what safeguards are currently in place within her Department to prevent the misuse of aid provided directly to the Kenyan Government. [15015]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Project funds are not normally provided directly to the Kenyan Government, but are controlled and disbursed by project management agents appointed by the British Government, and are subject to independent audit.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent investigations her Department has undertaken into the misuse of aid provided by the United kingdom to the Kenyan Government; [15018]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the amount of aid provided by the United Kingdom to the Kenyan Government which is misused. [15019]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We know of no misuse of our development assistance funds by the Kenyan Government.
  90
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid has been offered to non-governmental organisations in Kenya to assist with an election-observing programme. [15020]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My Department has offered up to £264,000 for this purpose.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those compliance cost assessments published during the latest six-month period. [16904]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, fair to all parties and properly costed. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish CCAs for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector.

  I have presented to Parliament today a Command Paper listing 90 CCAs published between 1 January 1997 and 30 June 1997 plus 1 CCA published in December 1996 which was omitted from the previous Command Paper. Copies of the CCAs listed have been placed in the Libraries of the House. This is the seventh such Command Paper.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Film Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many films were produced in the United Kingdom in each of the last six years broken down by production type. [15448]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Total production figures for the six years are as follows:

  1996: 128

  1995: 78

  1994: 84

  1993: 67

  1992: 47

  1991: 59

  Classification by the production types used by the British Film Institute is available only for the last four years:

  Category A: Films where the cultural and financial impetus is from the UK and the majority of personnel is British.

  1996: 53

  1995: 28

  1994: 35

  1993: 32

  91

  Category B: Majority UK Co-Productions; films in which, although there are foreign partners, there is a UK cultural content and a significant amount of British finance and personnel.

  1996: 20

  1995: 9

  1994: 8

  1993: 27

  Category C: Minority UK Co-Productions. Foreign (non-US) films in which there is a small UK involvement in finance or personnel.

  1996: 30

  1995: 23

  1994: 20

  1993:—

  Category D: American films with a UK creative and/or financial involvement.

  1996: 25

  1995: 18

  1994: 21

  1993: 10

  National Lottery
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what procedures he proposes that lottery funding bodies should adopt to take account of public opinion when considering grant applications; and if he will make a statement. [15605]

  Mr. Banks
  In the White Paper "The People's Lottery" we announced our intention to ensure that lottery money is spent according to a strategy which reflects distributors' assessment of need in their sectors. These strategies should take account of public opinion. It is for distributors to determine the means by which they intend to assess public opinion and reflect it in their strategies.

  Tourism (Crown Scheme)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the English Tourist Board review of the Crown Scheme will be completed; if he will support changes to the scheme to allow resorts which choose not to have telephones in their lodges to be granted a Five Key rating; and if he will make a statement. [15309]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The English Tourist Board, the AA and the RAC are now considering the responses from the industry consultation on their proposals for replacing the existing Crown and Star schemes. They intended to make a final announcement about the new schemes, which will cover serviced accommodation, before the end of the year.

  The English Tourist Board will be reviewing their separate Key Scheme for self-catering accommodation in the spring. The first stage will be to commission research into consumer expectations about this sector.

  Academy of Sport
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans he has to include team sports in the British Academy of Sport; [16567]

  (2) when he expects to make an announcement on the location of the British Academy of Sport. [16568]
  92
  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the United Kingdom Sports Council on 14 November and agreed the basis on which the competition will be completed. I have arranged for copies of his announcement and the paper which was considered at that meeting to be placed in the Library. I expect an announcement on the location of the United Kingdom Sports Institute to be made before Christmas. Team sports will be embraced by the Institute. The distribution of training facilities for team sports between the Headquarters, sports specific institutes, and network institutes, will be decided over time with the governing bodies concerned.

  Dance and Drama
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial contribution his Department has made towards the costs of the Arts Council for England interim scheme for students of dance and drama; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of this expenditure. [15599]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department will be contributing a minimum of £9 million of new funds to the interim bursary scheme over the four academic years the scheme will run. £15 million has been made available in the current year. We are currently assessing the impact of the scheme with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Arts Council of England.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many accidents have been recorded at the dome site since construction began. [15730]

  Mr. Mandelson
  There have been three minor accidents, involving three people in all, since construction started at the dome site. None of the incidents were classed as "major" injuries under RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries; Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995). Although all those involved were back at work within a week or less, all three incidents were reported to the HSE as the time off work in each case exceeded three days.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Cleared-up Crime (Definition)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's definition of a cleared-up crime; and if he will make a statement. [16547]

  Mr. Michael
  The full details of the Home Office definition of a cleared-up crime are set out on page 9 of Volume IV of the "Criminal Statistics Instructions, Annual and Miscellaneous Returns", last issued in Janaury 1997.
  93
  An offence is regarded as cleared up when:

  1. a person has been charged or summonsed for the offence (irrespective of any subsequent acquittal);

  2. the offence has been taken into consideration by the court or the unequivocal consent of the offender is obtained by way of statement of admission and desire to have further offences taken into consideration;

  3. the offender has been proceeded against in another police force area for the offence;

  4. the offender dies before proceedings could be initiated or completed;

  5. the offender has been cautioned by the police;

  6. the offender is ill and is unlikely to recover or is too senile or too mentally disturbed for proceedings to be taken;

  7. the complainant or an essential witness is dead and the proceedings cannot be pursued;

  8. the guilt of the offender is clear but the victim refuses, or is permanently unable, or if a juvenile is not permitted, to give evidence;

  9. the offender admits the offence but it is decided that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the charge;

  10. it is ascertained that an offence has been committed by a child under the age of criminal responsibility;

  11. an offence is admitted by a juvenile of the age of criminal responsibility and police take no action other than reporting the particulars to a local authority for action under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;

  12. there is sufficient evidence to charge the offender but

  (a) the police prosecuting department, the Crown Prosecution Service or a senior police officer decide that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the charge; or

  (b) for summary offences of unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle or criminal damage value over £20 the time limit of six months for commencing prosecution has been exceeded.

  In cases where a warrant for the arrest of an offender, although issued, remains unexecuted, the offence should be regarded as undetected until the offender has been apprehended or until the case comes within the scope of the above paragraphs. As a general principle and apart from the particular examples given above, it should be noted that where there is insufficient evidence for proceedings to be taken against a known and available person, the offence should be regarded as undetected.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many experiments on animals took place

  Grants to police authorities 1996–97

  Police revenue grant (Home Office)1 £

  Police capital grant (Home Office) £

  Other grants (Home Office, DETR, Welsh Office) 2 £

  Total £

  Avon and Somerset

  77,278,260

  2,351,000

  25,030,505

  104,659,765

  Bedfordshire

  28,811,092

  1,167,000

  9,252,820

  39,230,912

  Cambridgeshire

  33,348,537

  629,000

  8,821,067

  42,798,604

  Cheshire

  49,500,131

  961,000

  14,065,961

  64,527,092

  City of London3

  27,831,884

  421,000

  203,269

  28,456,153

  Cleveland

  36,816,273

  740,000

  18,685,068

  56,241,341

  Cumbria

  28,688,560

  585,000

  11,833,101

  41,106,661

  94
  in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will estimate how many of these would have been avoided under the voluntary agreement. [16652]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1996" were laid in the House in July. These show that 2,716,587 procedures were carried out on animals. Of these, 252 were for the purpose of safety testing of finished cosmetic products, the category of tests covered by the voluntary ban.

  The ban on cosmetic product testing is an important first step. We announced on 6 November that we would also be exploring a ban on the testing of ingredients for "vanity" products and finished household products.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies licensed to carry out experiments on animals with their addresses and, where appropriate, the name of the holding company. [16653]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the disclosure of information given in confidence. This includes the details of establishments designated under the Act as places where animal experiments may be carried out.

  Publication of such information would increase the risk to establishments, and those who work in them, of attack by animal rights extremists.

  Police Forces (Finances)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force area(a) the total police revenue grant, (b) the total capital grant, (c) other grants to police authorities from central funds and (d) the total capital and revenue grants from central funds, for each of the last two financial years for which figures are available; what is the planned total capital and revenue expenditure from central funds for each of the next two financial years; and if he will make a statement. [16553]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested in respect of 1996–97 and 1997–98 is set out in the tables.

  Present planned Home Office support for the police for the next two financial years is set out in the "Home Office Annual Report 1997" (CM 3608), table 5.1, page 37, a copy of which is in the Library. This shows that planned support, in the form of specific current, capital and special grants and credit approvals to police authorities, is £3,761 million in 1998–99 and £3,756 million in 1999–2000. The provisional police funding settlement for 1998–99 is likely to be announced next month.
  95

  Grants to police authorities 1996–97

  Police revenue grant (Home Office)1 £

  Police capital grant (Home Office) £

  Other grants (Home Office, DETR, Welsh Office) 2£

  Total £

  Derbyshire

  46,355,758

  1,122,000

  13,394,184

  60,871,942

  Devon and Cornwall

  77,025,454

  1,907,000

  20,857,334

  99,789,788

  Dorset

  32,474,611

  933,000

  8,637,944

  42,045,555

  Durham

  35,827,979

  870,000

  15,495,893

  52,193,872

  Dyfed Powys

  24,241,009

  477,000

  8,141,371

  32,859,380

  Essex

  76,160,629

  4,187,000

  20,333,298

  100,680,927

  Gloucestershire

  29,317,079

  1,015,000

  9,161,711

  39,493,790

  Greater Manchester

  171,880,949

  4,286,000

  85,120,299

  261,287,248

  Gwent

  31,333,758

  680,000

  13,283,631

  45,297,389

  Hampshire

  88,068,573

  2,911,000

  23,858,689

  114,838,262

  Hertfordshire

  45,304,535

  1,375,000

  11,870,184

  58,549,719

  Humberside

  51,746,268

  2,067,000

  21,409,048

  75,222,316

  Kent

  82,321,694

  4,083,000

  24,838,623

  111,243,317

  Lancashire

  81,970,295

  1,699,000

  33,417,198

  117,086,493

  Leicestershire

  47,395,525

  1,982,000

  16,268,004

  65,645,529

  Lincolnshire

  29,232,699

  1,465,000

  8,738,292

  39,435,991

  Merseyside

  112,588,958

  3,474,000

  61,947,845

  178,010,803

  Metropolitan Police

  846,761,947

  27,749,000

  526,169,133

  1,400,680,080

  Norfolk

  38,205,064

  1,283,000

  10,556,691

  50,044,755

  North Wales

  34,681,073

  1,079,000

  12,075,475

  47,835,548

  North Yorkshire

  34,961,340

  1,800,000

  8,078,083

  44,839,423

  Northamptonshire

  29,320,943

  876,000

  8,653,157

  38,850,100

  Northumbria

  94,046,011

  5,110,000

  47,052,716

  146,208,727

  Nottinghamshire

  57,583,603

  3,501,000

  23,296,748

  84,381,351

  South Wales

  75,246,910

  3,644,000

  35,309,366

  114,200,276

  South Yorkshire

  77,594,905

  3,530,000

  35,241,579

  116,366,484

  Staffordshire

  54,610,654

  2,165,000

  18,499,215

  75,274,869

  Suffolk

  31,033,584

  609,000

  8,203,782

  39,846,366

  Surrey

  42,090,281

  3,021,000

  14,904,094

  60,015,375

  Sussex

  75,763,690

  3,746,000

  20,106,622

  99,616,312

  Thames Valley Police

  101,658,543

  4,046,000

  25,702,435

  131,406,978

  Warwickshire

  24,725,312

  521,000

  6,781,933

  32,028,245

  West Mercia

  51,605,192

  2,036,000

  11,971,915

  65,613,107

  West Midlands

  172,342,961

  4,799,000

  84,765,670

  261,907,631

  West Yorkshire

  130,447,666

  3,918,000

  61,047,452

  195,413,118

  Wiltshire

  30,427,811

  747,000

  8,703,276

  39,878,087

  Grant not allocated

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3,348,628,000

  115,567,000

  1,451,784,681

  4,915,979,681

  1 Excludes balances paid in respect of 1994–95 accounts.

  2 Includes (i) Revenue support grant and SSA reduction grant (DETR and Welsh Office), (ii) loan charges grant paid on pre 1990 debt, (iii) grant paid under section 48 of the Police Act 1996, (iv) grant for special constabulary, (v) party conferences grant, (vi) funding for PFI projects.

  3 "Other grants" excludes Revenue support grant and SSA reduction grant—no separately identifiable figures for the City of London police.

  Grants to police authorities 1997–98

  Police revenue grant (Home Office)1 £

  Police capital grant (Home Office) £

  Other grants (Home Office, DETR, Welsh Office)2 £

  Total £

  Avon and Somerset

  79,564,084

  1,794,000

  26,450,976

  107,809,060

  Bedfordshire

  29,969,661

  1,355,000

  9,476,397

  40,801,058

  Cambridgeshire

  34,517,288

  774,000

  9,093,929

  44,385,217

  Cheshire

  51,102,862

  778,000

  14,770,795

  66,651,657

  City of London3

  27,475,936

  341,000

  238,128

  28,055,064

  Cleveland

  37,523,242

  599,000

  19,703,565

  57,825,807

  Cumbria

  30,037,318

  473,000

  11,520,912

  42,031,230

  Derbyshire

  48,089,785

  2,171,000

  14,157,251

  64,418,036

  Devon and Cornwall

  79,046,941

  1,718,000

  23,597,481

  104,362,422

  Dorset

  33,804,583

  1,043,000

  7,121,967

  41,969,550

  Durham

  36,512,965

  558,000

  16,628,701

  53,699,666

  Dyfed Powys

  25,198,643

  386,000

  5,779,170

  31,363,813

  Essex

  79,693,871

  1,384,000

  20,387,051

  101,464,922

  Gloucestershire

  30,371,173

  541,000

  9,477,225

  40,389,398

  Greater Manchester

  176,078,065

  4,757,000

  89,530,846

  270,365,911

  Gwent

  32,424,045

  494,000

  11,180,564

  44,098,609

  Hampshire

  90,616,243

  1,565,000

  25,492,706

  117,673,949

  Hertfordshire

  47,465,812

  1,044,000

  11,706,039

  60,215,851

  96 97

  Police revenue grant (Home Office)1 £

  Police capital grant (Home Office) £

  Other grants (Home Office, DETR, Welsh Office)2 £

  Total £

  Humberside

  53,034,050

  2,131,000

  22,925,976

  78,091,026

  Kent

  84,673,351

  4,476,000

  26,567,262

  115,716,613

  Lancashire

  83,767,796

  1,305,000

  35,606,978

  120,679,774

  Leicestershire

  49,336,277

  853,000

  16,715,279

  66,904,556

  Lincolnshire

  30,788,473

  1,847,000

  9,504,990

  42,140,463

  Merseyside

  113,660,328

  3,941,000

  66,339,413

  183,940,741

  Metropolitan Police

  900,344,546

  24,774,000

  506,748,742

  1,431,867,288

  Norfolk

  39,052,823

  2,728,000

  11,553,084

  53,333,907

  North Wales

  30,218,410

  917,000

  9,493,069

  40,628,479

  North Yorkshire

  95,656,644

  1,803,000

  9,258,085

  106,717,729

  Northamptonshire

  35,695,797

  1,236,000

  9,153,273

  46,085,070

  Northumbria

  35,797,195

  4,851,000

  50,688,139

  91,336,334

  Nottinghamshire

  59,069,950

  2,633,000

  25,844,470

  87,547,420

  South Wales

  77,732,137

  3,110,000

  30,860,974

  111,703,111

  South Yorkshire

  79,345,830

  2,840,000

  37,649,917

  119,835,747

  Staffordshire

  57,200,041

  2,627,000

  18,525,556

  78,352,597

  Suffolk

  31,859,276

  493,000

  8,499,579

  40,851,855

  Surrey

  44,807,788

  2,054,000

  15,593,134

  62,454,922

  Sussex

  78,415,319

  2,696,000

  20,820,439

  101,931,758

  Thames Valley Police

  104,631,315

  3,175,000

  26,489,865

  134,296,180

  Warwickshire

  25,725,130

  408,000

  7,111,493

  33,244,623

  West Mercia

  53,417,326

  2,529,000

  12,497,379

  68,443,705

  West Midlands

  175,339,329

  4,049,000

  91,546,536

  270,934,865

  West Yorkshire

  132,526,320

  3,080,000

  65,905,102

  201,511,422

  Wiltshire

  31,042,893

  883,000

  9,454,479

  41,380,372

  Grant not allocated

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3,472,630,861

  105,172,000

  1,475,644,556

  5,053,447,417

  1Excludes balances paid in respect of 1994–95 accounts.

  2Includes (i) Revenue support grant and SSA reduction grant (DETR and Welsh Office), (ii) loan charges grant paid on pre 1990 debt, (iii) grant paid under section 48 of the Police Act 1996, (iv) party conferences grant, (v) payments to police authorities in respect of implications of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.

  3"Other grants" excludes Revenue support grant and SSA reduction grant-no separately identifiable figures for the City of London police.

  Crime (Conviction and Clear-up Rates)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) conviction rate and (b) clear-up rate for each category of crime (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage change, per area, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.[16549]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is given in the tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Figures for clear-ups and convictions are not directly comparable because clear-ups and convictions are not directly comparable because clear-ups relate to offences and convictions relate to offenders.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the detailed procedures for following up asylum seekers after their entry into the United Kingdom;[15081]

  (2) who is responsible for following up asylum seekers after their entry into the United Kingdom.[15084]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Asylum seekers granted temporary admission by the Immigration Service may be required to report to the police or the Immigration Service on specified dates. It remains, however, the responsibility of all asylum seekers to maintain contact with the 98
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate and to inform the Directorate of any change of address or representative or of any other relevant change in circumstances.

  A failure to attend for interview, to respond promptly to written inquires, or otherwise to comply in full with the procedures or the terms of temporary admission, may result in the application being refused.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports on the cost of the complaints and discipline departments for the current year of the police forces of (i) Manchester, (ii) Liverpool, (iii) the West Midlands and (iv) Northumbria.[16127]

  Mr. Michael
  The forces concerned have supplied the information set out below, which may not necessarily be directly comparable. The estimated costs for the current financial year are:

  £ million

  Greater Manchester Police

  2.05

  Merseyside Police

  1.6

  West Midlands Police

  1.7

  Northumbria

  0.86

  99

  Intrusive Surveillance
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 119, if the absolute requirement to obtain the authority of a warrant to carry out intrusive surveillance involving entry on to, or interference with, property also applies to surveillance carried out from without a property. [15953]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]The statutory provision is to be found in sections 5 and 6 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The requirement to obtain a warrant applies to all operations which involve entry on or interference with property, or with wireless telegraphy.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for phone tap warrants were made by MI5 in 1996; how many were(a) agreed and (b) refused.[15721]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 3 November.Official Report, column 26, where I explained that, in accordance with the practice adopted by successive Interception Commissioners, I considered that it would be prejudicial to national security to publish figures for the number of telephone warrants issued to each individual agency.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if phone taps authorised for numbers allocated to public phone boxes are included in the figures given to Parliament in respect of the numbers of phone taps authorised. [15704]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The information published in the Annual Report of the Interception Commissioner includes all telecommunications warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, irrespective of the type of telephone which is intercepted.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants authorising phone taps related to(a) an individual and (b) two or more individuals, including organisations, for each year since 1986. [15717]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]It would not be in the public interest to publish this information.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many directives have been issued to British Telecom under section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 for each year since its inception.[15724]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]Section 94(4) of the Telecommunications Act 1984 requires the Secretary of State to lay before the House a copy of every direction given under section 94 unless he is of the opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security. No directions have been laid before Parliament. It follows that any directions which may have been issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department could not be disclosed, in the interests of national security.
  100
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items of mail were legally intercepted and opened for each year since 1986; and in respect of how many persons.[15697]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The available information is published in the annual reports of the Interception Commissioner, which list the number of postal warrants issued each year by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Figures for the numbers of postal warrants issued by the Home Secretary in each year since 1986 are as follows:

  Postal warrants issued by the Home Secretary

  Year

  Number of warrants

  1985

  40

  1986

  95

  1987

  34

  1988

  48

  1989

  31

  1990

  42

  1991

  62

  1992

  118

  1993

  105

  1994

  76

  1995

  87

  1996

  69

  Total

  807

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances monitoring of international communications terminating within the United Kingdom is subject to approval by warrant. [15681]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The requirement to obtain a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 applies in relation to the interception of any communication in the course of its transmission by means of a public telecommunications system.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the terms of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to comply with(a) Article 13 and (b) Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[15711]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]We shall, in due course, bring forward proposals to amend the Interception of Communications Act 1985 so as to bring it into line with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of HaIford v. the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances calls made by prisoners from Her Majesty's prisons are monitored.[15684]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]All telephone calls made by prisoners, other than in open establishments, are recorded and are liable to be monitored. Calls made by high and exceptional risk category A prisoners are simultaneously monitored. Monitoring of other prisoners' calls takes place on a selective basis where there is justifiable suspicion of abuse, supplemented by random monitoring to the extent to which it is considered operationally necessary for the purposes of security, control and the detection of crime.
  101
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which recommendations of the Birkett Report are not presently effective.[15727]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]I refer the hon. Member to the report by Lord Diplock on the interception of communications in Great Britain, which was published in March 1981 (Cmnd 8191). In the fourth paragraph, Lord Diplock recorded that all of Lord Birkett's recommendations had subsequently been adopted and had been followed ever since. Following a White Paper published in 1985, the Interception of Communications Act 1985 was enacted and this Act provides the current statutory basis for lawful interception of communications.

  M15
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the MI5 budget is currently spent on counter-subversion.[15679]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]In the current financial year, the Security Service expects to spend less than 1 per cent. of its budget on residual work on counter subversion.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present terms of reference for MI5.[15720]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The functions of the Security Service are prescribed in the Security Service Act 1989, as amended by the Security Service Act 1996. They are, in summary, as follows:

  (i) the protection of national security;

  (ii) safeguarding the economic well being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands;

  (iii) acting in support of the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are employed in reviewing and destroying files now deemed inappropriate to be held by MI5.[15696]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The review of Security Service files is an integral part of the duties of records management staff within the Security Service. Successive Governments have deemed it inappropriate to provide a breakdown of staff allocated to these tasks. Total staff at the Security Service at 4 November 1997 was 1,860.5 (full-time equivalent).

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances MI5 uses persons external to MI5 to carrying out tapping or other covert surveillance tasks.[15699]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]It has been the policy of successive Governments not to discuss operational matters relating to the work of the security and intelligence services.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mr. DaIyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his oral answer of 27 102
  October 1997, Official Report, column 574, which department will be responsible for the campaign against drug misuse in Scotland.[15764]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department indicated in his reply of 27 October, the Scottish Executive will assume the current responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. The reply made it clear that these responsibilities would include drug misuse issues such as health, treatment and education and enforcement of drug misuse legislation in Scotland. Responsibilities on education would cover advertising and prevention campaigns on drug misuse.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  India
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visitors' visas to the United Kingdom have been received at the New Delhi embassy since January; and how many of the applications were refused.[159301

  Mr. Fatchett
  Between 1 January and 31 October 1997, 46,799 applications to visit the United Kingdom were received at the British High Commission in New Delhi of which 6,064—13 per cent.—have been refused.

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the geographical location of the United Kingdom's embassies in India with particular reference to giving adequate coverage to the northern states.[15931]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We regularly keep under review the size and location of diplomatic posts around the world. We have no current plans to open further posts in India. Our present Missions in India are the High Commission in New Delhi, the Deputy High Commissions in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the British Trade Office in Bangalore.

  Export Promotion
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the initiatives taken by his Department to improve export promotion.[16357]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department and the Department of Trade and Industry launched the Export Forum in June to look at ways to enhance the effectiveness of current government support for UK exporters. The Forum met between July and October, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade welcomed its recommendations in her written announcement to the House on 4 November 1997,Official Report, columns 127–28.

  In July we also announced a rolling programme of attachments of business men and women to work on specific promotions or projects overseas for periods of a few months.
  103

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what obstacles remain to the United Kingdom indicating its adherence to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the 8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in September 1990; [15888]

  (2) what obstacles remain to the United Kingdom indicating its adherence to the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990;[15889]

  (3) what obstacles remain to the United Kingdom indicating its adherence to the United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions recommended by the Economic and Social Council Resolution of 24 May 1989;[15890]

  (4) what obstacles remain to the United Kingdom indicating its adherence to the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by the General Assembly Resolution of 9 December 1988;[15891]

  (5) what obstacles remain to the United Kingdom indicating its adherence to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, approved by the Economic and Social Council of 13 May 1977.[15892]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We support the broad intentions of the important human rights standards contained in these United Nations texts. The United Kingdom joined consensus on their adoption. However, these instruments are not legally binding. As their wording shows, they are recommendatory in nature. There is therefore no mechanism by which States can become party to them.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he made of the human rights situation in Indonesia when deciding to continue to export arms to Indonesia; and in what circumstances he would ban arms sales.[16420]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We will not issue an export licence if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by the need to comply with the UK's international obligations and commitments, or by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression or international aggression, or by the risks of regional stability, or other considerations as described in the new criteria for defence sales announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29. These factors will be taken into account when considering an export licence for any country, including Indonesia.

  MI6
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present terms of reference for MI6.[15707]
  104
  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The principle role of the Secret Intelligence Service is the production of secret intelligence in support of the security, defence, foreign and economic policies within the framework of requirements laid upon us by the JIC and approved by Ministers. The functions of SIS are set out in section 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team since 2 May, specifying in each case(a) the participating Minister of Ministers, (b) the destination of the trip, (c) the purpose of the trip and (d) the cost of the trip; and if she will make a statement.[15212]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]DTI Ministers have undertaken the following visits since taking office on 2 May. In respect of the cost estimates, those relating to more recent visits may incur some additional charges which have not yet been booked to the Department.

  £

  President of the Board of Trade

  25–28 May Japan

  Inward Investment and Trade Promotion

  29,150

  15–16 June Paris

  Attend Airbus Ministerial Meeting and Paris Airshow

  830

  01 July Brussels

  Meeting with EU Commissioner Van Miert

  850

  10–11 September Washington DC

  Trade Policy

  15,320

  13 October Brussels

  Meetings with Commissioners Wulf-Mathies and Bangemann

  960

  12–13 November Brussels

  Attend Industry Council

  1,170

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe: Lord Simon of Highbury

  20–21 May Brussels

  Attend Internal Market Council

  750

  25–26 May Amsterdam

  European Round Table

  710

  3–5 September Germany and Austria

  Series of bilaterals with European Counterparts

  1,320

  3–4 October Luxembourg

  Attend Internal Market Council

  860

  Minister for Small Firms Trade and Industry: Barbara Roche

  5–6 June Munich, Germany

  Attend Bavarian Innovation and Research Fair

  1,160

  15–20 June Brazil

  Trade Promotion

  12,780

  26–27 June Luxembourg and Brussels

  Attend Telecoms Council

  810

  17 July Brussels

  Meeting with EU Commissioner for Small Firms

  430

  10–11 September Hanover, Germany

  Speak at Machine Tools and Technologies Exhibition

  1,170

  Minister for Trade: Lord Clinton-Davis

  16–19 May

  New York and Trade Promotion Washington DC

  11,480

  25–26 May Paris

  OECD Ministerial

  1,830

  14–19 June South Africa

  Trade Promotion

  9,570

  21–27 June Thailand and Malaysia

  Trade Promotion

  11,650

  20–21 July France

  Trade Promotion and Trade Policy

  1,040

  24–25 July Ireland

  Trade Promotion and Trade Policy

  560

  9–17 September Argentina and Chile

  Trade Promotion

  15,050

  21–29 September Korea/Japan

  Trade Promotion and ASEM

  18,760

  15 October Paris

  Trade Promotion

  '300

  17–22 October Indonesia

  Trade Promotion

  13,320

  105

  £

  Minister for Science Energy and Industry: John Battle

  15 May Brussels

  EU Research Council

  850

  26 May Brussels

  Energy Council

  980

  31 May Azerbaijan

  Caspian Oil and Gas Show

  3,500

  17 June Paris

  Air Show

  770

  7 July Bonn

  Information Society Conference

  960

  27 October Luxembourg

  Energy Council

  1.02

  9 November Brussels

  Research Council

  1,030

  Minister of State: Ian McCartney

  26–27 June Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  1,280

  4–6 July Luxembourg

  EC Business (Informal Social Affairs Council)

  850

  7 October Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  1,110

  9–10 November Austria

  UK Presidency Bilateral

  1,310

  Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs: Nigel Griffiths

  22–29 June Antwerp and Athens

  Attend Institute of Trading Standards Conference

  1,800

  24–27 September Luxembourg and Paris

  Attend UK Industry Travel and Tour Conference

  1,220

  16–19 October Stockholm

  Meetings with EU Consumer Ministers

  1,080

  30 October—4 November Madrid La Palma Tenerife Brussels

  Visiting EU Consumer Ministers Visiting Observatory Attending ABTA Convention Attending EU Consumer Council

  1,920

  1 A notional cost representing a share of the cost the Department paid for a train to Paris for the whole UK business delegation.

  Locate in Scotland
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions her Department has had with the Scottish Office in respect of Locate in Scotland.[15628]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My officials have regular contact with both the Scottish Office and Locate in Scotland on the handling of inward investment projects in the UK. My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau continues to work in partnership with, amongst others, the investment agency for Scotland under the Committee on Overseas Promotion arrangements.

  Critical Illness Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates she has made of the current number of people who have taken out critical illness insurance; and what the figure was in 1987.[15970]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand that the Association of British Insurers estimate that in 1996 some 93,000 new policies for critical illness insurance were written in the UK, and that some £50 million of premium was paid for them. No other estimates, or corresponding ones for 1987, are available.

  Patents (Genes)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the link between patents on genes and research into new cures; and if she will place a copy of such research in the Library.[16389]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]My Department has not commissioned research into the link between patents on genes and research into new cures.
  106
  Under the relevant legislation (the Patents Act 1977) patent protection may be obtained for genes when isolated from the body or produced by a technical process but only if general criteria for patentability are met.

  United Kingdom law and that of all member states of the European Union is closely aligned with that of the European Patent Convention which came into force in 1978.

  Under current legislation acts done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of a patented invention do not infringe patent rights.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her policy on the levying of royalties by patent holders on crops to which patented genes have spread through horizontal gene transfer. [16152]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The current legislation (The Patents Act 1977) details the act which constitute infringement of a patent for an invention. Where the invention is a product, these acts include making, disposing, offering to dispose, using or importing the product without the consent of the patent holder.

  Application of these provisions in any given circumstance is for a Court to determine. To date there has been no litigation on the levying of royalties by patent holders on crops to which patented genes have spread through horizontal gene transfer.

  Post Office
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress she has made in her review of Post Office services, with particular reference to Crown post office closures; and if she will make a statement.[16560]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The first stage of our review of the Post Office has taken the form of a scoping study and has comprised extensive consultations with the main interested parties in the postal sector. Our aim is to develop a comprehensive policy programme for the Post Office in the context of our manifesto commitment to grant the Post Office greater commercial freedom. Decisions on the future of the Post Office policy of converting Crown post offices to agency status, which has been suspended since May, will be taken within the wider framework of the review.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes she has made since 1 May to the reporting relationship between regional inward investment attracting organisations and his Department.[16646]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau continues to work with all its regional partners under the Committee on Overseas Promotion on arrangements to ensure that the UK remains the Number 1 location in Europe for attracting inward investment.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the decision-making powers of(a) Scottish Enterprise, (b) the Welsh Development Agency, (c) the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board and
  107
  (d) the equivalent English agencies on issues of inward investment will be linked to the work of her Department in future.[16647]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau will continue to work in partnership under the Committee on Overseas Promotion arrangements with the inward investment agencies of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions to maintain the UK as the Number 1 location in Europe for foreign direct investment.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her policy in respect of the faxing of press releases on the day of release to Opposition party spokesmen; what changes have been introduced since I May; and if she will make a statement.[16309]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  It has been the Department's practice for some years to fax, on request, its press releases to Opposition party spokesman on the day of release.

  Discrimination
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the names of those employers who have been found to have breached the anti-discrimination legislation at an industrial tribunal, indicating the amount of compensation awarded, since 1 May.[16481]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Since 1 May 1997, there have been 86 successful applications made against employers at Industrial Tribunal hearings in the United Kingdom where the main jurisdiction fell within anti-discrimination legislation. In 28 of these cases, awards were made to the applicants.

  The detailed information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Full details of each tribunal application, the tribunal's decision and the names of respondents in particular cases can be found on the Public Register at Bury St. Edmunds, unless the case involves an allegation of a sexual offence.

  Competition Bill
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) tobacconist shops and (b) public houses will be affected by the Competition Bill. [163541

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Agreements which fulfil the criteria for exemption under European block exemption regulations, including those relating to beer tie agreements and exclusive distribution, will be automatically exempt from the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements.

  The Competition Bill will apply to agreements or conduct which are anti-competitive.

  BT Entertainment Services
  Mrs. Gillan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the consultation paper on the proposed lifting of restrictions on BT Carrying entertainment services will be published. [16692]
  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are actively considering the issue. We wish to see competition sustained and developing further in all areas of the market and in the consumer interest. We intend, as soon as possible, to publish for consultation our proposals on the way forward on this issue.

  Body Piercing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what qualifications are needed and what licensing is required of persons who engage in body piercing.[15975]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no statutory qualifications for cosmetic body piercers. Local authorities in London have powers either to license or to register cosmetic body piercing businesses. The majority of London local authorities have adopted licensing powers which enable them to set licensing conditions, including the qualifications of persons offering cosmetic body piercing. Local authorities outside London do not have similar powers. In October 1996, the Department consulted on a proposal to give local authorities outside London powers to control cosmetic body piercing businesses. We are currently considering the outcome of the consultation exercise.

WALES

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, 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.[15866]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]My Department is in the process of determining the most cost-effective way of using Internet e-mail, and we expect that we will start to do so early in 1998. At that point e-mail addresses of Ministers and senior officials will be made public.

  Welsh Economy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to promote innovation in the Welsh economy.[14791]

  Mr. Hain
  In our recently published Economic Strategy Statement we are consulting on various measures to realise the potential of new technology and are meanwhile taking forward our Wales Information Society and Regional Technology Plan initiative.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to the oral Statement by the Secretary of State for International Development,Official Report,

  109
  5 November, column 332, if she will instruct officials to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards in her Department.[15496]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Privy Council Office has no official catering facilities of its own. Beverages served at meetings are supplied under Cabinet Office arrangements.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Students
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Department for Education plans to fund all four years of study by students from Northern Ireland at Scottish Universities; how many students from Northern Ireland are currently in the fourth year of a degree course at a Scottish University; and what assessment he has made of the cost of funding this fourth year.[16093]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]The issue is the subject of Ministerial discussion. In 1996–97 there were around 900 Northern Ireland domiciled students on the fourth year of a full-time first degree course at Scottish Higher Education Institutions. The estimate of costs is currently being examined.

  Springvale University
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to develop the Springvale University campus project; what have been the main determining factors underlying the project's development; and if she will make a statement about revenue funding implications for higher education provision in Northern Ireland over the next decade. [16450]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]Discussions, including consideration of new style further and higher education provision at Springvale, are currently taking place between the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education and the University of Ulster. Proposals arising from these discussions, including the revenue funding implications, are subject to economic appraisal.

  Jury Trials
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the increase in the number of jury trials formerly held by Diplock courts as a result of the proposed changes to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts.[15902]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not possible to predict the number of cases which will be heard before a jury as a result of the proposed changes to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. It will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to determine, on the merits of each individual case before him, whether or not to certify it out.

  May 1974 Bomb Attacks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what co-operation she will offer the Irish Government to assist investigation into allegations 110
  of the unlawful involvement of British military intelligence in bomb attacks in Dublin and Monaghan in May 1974.[15908]

  Mr. Ingram
  If the Irish Government have any evidence to substantiate allegations about the bomb attacks in Dublin and Monaghan in May 1974 the Government will support investigations to establish the validity of such evidence.

  International Decommissioning Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place the initial report of the International Decommissioning Commission in the Library.[15895]

  Mr. Ingram
  The International Decommissioning Commission is an independent body established jointly by the British and Irish Governments. It has not yet finalised its initial report. The Governments will keep under review in consultation with the Commission and the other participants in the political negotiations, the handling of reports produced by the Commission on the difficult and sensitive issues entrusted to it.

  Victims of Violence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the terms of reference of the Commission established to look at ways of recognising the suffering of victims of violence in Northern Ireland.[15909]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The terms of reference for the Commission are to look at ways of recognising the suffering of victims of violence in Northern Ireland and:to examine the feasibility of providing greater recognition for those who have become victims in the last thirty years as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland, recognising that those events have also had appalling repercussions for many people not living in Northern Ireland,
  to consult the various organisations concerned with Welfare of the bereaved and disabled,
  to consult community groups, churches, political parties; and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State.

TREASURY

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000.[13564]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]Within the Treasury, most of the required compliance can be achieved by upgrading proprietary software or hardware, which would have formed part of the normal development of the department's IT systems. Costs will largely be related to time spent by staff testing their systems. Any costs associated with this work will be met from within existing plans.
  111

  Contingency Reserve
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allocations from the Contingency Reserve have been made for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; what is the value of the remaining unallocated component of the Contingency Reserve in (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement.[13284]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]The Reserve announced in November 1996 for 1997–98 was £2,5 billion. The main Estimates included allocations of £200 million from the Reserve to departments and the summer Supplementary Estimates included allocations of a further £52 million. The winter Supplementary Estimates to be presented on 13 November will include allocations of a further £234 million. The Reserve for 1998–99 will be £2.8 billion reflecting the allocations in my reply to the hon. Member of 30 July Official Report, column 347.

  Dividends (Tax Credits)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has received from United States(a) Government bodies, (b) trade associations and (c) major corporations regarding the reduction of the tax credit on dividends.[14689]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]Full details of the changes to tax credits were given immediately after the Budget, as a matter of course, to treaty partners concerned, including the United States Government. In that regard, we have responded to a small number of requests for technical clarification, and received a few representations from trade associations and major corporations.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people of pensionable age who have retired but who have not purchased an annuity with the accumulated capital from their pension fund.[14757]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to mitigate the impact of the abolition of ACT recovery on pension funds, in respect of people of pensionable age who have not purchased an annuity.
  [14756]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  None.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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

  £000

  Year

  Treasury

  Inland Revenue (Inc VOA)

  Royal Mint

  Customs and Excise

  National Savings

  Office for Nat. Stats.

  1980–81

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  1987–88

  9.9

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  1.9

  (1)

  112
  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 from 2000 and 2010, assuming continuation of current policies.[15548]

  Dawn Primarolo
  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 is expected to deliver by 2000. The report projects forward what the current program is expected to achieve to 2020.

  EU Customs Information Convention
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 74–76, concerning the Customs Information convention of the European Community, by what means the convention was ratified by the United Kingdom; and what was the date of the relevant parliamentary proceedings.[15567]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Convention on the use of Information Technology for Customs Purposes (the Customs Information System Convention) was ratified by the United Kingdom in accordance with the agreed practice and procedure for the ratification by the United Kingdom of international agreements, known as the Ponsonby Rule. The procedure provides Parliament with the opportunity to consider the text of any agreement which requires ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by the United Kingdom by laying before Parliament a text of the agreement at least 21 sitting days before ratification can be effected. Provided that Parliament does not seek a debate on the agreement, the Foreign Secretary signs the instrument of ratification which is subsequently deposited with the Secretary General of the Council.

  In the case of the Convention on the use of Information Technology for Customs Purposes; the Command Paper was laid before Parliament on 13 November 1996, no Parliamentary debate was sought and the Convention was ratified on 18 June 1997—the date when the United Kingdom instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretary General to the Council.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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, (iv) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997. [15238]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]Expenditure on hospitality by Ministers and officials is shown in the following table:
  113

  £000

  Year

  Treasury

  Inland Revenue (Inc VOA)

  Royal Mint

  Customs and Excise

  National Savings

  Office for Nat. Stats.

  1990–91

  30.4

  (1)

  35.0

  241.0

  5.8

  (1)

  1991–92

  35.2

  43.0

  33.0

  255

  3.6

  (1)

  1992–93

  41.2

  41.0

  28.0

  386.0

  10.2

  (1)

  1993–94

  27.3

  26.0

  40.0

  300.0

  10.0

  (1)

  1994–95

  40.5

  27.0

  39.0

  266.0

  8.4

  (1)

  1995–96

  41.1

  18.0

  40.0

  267.0

  13.3

  (1)

  1996–97

  49.5

  14.0

  40.0

  273.0

  17.5

  33.1

  1997–98 May-September

  11.0

  9.0

  24.0

  120.0

  5.5

  22.7

  1 Figures unavailable.

  2 Figures for overseas hospitality are unavailable for these years.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of 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,

  £000

  Treasury

  Inland Revenue

  Custom and Excise

  Office for National Statistics

  (including Valuation Office Agency)

  All

  Of which Air Fares

  1980–81

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1987–88

  299

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  519

  n/a

  n/a

  1,214

  n/a

  1991–92

  598

  313

  213

  1,557

  n/a

  1992–93

  652

  307

  222

  1,850

  n/a

  1993–94

  796

  242

  85

  2,425

  n/a

  1994–95

  677

  472

  169

  2,766

  n/a

  1995–96

  667

  928

  174

  3,089

  n/a

  1996–97

  775

  468

  139

  3,551

  510

  1997–98 (May-September)

  307

  78

  69

  1,565

  144

  n/a: These figures are not available.

  Figures for the Royal Mint are not available, except at disproportionate cost. Expenditure by National Savings on overseas travel is estimated to be less than £1,000 in each year, but more precise figures are not available, except at disproportionate cost.

  Inland Revenue aside, expenditure for airfares is not separately identifiable.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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,

  £000

  Treasury1

  Inland Revenue2

  Customs and Excise

  Royal Mint3

  National Savings

  Office for National Statistics

  1993–94

  122

  865

  922

  958

  15,419

  4—

  1994–95

  121

  948

  840

  794

  13,567

  4—

  1995–96

  96

  8,128

  729

  2,012

  12,975

  4—

  1996–97

  121

  7,637

  1,329

  1,879

  10,799

  369

  1997–98 (year to date)

  41

  5,900

  602

  1,557

  5,476

  144

  1997–98 (full year)

  5—

  7,900

  1,400

  5—

  9,389

  297

  1 In 1993–94 and 1994–95, the Treasury included all recruitment expenditure (advertising and expenses) in the same account code. Form 1995–96 recruitment advertising was separated. The earlier figures have been adjusted to provide a series on a consistent basis.

  2 These figures include spending by the Valuation Office Agency. The recent increase reflects publicity for the move to self assessment.

  3 Figures for the Royal Mint for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are higher than those given in previous answers. This is due to a change of policy by the Mint regarding the treatment of commercial information held in confidence.

  4 The ONS was created on 1 April 1996 following the merger of the Central Statistical Office and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Information for previous years is not readily available.

  5 The only figures currently available for 1997–98 are spend to date.

  Detailed budgets for 1998–99 have yet to be agreed.

  114
  (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. [15239]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]Expenditure for all overseas travel (including subsistence) is shown in the table.

  (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98, year to date, (vi) the 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure.[15241]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]Expenditure on publicity and advertising for the years requested is shown in the table below:
  115

  CAP (Fontainebleau Rebate)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the United Kingdom's Fontainebleau Rebate would increase if a community-funded agricultural support programme benefiting British farmers underspent its projected budget by £200 million.[16384]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]It is not possible to be sure of the effect for the UK's abatement without making further hypothetical assumptions, since a range of other factors could influence the outcome. For example, if there were a transfer of provision to another programme within the Community Budget from which the UK were to gain equal benefit, there would be no consequences for the amount of out abatement. Any effect would however be reflected in the abatement only in respect of the following year.

  Dorneywood
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates he has been in residence at Dorneywood since May; and if he will make a statement. [16158]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I make visits to Dorneywood as and when my diary permits.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the running costs of Dorneywood in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.[16157]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  As Dorneywood is financed by a private trust, my Department does not bear its running costs.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the advantages of establishing a procedure for ratification by Select Committee of some senior public appointments; and when she expects to bring recommendations to the House. [15301]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  [holding answer 10 November 1997]The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies and NHS trusts. The consultation paper "Opening up quangos", published by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 11 November, sets out proposals to extend these recommendations to other public bodies. The Government will review the possibility of ratification of certain appointments by Select Committees but has no immediate plans to recommend this.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average income of hill farmers in each year since 1987.[15197]
  116
  Mr. Morley
  Estimate of average net farm income for full-time Less Favoured Area (LFA) cattle and sheep farms in the United Kingdom are given in the table. The figures, expressed in real terms at 1996–97 prices, are estimates of averages across the United Kingdom. These data have to be interpreted with caution because incomes of individual farms vary considerably according to the farm size, mix enterprises and production systems. More detailed information can be found in the annual publication "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom".

  United Kingdom—LFA cattle and sheep farms

  Year

  Average net farm income (£/farm) (real terms at 1996–97 prices

  1987–88

  14,900

  1988–89

  17,000

  1989–90

  11,300

  1990–91

  8,400

  1991–92

  10,000

  1992–93

  12,700

  1993–94

  14,500

  1994–95

  10,500

  1995–96

  14,500

  1996–97

  14,100

  Forecasts for 1997–98 will be placed in the Library of the House within the next few weeks.

  Soil Survey Data
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to make soil survey data accessible. [15852]

  Mr. Morley
  Soil survey data are currently published and readily available as maps, an associated range of Bulletins and the Soil Geo-chemical Atlas.

  Our officials, along with those in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Environment Agency, are in discussions with the Soil Survey and Land Use Research Centre—which holds the data—to assess how access might be better facilitated for bona fide research purposes.

  Soil Protection
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to publish his plans for soil protection. [15851]

  Mr. Morley
  In response to a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Government plan to issue an explicit statement of their policies for the protection of soil. This will take the form of a "soil strategy". Our officials are in discussion with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the preparation of the strategy. The plan is to consult publicly before the strategy is finalised.

  Live Animal Exports
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the results of the review of the operation of laws designed to safeguard the welfare of live animals destined for export from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [15318]
  117
  Mr. Morley
  The supervision of exports must not only be the best possible but also be seen to be the best. The current system lends itself to criticism. We intend to change the system so that the Department can nominate veterinary surgeons from a special panel and pay them from a charge on the exporter. Instructions to veterinary surgeons will be clarified and additional training given. We are in discussions with the professional veterinary bodies to get the details in place as soon as possible.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live(a) sheep and (b) pigs have been exported from the United Kingdom since 1 January for (i) slaughter, (ii) further fattening and (iii) breeding.[15317]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following table, derived from Departmental computer records of animal health export certifications, shows the number of live sheep and pigs exported from the United Kingdom, from January—October 1997 inclusive in the categories requested.

  For slaughter

  For further fattening

  For breeding

  sheep

  28,000

  288,200

  1,200

  Pigs

  71,000

  11,700

  138,700

  The information given above is provisional and subject to change.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the impact of climate change on(a) agricultural production and methods and (b) crop diseases and pest control; and if he will make a statement. [15590]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is aware of an increasing level of concern about the impact of a climate change on agriculture. In particular, we received a query from the Country Landowners' Association covering a range of climate change issues following my visit to East Anglia in June. In October, my officials attended a conference arranged by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) to discuss climate change issues with a group of farmers and other interested groups.

  The Department will spend about £1 million this year on R and D on climate change in relation to agriculture, of which £300,000 will be spent assessing the impact of climate change and identifying adaptation strategies. Much of the rest will be spent on assessing the extent of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and developing options for mitigation. We also intend to publish a booklet on climate change and agriculture in the United Kingdom in the early part of next year.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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
  118
  1990; and what estimate he has made of further reductions, or increases, predicted for 2000 and 2010, assuming continuation of current policies.[15547]

  Mr. Morley
  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 is expected to deliver by 2000. The report projects forward what the current programme is expected to achieve to 2020.

  Farmers (Hunting)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of farmers who have prohibited hunting with dogs on their land; and what percentage of the total this represents.[15972]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no information available to form the basis for such an estimate, but farmers are free to prohibit hunting with dogs on their land and many do so.

  Agriculture Tenancies Act 1995
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department will publish a review of the workings of the Agriculture Tenancies Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [16070]

  Mr. Morley
  An independent initial policy evaluation of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, commissioned by this Department and the Welsh Office, is now nearing completion. The results, which it is expected the researchers will wish to publish, will provide data for England and Wales separately.

  The primary aims of this initial evaluation were to examine the initial impact of the 1995 Act and to establish a baseline for a more detailed independent evaluation expected to be commissioned in three to four years time.

  Farmers (Surveys)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many postal surveys of farmers have been undertaken by his Department during the past five years; and which of these had a statutory basis providing for penalties for non-compliance.[16047]

  Mr. Morley
  In 1996, 15 regular statistical surveys were conducted to farmers, of which 6 were compulsory. This excludes 2 voluntary surveys which are not run every year. Over the last five years, 3 voluntary statistical surveys have been dropped and 2 have been introduced. Rather than reducing the number of surveys, most survey control action has concentrated on reducing the numbers contacted. In addition to the statistical surveys, 11 ad hoc postal surveys were run to provide information for policy needs in 1996.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many postal surveys of farmers undertaken during the past five years requested information which was required by the European Commission.[16048]
  119
  Mr. Morley
  Of the 15 regular statistical surveys conducted in 1996, 10 provided information required by the EU. This provides the annual picture, apart from a labour survey which is run every 2 or 3 years to provide detailed information required in the European Structure Survey.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce the number of(a) separate surveys and (b) questions and their level of detail required of farmers and landowners. [16046]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to reducing the amount of statistical data collected from farmers. Survey control procedures ensure that the essential information need and the number of surveys is regularly reviewed. Increased sampling in the June and December surveys, together with use of administrative data, will save on the issue of over 25,000 forms this year. About 25 per cent. of farmers contacted in the June 1997 census received a simpler form.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in increasing the percentage of agricultural land on which organic farming is practised.[16330]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures available from the UK Register of Organic Food Standards show that the total area of land farmed organically has increased from 30,424 hectares (0.17 per cent. of all agricultural land, including rough grazing) in April 1993 to 53,907 hectares (0.3 per cent.) in November 1997.

  Slaughter
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meat animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year without first being rendered unconscious.[167001

  Mr. Morley
  The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 731) require that animals are stunned so that there is immediate loss of consciousness which lasts until death. This applies to the slaughter of all animals other than when, for reasons of religion, slaughter is carried out without prior stunning. Information is not held separately on the numbers of animals killed without prior stunning by the Jewish or Muslim methods.

  Cloning
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the proposal by Dr. Ian Wilmut at the Bristol Veterinary Association's annual congress, for an ethics debate on matters arising from developments in cloning, reported in the Veterinary Record of 18 October, a copy of which has been sent to him.[148081

  Mr. Morley
  We read this account of the discussions at the BVA Congress with interest. The Department has not formed a view of the proposal made by Dr. Wilmut—and separately by others—for a debate on ethics and cloning, and the way in which this might be carried forward. In our policies in this area, we continue to be guided by the advice of the Committee, chaired by the 120
  Rev. Professor Michael Banner, on the "Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals" which reported December 1994.

  Animal Feed Contents Labels
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has to require feed compounders give a full ingredient listing on animal feed contents labels; and if he will make a statement.[16163]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on 17 November 1997,Official Report, column

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his Answer to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) of 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 386, (1) which department authorised the disposal of radioactive miss-distance indicators in the Holyhead Deep in 1974; [15984]

  (2) if he will establish an inquiry into the implications for public health of the disposal of radioactive miss-distance indicators in the Holyhead Deep in 1974; [15983]

  (3) how many radioactive miss-distance indicators were disposed of in Holyhead Deep in 1974, indicating the date of each disposal; [15982]

  (4) if he will place in the Library all material held by his Department relating to the disposal of radioactive miss-distance indicators by the Royal Air Force in the Holyhead Deep in 1974.[15985]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our records show that 112 radioactive miss-distance indicators were dumped in the Holyhead Deep in the second half of 1974. The Ministry of Defence has advised that the dumpings took place on 14–15 August 1974. The disposals were authorised by the Ministry of Defence and the records show that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was informed. I am advised that these disposals do not have any significance for human health or the environment. Nevertheless, as I explained in my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), I have passed the details to the National Radiological Protection Board for an independent assessment, the results of which I expect to announce shortly. I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of the one original archive document identified by this Department which relates to these disposals.

  Ostriches
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how many on-farm premises exempt from the Poultry Meat Hygiene Regulations but complying with general food hygiene legislation are currently slaughtering ostriches; and if he will make a statement.[16162]

  Mr. Rooker
  This information is not held centrally. Compliance with general food hygiene legislation is a matter for food authorities under the Food Safety Act 1990.
  121
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouses in England have(a) applied for and (b) been granted licences to handle ostriches; and if he will make a statement. [16161]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 1 November 1997, no slaughterhouse in England had applied for a licence to handle ostriches.

  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Homes (Brown-field Sites)
    Mr. Gerald Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on the proportion of the new homes estimated by his Department to be needed by 2016 which should be accommodated on brown-field sites.[14849]

    Mr. Caborn
    The current policy is for local authorities to make the best possible use of previously used sites for accommodating the country's future housing requirements. The national target set by the previous administration was for half of all new housing to be built on previously developed land, and this is under review. Urban areas could make a larger contribution to total additional housing provision if new conversions are included.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in his rough sleepers' initiative; and what plans he has to extend it.[14850]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are committed to ensuring that nobody should have to sleep rough. We also announced in June £20 million funding for 13 rough sleepers projects in areas outside central London, and I can announce today that we will be providing up to £1 million worth of pump-priming funding over the next 18 months to support six new rough sleeping strategies in Birmingham, Blackpool, Canterbury, Chester, Southampton and Tower Hamlets.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on seeking local opinion before considering whether or not to call in certain planning applications or to hold public inquiries.[14852]

  Mr. Caborn
  Our policy is to leave local planning authorities to decide planning applications in all but the most exceptional cases. In deciding whether to make an exception, the nature and volume of local representations made would be taken into account.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to take flood defence levies out of the other services block in reviewing standard spending assessments for 1998–99.[14853]
  122
  Ms Armstrong
  Provisional decisions on standard spending assessments for 1998–99 will be announced in due course, as part of the local government revenue finance settlement.

  Climate Change Conference
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom Government's main objectives at the Kyoto climate change conference. [14854]

  Angela Eagle
  In Kyoto our main objective will be to secure agreement by developed countries to a system of legally binding targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emission. The EU has proposed reductions to at least 7.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2005 and 15 per cent. below by 2010. We also want developing countries' agreement that over time they will have to play an increasing role in tackling climate change.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of advanced industrial states in Japan on preparations for the Kyoto Conference on climate change; and if he will place in the Library copies of unrestricted documents circulated at the meeting by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other participants. [14748]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 10 November 1997]I chaired the meeting of developed countries on Saturday 8 November, which was attended by representatives from Japan, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, the USA, the European Community, and by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on behalf of the UK.

  We had an excellent and constructive discussion, with some positive movement on a number of issues. For example, we reached agreement that targets should be set in terms of budget periods; and three countries indicated that they would shortly be proposing targets. But even more importantly, I was convinced of the strong political will to ensure a successful outcome at Kyoto. We left the meeting with a much better understanding of each others' positions and I urged all colleagues to build on this spirit of co-operation and to resolve the key outstanding issues in the few weeks ahead. For my part, I met the Vice-President of the USA in Washington on my way to Tokyo and I shall be visiting Australia, New Zealand and India shortly. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for the Environment and other colleagues will also be visiting Hungary, Poland, Mexico, South Korea, Japan and a number of European capitals in the run-up to Kyoto.

  As Chair I made a personal report of the meeting of developed countries, a copy of which I have placed in the Library. Other documents tabled by Ministers were of a private nature, intended to ensure a frank discussion.

  The Japanese Environment Minister, Mr. Ohki, chaired a meeting on Sunday 9 November at which we were joined by colleagues from a number of developing countries: Argentina, Brazil, Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Samoa and Tanzania. Again, the meeting was both constructive and positive.
  123

  Regional Government
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards regional Government in England.[14855]

  Mr. Caborn
  We will shortly be publishing a White Paper on the regions setting out the Government's detailed proposals for taking forward the regional agenda in England.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with interested organisations on proposals for regional government.[14869]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have received around 1,500 responses to the issues paper on regional development agencies which we published on 11 June. The White Paper on the Regions which we will be publishing shortly will set out the Government's detailed proposals for taking forward the regional agenda in England.

  Homes (Developed Land)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what is his Department's policy on the proportion of new homes required by 2016 which should be built on developed land.[14856]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The current policy is for local authorities to make the best possible use of previously used sites for accommodating the country's future housing requirements. The current national target is for half of all new housing to be built on previously developed land.

  National Parks
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what representations he has received with regard to countryside protection in national parks.[14857]

  Angela Eagle
  Ministers on a regular basis receive a variety of representations about a range of issues affecting the national parks. The new National Park Authorities are achieving a great deal in pursuing their revised purposes as set out in the Environment Act 1995. In doing so they are often able to act as models for the conservation and enhancement of the wider countryside.

  Local Authorities (Best Value Pilot Schemes)
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, when he expects to make an announcement on local authority best value pilot schemes; and if he will make a statement.[14858]

  Ms Armstrong
  I will announce the list of authorities who will be invited to join the best value pilot programme in early December, following advice from an expert panel comprising representatives of central government, the CBI, the TUC and the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to make an announcement on local authority best value pilot schemes; and if he will make a statement.[14868]
  124
  Ms Armstrong
  I will announce the list of authorities that will be invited to join the best value pilot programme in early December, following advice from an expert panel comprising representatives of central government, the CBI, the TUC and the Audit Commission.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the Government's plans for regional development agencies.[14860]

  Mr. Caborn
  The White Paper on the regions which we will be publishing shortly will set out the Government's detailed proposals for regional development agencies in England.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to replace all the existing inward investment agencies if regional development agencies are introduced.[14865]

  Mr. Caborn
  The White Paper on the Regions which we will be publishing shortly will set out the Government's detailed proposals for regional development agencies in England, including their role in inward investment.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he proposes to adjust the revenue support grant in 1998–99 to take account of the relative costs of providing services between local authorities.[14862]

  Ms Armstrong
  Our proposals for the distribution of revenue support grant for 1998–99 will be announced in due course.

  As my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction said on 30 October 1997, Official Report, column 1082, we have recently announced that we intend to commission further research to examine the specific cost approach to calculating the area cost adjustment element of standard spending assessments.

  As a consequence of commissioning this research we have decided not to implement for 1998–99 standard spending assessments any options for change proposed by the 1996 Review of the Area Cost Adjustment or the additional research on the area cost adjustment done this year. These options remain available for consideration alongside the findings of the specific cost research.

  Green Belt
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the planning guidance on the green belt. [14863]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's green belt policy remains as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 2.
  125

  Planning Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that planning authorities abide by approved and current local structure plans. [14864]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that, where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for development which are in accordance with the plan shall be allowed unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Applicants have the right of appeal against any decision by the local authority not to grant planning permission.

  Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) Direction 1992, local planning authorities are required to notify the Secretary of State of planning applications for specified types of development which do not accord with the development plan currently in force, where they propose to grant permission. This enables the Secretary of State to consider whether to call in such applications for his own determination.

  We have recently consulted on draft revised Directions and improved guidance for local planning authorities, and will issue a final version as soon as possible.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in his plans to secure greater localisation of business rates.[14866]

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in his plans to restore a greater degree of local discretion over business rates.[14859]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since July we have been discussing with the Local Government Association and business representatives how rates could be returned to local control. We aim to issue a consultation paper at the end of this year.

  Petrol Leaks
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents of leakage of petrol from underground storage tanks at garages there have been in the past two years; and if he will make a statement about the role of the Environment Agency in such circumstances.[14867]

  Angela Eagle
  In the period since January 1995 the Environment Agency recorded 55 incidents of water pollution from underground petrol storage at petrol filling stations in England and six such incidents in Wales.

  The Agency is not responsible for licensing petrol filling stations. However, it is able to influence the siting of new petrol filling station developments as a statutory consultee under Town and Country Planning legislation and can object to petrol filling stations in sensitive areas of groundwater.

  There are powers available to the Agency under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to carry out remedial pollution works and recover costs. The powers
  126
  have not yet been used in relation to petrol filling stations. The new works notices power under section 161A of the 1991 Act, when brought into force shortly, will enable the Agency to require anti-pollution works to be carried out and thus be more proactive in preventing water pollution from petrol filling stations.

  We are considering comments received during a consultation exercise earlier this year on water pollution from industrial and commercial oil storage, included the issue of whether petrol storage should be subject to additional measures of control.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to give increased decision-making power to local authorities.[14870]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We believe that local decision making should be less constrained by Central Government and more accountable to local people. Our programme to modernise local government, therefore, includes in parallel with the renewal of local democracy, placing on councils a new duty to promote the economic, social, and environmental well-being of their area and ending crude and universal council tax capping.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will carry out preliminary administration procedures to minimise delay in road schemes on their release after publication of the current review.[14872]

  Dr. Strang
  We aim to avoid unnecessary delays to schemes approved in the Roads Review. Preparatory work on schemes is being taken forward to the end of the current stage so that they could be re-started without the need to repeat work.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if she will make a statement on her policy for the channel tunnel rail link. [14880]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government have a Development Agreement with London and Continental Railways for the design, construction and operation of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

  Airports and Aviation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the proposed White Paper on an integrated transport policy will incorporate policies relating to airports and aviation provision.[14882]

  Dr. Strang
  Yes. Airports and aviation have a vital role to play in an integrated transport system. We intend to set out in the White Paper key policies relating to surface access to airports, environmental impact and the role of regional airports.
  127

  Rural Railway Stations
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions she has had with rail companies to encourage the opening, retention or reopening of small rural railway stations. [14883]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The revised objectives, instructions and Guidance issued to the Franchising Director on 6 November require him to encourage and facilitate the development of worthwhile investment proposals. He has regular discussions with train operating companies, Railtrack and other potential sponsors of station projects.

  Thames Crossing
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the agreement by Reading and Oxfordshire councils concerning a third Thames crossing. [14884]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We welcome the announcement that Oxfordshire and Berkshire Local Authorities are to commission a joint, wide-ranging study of travel across the Thames in the Reading area. I understand that the study will identify issues and possible solutions, which may, or may not, include proposals for a third crossing.

  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to modify the regulations and rules governing the occupational safety of the crews of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels.[14885]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The occupational safety of crews in United Kingdom fishing vessels is being pursued through the development of several regulations which will implement EC health and safety directives. Guidance on the requirements of the new regulations will be published in a new Code of Safe Working Practices for Fishing Vessels.

  Eurofreight Terminal
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the location of the proposed Eurofreight terminal for south Wales.[14887]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has made to the European Parliament Transport Committee's recommendation that driving tests be retaken every five years.[14888]

  Dr. Strang
  There has been no such recommendation. The Transport and Tourism Committee of the European Parliament are currently reviewing road safety policy, but have not yet reported. In the course of their deliberations, one of the members put forward the idea of periodic 128
  re-testing of drivers, but it has not been supported by the Committee as a whole, nor by any of the European Institutions.

  London Underground (Acton)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors led to his decision to postpone the sale of London Underground's Acton works.[14889]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport's proposal to sell the Railway Engineering Workshop at Acton requires the Secretary of State's consent (to dispose of one of their subsidiaries under section 9 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984). The Secretary of State does not want to make a decision on whether to give his consent until the Government has reached a clearer view on the future funding and structure of the underground as a whole, and he has held further discussions with interested parties.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss its future.[14891]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My colleagues and I hold regular meetings with the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority where the future of the Authority and National Air Traffic Services is among a wide number of topics that are discussed.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on how he plans to tackle congestion on Britain's roads.[14892]

  Dr. Strang
  We are currently undertaking a strategic roads review as part of the work we are doing to develop an integrated transport policy. One of the main objectives is to develop a strategy for dealing with increasing congestion.

  Transport Policy
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the approach he will adopt in assessing transport policies and programmes bids. [14893]

  Dr. Strang
  Assessment of bids takes account of a variety of factors. The main criterion is the extent to which the proposed expenditure offers value for money in the context of the objectives communicated to authorities in the circular inviting them to bid.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to meet the chairman of Railtrack to discuss investment in the railways.[14894]

  Dr. Strang
  My right hon. Friend and I met the chairman of Railtrack on 30 October to discuss a number of issues, including investment in the railways.
  129

  British Rail (Planning Obligations)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to direct the British Rail Property Board in the disposal of assets and the discharge of residual legal responsibilities arising from planning obligations and agreements entered into by British Rail. [14895]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State has power to direct the British Railways Board to dispose of any of its property, rights and liabilities under section 89 of the Railways Act 1993, where the principal objective is to secure the result that the function of providing railway services in Great Britain is performed by private sector operators. Discharge of obligations in planning agreements is a matter of contract between the contracting parties.

  British Hauliers (France)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with his French counterpart regarding difficulties faced by British hauliers as a result of the industrial dispute in France. [14896]

  Dr. Strang
  At a meeting in Paris on 28 October, just before the dispute started, I told the French transport Minister that in the event of disruption I looked to his Government to ensure free passage for UK lorries, to secure the well-being of any British drivers blocked in France and to deal promptly and sympathetically with any claims for compensation. I spoke similarly to the French ambassador at a meeting in London on 4 November once the strike had started.

  Speed Cameras
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing speed. [15650]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Speed cameras are particularly good at reducing vehicle speeds in some circumstances. Twenty one cameras placed on roads in West London have shown a 70 per cent. reduction in fatal accidents between 1992 and 1995. A Home Office study of cameras in 10 police forces undertaken between November 1995 and March 1996 showed that accidents reduced by 28 per cent. and average speeds by 4 mph at speed camera sites. However, the effects of cameras are localised, so we recommend that they are used at sites with a history of speed related accidents where they can successfully reduce the likelihood of further incidents.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his Department's guidelines relating to the installing of speed cameras in villages; what Government funding is available for such cameras; what research his Department has evaluated into the impact of speed cameras on the rate of accidents in villages; and what estimate he has made of the relative costs of installing cameras on A and B roads. [15962]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Guidance on the deployment of speed enforcement cameras was issued by the Department in Circular Roads 1/92. Specific central funding is not 130
  usually made available for cameras. Installation costs are typically met by Highway authorities; and operational costs by the police. A Home Office study of cameras in 10 police forces undertaken between November 1995 and March 1996 showed a 28 per cent. drop in accidents and a 4 mph reduction in speed at camera sites. The study showed that the average fixed cost per site for a speed camera was £12,500 and average recurrent costs were around £8,500 per annum. The report did not specify camera site locations. I am unable to give average costs for villages and other areas.

  Speed Limits
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on how he plans to reduce(a) city and (b) rural traffic speeds; and what resources have been made available for such initiatives in each of the last five years. [15649]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department is continually developing and trialling measures for reducing inappropriate and excessive vehicle speeds. Advice about those that prove successful is made available to Local Highway Authorities to employ on their roads. Examples include 20 mph zones, road humps and horizontal deflections for urban areas, and gateway treatments and low cost measures for rural roads. We are looking at ways to make better use of speed cameras which are particularly effective at sites prone to accidents. This complements our long term aim to change driver behaviour through education and advertising. The latest stage of the "Kill your speed campaign" was launched on 16 September.

  No comprehensive information is available centrally on the resources allocated for installing traffic calming and other speed management measures.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase investment in and use of telematic speed limits; and if he will make a statement. [15651]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has a comprehensive research programme which investigates and tries out innovative schemes, including telematics applied to speed limits. The Highways Agency is assessing the Controlled Motorway Project on a part of the M25 which automatically adjusts speed limits to prevailing traffic conditions. Trials are also underway in the East of England to determine the value of warning signs triggered by speeding drivers.

  Until the results are known it is not possible to estimate the merit of these schemes, nor what future investment might be involved. We will continue to consider new applications of technology when these become available.

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 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. [15876]
  131
  Angela Eagle
  The DETR has several public Internet e-mail addresses for inquiries accessible via the Department's Internet Service at www.detr.gov.uk. The Department does not have individual public e-mail addresses for Ministers or senior officials. We do not centrally hold details of public e-mail addresses for chief executives of DETR agencies.

  EU Bathing Water Directive
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a definition of the bathing season for the purposes of the EU Bathing Water Directive. [16122]

  Angela Eagle
  The Directive defines the bathing season as
  "the period during which a large number of bathers can be expected, in the light of local circumstances, and any local rules which may exist concerning bathing and weather conditions". In England and Wales the bathing season is regarded as running from mid-May to the end of September. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, from June to mid-September.

  Sea Water (Bacteria and Viruses)
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has taken on the viability of bacteria and viruses in sea water over time; and what research his Department has conducted into the possible health hazards associated with the persistence of such organisms in coastal waters as a result of the lowering of sewage treatment standards in winter months. [16121]

  Angela Eagle
  The faster decay of indicator bacteria compared to viruses during sewage treatment and in seawater after discharge is a well recognised phenomenon and is taken into account by the Environment Agency is setting discharge consents. Further research into the viability of viruses has recently been commissioned by the Department, the Environment Agency and the UK water industry. The results will help predictions of the effect of any reduction of sewage treatment during the winter months and assessments of possible health hazards from coastal waters, which are currently regarded as very low.

  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 Health and Safety Executive's review of the international literature into the health effects of medium-density fibreboard. [16067]

  Angela Eagle
  The literature review into the health effects of medium-density fibreboard being conducted by HSE is expected to be published in June 1998.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the research phase of the Health and Safety Executive's investigation into the health effects of medium-density fibreboard will be completed. [16068]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive estimate that the research phase could take about 18 months to two years, but this depends very much on what work is identified as being necessary from the literature review.
  132
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Health and Safety Executive is taking to encourage the use of safer alternatives to medium-density fibreboard in the construction industry. [16063]

  Angela Eagle
  None. Alternatives to medium-density fibreboard (MDF) may also present risks to health, depending on how they are used. The Health and Safety Executive is of the opinion that any health risks arising from the use at work of MDF, and the alternatives, can and should be effectively controlled by compliance with the requirements of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the maximum exposure limit to softwood dust set by(a) the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive, (b) other European Union member states, (c) the United States of America, (d) Japan and (e) Australia. [16066]

  Angela Eagle
  The maximum exposure limits to softwood dust are:

  (a) Softwood dust has been assigned a maximum exposure limit (MEL) of 5 milligrams per cubic metre (mg/m3) for an 8-hour time weighted average under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (COSHH).

  (b) No other EU member state has a specific occupational exposure limit for softwood dust although some have limits for wood dust in general.

  (c) In the United States, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has recommended an 8-hour threshold limit value of 5 mg/m3 and a short term limit of 10 mg/m3.

  (d) There is no information available on the occupational exposure limit for softwood dust for Japan.

  (e) In Australia a limit of 5 mg/m3 has been assigned for softwood dust.

  Under COSHH employers are required to control exposures to softwood dust to a level as low as is reasonably practicable and in any case below the MEL. It is therefore misleading to compare the numerical value of the MEL with limits in other countries, where limits have different definitions and applications.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Health and Safety Executive is taking to ensure that, where there are no alternatives to the use of medium-density fibreboard in the construction industry, employers use low or zero formaldehyde emission board. [16064]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive is of the opinion that effective control of medium density fibreboard (MDF) dust, coupled with good general ventilation, will adequately control exposure to formaldehyde vapour. British Standards restrict the amount of formaldehyde that can be used in making medium density fibreboard. An HSE survey monitoring exposure to formaldehyde during the machining of MDF has found levels to be substantially below the current maximum exposure limit for formaldehyde. Low or zero formaldehyde emission board use other binding resins which may contain hazardous components.
  133

  Subways
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory authority there is for highway authorities to close a subway. [16118]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Section 69 of the Highways Act 1980 permits highway authorities to provide pedestrian subways, and to alter, close temporarily, or remove them.

  Sewage Treatment
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those water companies which operate a seasonally variable regime of sewage treatment. [16119]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not held centrally but discharge consents set by the Environment Agency in some coastal areas include a requirement for additional treatment during summer months to meet water quality standards under the EC Bathing Water Directive.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with water undertakings concerning the practice of downgrading sewage treatment levels prior to discharge into the sea during winter months. [16120]

  Angela Eagle
  This is primarily a matter for the Environment Agency when setting consent conditions for water company sewage discharges. These consents are set within the framework of EU and domestic statutory requirements and Government and Agency policy on water quality.

  Bridleways
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will include measures to encourage the re-establishment of bridleways in his plans for increasing access to the countryside. [16185]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to do.

  Water
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will change the basis on which the Environment Agency forecasts regional demand for water. [16404]

  Angela Eagle
  At the end of August 1997, the Environment Agency issued to water companies its Water Resources Planning Guidelines. This document, which was drafted in consultation with the Office of Water Services, the water companies and my Department, includes authoritative guidance on the forecasting of demand for water in each discrete water resource zone, from which regional forecasts can be built up. The Environment Agency will update these Guidelines as it considers necessary in response to developing issues.

  Coastguards
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of recent cuts in the number of qualified coastguards on public safety. [16175]
  134
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the Focus for Change review the number of Coastguard officers appropriately qualified increased by some 120. The result is more uniformed regular Coastguards in service than nearly a decade ago. The intention of these measures is to enhance the level of safety of the seagoing and coastal communities and public at large.

  Endocrine-disrupting Chemicals
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the research evaluated by his Department since 1995 on(a) endocrine-disrupting compounds and (b) oestrogenic chemicals. [16177]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department, with the assistance of recognised experts in the field, continually evaluates the research published on endocrine disrupting chemicals in the environment. Where gaps in the available information have been identified research is being planned to address those gaps. The Department's research plans are published annually and the Department's policy is that the results of its research are disseminated externally. Details of individual projects are publicly available on request and also on the Department's research project database to which the House of Commons Library has online access.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the contribution of the air traffic sector towards meeting the Government's target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. [16186]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions what assessment he has made of the contribution which could be made by cars to the target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 compared to 1990 levels. [14871]

  Mr. Prescott
  After the climate convention in December, we shall consult on a programme which will take account of our 20 per cent. and the outcome of Kyoto. Measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from road transport are an important element of our transport policy review and will form part of a balanced climate change programme.

  Road Safety Education
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's support for road safety education programmes for school pupils; and what plans he has to promote pedestrian training at primary schools. [16342]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions recognises that children, especially pedestrians, are a particularly vulnerable group of road users and as such are a road safety priority. Road safety education both inside and outside school is an integral part of our approach to reducing road accidents amongst children complementing publicity, enforcement and engineering measures.
  135
  My Department works closely with local authority road safety professionals, voluntary and commercial organisations and other Government Departments to encourage road safety education. In 1995, the Department produced Good Practice Guidelines for Road Safety Education in Schools and we are, at present, carrying out a review of the provision of road safety education in schools throughout Great Britain.

  Despite a good overall road safety record, Great Britain has a relatively poor child pedestrian safety record. Research has shown that practical approaches to child pedestrian training, in small groups at the roadside, are the most effective at improving child pedestrian skills. My Department has used this approach to develop and evaluate two practical child pedestrian training schemes— "Let's Decide Walkwise" and "Kerbcraft". In addition this Department and the Department of Health have jointly funded the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to produce a video resource—Step Forward—to encourage schools and adult volunteers to participate in local authority pedestrian training schemes.

  The Government are committed to reducing car dependency, and in particular, the number of children being driven to school. We are supportive of projects which encourage children to walk and cycle in safety and take the bus to school. The DETR is currently funding research in this area. We are also providing capital resources to a number of local authority transport packages which include safer routes to schools projects. The current fundamental review of transport will be examining journeys to school in conjunction with other Government Departments.

  Cyclists (Helmets)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to promote the wearing of helmets by cyclists; and if he will make a statement. [16343]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department's Cycle Safe campaign includes the production of posters and educational literature which promote the wearing of cycle helmets. Publicity is distributed to local Road Safety Officers, teachers and the police. Advice to wear helmets is contained in the Highway Code and the Highway Code for Young Road Users. One million copies of the Young Road Users Code are distributed free each year to schools.

  We encourage local authorities to co-ordinate what they are doing on cycle safety publicity with the Department's campaign so that the messages are reinforced. We will continue to review ways of promoting the wearing of cycle helmets and wearing rate surveys will be made to determine the success of local and national campaigns.

  Compressed Air Powered Vehicles
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the potential of compressed air powered vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [16331]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None.
  136

  Homelessness (Christmas)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to use government buildings other than Admiralty Arch and buildings available for use by members of the Government to house the homeless during the Christmas period. [16159]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have a Winter Shelter Programme as part of the Rough Sleepers Initiative. This year the Winter Shelter Programme covers London, Bristol and Cambridge. Each year both the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the voluntary agencies work closely with the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE), and other Government Departments, to identify suitable buildings from the Government estate for use as winter shelters for rough sleepers. It is particularly important to locate suitable buildings which will ensure a wide geographical spread of winter shelters.

  We are currently assessing the bids we have received from the voluntary sector for funding to manage winter shelters as part of the Rough Sleepers Initiative and will make an announcement shortly on the bids which have been successful.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the energy efficiency standards of homes. [14861]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 requires local authorities to implement strategies for improving domestic energy efficiency in all sectors by 30 per cent. over a 10–15 year period. The Government and Energy Saving Trust will continue to support them in this through pump-priming assistance for innovative approaches, and through disseminating advice and best practice. The Trust has also established an energy efficiency programme, involving all sectors of the industry in providing financial incentives, information and advice for householders, and a comprehensive training package for installers and retailers.

  Over 2.5 million low-income, disabled and elderly households have been helped to improve their homes through grants under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. We will continue to build on this in tackling fuel poverty through a range of policies. Energy conservation has been specified as a priority area in the design of the Environmental Task Force option of the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, and in the capital receipts initiative for local authorities.

  Our current review of the Housing Fitness Standard includes consideration of how best to incorporate energy efficiency requirements. We have also just initiated a review of Part L of the Building Regulations, which deals with energy efficiency of new homes. The aim of the review is to establish the maximum possible contribution that can be made by the Regulations to the Government's target of a 20 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels of CO2 emissions by the year 2010, whilst observing proportionality and flexibility for designers, and avoiding

  137
  unreasonable technical risks or excessive cost. The review will be wide ranging, encompassing not just homes, but non-domestic buildings as well.

  London Underground (Investment)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the funding of London Underground's investment for 1998 to 2003. [14890]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department is currently conducting a Comprehensive Spending Review, the outcome of which will help to determine the future funding of London Transport. We are also considering a range of public-private partnership options for the Underground which are intended to provide the Underground with the funds it needs to overcome its investment backlog.

  Council Homes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government will take steps to assist people who have bought their council houses and subsequently find them to have major structural defects; and if he will ensure that they are eligible to apply for home improvement loans from their local council. [14935]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities already give grants for repairs to owner occupiers. Renovation grant under Part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 is available at the authority's discretion for making property fit and for other works of repair or improvement which go beyond making a property fit. Such grants are subject to a means test. Under separate provisions, certain classes of defective properties, designated as defective under sections 528 or 559 of the Housing Act 1985, are eligible for assistance under Part XVI of that Act. However, works to address the defects in such properties are not eligible for grant under the 1996 Act.

  Deep Water Harbour (Merseyside)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on deep water harbour provision on Merseyside. [14936]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are separate proposals for deep water quays for ro-ro ferry services, at Trafalgar Dock in Liverpool and at Twelve Quays in Birkenhead. Applications have been made for harbour orders to authorise each project. The former has attracted a number of objections and is waiting for the Mersey Dock and Harbour Company to complete a review of their environmental statement; progress with the latter is subject to resolution of one outstanding objection.

  Schools (Safe Routes)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to assist the development of safe routes to schools. [14943]
  138
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are committed to reducing car dependency, and in particular, the number of children being driven to school. We are supportive of projects which encourage children to walk and cycle in safety and take the bus to school. The DETR is currently funding research in this area. We are also providing capital resources to a number of local authority transport packages which include safer routes to schools projects. The current fundamental review of transport will be examining journeys to school, and considering how the DETR, in conjunction with other Government Departments, should take this forward.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what consultation he has had with the Scottish Office since the Referendum on the transfer of responsibilities for transport matters which are currently his to the Scottish Parliament; [15088]

  (2) what consultation he has had with the Scottish Office since the Referendum on the transfer of responsibilities for environmental and regional matters which are currently his to the Scottish Parliament. [15089]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government's proposals for the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament were set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament". My Department has been working closely with the Scottish Office to ensure that the legislation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly be introducing will accurately give effect to the proposals.

  Road Speed Limits
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to complete his review of road speed limits. [14881]

  Dr. Strang
  We need to consider speed limits and other measures together in order to reduce excessive and inappropriate speed. This will form a prominent part of the work on a road safety strategy announced by my noble friend Lady Hayman on 15 October.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will publish further details of her plans for delivering stakeholder pensions. [16902]

  Ms Harman
  I shall be publishing a consultation document on Stakeholder Pensions on Wednesday 19 November. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Supported Housing
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether she will outline her plans for the second stage of the interim measures introduced to stabilise the position of existing supported housing provision. [16903]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  On 24 July 1997 I announced a two stage package of measures to stabilise existing supported housing provision and protect many thousands
  139
  of vulnerable people until a long-term solution can be implemented. The first stage of the package—amendments to the Housing regulations—came into effect on 18 August 1997.

  We plan to introduce the second stage—the compensation scheme—shortly. This scheme will, where appropriate, enable local authorities to compensate landlords of existing supported accommodation where Housing Benefit has reduced because it was previously meeting charges for those highest levels of care which are outside the scope of the Housing Benefit scheme. The saving in benefit subsidies previously paid to local authorities in respect of these highest levels of care will be applied within Class XII, Vote 2, to underwrite the compensation scheme and will be paid on an extra-statutory basis.

  Official Engagements
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the official engagements that were carried out by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)on the morning of Thursday 13 November. [16517]

  Mr. Denham
  I was undertaking duties in connection with Departmental business.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact of the revised benefit system regulations introduced in 1996 on the number of bogus asylum seekers. [14232]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Home Secretary announced on 27 October new procedures to speed up the decision making process in abusive asylum claims.

  An inter-departmental review led by the Home Office is currently considering all aspects of the asylum process across government, including the provision of accommodation and support to asylum seekers.

  "Removing Barriers"
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment her Department has made of the report, "Removing Barriers", published by the Local Government Association; and if she will make a statement. [14587]

  Mr. Field
  I welcome the Local Government Association report, "Removing Barriers: the Case for a New Deal for Social Services and Social Security". Both myself and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, are ensuring that it is taken into account in looking at the interface between the Social Security and social services systems as part of our comprehensive spending reviews.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects the arrangements for cold weather payments to take account of the new post codes in the Greater Bristol area. [14700]
  140
  Mr. Denham
  The changes to the postcodes were notified too late to be specified in the amending regulations laid before the House on 9 October (S.I. 1997 No. 2311).

  The new postcode arrangements will be considered as part of next year's annual review and reflected in the amending regulations.

  For this winter, arrangements are in place to treat eligible people living in the new postcode districts as being situated within the appropriate postcode districts as they existed prior to the changes being made.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people qualify for a 26 week linking period on income support because mortgage protection insurance has fully paid out during the previous benefit claim. [15154]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available.

  LETS Credits
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to disregard the value of LETS credits when calculating income for social security purposes. [15202]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Our welfare-to-work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between responsibilities and rights. A programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that Jobseeker's Allowance contributes to achieving our objectives.

  In addition to this major evaluation exercise, we shall also keep the individual benefit rules, including the treatment of LETS credits, under active consideration as we develop our plans.

  Earnings Top-up Claimants
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and proportion of(a) men, (b) women and (c) total current earnings top-up claimants broken down by standard industrial classification. [15511]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not currently available. Work is in hand to produce statistics in line with the standard occupational classifications and they will be made available as soon as possible.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and proportion of(a) men, (b) women and (c) total current family credit claimants broken down by standard industrial classification. [15512]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not currently available.

  A breakdown by occupation type was previously published in the "Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry" but, due to concerns over the quality of data, the

  141
  tables were withdrawn from the February 1997 publication. Action is being taken to improve the reliability of these statistics and they will be re-introduced as soon as possible.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision is made for suffers of myalgic encephalomyelitis who claim disability living allowance. [15358]

  Mr. Denham
  Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance is not based on specific disabilities, but on the effects that a person's disability has on their need for help with personal care and/or mobility.

  Adjudication Officers are given information on the care and mobility needs arising from disabilities such as myalgic encephalomyelitis in the "Disability Handbook" which is compiled by senior doctors of this Department and approved and monitored by the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board.

SCOTLAND

  Higher Education (Borders Region)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students from the Scottish Borders region(a) attended full-time undergraduate education at universities or equivalent bodies, (b) attended full-time education as mature students and (c) were in receipt of further education awards in the last year for which figures are available. [15626]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 1995–96 there were 1,458 full-time undergraduate students in Scottish higher education institutions from the Scottish Borders. The number of mature entrants studying full-time in Scotland from the Scottish Borders is set out in the table following table:

  Mature1 entrants studying full-time in Scotland from the Scottish Borders

  1995–96

  Number

  HE undergraduate2 entrants in HEIs

  111

  HE undergraduate2 entrants in FECs

  324

  FE entrants in FECs

  131

  1 Mature entrants are aged 21 years and over.

  2 Undergraduate includes first degree and other HE qualifications.

  On the basis of the figures available, around 300 students from the Borders Region received local authority bursaries for further education courses in 1995–96. These local authority bursaries (since replaced by college bursaries) were available only for non-advanced courses.

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the recommendations of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Working Party chaired by Dr. Anne McLaren. [14467]
  142
  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The Government have noted the report produced by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in response to questions about fetal awareness and fetal pain, and welcome the decision to send the report to Fellows and Members of the College to inform and guide their practice.

  Forestry Commission Sales
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the Forestry Commission-owned sites which were offered for sale(a) during 1996 and (b) in 1997 (i) before and (ii) after 1 May; [15633]

  (2) if he will list the Forestry Commission-owned sites for which disposal is under consideration. [15634]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The subject of the questions relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Helen Jackson, dated 18 November 1997 The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your two Questions about Forestry Commission land which was offered for sale during 1996 and in 1997 (before and after 1 May) and which we are considering for sale.
  I therefore enclose a list of Forest Land which was first offered for sale on the Open Market between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 1996 and 1 January 1997 and 19 March 1997. On 19 March 1997 all Forestry Commission sales were suspended during the General Election. After the Election the Government placed a Moratorium on all Forestry Commission forest land sales in accordance with the Manifesto Commitment. Consequently no forest land has been offered on the open market after 19 March 1997, and we are not considering the sale of any forest land.

  Forestry Commission forest land offered for sale on the open market 1 January–31 December 1996

  Forest district

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  England

  Downs and Chilterns

  Back Lane Wood

  7.5

  Beech and Howlets Wood

  7

  Channers Wood

  15

  Compartment 451

  4.3

  Crawley Down

  29.5

  Dawley Wood

  19

  Greens

  1.5

  Hazel Grove

  6.2

  Hoo Wood

  18

  Howes Wood

  5

  Idlecombe and Rowborough

  73

  Lockleys Wood

  4.9

  Mercers Wood

  6

  Priest Wood

  28

  Puttock Hill

  8.5

  Redcap/Catham Coppice

  14

  The Square and Cooks

  5.5

  Coppice Whitelands Copse

  12

  Whores Wood

  2.9

  East Anglia

  Foulden Broom Covert

  6

  Forest of Dean

  East Cranmore Wood

  28

  Greyfield Wood

  38

  Pink Wood

  33

  Stanton Park

  58

  The Bushes

  15

  Wanstrow (Breach Wood)

  45

  Kielder

  Denton Fell Plantation

  627

  143

  Forestry Commission forest land offered for sale on the open market 1 January–31 December 1996

  Forest district

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  Lakes

  Birks Wood

  8

  Chalk Plains Wood

  40

  Tithe Barn Plantation

  8

  North York Moors

  Cold Kirby Woods

  116

  Glaisdale Woods

  141.5

  Haxby Plantation

  50

  Hazel and Hayton Woods

  107

  Kilburn Thicket

  12

  Robson's Spring

  43

  Skelton Banks

  11.7

  Peninsula

  Membury

  25

  Sherwood and Lines

  Dilliner Wood

  20

  Mather Wood

  39

  Nut Wood

  10

  Park Springs Wood

  39

  Roe Wood

  47

  Weald

  Batts Wood

  65

  Challock Benacre Wood

  25

  Scotland

  Aberfoyle

  Dundurn

  744.1

  Easter Muirhead

  34.4

  Warroch

  68

  Ae

  Cairnhead

  1,361

  Euchenhead

  689

  Polskeoch

  830

  Shinnelhead

  843

  Buchan

  Auquharney, Lot 1

  81

  Haremoss

  21

  Lenabo and Moreseat of Hatton

  360

  Castle Douglas

  Glaisters

  382

  Cowal

  Ardlamont

  749.9

  Dornoch

  Achrugan

  559

  Fort Augustus

  Achintraid

  42

  Ardelve

  26

  Glencannich, Muchrachd and Craskie

  148

  Kirkton

  92

  Kishorn

  67

  Orbost

  575

  Waternish

  1,159

  Inverness

  Creag Dhubh

  97

  Tor Clunes and Castle Spynie

  138

  Lochaber

  Ardmolich

  92

  Lorne

  Dererach

  177

  Scoor Wood, Lot 5

  360

  Moray

  Auchenroath

  62

  Ben Main

  72

  Elchies

  103

  Rhynagoup, Lot 1

  16

  Tulloch

  239

  Newton Stewart

  Glenluce

  40

  Knockbain

  145

  Tay

  Ardle Bank

  43

  Camusericht

  304

  Newbiggin and Braedownie

  413

  West Argyll

  Ardbrecknish

  119

  Ford

  57

  Wales

  Ceredigion

  Allt Hengeraint

  18.6

  Allt Wig Wen

  8.2

  Allt Y Gigfran

  18

  Bryn Wichell

  15

  Brynamlwg

  9

  Crossway

  4.5

  Cruglas

  6

  Ffynon Rhys

  32.2

  Gelli Gwenyn

  17

  Rhos Maes Crug

  5

  Forestry Commission forest land offered for sale on the open market 1 January—31 December 1996

  Forest district

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  Llandovery

  Allt Maes Yr Awdy

  6

  Allt Pant Glas

  9

  Allt y Fron—Abermarlais 2

  5.6

  Blaen Llwydiarth Fern Hill

  36

  Cathilas

  51.4

  Cilgwyn Wood

  13

  Coed Caeau Gwynion—Abermarlais

  4.8

  Coed Glyn Aeron

  57

  Cotsmoor Wood

  7

  Cwmllannarch

  32

  Farthings Hook

  18

  Gallt Fydr

  33

  Martletwy Wood

  18

  Measgwyn

  20

  Nant Ffrwd

  26

  Pentre Mawr Trebwi

  10

  Rosehill Wood—Abermarlais 3

  3.9

  Ty Rhyg

  120

  Llanrwst

  Bodfuan

  101

  Bryn Hendre

  10

  Brynffynnon Coed

  6

  Bwlch Derwyn

  266

  Caeau Bodfel

  28

  Coed Allt Ddu

  3

  Coed Bryn Kenrick

  8

  Coed Mynydd Nefyn

  31

  Coed Plas Isaf

  15

  Coed Rhosfawr

  29

  Coed Salisbury

  4

  Coed Tai Hirion

  45

  Crown Wood

  29

  Frochas 1

  7.5

  Frochas 2

  3.1

  Frochas 3

  5.4

  Frochas 5

  2.9

  Gwinllan Rhos Ddu

  10

  Nant Merddyn

  48

  Nebo

  9

  Rhos Hendre

  2

  Tyddyn Y Famaeth

  4

  Ynys Galed

  22

  Morgannwg

  Craig Y Pare

  16

  Newtown

  Broad Leasow Wood

  12.5

  Bryn Gorse

  5.6

  Caldy Bank

  8.9

  Cefn Derw Cil Owen

  10

  Cefn Perfa Wood

  3.4

  Cil Llwyn

  15

  Common Wood

  16

  Curnia Bank

  13.3

  Frostal Wood

  5

  Geufron

  10.1

  Gloddfa Nursery

  5.2

  Gorther Rough

  8

  Husky Hall

  1.8

  Knill Garaway

  48.5

  Llan Llwyd

  3.8

  Llyn Y Waun

  51.6

  Long Nursery Coppice

  2

  Lower Ceulannau

  3.7

  Lower Wig

  2.2

  Molecatchers Wood

  16

  Oldland Wood

  6

  Parsons Land Coppice

  2.7

  Penycarreg East

  3

  Penycarreg West

  11

  Penycastle Wood

  10.4

  Pool Plantation and Kerry Hill

  12.7

  Pwll Yr Rhedyn

  7

  144

  145

  Forestry Commission forest land offered for sale on the open market 1 January–31 December 1996

  Forest district

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  Rock Wood and Fronfraith Wood

  30.5

  Treflyn Bach

  2

  Tyny Cwm

  3.5

  S.E. Wales

  New Forest Plantation

  9

  Newhouse Wood

  227.5

  Tack Wood

  63

  1Boundary change.

  1 January to 19 March 1997

  Forest district

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  Scotland

  Fort Augustus

  Fairy Bridge, Glenhinnisdale

  92

  Wales

  Morgannwg

  Hendre Rhys

  18.3

  England

  Nil

  —

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has taken legal advice on the Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1997, S.I. 1997, No. 197, following the reporting of these Regulations by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the ground that they may be ultra vires (16th Report, HC29-xvi, Session 1996–97); and if he will make a statement. [15481]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1997, S.I. 1997, No. 197, which were made by the previous Secretary of State, have no practical effect at present. Amendments were made to them by S.I. 1997/1436. This is part of the continuing moratorium on Compulsory Competitive Tendering in Scotland while a Best Value regime is being developed. The Government will re-examine these regulations if CCT under the Local Government Act 1988 has to be reimposed on any Scottish council.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what public consultations he is undertaking about future investment in trunk roads in Scotland; and if he will issue a consultation document. [15951]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]As part of the strategic review of Trunk Roads in Scotland we shall issue a consultation document in spring 1998 on the new trunk road appraisal system. This system will fulfil our manifesto commitment to assess road proposals against the criteria of integration, accessibility, economy, safety and environmental impact.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Office plans to fund all four years of study by students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland at 146
  Scottish Universities; how many students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland are currently in the fourth year of a degree course at a Scottish University; and what assessment he has made of the cost of funding this fourth year. [16094]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]The Scottish Office provides a block grant for teaching in higher education to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. SHEFC funding supports about 118,000 full-time equivalent places in Scottish higher education institutions. These places are filled by students from any part of the European Union, including Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, and the provision includes among other things all years of the Scottish first degree courses, including the fourth year of Scottish Honours courses. Broadly speaking, the funding from the Scottish Office for the fourth year of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students is about £15 million.

  Current figures on student numbers are not yet available. Students in Scottish higher education institutions in the fourth year of a degree programme in December 1996 included around 3,400 domiciled in England, around 100 domiciled in Wales and around 900 domiciled in Northern Ireland.

  The Scottish Office also provides student support to Scottish domiciled students for higher education courses no matter where in the UK they study.

  Land Policy
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of the Scottish Office Committee to investigate land policy in Scotland, and the grade, department and relevant area of expertise of the civil servant members; and if he will make a statement. [15735]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The Land Reform Policy Group is chaired by my noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries; the Minister for Education and Industry and my special adviser Murray Elder also attend when available. In other core membership comprises the following officials of The Scottish Office and the Forestry Commission:

  Grade

  Department

  Area

  Isabelle Low

  Senior Civil Service

  Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Land Use Division

  Alan Fraser

  Senior Civil Service

  Education and Industry Department

  Enterprise and Tourism Division

  John Randall

  Senior Civil Service

  Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Rural Affairs and Natural Heritage Unit

  Douglas Greig

  Senior Civil Service/Chief Economist

  Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Economics and Statistics Division

  Hugh MacDiarmid

  Senior Civil Service

  Home Department

  Solicitor's Office

  147

  Grade

  Department

  Area

  Joyce Lugton

  Grade 7

  Home Department

  Civil Law and Legal Aid Division

  David Henderson-Howat

  Chief Conservator

  Forestry Commission

  Angela Saunders (Secretariat)

  Senior Executive Office

  Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Land Use Division

  Professor John Bryden of Aberdeen University, who has long experience of land tenure issues, acts as external assessor. The group also draws upon the relevant expertise of other officials as required, and upon the useful body of knowledge and literature produced by organisations that have devoted considerable time and effort to these issues.

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what submission he has received from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for the 1998–99 Public Expenditure Survey; [16096]

  (2) what level of grant-in-aid the Scottish Environment Protection Agency sought for 1998–99; what the grant-in-aid provision was for 1998–99 in the previous Public Expenditure Survey; and what assessment he has made of the level of grant-in-aid requested by the agency to fulfil its responsibilities. [16097]

  Mr. Chisholm
  My officials have met SEPA on several recent occasions, and funding for 1998–99 has been among the subjects discussed. My right hon. Friend will announce his detailed spending plans for 1998–99 in due course. SEPA's baseline for 1998–99 from last year's survey is £18.3 million.

DEFENCE

  Defence Conversion
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on progress made on Defence Conversion; [14477]

  (2) when the Green Paper on the proposed Defence Diversification Agency will be published. [14478]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has no plans to promote defence conversion. However, we will shortly be bringing forward proposals on defence diversification. We said in our election manifesto that"we support a strong UK defence industry which is a strategic part of our industrial base as well as our defence effort. We believe that part of its expertise can be extended to civilian use through a defence diversification agency".

  We will publish a Green Paper on Defence Diversification before Christmas.

  Mustard Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation the Chemical Defence 148
  Establishment has made of whether short-term exposure to mustard gas causes (a) skin cancer, (b) leukaemia and (c) recurrent corneal ulcerative disease. [15554]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 November 1997:

  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the evaluation of the effects of mustard gas as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down has not conducted any practical evaluation into the long term effects of short term exposure to mustard gas. However, DERA is aware of some reports that suggest a casual relationship between mustard gas exposure and respiratory and skin cancer, and possibly leukaemia. In particular, I refer you to the "Veterans at Risk" reports, details of which are given below.

  You will recall from my reply to your earlier question about the ocular effects of mustard gas that case reports from the United States suggest that doses of between 400 and 800 milligrams per cubic metre per minute of mustard vapour result in corneal damage with ulceration and scarring of the conjunctiva. As far as recurrent corneal ulcerative disease is concerned, it has been reported that some individuals who experience acute eye injuries following exposure to high doses of mustard gas, particularly with liquid contamination of the eye, may exhibit clinical eye problems after their initial injuries have subsided. Sometimes recurrent and persistent corneal ulceration may occur after latent periods.

  I hope this is helpful.

  References:

  1. C. M. Pechura and D. P. Rall (Editors). Veterans at Risk. The Health Effects of Mustard Gas and Lewisite. National Academy Press, Washington. 1993. ISBN 0–309–04832–X.

  2. W. F. Hughes. Mustard gas injuries to the eyes. Archives of Ophthalmology. 27: 582–601, 1942.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what purpose special nuclear materials are being carried by air between RAF Brize Norton and the USA; and if he will make a statement; [16130]

  (2) what steps he has taken to assure himself that flights carrying special nuclear materials between RAF Brize Norton and the USAF base at Dover in Delaware are in keeping with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and if he will make a statement. [16131]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are committed to all their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I can confirm that the transportation of special nuclear material by aircraft between the United Kingdom and the United States does not contravene the obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is conducted under the provisions of the 1958 UK/US Agreement for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of the faxing of press releases on the day of release to Opposition party spokesmen; what changes have been introduced since 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [16313]
  149
  Dr. Reid
  My Department does not have a policy on the faxing of press releases to Opposition spokesmen. It has not been our practice routinely to fax such releases; this practice has not changed since 1 May. All Ministry of Defence Press Releases are distributed via the Central Office of Information News Distribution Service and are available in the House on POLIS.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many successful appeals there have been as a percentage of the total number of cases of courts martial in the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Royal Air Force. [16086]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]: Across the three Services, there were 31 applications to the Court-Martial Appeal Court in 1995 and 36 in 1996. The numbers of these which were successful, as a percentage of court-martial cases, are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Army

  Royal Navy

  Royal Air Force

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  1996

  1

  0

  1

  Changes were made to the court-martial system by the Armed Forces Act 1996 and the new system came into force on 1 April 1997. Before that date, however, where a court-martial had found an accused guilty, he was able to submit a petition to the Defence Council asking for a review of finding and/or sentence. If an applicant was granted the relief he sought at this stage there was no case to go forward to the CMAC. However, Service personnel were able to appeal to the CMAC against finding and sentence but not against sentence only. Since 1 April this year, the Reviewing Authority now automatically reviews all cases, whether a petition is submitted or not. Additionally, Service personnel can now appeal to the CMAC against finding and/or sentence.

  The figures provided above do not reflect appeals against finding and/or sentence which were successful at the internal stage. The number of successful internal petitions as a percentage of the total number of courts-martial were:

  Per cent.

  Army

  Royal Navy

  Royal Air Force

  1995

  2

  11

  17

  1996

  1

  14

  9

  All figures have been rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  Boarding School Allowance
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what arrangements will be made for service personnel to receive professional help in the presentation of their case to their commanding officer for a special exception to be granted for boarding school allowance for under eight-year-old children; [16423]

  (2) what will be the impact on public funds of the removal of the boarding school allowance for under eight-year-olds for service personnel; what estimate he has made of the number of personnel who will (a) leave the armed forces and (b) not volunteer for foreign postings as a result of this change; [16434]
  150
  (3) what consultation has taken place and on what occasions with (a) groups representing service personnel and (b) organisations representing independent schools in respect of the removal of boarding school allowance for under eight-year-olds; [16424]

  (4) what research his Department has conducted into the educational impact of those children moved from school to school because of their parents' different service postings; [16433]

  (5) if he will postpone his decision on the removal of the boarding school allowance for children aged under eight years for service personnel to allow more time for consultation; [16428]

  (6) how many children will be affected in a full academic year by the removal of the boarding school allowance for under eight-year-olds; [16426]

  (7) what arrangements are being made to notify (a) service personnel affected and (b) schools that will be affected by the removal of boarding school allowance for under eights for service personnel; [16427]

  (8) when the boarding school allowance will be removed for under eight-year-olds. [16425]

  Dr. Reid
  The decision to increase the minimum age for eligibility for Boarding School Allowance was made by the previous Administration in response to the recommendations made in Sir Michael Bett's review of Armed Forces pay and allowances. These recommendations were made in light of the recognition that, whilst excessive turbulence can damage a child's educational progress, it was also recognised that some degree of mobility need not be harmful. A list of the organisations and agencies consulted during the review are listed in Sir Michael's report to the then Secretary of State for Defence, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Service personnel and other interested parties were informed of the changes in the regulations through the publication of the Information Document issued in February of this year. This publication was accompanied by an announcement by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, and the changes were also given wide publicity through the normal Service channels. It is the responsibility of individual parents to inform schools if the change in regulations is likely to affect the attendance of their children at school.

  The amended regulations will come into force on 1 December 1997. There are no plans to postpone the implementation date.

  Parents who are currently in receipt of BSA in respect of children under the age of eight will retain reserved rights to the allowance and will not, therefore, be directly affected by the change in the regulations. There are currently 80 children between the age of five and seven whose parents are claiming BSA, and the majority of these are either welfare cases or cases involving children with special educational needs. It is our policy that cases in these categories will continue to be viewed sympathetically. In view of the small number of children in the affected age group, and as many of these are receiving BSA for welfare reasons, the withdrawal of entitlement to BSA for children aged less than eight will have a marginal impact on public spending, and it is not

  151
  anticipated that the changes will have any significant effect on recruitment and retention levels in the Armed Forces.

  Service parents who believe that they fall into a category that warrants special consideration may seek advice in preparing their application from their unit administrative staff, who will have experience of preparing such cases; from the Service Childrens' Education agency—an organisation tasked specifically with the educational needs of Service children; and from the personnel and welfare staffs of the three Services.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total cost to his Department of boarding school allowance for the academic year 1996–97 together with the total average number of children for whom boarding school allowance was claimed in that year and the average number of children whose parent is of(a) officer and (b) other rank; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the current admissible schools list. [16365]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]: Costs for Boarding School Allowance are not held centrally for academic years. However the total cost to my Department of Boarding School Allowance in financial year 1996–97 was £87.5 million. The total average number of children for whom the allowance was claimed in the same year was 9,833, of whom 6,538 were the children of officers and 3,295 were the children of other ranks.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the boarding school allowance. [16361]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer Monday 17 November 1997]: My Department remains committed to the principle of providing a stable educational environment for the children of Armed Forces personnel. Boarding School Allowance is a central part of this provision and we remain confident that payment of this allowance is an effective way of ensuring continuity of education for the children of personnel who are subject to frequent postings throughout their Service careers.

  With effect from 1 December 1997 certain changes will be introduced to the way in which BSA is regulated. These will help to target the allowance more accurately at those members of the Armed Forces who most need support in providing a stable education for their children. These changes were introduced in response to the recommendations made in Sir Michael Bett's report on pay and allowances in the Armed Forces, and were originally announced in the Information Document published by the previous administration in February of this year.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid in compensation to the Ministry of Defence in 1995 by Textron Lycoming in connection with the manufacture and supply of fully automated digital engine control systems for RAF Chinook helicopters. [14782]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence had no claim against, and therefore in 1995 received no money in compensation from, Textron Lycoming for the manufacture and supply of fully automated digital engine control systems for RAF Chinook Helicopters.
  152
  However, compensation totalling just over $3 million was received from Textron Lycoming in November 1995 in respect of damage caused to an RAF Chinook HC Mk1 aircraft during development testing of a pre-production Full Authority Digital Electronic Control system.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the case against Boeing brought by the Ministry of Defence in United States courts in connection with the manufacture and supply of fully automated digital engine control systems for RAF Chinook helicopters; and when the case was(a) commenced and (b) concluded. [14783]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence brought no case against Boeing in United States courts in connection with the manufacture and supply of fully automated digital engine control systems for RAF Chinook Helicopters.

  However, an RAF Chinook HC Mk1 aircraft was damaged in January 1989 during development testing of a pre-production Full Authority Digital Electronic Control system. The Ministry of Defence held that both Boeing and Textron Lycoming were responsible. A settlement was made by Being as a discount on a separate contract placed in September 1993.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what independent assessment was made, and by whom, of the performance and reliability of the software used in 1994 on RAF Chinook helicopters including aircraft ZD 576; and what were the conclusions and recommendations. [14779]

  Mr. Spellar
  FADEC software was subjected to an independent review by EDS Scicon Ltd. in July 1993. This review was commissioned because A&AEE, Boscombe Down (now part of DERA) was concerned with the method of software qualification used by the FADEC Design Authority, Textron Lycoming.

  EDS Scicon were contracted to verify the software using a State Code Analysis (SCA) technique recommended by Boscombe Down. However, the contracted software documentation was not amenable to such analysis, so the work stopped after only 17 per cent. of the code had been reviewed; 485 observations were made, but none was considered safety critical and most related to errors in the documentation. The EDS final report did not make recommendations.

  In October 1993, EDS Scicon made preliminary proposals to carry out a limited rewrite of the software to make it more compatible with SCA verification. This proposal was not accepted, but to satisfy Boscombe Down's concerns and provide improved maintainability for any future update of the software code, the Ministry of Defence decided to re-document the software to make it suitable for SCA. Textron Lycoming were contracted on a shared cost basis and the software re-documentation work was eventually completed in 1996.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the planned introduction of cockpit voice recorders and accident data recorders into all Chinook helicopters commenced; and when it will be completed. [14781]

  Mr. Spellar
  Cockpit Voice Recorders and Flight Data Recorders will be fitted to all Chinook helicopters as part of the Chinook Health and Usage Monitoring (HUMs) programme. A contract was signed with Smith
  153
  Industries (UK) Ltd., on 25 October 1996. The equipment will be fitted to the first 6 aircraft by December 1998, and embodied on the rest of the fleet by late Spring 2000.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incident signals have been issued relating to the fully automated digital engine control system on Chinook Mark II aircraft since they were introduced into squadron service with the RAF. [14780]

  Mr. Spellar
  Incident Signals are raised for both ground and air incidents. Some incidents may be spurious; that is to say a fault is indicated in some way which has not actually occurred; some may occur through use other than as recommended by the Aircraft Design Authority; some will be unconfirmed, which is to say no faults found on a subsequent examination; and some will be due to system faults.

  With regard to the Chinook HC Mk2; there have been a total of 519 Incident Signals, of which 70 have been FADEC related. Of those FADEC related signals, seven were spurious, 24 arose through carrying out engine overspeed tests other than as designed, three were unconfirmed, and 36 were attributed to system faults. Of the 36 attributed faults, 14 were due to mechanical failure, five were due to electrical failure and 17 were software faults.

  Strategic Review
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what deadline he has given for receiving the report of the part of the Strategic Review relating to DERA. [16694]

  Dr. Reid
  As part of the Strategic Defence Review, we are examining options for the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. No precise deadline has been set for a report to Ministers on this work, which will be conducted in accordance with the overall timetable for the Strategic Defence Review.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Grey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much private land which the military have previously 154
  used for training purposes is no longer available as a result of the change of policy with regard to fox hunting over his Department's land. [16518]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have renewed licences for fox hunting on the Defence Estate and therefore there should be no question of training use of private land being withheld on this account.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on fox hunting as a means of fox control on his Department's estate. [16548]

  Mr. Spellar
  Hunting with hounds is one of the means by which fox numbers on the Defence Estate are reduced.

  HMY Britannia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, column 361, if he will provide a breakdown of the estimated additional cost of the farewell voyage of HMY Britannia; and what estimate he has made of the level of costs incurred by the voyage to which they are additional. [16160]

  Dr. Reid
  The additional costs associated with the farewell voyage of HMY Britannia and its escort vessel can be broken down as follows:

  £

  HMY Britannia

  Port and harbour dues

  51,000

  Fuel

  71,000

  Travel and subsistence

  2,000

  Telecommunications

  3,000

  Entertainment

  5,000

  Escort vessel

  Port and harbour dues

  20,000

  Fuel

  5,000

  The only other identified costs specifically associated with the voyage are those of the support tanker RAF Brambleleaf. These amounted to £81,000 for Port and Harbour dues and £19,000 for fuel.

  These costs are in each case additional to the underlying cost of running the vessels, including manpower, that would have been incurred whether or not they had undertaken the farewell voyage.
  155

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [15545]

  Dr. Howells
  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 is expected to deliver by 2000. The report projects forward what the current programme is expected to achieve to 2020.

  Primary Schools (Class Sizes)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average class size for key stage 1 classes in primary schools(a) in January and (b) in September 1997. [15552]

  Mr. Byers
  The average class size of Key stage 1 classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in England in January 1997 was 26.9.

  Information on class sizes in September is not collected centrally.

  Universities (Building, Equipment and Collaborative Projects)
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will establish the revolving loan fund for university building refurbishment, equipment and collaborative projects recommended by the Dearing report; and if he will make a statement on what measures his Department plans to take to encourage support for the scheme among public and private research sponsors. [15322]

  Dr. Howells
  It is for the Higher Education Funding Council for England to consider, in the light of other forms of finance and support schemes, whether or not to establish a revolving loan fund for university building refurbishment, equipment and collaborative projects, as recommended in the Dearing Report (recommendation 75). The Funding Council has already encouraged other research sponsors to support its joint research equipment initiative: this provides grants rather than loans.

  The Government are currently considering, in the light of responses to consultation, the separate recommendation in the Dearing Report (recommendation 34) for a
  156
  revolving loan fund to support infrastructure in a limited number of top quality research departments.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors he will take into account when deciding where to locate the HQ of the proposed University for Industry. [15515]

  Dr. Howells
  The University for Industry will not require a large physical presence as it will make full use of information and communications technologies and networks to deliver its information, brokerage and commissioning services and it will not itself deliver courses. It is too soon to determine that factors that will be taken into account in locating its administrative centre.

  Electronic Data (Access)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to maintain the free access for research purposes to academic and scientific data stored electronically recommended by the Dearing report; and if he will make a statement. [15587]

  Dr. Howells
  We are currently considering the communications and information technology recommendations of the Dearing Report in the light of consultations and wider issues of policy on copyright.

  Dance and Drama
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has held with ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the funding of students of dance and drama; and if he will make a statement. [15604]

  Dr. Howells
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment met the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 28 October 1997. The matters they discussed included the arrangements for providing financial support for dance and drama students, which are under review.

  Training (Fraud)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the level of fraud carried out by training providers who claim for work that has been undertaken. [15514]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not possible to estimate the level of fraud carried out by training providers. Currently the Department for Education and Employment's Financial Scrutiny Unit is investigating 20 cases of alleged fraud or irregularity by training providers. We believe around 5,000 providers deliver training so these cases represent a very small proportion, but one, nevertheless which we seek to eradicate.

  Training and Enterprise Councils (Internet)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those TECs which have internet sites and what percentage of the total this represents. [15516]
  157
  Dr. Howells
  I understand from the TEC National Council that, at 15 September, 40 TECs had internet sites. This represents 55 per cent. of all English TECs. A list follows:

  AZTEC

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  Birmingham TEC

  Bradford and District TEC

  CAMSTEC

  Central England TEC

  County Durham and Darlington TEC

  Cumbria TEC

  Devon and Cornwall TEC

  Focus Central London TEC

  Gloucestershire TEC

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  Hampshire TEC

  Hereford and Worcester CCTE

  Humberside TEC

  Kent TEC

  Leeds TEC

  Lincolnshire TEC

  Manchester TEC

  Merseyside TEC

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks CCTE

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  North Derbyshire TEC

  North London TEC

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  Northumberland TEC

  Rochdale TEC

  Rotherham CCTE

  Sheffield TEC

  SOLOTEC

  Ministerial Overseas Travel: 2 May–11 November

  Minister

  Date(s) of visit

  Country

  Purpose of visit

  Expenditure (£)

  From

  To

  Andrew Smith

  09/06/97

  10/06/97

  Switzerland

  ILO Conference

  2,110.28

  Baroness Blackstone

  25/06/97

  26/06/97

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  2,804.91

  Secretary of State/Andrew Smith

  26/06/97

  27/06/97

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  6,938.85

  Kim Howells

  04/07/97

  05/07/97

  Switzerland

  Attendance at Skills Olympics

  1,664.67

  Baroness Blackstone

  04/07/97

  05/07/97

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  1,736.14

  Kim Howells

  13/07/97

  14/07/97

  Germany

  UNESCO Conference

  1,907.41

  Baroness Blackstone

  25/07/97

  01/08/97

  Botswana

  Commonwealth Education Ministers' Conference

  22,602.49

  Baroness Blackstone

  26/09/97

  28/09/97

  Italy

  Conference on Education

  527.57

  Alan Howarth

  05/10/97

  09/10/97

  USA

  To examine Welfare to Work Initiative and Disability Legislation

  12,651.00

  Kim Howells

  06/10/97

  07/10/97

  Germany

  To examine German "dual" system of training

  1,190.13

  Andrew Smith

  06/10/97

  07/10/97

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  2,785.03

  Andrew Smith

  14/10/97

  15/10/97

  France

  OECD Meeting

  2,424.37

  Secretary of State

  15/10/97

  16/10/97

  France

  Bilateral Meeting

  1,084.83

  Kim Howells

  27/10/97

  28/10/97

  Luxembourg

  EC Youth Council Meeting

  2,122.46

  Baroness Blackstone

  02/11/97

  03/11/97

  Netherlands

  Bilateral Meeting

  1—

  Andrew Smith

  06/11/97

  07/11/97

  Belgium

  Employment Week and Special Social Affairs Council

  1—

  Andrew Smith

  10/11/97

  11/11/97

  Sweden

  Meeting with French Minister of Labour

  1—

  1 Costs have not yet been brought to account.

  158

  Somerset TEC

  South and East Cheshire TEC

  Southern Derbyshire CCTE

  Sunderland City TEC

  Surrey TEC

  Sussex CCTE

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  Tyneside TEC

  Wakefield TEC

  West London TEC.

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, 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. [15489]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 13 November,Official Report, column 617.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [15260]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Seventeen overseas trips have been made by the Department for Education and Employment Ministers since 2 May. A breakdown is shown in the following table:
  159

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons the Colchester area was selected, under the Welfare to Work New Deal proposals, for private sector bidding; and if he will make a statement. [15857]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have invited the private sector to lead the organisation and delivery of New Deal in a total of ten locations. The competition to identify private sector lead organisations in the two pathfinder areas of Hackney and City and South Humber is complete. The additional eight areas were selected on the basis of a judgment as to where a private sector led partnership would have most to contribute.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many hon. Members responded to his consultation letter on the Government's Welfare to Work proposals; and if he will list those responded. [15856]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The response to our Welfare to Work proposals has been very encouraging, from hon. Members as well as from employers, voluntary sector organisations and other interested partners. Consultation on the New Deal and other Welfare to Work proposals has been wide ranging and it is not possible to identify from our records which of many representations we have received have been as a direct response to my right hon. Friend's letter.

  Montserrat Evacuees
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance his Department is giving to evacuees from Montserrat who wish to(a) study and (b) work in the United Kingdom. [15850]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Montserrat evacuees have full access to the education system. The Montserrat Emergency Awards Scheme has been set up to help with the fees and living expenses of higher education students. The evacuees are being helped by the Employment Service to find work and they may enter the Government's employment and training programmes, providing they meet the eligibility criteria.

  Student Support Agency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment pursuant to paragraph 21.56 of the main report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, when he expects to establish a student support agency; if he will make a statement about(a) the likely responsibilities of the agency and (b) the likely number of its employees; and if he will assess the advantages of housing the agency at his Department's Albion Wharf offices, York. [15763]
  160
  Dr. Howells
  The Government are currently considering the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education's recommendation for a student support agency and expects to make an announcement shortly.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if students who currently claim supplementary allowance will continue to receive this as grants under the Government's student finance reforms. [15523]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]: Subject to means-testing, higher education students currently eligible for supplementary allowances as part of their mandatory award will continue to be eligible for them until the end of their course. Students who enter full-time higher education in 1998–99 will be eligible for these allowances as part of their mandatory award on the same basis as now for 1998–99 only. The Disabled Students Allowances will no longer be subject to a means-test from 1998–99. The Government will review the position for 1999–2000 and beyond.

  Student Loan Book
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Government will use the money raised from the sale of the student loan book for re-investment in higher education. [15524]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]: The sale proceeds will be available to the Government to meet their expenditure commitments including those in higher education, and have already been taken into account within the Department's spending plans.

  Americans with Disabilities Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and if officials from his Department visited the United States of America to study the impact of this legislation. [16033]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has not made a comprehensive assessment of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

  I recently visited the USA and discussed the effectiveness of the Act with, amongst others: Ronald Drach, Vice Chairman of the President's Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities and Paul Inasaki, Vice Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.

  My senior official dealing directly with policy on civil rights for disabled people has also visited for more extensive discussions. Both I and my officials met Paul Miller, a Commissioner from the American Employment Equal Opportunities Commission when he visited London recently. We also receive a range of journals and other publications on the Act.
  161
  We are aware of evidence that there have been very significant benefits not just for disabled people but for business from this legislation, particularly in relation to retention of employees who become disabled and to improving access to customers. Research has shown a general acceptance of the principles of the legislation among American employers and it has been found that costs associated with making adjustments were often lower than many employers anticipated. This is in line with experience here.

  However, the Act has not yet ended discrimination against disabled people.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria his Department will use to determine the distribution of the 500,000 additional places in higher and further education throughout the United Kingdom announced by the Prime Minister. [16133]

  Dr. Howells
  We are currently drawing up proposals for taking forward the Prime Minister's pledge. The distribution of the 500,000 will reflect our policies on lifelong learning, in particular widening participation and increasing attainment. We intend to concentrate especially on those who have not benefited from learning previously and young people at risk of dropping out, and will provide more details of our proposals in the forthcoming Lifelong Learning White Paper.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's policy on the sale of school playing fields required for educational or community purposes; and if he will estimate the number of such fields(a) currently declared surplus to educational requirements and (b) where planning consent has been given for change of use. [15946]

  Mr. Byers
  We intend to make sure that those playing fields which schools and their local communities need are not sold in future. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is discussing a wide range of options with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  The current legal framework allows local authorities to dispose of the assets they own without reference to the Secretary of State. The governors of grant-maintained schools, however, do need prior approval. But we expect local authorities to consider carefully projected pupil numbers for the foreseeable future and the needs of the wider communities that their schools serve, before they decide that any land is surplus to requirements.

  Decisions on the sale of LEA-maintained playing fields are for local determination. The Department does not collate this information centrally.
  162
  Planning consent is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  GCSE Results
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he plans to publish the average point score for each school's GCSE results; and if he will make a statement. [16054]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answers 14 November 1997]: The secondary school performance tables to be published shortly will continue to show the percentage of 15 year old pupils in each school who achieved five or more GCSE grades A*—C,5 or more grades A*—G, and 1 or more grades A*—G. Presentation of GCSE achievements in this way have received broad support in the past. We shall consult fully early next year onthe 1998 performance tables.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authority has achieved the greatest improvement in performance at GCSE level and equivalent since 1994. [16649]

  Dr. Howells
  Newham local education authority has achieved the greatest improvement in performance at GCSE and equivalent since 1994 with an increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving five or more grades A*—C at GCSE or equivalent. This has increased from 23 per cent. in 1994 to 33.4 per cent. in 1997.

  Smoking
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will introduce measures to ban smoking by pupils in all schools and educational establishments. [16448]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have no plans to do so. We encourage schools and other educational establishments to decide their won policies, bearing in mind the needs of both the students and staff. An increasing number of schools already prohibit smoking entirely on their premises, or limit it to a designated area for all teachers, non-teaching staff and visitors. Research conducted this year by Ofsted, via a questionnaire sent to 1,500 schools, found that 88 per cent. of primary schools and 79 per cent. of secondary schools already have no-smoking policies in place.

  University Funding
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department plans to fund all four years of study by students from England at Scottish Universities; how many students from England are currently in the fourth year of a degree course at a Scottish University; and what assessment he has made of the cost of funding this fourth year. [16091]
  163
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]: There were some 3,400 students from England in the fourth year of first degree courses at Scottish institutions in 1996–97 (the latest year for which figures are available). Under our plans, students from lower-income families will have the whole of their tuition fees paid for them in the fourth as in the previous three years, whilst others may have part of their fees paid, depending on an assessment of their parents', spouses' or own income.

  We estimate that the extra cost of meeting the contributions payable by students from England towards fees in the fourth year of first degree courses at Scottish institutions would be some £1.5 million.

  Child Care
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the role of child care information in the new child care strategy in relation to the Welfare to Work and Lifelong Learning Initiatives; [16439]

  (2) if he will make a statement on co-ordination between the bodies involved in the New Deal in relation to child care information; [16440]

  (3) what role the national child care organisations will play in the development of child care information services for the New Deal and Lifelong Learning Initiatives. [16441]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Child care is important to our Welfare to Work and Lifelong Learning strategies, particularly the New Deal for Lone Parents, which is why we have been consulting with national child care organisations to look at new and innovative ways of ensuring that information about child care opportunities will be readily available. This will feed into the National Childcare Strategy, which we are currently developing.

  Social Fund Training Courses
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the termination of training courses previously run with the support of the European Social Fund. [16405]

  Performance figures relate to the period April to September 1997

  Operation year: 1997–98

  APA indicators

  Northern

  Yorks and the Humber

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Unemployed placings

  End year target

  76,475

  147,000

  140,700

  415,800

  138,775

  Performance to September

  33,459

  65,835

  67,488

  182,289

  69,431

  JSA claimant placings

  End year target

  52,000

  95,865

  88,700

  261,000

  86,100

  Performance to September

  23,085

  42,875

  43,071

  111,203

  42,273

  Long term claimant placings (as percentage of JSA claimant placings)

  End year target (per cent.)

  45.4

  43.4

  44.0

  57.1

  42.4

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  38.4

  39.3

  35.4

  46.7

  37.7

  2 year plus claimant placings

  End year target

  4,800

  6,750

  6,450

  27,300

  4,500

  Performance to September

  1,911

  4,437

  3,527

  16,110

  4,399

  Placings of people with disabilities (as percentage of unemployed placings)

  End year target (per cent.)

  4.6

  5.0

  5.2

  4.9

  5.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  5.6

  6.2

  6.0

  6.3

  7.5

  164
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The annual competition for funding through the European Social Fund (ESF) is intense and inevitably some projects are unsuccessful. In the competition for 1998 a proportion of successful applicants will be given approval for two years, subject to satisfactory performance. This will reduce for some projects the difficulties caused by the annual nature of the ESF.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to promote the principles of the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 among small employers exempted from the employment duties set out in the Act. [16422]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has been considering how to proceed with the small employer exclusion threshold and has held initial discussions with representatives of employer and disability organisations on the matter. We will announce plans shortly.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Student Loans Company's 1997 annual report and accounts will be available. [168741

  Dr. Howells
  Copies of the report and accounts have today been placed in the Library.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets were set for the Employment Service for 1997–98; and to what extent these have been achieved, broken down into standard regions to the latest date for which information is available. [16485]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Figures are available for the first six months of the 1997–98 Operational Year (1 April to 30 September 1997). The following summary tables give a breakdown of cumulative performance against the Annual Performance Agreement targets by the standard Employment Service Regions. The overall performance figure is shown in the final column. This column also shows variance against profiled targets.
  165

  Performance figures relate to the period April to September 1997

  Operation year: 1997–98

  APA indicators

  Northern

  Yorks and The Humber

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Training for Work starts

  End year target

  11,146

  14,771

  14,342

  36,835

  12,335

  Performance to September

  5,062

  6,744

  6,037

  16,462

  5,744

  Positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 12 month advisory interview

  End year target (per cent.)

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  48.3

  48.3

  53.1

  44.8

  56.2

  Claims not pursued

  End year target (per cent.)

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  12.9

  11.5

  13.4

  11.8

  12.8

  Adjudication decisions made within 14 working days

  End year target (per cent.)

  70.0

  70.0

  70.0

  70.0

  70.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  This is information is not yet available. System changes have been commissioned.

  Accuracy of Training for Work payments

  End year target (per cent.)

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  Performance to September (per cent.

  99.0

  98.7

  98.3

  97.8

  97.3

  JSA claims passed to the Benefits Agency within 7 days1

  End year target (per cent.)

  90.0

  90.0

  90.0

  90.0

  90.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  88.0

  85.9

  86.6

  84.0

  86.2

  Accuracy of JSA payments2

  End year target (per cent).

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  95.4

  95.0

  96.5

  95.8

  95.9

  Efficiency savings

  The efficiency savings target is not profiled or allocated to Regions.

  The national target is £43 million. By September the ES had achieved £19.3 million.

  1 These figures should be treated with caution. The data are currently being investigated.

  2 Correct as at 10 October 1997.

  Office for Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Office for Scotland

  National

  Unemployed placings

  End year target

  121,800

  175,200

  292,250

  242,000

  1,750,000

  Performance to September

  55,973

  79,316

  108,827

  105,309

  767,927

  JSA claimant placings

  End year target

  65,100

  108,435

  161,300

  131,500

  1,050,000

  Performance to September

  28,912

  47,522

  61,064

  60,784

  460,789

  Long term claimant placings (as percentage of JSA claimant placings)

  End year target (per cent.)

  39.0

  48.8

  43.7

  46.8

  47.5

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  35.4

  39.5

  34.9

  36.2

  39.3

  2 year plus claimant placings

  End year target

  3,450

  6,750

  8,175

  6,825

  75,000

  Performance to September

  2,231

  4,881

  4,505

  3,747

  45,748

  Placings of people with disabilities (as percentage of unemployed placings)

  End year target (per cent.)

  5.2

  4.9

  4.5

  4.4

  4.8

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  6.7

  6.8

  5.3

  5.4

  6.1

  Training for Work starts

  End year target

  7,199

  15,520

  21,848

  15,999

  14,995

  Performance to September

  3,003

  6,968

  10,632

  8,863

  69,515

  Positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 12 month advisory interview

  End year target (per cent.)

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  53.0

  50.4

  52.7

  49.4

  49.3

  Claims not pursued

  End year target (per cent.)

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  12.9

  12.3

  11.3

  12.0

  12.1

  Adjudication decisions made within 14 working days

  End year target (per cent.)

  70.0

  70.0

  70.0

  70.0

  70.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  This information is not yet available. System changes have been commissioned.

  Accuracy of Training for Work payments

  End year target (per cent.)

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  98.8

  98.2

  99.0

  99.0

  98.4

  JSA claims passed to the benefits agency within 7 days1

  End year target (per cent.)

  90.0

  90.0

  90.0

  90.0

  90.0

  Performance to September (per cent.)

  87.8

  85.5

  88.0

  87.4

  86.1

  Accuracy of JSA payments2

  End year target (per cent.)

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  Performance to September

  98.2

  95.4

  92.9

  93.5

  95.0

  Efficiency savings

  The efficiency savings target is not profiled or allocated to Regions.

  The national target is £43 million. By September the ES had achieved £19.3 million.

  1These figures should be treated with caution. The data are currently being investigated.

  2Correct as at 10 October 1997.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets were set for the Employment Service in 1996–97; and to what extent these were achieved, broken down into standard regions. [16484]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The following summary tables give a breakdown of cumulative performance in 1996–97 against the Annual Performance Agreement 166
  targets by the standard Employment Service Regions. The overall National performance figure is shown in the final column. This column also shows variance against profiled targets.

  More detailed information is available in the Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts laid before the House on 7 November 1997.
  167

  Operational year: 1996–97

  APA indicators

  Northern

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Unemployed placings

  Target

  93,900

  145,600

  160,450

  500,900

  157,200

  Actual

  77,988

  140,904

  137,503

  402,973

  143,647

  Variance (per cent.)

  -17

  -3

  -14

  -20

  -9

  JSA claimant

  Target

  27,960

  41,780

  47,690

  154,130

  43,400

  Placings (from October 1996)

  Actual

  25,215

  44,979

  47,314

  127,747

  46,731

  Variance (per cent.)

  -10

  8

  -1

  -17

  8

  Long term claimant placings (as percentage of unemployed placings)

  Actual (per cent.)

  25.8

  26.6

  24.1

  28.7

  23.8

  Target (per cent.)

  28.7

  28.9

  29.5

  37.1

  27.0

  Variance

  -2.9

  -2.3

  -5.4

  -8.4

  -3.2

  Placings of people with disabilities (as percentage of unemployed placings)

  Target (per cent.)

  4.0

  4.4

  4.6

  4.8

  4.2

  Actual (per cent.)

  4.7

  5.4

  5.4

  5.2

  5.8

  Variance

  +0.7

  +1.0

  +0.8

  +0.4

  +1.6

  Training for Work referrals

  Target

  36,000

  48,000

  50,880

  125,745

  39,000

  Actual

  28,632

  36,905

  39,010

  100,229

  31,598

  Variance (per cent.)

  -20

  -23

  -23

  -20

  -19

  Training for Work starts

  Target

  12,000

  16,000

  16,960

  41,915

  13,000

  Actual

  10,846

  14,366

  13,950

  35,830

  11,999

  Variance (per cent.)

  -10

  -10

  -18

  -15

  -8

  Positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 12 month advisory interview

  Target (per cent.)

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  36.6

  36.7

  38.5

  35.3

  45.7

  Variance

  -6.4

  -6.3

  -4.5

  -7.7

  +2.7

  Positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 24 month advisory interview

  Target (per cent.)

  35.0

  35.0

  35.0

  35.0

  35.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  28.8

  28.5

  29.7

  29.3

  37.5

  Variance

  -6.2

  -6.5

  -5.3

  -5.7

  +2.5

  Claims not pursued

  Target (per cent.)

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  11.6

  10.7

  11.3

  12.3

  11.6

  Variance

  +1.6

  +0.7

  +1.3

  +2.3

  +1.6

  Submissions to adjudication1

  Target

  8,226

  17,980

  19,748

  79,045

  15,335

  Actual

  8,742

  17,910

  17,680

  78,485

  13,276

  Variance (per cent.)

  6

  -0

  -10

  -1

  -13

  Accuracy of Training for Work payments

  Target (per cent.)

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  99.3

  98.3

  97.9

  95.7

  97.5

  Variance

  +2.3

  +1.3

  +0.9

  -1.3

  +0.5

  JSA claimants offered a jobseekers agreement

  Target (per cent.)

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  99.7

  98.2

  96.7

  99.2

  100.0

  Variance

  -0.3

  -1.8

  -3.3

  -0.8

  -

  Efficiency savings

  The efficiency savings target is not profiled or allocated to Regions.

  In 1996–97 the national target was £43 million.

  The year end achievement was £44.34 million.

  1 Sum of individual regional targets greater than national target of 215,000 submissions.

  APA Indicators

  Office for Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Office for Scotland

  National

  Unemployed placings

  Target

  130,750

  191,350

  333,850

  256,000

  1,970,000

  Actual

  115,994

  161,675

  270,021

  234,607

  1,685,312

  Variance (per cent.)

  -11

  -16

  -19

  -8

  -14

  JSA claimant placings (from October 1996)

  Target

  29,970

  59,360

  82,080

  75,040

  561,450

  Actual

  29,644

  51,990

  68,239

  66,557

  508,416

  Variance (per cent.)

  -1

  -12

  -17

  -11

  -9

  Long term claimant placings (as percentage of unemployed placings)

  Target (per cent.)

  18.9

  31.6

  23.9

  27.5

  29.5

  Actual (per cent.)

  18.7

  26.0

  19.7

  22.5

  24.3

  Variance (per cent.)

  -0.2

  -5.6

  -4.2

  -5

  -5.2

  Placing of people with disabilities (as percentage of unemployed placings)

  Target (per cent.)

  4.4

  4.5

  4.0

  4.1

  4.4

  Actual (per cent.)

  5.5

  5.5

  4.4

  4.6

  5.1

  Variance

  +1.1

  +1.0

  +0.4

  +0.5

  +0.7

  168 169

  APA Indicators

  Office for Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Office for Scotland

  National

  Training for Work referrals

  Target

  29,790

  45,000

  69,825

  44,760

  489,000

  Actual

  21,561

  38,551

  55,040

  42,477

  394,003

  Variance (per cent.)

  -28

  -14

  -21

  -5

  -19

  Training for Work starts

  Target

  9,930

  15,000

  23,275

  14,920

  163,000

  Actual

  7,693

  15,098

  21,258

  19,308

  150,348

  Variance (per cent.)

  -23

  1

  -9

  29

  -8

  Positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 12 month advisory interview

  Target (per cent.)

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  43.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  36.2

  41.5

  37.6

  39.0

  37.8

  Variance

  -6.8

  -1.5

  -5.4

  -4

  -5.2

  Positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 24 month advisory interview

  Target (per cent.)

  35.0

  35.0

  35.0

  35.0

  35.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  29.5

  33.4

  29.9

  30.7

  30.3

  Variance

  -5.5

  -1.6

  -5.1

  -4.3

  -4.7

  Claims not pursued

  Target (per cent.)

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  11.4

  11.6

  9.6

  10.8

  11.3

  Variance

  +1.4

  +1.6

  +0.4

  +0.8

  +1.3

  Submissions to adjudication1

  Target

  9,513

  13,500

  36,223

  16,942

  216,512

  Actual

  9,714

  10,245

  32,498

  14,141

  202,691

  Variance (per cent.)

  2

  -24

  -10

  -17

  -6

  Accuracy of Training for Work payments

  Target (per cent.)

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  97.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  98.4

  98.6

  98.6

  98.8

  98.1

  Variance (per cent.)

  +1.4

  +1.6

  +1.6

  +1.8

  +1.1

  JSA claimants offered a jobseekers agreement

  Target (per cent.)

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Actual (per cent.)

  97.8

  99.7

  98.6

  100.0

  98.9

  Variance

  -2.2

  —0.3

  —0.4

  –

  -1.1

  Efficiency savings

  The efficiency savings target is not profiled or allocated to Regions.

  In 1996–97 the national target was £43 million.

  The year end achievement was £44.34 million.

  1 Sum of individual regional targets greater than national target of 215,000 submissions.

HEALTH

  Blood
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if increased cost recovery charges for donated blood products will be levied to national health service hospitals and national health service trusts during the financial year 1998–99. [15560]

  Mr. Boateng
  Blood handling costs for 1998–99 are currently under review.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the National Blood Authority has to introduce tests for anti-malaria antibodies. [15564]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Blood Authority is currently piloting malarial antibody screening tests in two centres.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed at the National Blood Authority's headquarters at Watford, and what were the centre's operating costs in the last year for which figures are available. [155631

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1996–97 there were 25 staff at the Watford headquarters. The operating costs were £1.7 million for that year.
  170
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the surveys of blood donors on the sale or disposal of surplus blood products, quoted by the National Blood Authority in their communications. [15585]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The latest survey was carried out in 1996, and copies of the report "Blood Donors and Exports" have been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of transitional funding provided to the three zones of the National Blood Service in order to facilitate the reorganisation of the English blood services. [15576]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The transitional funding to the zones was £3.3 million, £1.1 million per zone.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working days during 1996–97 and during the first half-year of 1997–98,(a) total blood stocks in England were less than 15,000 units, (b) stocks of group O positive were less than 3,200 units, (c) stocks of group O negative were less than 1,100 units and (d) stocks of group AB positive exceeded 1,200 units. [15581]
  171
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information requested is in the table.

  1996–97 Number of working days (251)

  1997–98 (April—end September) Number of working days (126)

  Total stock less than 15,000

  49

  0

  O positive stock less than 3,200

  43

  1

  O negative stock less than 1,100

  14

  0

  AB positive stock more than 1,200

  247

  125

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many red cell units were issued by zone and by year, by the National Blood Service during (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97 and (iv) the first half-year of 1997–98. [15580]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information requested is in the table:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 (6 months)

  Midlands and South West

  577,803

  586,425

  586,113

  303,861

  London and South East

  782,457

  803,411

  814,619

  422,271

  North

  756,277

  763,656

  782,706

  403,832

  NBS

  2,116,537

  2,153,492

  2,183,438

  1,129,964

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the National Blood Service performance indicators for each zone for the financial year 1996–97 and for the first half-year of 1997–98. [15579]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health gave him on 11 November 1997, Official Report, columns 705–06.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the costs of redundancy payments made to National Blood Service personnel since 1 April 1995, in each National Blood Service zone and in each financial year. [15577]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information requested is given in the table.

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 (April—end September)

  London and South East

  Nil

  328

  131

  Midlands and South West

  26

  281

  152

  North

  133

  505

  146

  Total

  159

  1,114

  429

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure by the National Blood Authority in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97 and what is the forecast expenditure for 1997–98. [15583]
  172
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  173

  1995–96

  188

  1996–97

  202

  1997–98

  1207

  1Forecast.

  The figures given are for the authority as a whole, and are rounded to the nearest million.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the operating surplus or deficit for each zone of the National Blood Service for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) the first six months of 1997–98. [15584]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information requested is in the table.

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  April to end September 1997 £

  London and South East

  (301,000)

  18,000

  88,000

  Midlands and South West

  (730,000)

  (1,119,000)

  (766,000)

  North

  (735,000)

  (301,000)

  (620,000)

  Source:

  National Blood Authority.

  Hearing
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the National Health Service in the last year for which figures are available of providing health care for people suffering from hearing difficulties, separately identifying the cost of providing hearing aids. [15677]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Health Service does not collect figures for the health care costs of people with hearing loss or for the cost of providing hearing aids. However, we know that more than half a million hearing aids per year are purchased from the NHS Supplies Authority. Audiology departments also purchase some hearing aids from commercial suppliers.

  Waiting Lists (Sportspeople)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issues in respect of the priority to be afforded to professional sportspeople on waiting lists for NHS treatment for injuries incurred during competition. [15949]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have not issued any guidance on this subject. We would expect that where professional sportspeople turn to the National Health Service for treatment the priority they are given will depend on their clinical and other needs compared with those of other patients waiting for treatment.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the Royal College of Nursing briefing paper on "The Cost of
  173
  Continence"; and if a representative of his Department will meet representatives of the Royal College of Nursing to discuss the report; [15927]

  (2) what plans his Department has to improve the care for people with incontinence who are still living in their own homes. [15928]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Royal College of Nursing briefing paper "The Cost of Continence" provides a useful summary of the problems experienced by people who are incontinent and the social, psychological and financial costs of this distressing condition. I have already had a brief discussion about the report with Christine Hancock, the General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, and officials of the Department of Health would be happy to meet RCN officials for further discussion.

  The £269 million additional funding for the National Health Service in England, which we have recently announced, is aimed partly at helped hospitals cope with medical emergencies, reducing delays in discharging patients and reducing the need for people to be admitted to hospital in the first place, for example by providing more specialist nursing and community services, such as continence services, for people—particularly older people—in their own homes. We are considering what further action it may be possible to take in this area.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the provision his Department will make for 1998–99 to support expenditure incurred by local authorities in assisting asylum seekers. [16195]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have given a commitment to reimburse local authorities for their expenditure in supporting asylum seekers for the current year. Whether or not local authorities will need reimbursing in 1998–99 depends on both the outcome of the forthcoming House of Lords appeal against the Court of Appeal ruling that the National Assistance Act 1948 applies to adult asylum seekers, and on the outcome of the current cross-departmental review of the whole asylum process which will report early in the new year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the special grants to cover the costs incurred by local authorities in 1997–98 in support of asylum seekers will meet the full costs incurred by local authorities. [16323]

  Mr. Boateng
  Three special grants will be made available to local authorities for 1997–98, subject to Parliamentary approval, in respect of their expenditure on support for asylum seeking: adults, families and unaccompanied children.

  For adult asylum seekers, local authorities will be able to claim their full costs up to a limit of £140 per week, averaged out over the year, for each asylum seeker supported. Local authorities will also be able to claim an additional £10 per week for each asylum seeker accommodated in specially commissioned or re-commissioned premises.

  For the Families with Children Grant, local authorities will be able to recover 80 per cent. of the additional cost above the threshold set in council tax band D. This is in recognition of the additional burden on local authorities as a consequence of a change in legislation. The grant
  174
  recognises that services for children and families have always formed a core part of social service functions, and so it would not be appropriate to meet costs in full. This grant will compensate local authorities for their additional costs.

  Responsibilities for unaccompanied asylum seeking children and associated costs have fallen on a limited number of authorities. In recognition of these costs, a special grant of £3 million will be made available to local authorities. The grant is intended as a contribution towards helping local authorities meet their spending on unaccompanied asylum seeking children and it was never intended that the Government would be responsible for meeting the full costs.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will present a special grant report to Parliament, under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, to cover the costs incurred by local authorities in 1997–98 in support of asylum seekers under the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989. [16324]

  Mr. Boateng
  We will shortly be consulting with local authority associations on the terms of the three special grants and plan to present them to Parliament before the end of this year.

  London Strategic Review
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the report by the Independent Advisory Panel on the London Strategic Review; and what is the length of the public consultation period between the publication of the report and the Government's response. [16546]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will be publishing the Independent Advisory Panel's advice and the Government's response in due course.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on the future of community hospitals(a) nationally and (b) in North Norfolk. [16544]

  Mr. Boateng
  Health authorities are responsible for determining the most appropriate balance of health services for their populations. However, we are currently examining national policy on effective service configurations, including the balance between acute hospital care and more community based services. The role of community hospitals is one element of a review of intermediate services currently being carried out by East Norfolk Health Authority. No short-term measures will be taken in respect of community hospitals in North Norfolk, which would prejudice debate on their longer-term future.

  Young People (Assistance)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek to amend section 24 of the Children Act 1989 to impose an enforceable duty on local authorities to assist young people who have left care with cash or material assistance until their 21st birthday. [16648]
  175
  Mr. Boateng
  In addition to carrying out their duties to advise and befriend care leavers, local authorities make use of their powers under the Children Act 1989 to provide individual care leavers with assistance in kind or in cash to supplement any income that the young person receives whilst in training, education, employment or from state benefits. The Government are aware, however, of the social exclusion experienced by many care leavers and consider that the question of providing cash or material assistance cannot be separated from issues of housing, education, training and employment and Income Support. These are all matters which the Government intend to address as part of preventing social exclusion and we have no plans at present to amend.

  Trust and Health Authority Boards
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointments to(a) trust and (b) health authority boards were due to be made in each month since 1 May; and how many appointments (i) have been made and (ii) are outstanding. [16545]

  Mr. Milburn
  A total of 570 trust board posts fell vacant on 1 November, of which 391 have now been filled. A further 502 trust board posts fall vacant on 1 December, 23 of which have already been filled.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [15221]
  176
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Annual spending on publicity and advertising for the financial years 1993–94 to 1997–98 is shown in the attached table. Information for the year 1998–99 is not yet available.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Total publicity expenditure (including advertising)

  Advertising expenditure

  1993–94

  Department of Health

  19.20

  6.10

  Agencies

  —

  —

  Non-departmental public bodies

  0.15

  —

  1994–95

  Department of Health

  18.20

  4.30

  Agencies

  0.19

  —

  Non-departmental public bodies

  0.24

  —

  1995–96

  Department of Health

  15.56

  2.08

  Agencies

  0.18

  —

  Non-departmental public bodies

  0.32

  —

  1996–97

  Department of Health

  15.73

  2.50

  Agencies

  0.20

  —

  Non-departmental public bodies

  0.28

  —

  1997–98 (to date)

  Department of Health

  3.29

  0.27

  Agencies

  0.12

  —

  Non-departmental public bodies

  0.08

  —

  1997–98 (full year estimate)

  Department of Health

  15.13

  1.83

  Agencies

  0.26

  —

  Non-departmental public bodies

  0.22

  —

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 Bassam of Brighton
John Steven Bassam, Esquire, having been created Baron Bassam of Brighton, of Brighton in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Healey and the Baroness Gould of Potternewton.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
Emma Harriet Nicholson, wife of Sir Michael Harris Caine, Knight, having been created Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, of Winterbourne in the Royal County of Berkshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Harris of Greenwich and the Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
Lord Monro of Langholm
The Right Honourable Sir Hector Seymour Peter Monro, Knight, AE, having been created Baron Monro of Langholm, of Westerkirk in Dumfries and Galloway, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Strathclyde and the Lord Sanderson of Bowden.

EU Accession: Minority Protection
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that countries seeking accession to the European Union protect minorities, including the Roma minority, from discrimination and racially motivated assaults.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are significant problems concerning minority nationalities in a number of eastern and central European countries. There are Roma communities in several of them. Protecting minorities from discrimination is one of the qualifying criteria for EU accession. The British Government support strongly all efforts to address shortcomings in the treatment of minorities in all the applicant countries. We endorse the EC's proposals for accession partnerships with which any problems in those areas can be resolved (as they must be) before accession to the EU. In the meantime our own Know-How Fund is also working hard to promote the protection of minorities throughout central Europe.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Is he aware that the
458
most recent reports indicate a sharp rise in racial attacks in the Czech Republic last year—some three times the number of racial attacks in the previous year? Is he aware also that under the Copenhagen Summit the protection of minorities is a condition of membership of the EU? Will he therefore assure the House that the British Government will make strong representations to the Czech Republic to take vigorous action to protect its Roma minority and, among other things, to prevent the outward movement of many Roma into countries that they regard as less likely to persecute them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that the protection of minorities and civil rights in general is one of the Copenhagen criteria, and therefore has been relevant to the Commission's opinion on the applications of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and other eastern European countries. There has been considerable evidence—some of it in our own media—of the level of racism against the Roma minorities in those countries. Some of it is public antagonism to the minority rather than institutionalised state racism. Nevertheless, there is clearly an obligation on those states to protect their minorities more effectively than they have done. Some degree of low level police harassment is evident in those countries.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware of this judgment on the Roma by President Meciar in 1993:
"It is necessary to curtail the extended reproduction of [this] socially unadaptable and mentally backward population"?
Can the Minister imagine the effect of joining that attitude to a racial minority with freedom of movement within the EU? Does he agree that the effect of human rights abuses on movement of population is one reason why this Government's commitment to an ethical foreign policy is in our national interest?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree completely with the final point made by the noble Earl. I am not familiar with the quotation to which he referred, but it reflects some of the attitudes of people within Slovakia and other eastern European countries towards their minorities. Such an attitude needs clearly to be eliminated from government and establishment thinking, and judicial and police operations, within those countries before we can conceivably allow them to enter the EU.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a member of the board of the European Roma Rights Centre, whose headquarters are in Budapest. In view of the Minister's recognition that the Roma are a large ethnic group facing severe problems of racial discrimination, prejudice and harassment, will he ensure that accurate information is made available by the Home Office in asylum applications so that the special immigration adjudicators can have recent cogent evidence of the actual situation in the country from which the Roma are seeking asylum in this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hesitate to stray too far into the area of the Home Office.Clearly the asylum

459
applications of those Roma who have arrived in Dover and other places in this country will be dealt with in the normal way, on the basis of as much information as the Home Office and immigration officials can acquire.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, will the Minister indicate what monitoring there will be of the situation in those countries, and, in particular, the Czech and Slovak Republics, to ensure that there is a definite improvement in the protection of minority rights, and, especially, of the Roma people?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the approach to EU accession, the situation with regard to minorities and their civic rights will be a central part of the monitoring process to see whether they can meet the EU criteria. The criteria on civil rights and the protection of minorities are absolute criteria. There will be no transitional period. So accession to the EU would require them already to have vastly improved their treatment of minorities before we could conclude an accession treaty.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Council of Europe has set up a monitoring committee to monitor those countries within the Council of Europe which have these problems?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, under the reinforced pre-accession strategy, there is an institutional form of monitoring those aspects set up by the Commission. That will form part of the report to the Council of Ministers at the various stages of the accession talks.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister once again for his helpful reply. Is he aware that, under the present Home Office procedures, most of the Roma who are currently trying to enter the country at Dover and other southern ports are subject to a fast track procedure of five working days? Under that procedure, most are returned almost immediately. Will he be kind enough to draw the attention of his colleagues in the Home Office to a situation where the genuine grounds of persecution sometimes do not have time to be considered seriously?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office are aware of those concerns. However, when we are faced with an arrival of substantial proportions, the facts have clearly to be established rapidly. That is what the Home Office has attempted to do.

Phone Boxes: Unauthorised Display of Numbers
2.56 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford The Earl of Bradford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to deal with unauthorised advertising in London phone boxes.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the unauthorised activity referred to in the Question mainly concerns
460
prostitutes' advertising cards. The Government are concerned about that problem because the increasingly explicit cards deter people from using public call boxes. I can assure noble Lords that appropriate measures are in hand. BT is taking unilateral action to bar incoming calls to BT numbers advertised in BT call boxes. BT and the City of Westminster are taking steps to clean out phone boxes on a regular basis. The Government are also looking at options for using the criminal law to deal with the nuisance.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply and for making my Question a little clearer. I may have been over-delicate in the way that I phrased it. Does he consider that giving greater powers to Oftel to allow call barring to numbers other than BT numbers would be helpful in this situation? Alternatively, does he accept that the police should be given greater powers to prosecute and that fines should be much heavier than they are at the moment?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, BT sought the support of other telecom operators to bar the calls. However, the scheme was challenged by lawyers acting on behalf of the London Committee of Call Girls. The lawyers argued that the co-operation between BT and the other telecoms operators represented a registrable agreement under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. However, BT has continued unilaterally with its own ban. Since February it has issued 733 warning letters and barred incoming calls to 104 lines. In addition, 94 customers ceased renting BT lines during the process.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will the Minister turn his mind to an equally important problem related to telephone kiosks; that is, the multiplication of kitsch-designed conflicting kiosks throughout the capital and the country? Is he aware that the Royal Fine Art Commission was responsible for a competition which resulted in the classic Gilbert Scott telephone kiosks? Having cleared up the call girls, will the Government see that a similar competition is organised today?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I shall certainly bring the noble Lord's comments to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, the concern in the Question about phone boxes is that they should be available for use and that people should not be deterred from using them.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that prostitution is an evil that will always be with us? One of the most disastrous occurrences in recent years was the decision by the Law Lords to ban the Ladies Directory. That directory was an inoffensive—in one sense—publication which no one was compelled to buy. It was put on display discreetly at newsagents. When it was banned, having been described by the Law Lords as immoral, it was inevitably newsagents who had to be harried by the

461
police to remove the cards with which telephone kiosks are now inundated. Does the Minister agree that the matter needs to be re-examined?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I hesitate to trespass on the territory to which the noble Lord invites me to move. All I can say is that prostitution is not illegal in this country. However, whatever way information is disseminated, it must not cause offence to other people.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say what on earth is the use of barring a telephone call when the girl can obtain another application, perhaps using the name Mimi instead of Fifi?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the girls can use other telephones and other telephone companies. That is one of the results of privatisation of the telephone business. Oftel is looking into the matter. British Telecom is not able to bar calls of other telephone companies; that would he contrary to its licence. Oftel is looking into the problem to see whether it can be dealt with.
Lord Henley: My Lords, can the noble Lord expand on what his right honourable friend the Home Secretary said last week about possibly using the crime and disorder Bill to bring in changes in legislation and possibly increasing the powers of the police? Has further thought been given by his colleagues in the Home Office to amendments which might help alleviate the problem?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that the matter was raised in another place last Friday. Existing legislation allows for prosecution for criminal damage in the case of stickers and for littering in the case of cards. Westminster City Council has used the legislation to prosecute carders. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is considering, as he said during the debate on the policing of London, dealing with the issue. I am sure that the noble Lord has read the remarks of my right honourable friend in Hansard. I am certain he will let us know his decision in a short while.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, following the question from my noble friend Lord Annan, does the Minister agree that the advertisements have a certain advantage, particularly for the millions of visitors who come to London during the year?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, research shows that people who visit London find the advertising less objectionable than the citizens of London. I can only
462
repeat that it deters people from using the public facility of call boxes. That is the problem to which the Government must pay attention.

Beer Imports: Illegal Sales
3.4 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to curbing the amount of beer imported into the United Kingdom for illegal resale.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this Government take excise smuggling and fraud very seriously. Customs are currently deploying additional officers to frontline work in the Dover area to counter those involved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a review of alcohol and tobacco fraud involving a working party with the key trade associations to look at the effect of commercial fraud, smuggling and cross-border shopping. The Financial Secretary has set the review team a very challenging deadline of 31st December to present options for addressing those issues.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that over 1 million gallons of beer are imported into Britain from France every single week? A great deal of it is then resold illegally in this country. Is the Minister aware that because of that criminal activity there are substantial job losses in pubs, working men's clubs and breweries and even a number of closures?
Does my noble friend accept that the prime reason for the smuggling is that the duty on a pint of beer in Great Britain is six times greater than in France? If that is the case, can he explain to me how putting another penny duty on a pint of beer will help stem the tide of beer coming into the country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is very sure of his figures. I am less sure about how much beer is entering this country illegally, mainly because those who do it do not declare it to the statistical authorities.
As to my noble friend's supplementary question about the difference between our duty and that in other European countries, he is quite right. But the cost of reducing our duty to French levels—and I note that the brewers are not suggesting it— would be over £3 billion. That would be equivalent to an extra 1 per cent. on VAT or 2p on income tax. As for the increase in duty in the last Budget, that was simply in line with inflation.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Brewers Association of Scotland has identified the fact that seven lorries a week are known to be illegally selling beer in Edinburgh? Can the

463
Minister tell me how that can be an economic activity, considering that the lorry would have to travel 800 miles in order to complete its task?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we touched on those issues when we discussed the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on whisky at the end of June this year. I am unsure how anyone can know that seven, six or eight lorries are entering Scotland illegally. If those who have the figures are certain of them, I wish they would inform us. We should be glad to know.

Training and Enterprise Councils
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make any structural or functional changes to training and enterprise councils.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we greatly value the important work TECs are doing at the local level to raise skill levels and foster enterprise. We recognise the benefit to local partnerships of a strong private sector contribution. There are therefore no plans to make fundamental changes to the structure and functions of TECs. We do, however, see scope for TECs to improve their performance, and a range of work is in hand to raise the performance of all TECs towards the level of the best. For example, I point to the work being done jointly with the TEC National Council to encourage TECs to benchmark themselves against each other and other organisations and to share good practice effectively.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that valuable and comprehensive reply. Does she accept that there is a considerable variation throughout the country in the effectiveness of training enterprise councils? I recognise what she just said, but does she agree that much still needs to be done with local accountability and improvement in local partnerships? Does she further agree that an important method of raising standards is to have training inspection of individual providers? That is extremely important. Is anything being done in that respect?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising these different issues in relation to TECs. It is true that performance varies significantly among TECs across the country. That is why, in partnership with the TEC movement, we are taking forward a range of measures to try to improve performance.
My noble friend asked about ensuring that TECs are more locally accountable. He is right in suggesting that TECs must account effectively to their local communities. The TEC movement is conscious that it needs to do more in that area. This week the TEC
464
National Council is launching a revised framework for the local accountability of TECs which responds to recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
In response to my noble friend's third question, on inspection, we have launched a training and standards council to be responsible for a new external inspection procedure for TECs which will be in operation by next April.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether her reply means that the Government have moved away from the general position adopted by the Labour Party when in Opposition; namely, that they supported in general the report of the all-party Employment Committee in another place on the work of TECs, which suggested a number of not necessarily fundamental, but significant, changes in the structure and functions of TECs? Are we going back on that position?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we are introducing a number of changes of the kind that I just described. At the same time, however, we recognise the valuable work that is done by TECs. There are over 1,000 people round the country who voluntarily give up time to support the work of TECs. They deliver an important part of our employment training. That does not mean that there is not room for improvement in a variety of different respects. I believe that the TEC National Council recognises that it needs to do more to make sure that the performance of less high-performing TECs is raised to that of the very best.
Baroness Young: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be good enough to set out slightly more clearly what exactly are the Government's proposals? I listened with interest to her original Answer, which I welcomed; however, her reply to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seemed to suggest something very different. The track record of TECs has, on the whole, been a good one. Perhaps the Minister might comment on the number of people they have trained who have subsequently found employment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the very large numbers of people who have been trained through TECs and the partnerships that they have with local deliverers of training, including FE colleges, in their own areas. That does not, however, mean that there are not matters that need to be examined. For example, some TECs have very large reserves. The Government believe that it would make sense if better use were made of those reserves. We are encouraging TECs to look afresh at how they might use their resources to make sure that they are focused effectively on the Government's priorities. Just one example is that we expect the TECs to make a significant contribution to kick-starting individual learning accounts. We also believe that in the area of equal opportunities the TECs might improve on their current performance. We need, for example, to improve

465
greatly on the numbers of girls who are being trained through TEC schemes through different kinds of employment training.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, because the funding of TECs is largely related to output in terms of job placements and qualifications, does the noble Baroness think there is a danger of training providers taking on too many applicants who are well placed to achieve those outcomes, at the expense of those who are most in need of help?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if one has output measures for organisations such as TECs, it is very important to ensure that they do not distort the operation of the TECs, so that they become more concerned about meeting particular output targets at the expense of quality. Again, the Government are examining the matter with regard to the kind of performance measures that we ought to be using in trying to monitor the ways in which TECs operate.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, will the Minister explain what the Government expect to be the relationship between the TECs and the new regional development agencies that are now proposed, and how they will work together to stimulate the economies of the various regions?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the original development agencies will play a very important role in relation to regional economic development. The TECs on the other hand, of which there are 73—far more than there will be regional development agencies—will continue to play a very important role locally in trying to secure and deliver good quality training. Obviously the TECs will need to have a relationship with the regional development agencies. We shall expect them to work together to examine difficult problems such as skill shortages and how they should be addressed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that all the questions have been on training? Is she entirely happy that enterprise is not being neglected for training; and do the two really fit together as well as they should?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, enterprise and training do fit very closely together. We shall not achieve the kind of enterprise that our nation and our economy need unless we have well trained people. It is through the training not merely of young people but also adults, including training in entrepreneurial skills, that we shall achieve the sort of enterprise that I am sure the noble Lord wants to see.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied with the eligibility criteria of TEC board members? Is she aware that, over the seven years during which the TECs have been in existence, there has been quite a lot of criticism about some of the appointments that have been made?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I am aware that there has been criticism of some appointments to
466
TEC boards. Again, it is extremely important that the TEC National Council ensures that people of the highest quality, drawn from a wide range of different backgrounds, serve on TEC boards, so that we can deliver the quality of training that we need.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the mis-selling of personal pensions.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): The Question is, That the Title be postponed?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It is almost always convenient to postpone the Title to fit in with any amendments that are made in Committee, and I do not oppose that on this occasion. However, I have an amendment down to the Title, Amendment No. 116, which may be conveniently discussed with the first two amendments relating to purpose clauses to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The Chairman of Committees: The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord will be called in the usual way, in order. However, it is open to any noble Lord to intervene on any debate on any previous amendment and to seek to speak as he chooses.
On Question, Title postponed.
Clause 1 [The Convention and the First Protocol]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 6, at beginning insert—
("( ) The main purposes of this Act are to secure in law the Convention rights to everyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and to provide effective remedies for violation of the Convention rights within that jurisdiction.").
The noble Lord said: It is very important that the courts should be able to have regard to all relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human

467
Rights and the First Protocol in performing the tasks put upon them by this Bill. First, I wish to explain what my amendment seeks to do.
Article 1 of the European convention imposes an obligation on the contracting states to secure the convention rights to everyone within the jurisdiction of, in this case, the United Kingdom. Article 13 imposes an obligation to ensure that there are effective domestic remedies for claims of breach of the convention. The Committee will have noticed from the Human Rights Bill as it stands that neither Article 1 nor Article 13 is to be directly incorporated into domestic law.
It is correct not to seek to incorporate Article 1 of the convention in the Bill since that is an interstate obligation to secure the rights guarantees. Amendment No. 1 seeks to include a purposes clause so that courts and tribunals are able to have regard to the main purposes of the Bill when they come to interpret and apply the substantive provisions of the convention. In that way the purposes clause seeks to incorporate into the purposes both the obligation to secure the rights in domestic law and the obligation to secure effective domestic remedies.
The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the preparation of legislation—it reported as long ago as 1975—while being sceptical in relation to the value of purposes clauses in most cases, made one important exception. The committee said that, where a Bill seeks to give domestic effect to a Community or international treaty obligation, there should be a purposes clause so that the courts are in no doubt that the purposes of the legislation are to give domestic effect to the treaty obligation. I paraphrase. I shall not weary the Committee with the full paragraph of the report where all that is explained.
Why does it matter in practice? It matters because, if Article 13 is not to be incorporated into our legal system, from time to time the courts will come across problems where they need nevertheless to have regard to the article. Perhaps I may give a controversial example to serve for all. The courts already have regard to Article 13 of the convention when developing the common law or deciding the scope of discretionary powers, including their own powers. For example, in Esther Rantzen's libel case the Court of Appeal had regard to Article 13 of the convention in explaining how in future it would interpret Section 8 of the Courts and Legal Services Act—the provision that gives it the power to intervene and overrule excessive damages awards by juries in libel cases. It made it clear that, looking at Article 13 as well as the free speech guarantee in Article 10 of the convention, it was right in future for the courts, as public authorities bound by Article 13, to exercise their discretion so as to avoid unnecessary jury awards for damages in libel cases.
That is one example. Another was in a case a year ago in the House of Lords—ex parte Khan—where several noble and learned Lords in their speeches referred to Article 13 in the context of the protection of the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 8 of the convention. Other amendments will later seek to incorporate Article 13 directly into our law. But if we
468
include a purposes clause, either of the kind that I drafted that includes Article 1 or of the kind drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which incorporates Article 13 as part of a purposes clause, then my difficulty about the Bill as it stands would be met without the need to incorporate Article 13 directly.
Perhaps I may make one or two other points before I sit down. I am troubled, in what is otherwise an admirable Bill, brilliantly drafted and conceived, by the fact that, as drafted, it places some blinkers on the judges in their not being able to have regard to all the relevant provisions of the convention which are not necessarily substantive. One is Article 13. To give two more examples, the convention is equally authentic in English and French and there are rare cases where the judges have to look at both texts. The Bill does not say so. Another example is Article 60, which says that the convention should not be interpreted so as to whittle away existing human rights safeguards. Again, on the Bill as it stands, judges cannot have regard to that.
I do not feel that that problem can be properly dealt with by a Pepper v. Hart statement; in other words, a statement on behalf of the Government as to what the underlying purpose of the Bill is. I plead guilty, as the successful counsel in Pepper v. Hart, to persuading the House of Lords that judges can have regard to parliamentary debates to construe ambiguities in legislation. But I suggest that it is not satisfactory for the citizen to have to read Hansard and a Minister's statement in order to know something as fundamental as the object and purpose of the Bill.
The rule of law depends upon the accessibility of the law on its face in the statute book. That is why it is right that there should be a purposes clause on the lines recommended by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, so that it is clear that the judges can have regard to the need to provide effective remedies. In saying that, as I made clear at Second Reading, I am not suggesting that the courts should be somehow creative in going beyond the scope of the Bill to fashion some new-fangled remedy not previously thought about. That is not the purpose of the amendment. It is to ensure that, where Article 13 is genuinely in play, the judges and tribunals are able to have proper regard to it. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: It may be helpful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, if I were to indicate that his Amendment No. 116 has been grouped with Amendment No. I. It will therefore be entirely appropriate for him, if he chooses to do so, to speak not only to his Amendment No. 3 which is also grouped with Amendment No. 1, but also to his Amendment No. 116.
Lord Mishcon: I am in a minority of Members of the Committee in that I have a simple mind. The reason for my tabling an amendment is that simple mind. I felt it appropriate for this Chamber in Committee to consider matters separately when looking at the desirability of having a main objects clause in a Bill as against a debate which may take place as to whether Article 1 or Article 13 should be included. I felt that the matter

469
might be muddled—I say that with the deepest respect—if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was before the Committee without any alternative to it.
My main object is the one that I have just pronounced. I remember the discussion that took place in your Lordships' Chamber on the Children Bill when it was decided that a main objects clause was desirable. I felt it highly desirable that we continue with that practice, as recommended—as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said—by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. That is a matter that ought to be before the Committee at this stage, and that is the reason Amendment No. 2 was tabled.
There is one further reason. The wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester—I entirely agree with its main purpose—will confuse. The main part, which I have omitted from my amendment, states:
"The main purposes of this Act are to secure in law the Convention rights to everyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom".
What about the rights that we have exercised to derogate? What about the rights we have exercised to reserve? Does it mean that there will be some argument before the courts that the main object of the Bill is to give to everyone who comes within the jurisdiction all the rights of the convention? There is a contradiction.
1 also do not know—again I say with my simple mind—what the words mean,
"to everyone within the jurisdiction",
to have the benefit of a legal right if it is contained in the convention. Does it mean someone who arrives within the jurisdiction complaining of a right which has been breached outside the jurisdiction? Once he is in the jurisdiction, is it the object of the Bill to give him those rights?
With the deepest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lester—sometimes those words are not very sincerely said by lawyers but on this occasion they are very sincerely said—I feel that we ought to have before us an amendment which merely deals with the principle of expressing the main purpose. We should not confuse it with other issues.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his usual modesty which is so unjustified, has put a very strong case before the Committee. Before I consider that case in any detail and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to whom we should be indebted for raising this matter, perhaps I may say that the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, of which I had the honour to be chairman, which reported 20 years ago, has, in my opinion, in the light of experience since then, shown itself to be too cautious and too narrow with regard to the circumstances in which we recommended purpose clauses. Our legislation would have been better understood and been subject to less litigation if we had made freer use of purpose clauses.
I hope that that general comment is not inappropriate for this discussion because I am sure that all your Lordships will agree that, if we are to have this Bill, we
470
want our courts to be able to administer it effectively and to be able to do justice in the way that we would all wish, and not for the rights of those who are bringing cases to the court to be whittled down by technical arguments about the breadth of jurisdiction. Therefore, I say that either the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and the consequential amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned, should be accepted by your Lordships.
It is with some hesitation that I venture to express an opinion in favour of one of those amendments over the other. I would prefer to have heard what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or whoever is answering on this matter, has to say first. But perhaps I may say, meanwhile, that I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a very good point when he said that we want to ensure that it is the courts within their jurisdiction who need to be guided by us in this matter and that there should not be any argument about whether a person has come within the jurisdiction. Therefore, if I may say so, I prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. But let us keep an open mind about it and see how the debate goes.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that I have no pride of authorship but I did not wish to complicate matters by including Article 1. I shall later explain it, but I would be perfectly content with any of the amendments, whether by way of purpose clause or by way of Amendment No. 6, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has his name, to incorporate Article 13. The means we can argue about. But is the noble Lord aware that we share the same common objective, which is that the courts should be able to have regard to Article 13 in one form or another?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The amendment in my name to the Long Title has been grouped with these amendments, I think quite rightly. That may be an alternative way of indicating to the courts the underlying purpose of the Bill. Some indication of purpose is required if only because at Second Reading my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor seemed to cast some doubt as to whether Article 8 relating to privacy was really necessary. He did that, it is true, in the context of a preference for self-regulation by the press. But I think that, in all the circumstances, some indication of purpose is desirable.
The Renton Committee weighed the arguments as to when a purpose clause was desirable and they were rehearsed at Question Time the other day. If one can achieve the same object by amending the Title, it is almost always desirable, first, because it is generally much shorter; and, secondly, because, unless the Long Title indicates a purpose, it serves no useful aim at all. So I ventured to put down an amendment to the Title. At present it reads:
"An Act to give further effect to … the Convention".
I originally put down an amendment to substitute the word "municipal" in place of "further". "Further" really gives no indication to the courts of how much further. However, when the Printed Paper Office saw the word

471
"municipal", it connected it with town halls and thought I had gone quite off my rocker, and so spared me the printing of it. I substituted the word "domestic"—to give "domestic effect". I speak subject to correction by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, who is such an expert in this field. I think "municipal" is the correct term of art but "domestic" may be more easily understood.
If it can be done by the Title it gives sufficient indication to the courts and is very much shorter. Of the two purpose clauses, I presume to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in preferring the draft of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, partly for the reasons that he gave and partly because it is considerably shorter.
Lord Windlesham: On Second Reading I expressed some doubts about the effectiveness of the enforcement procedures, although I supported the purposes of the Bill, and will continue to do so throughout this Committee stage. I made the point then that under the current arrangements—that is before incorporation—and as obscure as they may be, the necessary changes in administrative practice or in primary legislation have invariably followed findings of violation by the European Court of Human Rights. But will that necessarily be so in the future? It would be a paradox if it were not to be, bearing in mind the intention of this Bill.
Article 13 of the convention, which has been referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, deals with the provision of remedies. It is not to be incorporated. It was omitted from the annex to the White Paper titled Rights Brought Home. The annex reprinted the text of all the relevant articles save for the first and No. 13. The list simply jumped from Article 12 to 14 in the annex. I say to the Minister at the Home Office, who may have had a hand in the drafting, that it would have made it a great deal clearer to readers had there been some asterisk, dotted line, or other symbol to indicate there was a missing article, and a crucially important one at that, in the annex to the White Paper.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. There are amendments to reinstate the reference to Article 13. The noble Lord has just made the speech that I would have made in support of it.
Lord Windlesham: I am delighted to hear it. That is a preview of a speech which will no doubt be coming from such a forceful quarter at a later stage in the debate. Article 13 bears directly on the subject of the first two amendments so let us be clear about what it says. It reads as follows,
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy"—
those are key words—
"before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity".
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would make a formal statement of intention on the face of the Bill, or indeed in the Long Title under Amendment 116. The same point had occurred to me as it did to the noble and
472
learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. If the draftsman objects strongly—we await with interest to hear what the reply will be from the Government Front Bench—and if there are powerful arguments against including a statement of intention in the opening clause of the Bill, it may well be that the Long Title is the better place for this. I express no opinion on that.
Although we can readily accept it is the Government's intention to provide effective remedies—how could it be anything else—could it be their intention to provide ineffective remedies? Of course not. So why not have this provision on the face of the Bill? In trying to strike a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and the judicial process, which this Bill attempts in such an ingenious way, there is a real risk that the remedies provided for the victims of wrongful actions by public authorities may—human nature being what it is and politics being what they are—sometimes, however rarely, take second place to political expediency when it comes to bringing what may be highly unpopular changes in the law onto the Floor of the elected representative House of Parliament. I believe that there is a strong case for having this further safeguard against that contingency, to ensure that effective remedies can be attached to the newly enforceable rights.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I submit with some degree of confidence that the simplest way to have regard to Article 13 is to incorporate it in the Bill, hence Amendment No. 6, which is that at page 1, line 10, after "Articles", insert "13 and". It is also even shorter than the amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggested. I cannot see why we do not go down that route. Instead of talking around Article 13, let us have it in.
It may be that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to show that technically it is superfluous because it is already catered for. I do not mind if that is the case. Last week we had traumatic examples of how in certain circumstances appearance is so important. The appearance here is odd to a degree. We have a gap between Articles 12 and 14 which is totally unaccounted for. There is a blank, with no indication given to anybody as to why that should be the case.
After all the rhetoric which has preceded the White Paper and the publication of this Bill, surely the public are entitled to a clear, concise and unequivocal statement that effective remedies will be provided. I am sure that it is unworthy to make the comment, but there are some who feel a degree of suspicion which might be referred to as "reasonable suspicion", using the term from the Competition Bill, or even "reasonable grounds for suspicion".
They are these. First, what has been proposed is quite unusual. I understand that the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 is a substantive right under the convention which has been incorporated by every contracting state into their domestic law, including those which have done so by statute. So we are departing from what is normally done. That is some basis for suspicion.

473
Secondly, it may be that the Government, despite the rhetoric, have not quite got their heart—if a government have a cardiac region—in the right place in relation to some remedies. The Committee will recall the debate that we recently had on the crippling court fees which made it impossible for some members of society at the bottom end of the income sphere to be able to come to court. Those were fees which, for the first time, took into account judges' salaries, pensions, the notional rent and even. so it was said, the office cat. That is a reference which no doubt prompted the irrelevant but no doubt therapeutic confession made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as to his success at the Bar at the expense, apparently, of his clients.
Thirdly, there is legal aid which is to be taken away. Nothing is to be put in its place except contingency fees, the application of which is totally absurd to this litigation which will be uncertain and which will not in many cases ask for damages, but if they are obtained, they are so small that with the cap applied to them they will attract no solicitor.
Finally, there is the reference to Article 8, which appears to provide for the first time a right to privacy. It resulted suddenly in an outburst in the media and, if one looks at the report of our Second Reading debate and at the speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, one finds that a very large part of his speech was devoted to trying to pour oil on ruffled waters. The press were so indignant that a right to privacy might appear that they suggested that Article 8 be omitted. It is no doubt an unworthy thought, but there are people who are unworthy and they take the view that the Government, like all governments, are scared of the media and that they will not do that which they should do in the circumstances. The Government should provide a framework in which the right to privacy should be set out and then applied by the courts; instead of which the matter is to be left somehow to the judges, who will no doubt cope as best as they can, case by case, to build up the jurisprudence on this very important subject.
As I have said, some hold the unworthy thought that the media and, in particular, Rupert Murdoch, scare the Government. The basis for that reasonable suspicion is what happened last Thursday on the first day of the Committee stage of the Competition Bill. In relation to Clause 18 of that Bill, it was proposed to take steps to do something about the predatory trading by Mr. Murdoch under which he maintained, and caused other people to maintain, huge losses by dint of using the enormous profits from BSkyB. Cross-party support existed for that amendment, but as yet that provision has not been pressed to a Division. So, there is some basis for having some anxiety about why that article has been left out.
If there is no reason to fear anything from its inclusion, there is no reason why the Government should not include it. Its appearance would nullify any false inferences, make everybody happy, and involve no expenditure of any kind in the process. I would therefore
474
support the simple amendment which also has the virtue of being backed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I refer to Amendment No. 6.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I would be grateful to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether there is any objection to Amendment No. 6. 1 do not want to go into all the business about Mr. Murdoch and BSkyB, but if there is an objection perhaps the noble and learned Lord will let us know. If there is no objection, surely there is no need to consider these purpose clauses because they would serve no valid purpose. If we have to consider them, then for the reasons that have been given, I am quite certain that the drafting of Amendment No. 2 is far more appropriate than that of Amendment No. 1. There is no question in my mind about that.
I wonder whether, if Amendment No. 9 were to be accepted, that would not dispose of any necessity to consider the adequacy of the excuse for not incorporating Article 13 or the need for a purpose clause in the form drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I shall not take up much time and then I shall sit down, but perhaps your Lordships would look at Clause 2 on page 2, which states:
"A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen under this Act in connection with a Convention right must take into account".
Amendment No. 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Kingsland, states,
"shall be hound by any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, and must take into account"—
and the clause would then continue.
If those words were to be incorporated on the face of the Bill, they would dispose of the necessity for a purpose clause. In those circumstances—although in other circumstances purpose clauses may be a very good thing, I must confess that I am not a purpose clause man; some people are, but I do not happen to be—I do not have a serious objection to it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It seems to me that this Bill of all Bills should as far as possible be expressed simply so that ordinary people can understand what it does for them. If Article 13 is not to be incorporated and if there is to be a main object clause, it is important that that clause states precisely what the Bill does and is not at all vague about suggesting what it might do. Amendment No. 2, which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seems to me as a lay person to be extremely clear. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is correct, Amendment No. 1, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggests that the Act would secure in law rights to everyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom when in some cases it does so only indirectly by legislation by delegation, for example. If that is the case, it would be a somewhat confusing main object clause and I would very much prefer Amendment No. 2.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Baroness sits down, is she aware that I have already

475
indicated that if anyone deserves a prize for better drafting it is the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who deserves the Renton prize? I defer to his amendment as being wiser, narrower and clearer, so I do not intend to press my amendment later, but to support Amendment No. 2 or Amendment No. 6.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Amendment No. 2 seeks to insert that,
"The main purpose of this Act is to provide effective remedies for violation of the Convention rights within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom".
That is a reflection of Article 13 of the convention. Amendment No. 1 would go even further, seeking to insert a main purposes clause, reflecting Articles 1 and 13. Amendment No. 6 would alter the definition of the convention rights by requiring the substantive rights and freedoms of the convention and the first protocol to be read with Article 13 as well as with Articles 16 to 18.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 12 are even more direct. They require the courts to give effect to Article 13 as well as other small convention rights prescribed in the Bill. We are not persuaded thus far by the debate that it is either necessary or desirable to amend the Bill in this way. The Bill gives effect to Article 1 by securing to people in the United Kingdom the rights and freedoms of the convention. It gives effect to Article 13 by establishing a scheme under which convention rights can be raised before our domestic courts. To that end, remedies are provided in Clause 8. If the concern is to ensure that the Bill provides an exhaustive code of remedies for those whose convention rights have been violated, we believe that Clause 8 already achieves that and that nothing further is needed.
We have set out in the Bill a scheme to provide remedies for violation of convention rights and we do not believe that it is necessary to add to it. We also believe that it is undesirable to provide for Articles 1 and 13 in the Bill in this way. The courts would be bound to ask themselves what was intended beyond the existing scheme of remedies set out in the Bill. It might lead them to fashion remedies other than the Clause 8 remedies, which we regard as sufficient and clear. We believe that Clause 8 provides effective remedies before our courts. It is noteworthy that those who have supported these amendments have not suggested any respect in which Clause 8 is deficient.
When one comes to Article 13, it provides that:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority—
that is exactly what Clause 8 provides—
"notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity".
The very ample definition of public authority in Clause 6 makes it plain that there is no intention to protect persons acting in an official capacity. On the contrary, our definition of public authority in that clause could not be wider. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, may nourish suspicions, but I assure him that there is nothing to be suspicious about.
476
At Second Reading I informed your Lordships that if Parliament chose to establish a committee on human rights the Government would welcome it. I said that one of the functions of that body might be to keep the protection of human rights under review. If for any reason which escapes me—none has been pointed to—it appeared to that committee in the light of the operation of this Bill that the remedial provisions of Clause 8 should be strengthened in some way, the Government would give serious consideration to that. But we would expect that committee to set out clearly the effect that its proposed amendments was designed to have. That is what we have sought to do in the Bill. It is noteworthy by its absence that the arguments put before the Committee by those who propose these amendments fail to state any respect in which Clause 8 is deficient.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Before he continues his helpful explanatory speech perhaps he can clarify one matter. Is it the intention of the Government that the courts should not be entitled to have regard to Article 13 and the case law of the Strasbourg Court on that article in cases where it would otherwise be relevant? I give an example. In recent cases brought against Turkey, where there has been torture without adequate police investigations, the European Court has said that regard must be had to Article 13 rather than Article 6 because it is the former that requires an effective post mortem. Is it the intention of the Government that in cases where the European Court has said that the right provision is Article 13 and not Article 6 our courts should wear blinkers and are not allowed to look at Article 13 or the Court's case law? I am not clear from the speech of the noble and learned Lord so far whether that is the intention. If so, how can it possibly comply with our convention obligations?
The Lord Chancellor: One always has in mind Pepper v. Hart when one is asked questions of that kind. I shall reply as candidly as I may. Clause 2(1) provides:
"A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen under this Act in connection with a Convention right must take into account any … judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights".
That means what it says. The court must take into account such material.
I shall deal now with the question of whether the court may have regard to Article 13.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may be allowed to deal with this point. I specifically asked the noble and learned Lord what was the Government's objection to this. One has a schedule containing the articles of the convention but Article 13 is left out. Why? What is the objection to leaving it in? I have listened with great care. If I have missed the point I apologise for this intervention but at the moment I do not understand. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will make the position clear so that even I can understand it.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall make it clear but only after I have completed my answer to the noble Lord,

477
Lord Lester. I had answered one half of the noble Lord's question but not the second half when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, intervened.
My response to the second part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is that the courts may have regard to Article 13. In particular, they may wish to do so when considering the very ample provisions of Clause 8(1). I remind your Lordships of the terms of that provision:
"In relation to any Act (or proposed Act) of a public authority which the court finds is (or would he) unlawful, it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its jurisdiction as it considers just and appropriate".
Knowing the remedial amplitude of the law of the United Kingdom, I cannot see any scope for the argument that English or Scots law is incapable within domestic adjectival law of providing effective remedies.
My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is that to incorporate expressly Article 13 may lead to the courts fashioning remedies about which we know nothing other than the Clause 8 remedies which we regard as sufficient and clear. Until we are told in some specific respect how Clause 8 is or may reasonably be anticipated to be deficient we maintain our present position.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: What are these other nebulous, hypothetical remedies? Can the noble and learned Lord let us into his confidence and explain what is in the back of his mind on this, if anything?
Lord Renton: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, can he explain to the Committee why Clause 8(1) confines the matter to what is done by a public authority, bearing in mind that there is no definition of "public authority" in the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: "Acts of public authorities" in respect of which our courts may grant remedies if they deny convention rights and therefore act unlawfully are amply defined in Clause 6 of the Bill. The Bill is aimed at public authorities and unlawful acts by public authorities acting contrary to convention rights. That is not in the back of my mind; it is in the front of my mind. Clause 8(1) refers to remedies in respect of acts of public authorities because that is what the Bill is about. I do not think that it would be profitable for me to take up the time of the Committee in spelling out every remedy or relief available in English law, which is one of the most sophisticated and developed systems of law in the world.
I turn to Amendment No. 116.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend leaves Clause 8(1), will he have any objection—it may be that this needs further consideration—to adding at the end of Clause 8(1) the simple words: "to give full and effective protection to convention rights"?
The Lord Chancellor: If the noble and learned Lord puts down an amendment to that effect on Report, we shall consider it. However, my immediate reaction is that that would be to accept a superfluity. Clause 8(1)
478
provides effective remedies. It is noteworthy that no one contributing to this debate suggested any situation or set of circumstances in which Clause 8(1) would not give the courts effective remedies. I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that he nourishes suspicions but, so far as I am aware, without any substance. We shall consider everything that has been said in the debate. If the noble and learned Lord desires to put down an amendment to that effect on Report, then of course we shall consider it in advance of Report stage. As at present advised, I believe that it is completely unnecessary until some specific situation is called to the Committee's attention where Clause 8(1) does not amply provide what is required.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has been very patient in waiting for me to turn to his amendment, Amendment No. 116. This would amend the Bill's Long Title so as to state that the Bill was to give "domestic" effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the convention, not that it was to give "further" effect. I believe that the Long Title to the Bill is admirably clear to a layman and to lawyers. The reason the Long Title uses the word "further" is that our courts already apply the convention in many different circumstances. For example—and the courts are well familiar with these examples—where a statute is capable of two interpretations, one consistent and one inconsistent with the convention, the courts will presume that Parliament intended to legislate in accordance with the convention. If the common law is uncertain, unclear or incomplete, the courts will rule wherever possible in a manner which conforms with the convention. That is English law today.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend for allowing me to intervene. Has not the Government's case to us been that the Bill is to give domestic effect to the convention rights? If that is so, why not say so?
The Lord Chancellor: Our law already gives domestic effect to the convention in two respects which I have listed. I shall list more in a moment if the noble and learned Lord will permit me. It is therefore accurate as a matter of the use of English language to say that this Bill gives further effect.
The domestic courts are already able to apply the convention in certain circumstances. Where a domestic statute is enacted to fulfil a convention obligation the courts will ordinarily assume that the statute was intended to be effective to that end. Where the courts have a statutory discretion to exercise they seek to act in a way that does not violate the convention. When the courts are called upon to decide what, in a given situation, public policy demands, they have regard to the United Kingdom's international obligations as a source of guidance. Where the proceedings concern directly effective European Union law, the courts will take the convention into account because that law includes human rights principles, including those guaranteed by the convention.

479
Every lawyer knows this. No one can conceivably think that we intend to enact anything other than an Act to give further effect within the United Kingdom to a convention which already has effect in our domestic law.
Between now and Report we shall reflect on everything that has been said by Members of the Committee in support of this group of amendments. I understand the arguments. I have listened to them with care and will read them in Hansard with equal care. I note the modesty of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in yielding the field to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his willingness to support the noble Lord's amendment. However, that said, at present we are not persuaded that any advantage is to be gained from any of these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: The vast majority of the rights that are guaranteed by the European convention are already guaranteed by our own common law rules or by statute. Those common law rules or statutory rules are backed in our courts by an array of enforceable remedies. Let us suppose that a judge is presented with a situation whereby the substance of the common law or statute rule complies with the convention but the remedy available does not comply with the remedy that a citizen would gain under Article 13 if that citizen went to the court. What happens next? Under Clause 8(1) a court can grant any order within its jurisdiction. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that since Article 13 is automatically incorporated, although not on the face of the Bill, that judge is entitled to give effect to a remedy which is sanctioned by Article 13? Alternatively, is he saying that the judge is not so entitled? If the judge is not so entitled, is the judge then entitled to make a declaration of incompatibility with respect to remedies rather than the substance of the law and to ask for a fast-track solution from Parliament?
The Lord Chancellor: I find the noble Lord's late intervention in the debate somewhat difficult to follow. At present, I cannot conceive of any state of affairs in which an English court, having held an Act to be unlawful because of its infringement of a convention right, would under Clause 8(1), be disabled from giving an effective remedy. I believe that the English law is rich in remedies and I cannot conceive of a case in which English law under Clause 8(1) would be unable to provide an effective remedy.
However, during the earlier course of the debate I did not say that Article 13 was incorporated. The debate is about the fact that it is not incorporated. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I said that in my view the English courts, in the examples which he offered, would be able to have regard to Article 13.
Earl Russell: I am the first layman to intervene in the debate and therefore I am a little astonished at my temerity. I am reminded of a 17th century heretic who said—and I hope that the Committee will forgive me
480
for repeating his doctrine—that the Church of England should revert to having the scripture in Latin, for in Latin as it did no good so it did no harm.
The argument is entirely about whether since it makes no difference it should not be incorporated, or whether since it makes no difference there is no objection to its incorporation. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the Lord Chancellor have put those two points with crystal clarity.
Between those two it is simply a temperamental argument of priority. I must confess that on those terms I prefer erring on the side of safety. But there is a further point to be made. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said fairly that he cannot foresee any possible circumstances in which there would not be an effective remedy. I grant that this is an extremely well drafted Bill; indeed, it is possibly the best drafted Bill that I have seen before the House in nine years. But nothing is perfect. Acts of Parliament have woodwork and things come out of it often as much as two or three centuries after their drafting. If we cannot now foresee any specific respect in which the drafting of the Act is defective, that does not mean that there is no such defect, merely that among us in our collective wisdom we do not happen to have spotted it. That happens from time to time.
I wish to conclude with a remark once made in this Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, speaking on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, relating to a code of practice on disabilities. The noble Lord said, "I am not a lawyer, but this is a matter of belt and braces and that is something of which I do have some professional knowledge".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: This will be a fascinating debate for lawyers to read in Hansard. I am not sure whether it will fascinate non-lawyers. Perhaps I may summarise the position that we seem to have reached because I doubt whether we are far apart.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agrees that under the Bill the courts are fully entitled to have regard to Article 13, even though it is not to be incorporated. He also agrees that the courts are obliged to have regard to the Strasbourg case-law on Article 13 to the extent that it is relevant. The issue which remains is whether, taking Amendment No. 6 as the best example, it is sensible for Clause 1(1) to allow the judges to look at Articles 16, 17 and 18 in construing the substantive articles of the convention, but not to look at Article 13.
I can think of several practical examples where in real cases it will help the courts to know that they can have regard to Article 13, even if it is not directly incorporated. Perhaps I may give two examples. First, the Turkish cases in which there is no proper post-mortem or police investigation into a suspicious murder. I am not suggesting that in practice such circumstances are likely to arise in this country, but in those cases the Strasbourg court stated that Article 6, which is to be incorporated into UK law, is not the right article. It stated that Article 13 is the right article and it is the one to which domestic courts should have regard.

481
Perhaps I may take an example closer to home, which is the case of Chahal. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will be particularly familiar with the case because Parliament had to enact special legislation on immigration appeals to give effect to the European Court's judgment in Chahal. The vice was a breach of Article 13. That breach arose because there was no proper judicial procedure where a suspected terrorist was facing deportation to a country where he would face torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Therefore, we had to spend time enacting a new Bill.
If there were no clear inconsistency in the primary legislation and the courts could have regard to Article 13 when construing their remedial powers under Clause 8 of the Bill that would greatly assist them in fashioning the effective remedy. There is nothing between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and myself about the aim. We are concerned only about making the Bill clear on its face so that legal scholars, publishers, banisters, solicitors and, in the end, judges are not troubled by having to read this debate in order to arrive at the simple conclusion that it was the intention of Parliament that the courts would have regard to Article 13 of the convention.
I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1. Since we are speaking to the grouped amendments, I shall also beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 6. However, having carefully considered the arguments put forward I believe that it would be sensible if Amendment No. 6 found favour with the Government as a way of solving a practical problem. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

Personal Pensions: Mis-selling
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Economic Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a further Statement on the mis-selling of personal pensions.
"On 9th July I reported to the House on the progress being made by individual firms with most cases to put right in what is possibly the most extensive scandal ever seen in our financial services industry. Each month subsequently I have published the latest facts available to me. Today I have placed in the Library further information about the progress being made.
"We are now seeing positive results from the pressure applied since this Government were elected. In May only 2 per cent. of cases had been compensated. Now there has been a sevenfold increase in the number of people receiving
482
compensation—proof that in the cold glare of publicity firms can raise their game and make progress. However, more could and should be done.
"Before I go into more detail, it might assist the House if I recall the events which led to this scandal. The Social Security Act of 1986—a much-vaunted piece of legislation by the previous government—encouraged millions of people to change sound pension arrangements for something different in the belief that they would be more secure in later life. Some will be. Not all, however. For some, the change meant a future less secure, not more so.
"Between 1988 and 1994, life insurance companies, independent financial advisers, banks and building societies, through vigorous marketing, sold over 5 million personal pensions. It soon became clear that this meant disaster for many, including hundreds of thousands in nursing, teaching and other professions who had been persuaded against their best interests to abandon the safety of their occupational schemes.
"The truth is that many firms did not abide by the regulatory rules then in force requiring them to give suitable advice. Among those firms failing their customers were many household names.
"The Securities and Investments Board in 1994 took the unprecedented step of requiring firms to review the cases of those most likely to have suffered. The scale of the problem can now been seen: some 600,000 cases are currently being reviewed and on current indications the cost of compensation will be at least £2 billion.
"Deadlines were set for completing the most urgent reviews. These were well missed. The previous government stood by and let this happen.
"On 14th May this year I met heads of 24 firms responsible for about three-quarters of the total of the cases; I left them in no doubt about our determination to ensure those wasted years would be redeemed.
"Most of the big firms are making headway; indeed, some of them have made large strides. But far too many firms—from large insurance companies to small independent advisers—have been far too slow to act. Some have hardly started. They have failed to grasp the severity of the situation.
"The experience of the past few months shows that pressure—from the Government, the regulators and the public—is working. I intend to maintain it until the review is completed. In May the regulators set hard but realistic new targets for all the firms concerned and made it clear that there would be robust disciplinary action.
"For most firms the first of these targets is to complete 90 per cent. of the most urgent cases by the end of next month. Beyond that, they must complete all their priority reviews by the end of next year—at the very latest. When they reach that target, I shall remove their names from the list which I publish each month, although they must continue to update me on their progress.

483
"The recent reprimands and fines against firms such as the Prudential, Friends Provident and DBS have attracted wide publicity. This disciplinary rigour will continue. But the Government and the regulators recognise that in respect of some companies at least these sanctions may not be enough; they are not galvanising the laggards. For them, a stronger armoury of sanctions is required. The Personal Investment Authority is working to achieve this through individual registration, and the new regime will come into force as soon as possible next year.
"Once this regime is in place, sanctions can be fine-tuned to apply pressure directly on those responsible. Individual directors, managers or salespeople found to be at fault will face the prospect of fines, public reprimands or restrictions upon the type of work in which they may be involved. In extreme cases, they could be expelled from the industry.
"The public has a right to know about these failures. At present, the PIA has the power to require firms to advertise their misconduct and the grounds on which they have been disciplined. Until now, this power has been kept in reserve. There is now every reason to use it to the full. The PIA is currently examining ways to ensure that customers are informed directly of a firm's failings.
"The Government believe the time has come for a tougher range of sanctions to come into place. The only way for a firm or an individual to avoid disciplinary action is to avoid the conduct which warrants it.
"While putting right the wrongs of pensions mis-selling has been the priority, the Government have not lost sight of the fact that the financial services industry is central to our economic prosperity and to the welfare of millions of people. However, its prosperity requires the confidence of the public. That is why the industry must act quickly to restore that confidence. If there is continuing evidence that some firms will not learn the lesson of the past few years and continue to harm investors, then we will act to clean up the industry. To this end, the PIA has the authority to intervene on behalf of the public and require that a firm ceases to market or sell some or all of its investment products for a period and puts its house in order.
"Firms whose compliance with the regulators' requirements is so poor that investors are put at risk can effectively be put out of business. The PIA will use this power wherever warranted. Candidates for this action will include any independent financial adviser or any other firm found to be using the review process as a foot in the door to sell more products.
"The regulators and the Government also have powers to protect the public by taking action to exclude senior people who are not fit and proper from involvement in financial services business. Those who are not fit and proper can be removed from their posts. We will see to it that they are removed.
484
"In the years ahead the Government plan a number of major pieces of legislation which will have a profound impact on the financial services environment. Lessons learned from the pensions mis-selling episode will be in all our minds as we go about that task—in relation to stakeholder pensions, in relation to individual savings accounts and indeed as we reform the regulatory regime itself.
"So far as pensions policy is concerned, we will not repeat the mistakes of the previous government. We will not set people up for a fleecing. We anticipate that future decisions on the regulatory approval of stakeholder pension schemes would take into account the conduct and corporate governance of those involved. This would include, of course, their record in settling cases of mis-sold personal pensions.
"I hope that by the combination of measures which I have outlined to the House today we can ensure that never again will the public be exposed to such a scandal as that which I have described today and that those who have suffered can now look to speedy redress. Justice for them has been too long delayed; this Government are determined to ensure it is delivered."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Economic Secretary in another place. May I start by saying that there is nothing between us on the need for the pensions industry to right the wrongs of the pensions mis-selling. Indeed, the Economic Secretary's predecessor, Mrs. Angela Knight, made it clear to the industry that it had to put these matters to rights. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord would accept that pensions matters inevitably take a little time to be put right.
I remind the noble Lord of the time it took my noble friend Lord Cuckney to put matters right regarding the Maxwell pension fund. And that was not just mis-selling: it was pure robbery. Putting that right took a considerable time and a great deal of effort on the part of my noble friend and his colleagues. Equally, as a Minister of State in the Department of Social Security it took myself, my colleagues, our officials and indeed Members of your Lordships' House many hours—indeed months—to bring in the Pensions Act and the protection for pensioners we all judged necessary as a result of the Maxwell scandal. So the Economic Secretary to the Treasury ought to think about these examples when discussing the time it takes to put pension matters right. Nobody knows more about Robert Maxwell than she, as a one-time adviser to him, does. I would suggest that perhaps she might remember the old adage that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I note in the Statement that something like 600,000 out of 5 million pensions sold are under question. The Minister seems to dissent. But that is what the Statement says: that 600,000 cases were to be investigated. Not all of them may result in a decision that they were mis-sold.

485
But we understand that the cost is likely to be £2 billion. That is something that the pensions industry should attend to as quickly as it possibly can; and that, as the Minister said, includes some household names, including some household names which the Government have decided to look to in order to help them with issues such as the Welfare to Work scheme. I hope that the companies whose top people are giving help to the Government on other matters will not find themselves sheltered from the strictures of the Economic Secretary.
The Minister pointed out that for most firms the first of these targets set by the Economic Secretary earlier in the year is to complete 90 per cent. of the most urgent cases by the end of next month; that is, by the end of December. Do I take it that we shall have another Statement in January to report progress on meeting that target of 90 per cent. completed by the end of December? It seems to me that we should have been better to wait until that important target date had passed before we had today's Statement. That leads me to believe that something of a diversionary tactic is being undertaken here to take our minds away from the scandal of Formula One and tobacco sponsorship.
I return to the 600,000 mentioned in the Statement. How many are likely to opt back into SERPS? Have the Government any estimate of that? How much is that likely to cost SERPS in the longer term? Still on the question of SERPS, how many are likely to opt back in from perfectly good schemes which have been damaged severely by the Chancellor's pension tax? When thinking about the £2 billion that we are discussing in relation to pensions mis-selling, is it not remarkable that the Chancellor's pension tax will take £5 billion every year from pension funds up and down the country, including, for example, county council pension funds which must find £3.7 million per year from council taxpayers in order to undo the damage done by the Chancellor's pension tax? Perhaps I may even tempt the Minister to name and shame the Chancellor for his pension hit.
I notice that, the Statement having been very strong, the Government realised, by doing a little bit of simple arithmetic, that on their calculation £4.4 billion of the pensions were not mis-sold. There are many people who, if it had not been for the 1986 Act, would not have any provision at all. Indeed, as far as I understand it, the Government intend to build on private pension provision in various ways in order to encourage even more people to take out pension provision.
Therefore, I conclude by saying that I agree with the Government in their Statement that the financial services industry is central to our economic prosperity and to the welfare of millions of our people. I suggest to the Government that perhaps a little moderation in their tone sometimes might be called for if they wish to encourage that industry and encourage the people who are currently without pensions and who will need the assistance of the financial services industry in the future if they are to have the pensions that they need and deserve.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement on the pensions mis-selling
486
problem. I make it quite clear that on this side of the House, we fully support the prompt action which the Government are taking. We hope that it will yield positive results.
There is a reference in the Statement to priority and the most urgent of the 600,000 cases. What do those represent and what will happen to the remaining cases? The Government are apparently going to take firms off the list once they have dealt with the priority and urgent cases. But will those firms be examined in relation to their dealings as regards the remaining cases?
Dealing with this particular problem is only one part of the issue, as the noble Lord repeated in the Statement. It is essential that no further scandal of this sort should occur in the future. The Government have indicated that they intend to take major measures to deal with that, which we shall no doubt debate in due course. But is the noble Lord aware that at present, there is vigorous selling of what are described as draw-down schemes which are phased retirement plans offered to those who are likely to retire in the near future? Is he aware that it has been stated that those draw-down schemes are more risky than annuities and are not for people who need maximum income from their pension funds?
It seems to me that this whole area of pensions selling raises many questions and that while one issue is being dealt with, the skill and innovative experience of those selling the pensions means that another scheme is devised which may theoretically be perfectly proper but nevertheless can lead people into making the wrong decisions. How is that ever-changing approach to pensions to be dealt with so that those who are investing in those schemes can he assured that they receive the right advice and are not misled by over-enthusiastic salesmen?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for recognising the need for prompt and effective action to deal with the scandal of pensions mis-selling. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, goes further than the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, meant to go or, indeed, did go in welcoming such prompt action. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was more concerned to defend the record of the previous government than he was to analyse the options open to us to improve the situation in relation to mis-selling.
Of course the noble Lord is right that the Economic Secretary's predecessor, Angela Knight, recognised the need for action. But as the Statement makes clear, since only 2 per cent. of cases had been compensated by 14th May, which was soon after we took office, it cannot be said that the action taken was exceptionally effective.
The noble Lord is quite right to say also that pensions matters take time. But the test of that and the test of whether effective action is indeed being taken is to be seen in the difference between those firms which have taken effective action and have clearly been dealing with the problem and those which have certainly not taken effective action and still find themselves at the tail end, being named month after month by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the lists which she places

487
in the Libraries of both Houses. The noble Lord wishes to revert to the fraud and theft carried out by Maxwell and he is fully entitled to do so. But he must recognise that the scale of what we are describing now is perhaps 20 times greater than that for which Robert Maxwell was responsible.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to the figure of 600,000 in the Statement. As the Statement makes clear, that figure is the number of cases currently being investigated. There are more cases coming forward—probably up to 1.5 million cases in the end—which are of lower priority where the threat to people's pensions is less urgently seen because the time scale is further away but he is certainly not entitled to draw the conclusion that 4,400,000 pension schemes were properly sold.
The noble Lord raised the question of whether there will be another Statement in January. There will certainly be another monthly statement of defaulting firms in January. Whether there is a Statement to the House is a matter which has not yet been decided. The noble Lord questioned the need for this Statement. When we are making progress towards the additional sanctions in particular as regards individual registration and sanctions against individual managers and directors, it is only right that Parliament and the pensions industry should know about that at the earliest possible opportunity.
The noble Lord will have observed also that there was the statement on 28th October last at which the Financial Services Authority was introduced. He will know that at that time, before and subsequently, our determination to reform the structure of financial regulation has been made very clear. That is extremely relevant to the other issue which was raised; namely, whether there will be comparable failings in the pensions industry in the future.
The noble Lord asked me how many will opt back into SERPS. I do not know, and I do not think that those whose cases are being investigated know that at the present time. Of course the noble Lord is right that if a significant number opt back, that will affect the cost of SERPS, but it may do so in "netting out" against stakeholder pensions or against other pension provision which it is the intention of the Government to introduce in the coming years.
The noble Lord made his usual reference to advanced corporation tax. I expected that; indeed I would have been disappointed had he not done so. It is noticeable that the good schemes which are taking effective action to deal with mis-selling of pensions have shown no signs of being deterred from taking that action by the decisions which the Chancellor took in the Budget. It is the anomaly between the good schemes and the bad schemes which shows the degree of mis-selling.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the 600,000 cases. I can confirm that as they are the ones currently being investigated they are the most urgent cases. The noble Lord asked me whether we can be sure that there will be no further scandal. We cannot be sure of that but we are taking action through the establishment of the
488
Financial Services Authority, through the Bank of England Bill which will transfer financial regulatory powers from the Bank of England to the FSA, and through subsequent legislation to ensure that we have a more effective and more powerful regulatory authority in the financial services industry. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about sales skills in the pensions industry and the drawdown schemes which are starting to emerge. Of course the regulators will have to be vigilant to ensure that sales of this kind are properly assessed, and to ensure that there is no comparable mis-selling.
There is a specific argument for drawdown schemes. I do not think it is fair to say that they are always inappropriate. They can be taken up by those who retire when annuity rates are low. They can be appropriate. but like all complicated schemes people who are considering taking advantage of them should take independent advice before committing themselves. However, as regards the Government, it is the continued forceful pressure on mis-selling of pensions and the continued pressure for an improved regulatory regime which is at the core of our response to this scandal.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, while I recognise that tough measures are amply justified in dealing with this blot on what is otherwise an industry with a good record, will the noble Lord assure us that the Government recognise the vital importance of encouraging all forms of legitimate saving for retirement, and that there will be no further Budget raids on the resources of occupational pension schemes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I have no difficulty in confirming the importance which the Government attach to all forms of saving for pensions, whether public or private. However, I shall not commit myself to future Budget provisions.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, first I declare an interest as a former director of an insurance company. I fully support what is being done by the Government. I am not so sure that I fully support the threatening, aggressive language of the Statement. This is a complex issue. We are talking about examining hundreds of thousands of policies to make sure that they come within the categories that have been cleared. I support the scheme completely. I was a director of Friends Provident. Friends Provident was formed by Quakers in order to give people a fair deal. Friends Provident is jealous of its reputation but it came under the hammer and was fined substantially under the provisions which are legitimately imposed. Is there an adequate appeal procedure against the substantial sums that are being lodged against insurance companies bearing in mind the complications of giving fair treatment and obtaining acceptance and co-operation from the industry rather than simply threatening it with deadlines?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no natural tendency to aggressive language. In ideal circumstances I would agree with my noble friend that

489
aggressive and threatening language is not appropriate. However, I must say that a certain amount of aggressive and threatening language from Government Ministers appears to have been necessary and appears to have had some effect. In those circumstances I suggest that the remedy is justified and that our natural tendency—which is universal in this House—to be gentle not just with each other but also with the outside world, perhaps could be put on one side.
My noble friend also asked me about Friends Provident and whether there is any appeal procedure against the fines imposed by the Personal Investment Authority. As my noble friend recognises, Friends Provident was fined £450,000 and it has not appealed against that fine. Of course in their regulatory activities the regulators are working within the civil law—they are working within the context of contract law—and if any pension company thought that there was severe injustice in the fines being imposed, there is no doubt that company would have a remedy because there has to be due process of law. However, it is significant that not only has Friends Provident not appealed but none of those firms which have been fined has appealed.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord can help me a little. If there is a bigger take up of SERPS, has he any figures to show what the unfunded pension liability would be in the year 2010 and beyond because that has a great bearing on what happens to European monetary union? The German pension, as we all know, is totally unfunded—and the liability is enormous beyond the year 2010—as is the French and the Italian pension. Up until now we in this country have had a nice balanced funded and unfunded pension liability. That is my first question.
My second question is: In the early '80s we made it illegal to have fixed commission rates for salesmen. Would it not be better to go back to a fixed tariff of pension salesmen's commissions so that there would be no necessary advantage in selling one form of pension over another because the commission to the salesman or to the broker would therefore be higher for pension A rather than pension B?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl raises two important and interesting questions to which I should love to respond at length. As regards his first question on SERPS, I suspect that is a little remote from the mis-selling of personal pensions. I suspect that whatever the actuarial calculation might be, it ought to be seen in the context of the whole range of pension provision which I think the noble Earl recognises as being necessary if we are going to secure not just our old age but that of our descendants in the next century. In order to get the total picture what we fund through SERPS has to be set against what we do not fund through, for example, non-contributory pension schemes in the public sector. I am sorry but I have forgotten the noble Earl's second question.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, fixed commissions for pension selling.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suspect that that is a counsel of perfection. I suspect that had it been possible to have fixed commissions, someone would have found a way of doing it. The difficulty with commissions relates not just to the total amount of commission but the proportion of the commission which is charged against the proposal in the first year of its life.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that one of the problems which has caused much of the delay, even in the case of those firms which have made a serious effort to put things right, has been that a high degree of precision has been required in reaching terms for settlement? Although a high degree of precision is, in itself, desirable, it is a factor which has led to the dragging out of a number of cases further than we would have hoped. Having said that, does the noble Lord accept that the companies in this market place which have made the best progress have been those where the importance and urgency of the need to put things right has been recognised at the highest level—at the level of the chairman, the chief executive, the board of directors and senior management? Will he tell us whether it is his view, and that of his honourable friend, that the top levels of those firms which have been rather more laggardly in the process have now got the message that it is a matter to which they have to give high priority within their own businesses?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those, too, are interesting questions. I rather agree with the noble Lord that those firms which have been successful in dealing with the problem of the mis-selling of pensions have been successful because they recognise the problem at a high level. If the problem had been recognised at a high level when the pensions were being mis-sold in the first place, we might not have the same kind of problem that we now have. It is the PIA's move towards individual registration which will penalise those senior managers in the laggardly firms who have not been taken the action necessary to deal with the problem promptly. It is for that reason that individual registration and penalties are necessary.
The noble Lord's first question related to over-precision in dealing with these cases. I am not sure that that is the case. A considerable number of cases are now being resolved by the firms conceding compliance and causation, and accepting that they have a responsibility to restore the situation without going into too much detail in the individual case. Again, I rather think that as clearer patterns of mis-selling emerge, the need for greater precision will diminish.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
5.3 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page I, line 6, at beginning insert—
("( ) The main purpose of this Act is to provide effective remedies for violation of the Convention rights within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: I think the Committee will agree that usually the procedure of groupings not only makes good sense, it makes for tidiness of debate. This is one occasion when it does not achieve that object. I suppose that what I should have done is to make my point to those responsible people—they are indeed responsible and do much for this place—who suggested the groupings. The first I ever heard of the groupings was when I entered the Chamber earlier this afternoon.
I say that because the question of whether or not the Bill should have a main purpose clause is entirely separate from the many issues which have been learnedly discussed this afternoon. I know that my noble and learned friend, in his kindness and courtesy, said that he would be considering the whole debate. I would ask him to regard the question of main purpose as a separate issue. I am much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his kindness in that he said that he might support an amendment along the lines of the one I have tabled. In those circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("12 and").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment concerns a matter that was much discussed on an earlier amendment; namely, the incorporation into the Bill of Article 13. The amendment seeks to do that. The Bill reads:
"'the Convention rights' means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in—
(a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14".
The amendment seeks to leave out "12 and" so that the paragraph will read, "Articles 2 to 14". The matter has been fully discussed, and the overwhelming view in the Committee was that Article 13 should be incorporated and set out in the schedule. I shall not repeat the arguments that have so cogently been put forward. Half of them were put forward by Members of the Committee who support the Bill as I do. The only voice on the other side was, I am afraid, that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He promised to consider the whole of the matter.
I do not propose to press this amendment or any others in my name to a Division today. Some little time ago, I came to the conclusion that I was not justified in intruding further on the Committee's deliberations. If I have weakened on this occasion I can only pray in forgiveness that I have been waiting for a very long time for this Bill—ever since its precursor was moved by the late Lord Wade. I hope that the Committee will extend indulgence. I hope that I will not trespass too far on that indulgence.
The arguments have been overwhelming from various parts of the Chamber. I do not propose to repeat what was said. Amendment No. 6 seeks in another way to do the same as I seek to do in this amendment. My amendment is shorter. It seeks to omit two words from
492
the Bill. Even in a very well drafted measure such as this, a small mercy of two legislative words is not to be despised. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I have already spoken to this amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: So have I. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("and
( ) Articles I to 4 of the Fourth Protocol,").
The noble Earl said: Before turning to my own amendments, perhaps I may make one remark in which I hope—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. We have not yet dealt with Amendment No. 6, and I believe it is my fault.
Lord Henley: I think the noble Lord will find that discussion on Amendment No. 4 comes before that on Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: In the groupings list Amendment No. 6 follows Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Lord Henley: The groupings are purely informal and are designed to assist the Committee. We have discussed all the amendments within that grouping. It is open to the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord, to return to that amendment when we arrive at the amendment in its proper numerical place.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to have missed the chance to speak in the hearing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I wished to say, I hope on behalf of the whole Committee, that we are delighted that he has again taken part in our proceedings and we look forward to his doing so on many more occasions.
In moving Amendment No. 4, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 113, which is consequential upon it. Also, with the leave of the Committee—I ask leave since this is a change in the rules—I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 115, which covers related matter. Since I should in effect be making the same speech, it seems a good idea that the Committee should not have to hear it twice.
The purpose of this amendment is to bring within the scope of the Bill and incorporate the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention. Since the convention was drawn up in 1950 quite a lot of legal water has flowed under the bridge, and quite a lot of political water also. So it has been found necessary by the parties to the convention to produce a certain number of revisions and additions which are incorporated in the protocol. That meets the point made in the past by the noble and

493
learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, about the amendment of the convention. It has been done, and I am glad that it has.
This protocol was signed by the United Kingdom, but it has not yet been ratified. However, I see no inherent impossibility about the United Kingdom ratifying the Fourth Protocol should it see fit to do so.
As to what is included in the Fourth Protocol, the Committee will find it convenient to turn to Amendment No. 113, the amendment to the schedule in which the bulk of the protocol is set out. It is a series of rights which are well within the traditions and spirit of English common law.
The first point is that it puts an end to imprisonment for debt. Here I must say a special word in memory of my late noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris, who died last week. He will be very much missed by your Lordships' House. I have heard my noble friend say in this Chamber that one of his life-long ambitions was to achieve a final end to imprisonment for debt. It is in the spirit of a memorial to him that I ask whether the Committee might consider taking this felicitous occasion to do that.
The second article of the Fourth Protocol relates to freedom of movement within one's own territory and freedom to enter and leave one's own country. The second is directly in line with Clause 41 of Magna Carta:
"All the King's subjects shall have free entry to and egress from the realm, save in time of war'.
It may be suggested that the provision is obsolete. In fact it was upheld only about 10 years ago in the United States Supreme Court by way of asserting that the State Department had no right to refuse a passport to a US subject who wished to leave the country. So it is a live tradition. The freedom of movement within the territory repeats a provision of the Petition of Rights 1628. That, again, is well within the spirit of English law as we know it at present. Incidentally, it provoked Chief Justice Coke—and the Committee will guess which county he came from—to say that sending a Norfolk man to Cumberland was a penalty no less severe than imprisonment! It prohibits the expulsion of people from their own country.
Anyone who was present in the Chamber for the first Question this afternoon should appreciate the importance of that provision. The Question dealt with Romany subjects in the Czech republic of Slovakia. People being expelled from their own territory is a cause of world instability. That should be fairly clearly prohibited is a good thing.
The most important provision is Article 4 of the Fourth Protocol, which states that:
"Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited".
That means that any decision to expel an alien must be taken individually as the result of a hearing. Here we come to some areas of problem in asylum law. The 1951 convention on refugees was, as we know, drafted some time ago. Those who drafted that convention did not envisage persecution as coming from anyone other than one's own government. They lived in a world of sovereign nation states which they believed had secure
494
control within their own territories. We know that that is not always so. Therefore a very large number of cases of claims for asylum now are ones that come, not under the UN convention, but under Article 3 of the European Convention which is being incorporated by this Bill, dealing with torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or cruel or unusual punishment. This is the matter that I always think of as the Algerian amendment—because in that country, sadly, the forces of the state are unable to provide sufficient protection against the actions of opposition, dissidents, guerrillas and others. In the light of yesterday's news, I very much hope that I shall not have to think of this also as the Egyptian amendment.
In these cases there is a claim for asylum that arises under the convention. But the 1993 Act covers only those that arise under the UN convention, not the European convention. Cases under the European convention are very often given exceptional leave to remain, as distinct from refugee status. But there is a very large area of discretion. Where the government do not do that, there is no appeal in the British courts; but of course there is an appeal under the European court procedure at Strasbourg.
My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill referred to the case Chahal, a case in which that power was exercised. So what I hope to hear on Amendment No. 115 is that, with this Bill on the statute book. people who invoke Article 3 of the European convention, asking for asylum, will find that the adjudicators are in power to apply the European convention, and not merely the 1993 Act.
This is a question about the relationship between Clause 6(1) of the Bill and Clause 6(2). It is a matter of some anxiety among professionals in the field and, as I read the text of the Bill, a matter of some uncertainty. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, were able to set my mind to rest on the point, I should be extremely happy. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: One of the advantages of following the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that the case for the amendment has been fully and effectively deployed and any embellishment by me would be superfluous. I do not propose to trouble the Committee further with the amendment, except to make one comment which I believe underlies all the amendments in this group. I am very conscious that the Bill is concerned with procedures. It relates to the procedures by which a citizen shall be empowered to avail himself or herself of the rights which exist independently of the Bill. I was unable to be present for the Second Reading debate, but had I been, it would have been the principal burden of my contribution. I believe that the Government have wisely directed the Bill to the rights, already set out in the convention, which command a wide consensus, and have refrained from seeking to change or widen those rights.
I am very aware that in formulating rights as human rights there is a danger of foreclosing legitimate debate and that we should be careful to apply that process to rights where the debate is substantially concluded. But, as the noble Earl said a few moments ago, formulations of human rights are not set in stone. If they become

495
static and atrophied they lose their cutting edge. The world changes and the Committee may recollect that the convention is now 50 years old. So from time to time it has been necessary to add protocols to the convention to ensure that the convention rights shall be consistent with a changing world and with the changing cultures of the people to whom they apply. The Government have wisely recognised that by incorporating in the Bill Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol.
Which protocols then ought to be included in the Bill? What is the criterion for incorporation? I hope that when my noble friend Lord Williams replies to the debate he will give us some idea of the Government's thinking on the criterion for that. But if I may hesitantly suggest an answer, I believe that it would be appropriate to include a right if it embodies a standard which commands a broad consensus. Of course, that does not mean that there shall not be found any individual or even bodies of individuals who may think differently. That would reduce the Bill to an unnecessary statement of the obvious. Nor can it mean that there may not be found those who, while they pay lip service to the rights, do not in fact observe them.
I find it hard to believe that there is any serious controversy about the principles in the rights embodied in the Fourth Protocol. So far as I am aware, it is not suggested that there is any substantial body of opinion opposed to them. The Government, in the White Paper, give a quite different reason for excluding them. They say that some of our present laws may be inconsistent with them. The Government say that they are important rights and "We, the Government, would like to see them given formal recognition in our law". If then some of our laws are inconsistent with them, is it not to our domestic laws that we should be directing our criticisms?
My reading of the White Paper is that it may be that what is really in the Government's mind is a reference to laws which may be in conflict in relation to different categories of British nationals. The noble Earl did not direct his mind to this, but I wonder whether the problem relates to the British Nationality Act 1981 which certainly denies right of entry to specific categories of British nationals. If that is so, I venture to suggest three answers.
First, I know of no potential large influx of British nationals, even if we were to change the existing legislation. The most obvious relates to Hong Kong, but those who are Dependent Territories citizens, British nationals, and who are at present denied the right of abode, probably number about 180,000. Of those, the large majority are likely to wish to remain in Hong Kong. Of the remainder, the majority have a number of options open to them.
The second answer is that the United Kingdom could enter a derogation or reservation in relation to the territorial place of origin of certain categories of British nationals if it thought that there was a good reason for excluding them. Personally, I hope that that would not be the option which appeals to the Government.
496
The third answer is that in any event the rights of those with whom we are concerned in the Fourth Protocol are not determined by the Bill. It may be that it is in Strasbourg, either in the debates of the governments concerned or in certain circumstances in the court itself, that their rights may be determined. I should have thought it better that they should be determined here in the courts in Britain.
I turn now to Amendment No. 5. I am grateful to a large group of non-governmental organisations who have participated in discussions on this, particularly to Amnesty International and Justice. Like the Fourth Protocol, the Sixth Protocol has been signed by the United Kingdom but not ratified. In suggesting that it satisfies the criterion which I ventured to suggest a few moments ago, I do not seek to provoke a debate on the merits of the death penalty. If that belongs anywhere, it certainly does not belong in the parliamentary process of this Bill. On the contrary. I venture to suggest that the protocol satisfies the criterion precisely because those debates are things of the past.
A consensus cannot mean that there is no room for dissent by a single individual or group of individuals. That could be said of probably every right set out in the convention. The Government's reason for omitting the protocol from the Bill as set out in the White Paper, is that the issue is a matter of judgment and conscience to be decided by Members of Parliament as they see fit. I should have thought that that was true of all the rights in the convention. The application and priority of the right to freedom of expression may he a matter about which one can hear more than one opinion. The right in the First Protocol to educate one's children in conformity with one's own religious and political convictions is not free from controversy.
If there were a Division in either House of Parliament on those matters, I can well believe that it would be said to be a matter of judgment and conscience. But these are matters on which the essential debates have been substantially concluded. That is why they can properly be enshrined as human rights. The question which now arises is: is that true of the right enshrined in the Sixth Protocol? If the issue were a live one, I would not seek to suggest that further debate should be foreclosed. But for any issue there comes a time when it is burned out and when it belongs to history.
The Sixth Protocol raises two issues: whether the death penalty should be re-introduced for murder and whether it should be abolished for those offences in respect of which it remains on the statute book. The death penalty for murder was abolished in 1965, following a free vote in Parliament. There have been subsequently a number of parliamentary debates as to whether it should be re-introduced, but Parliament has never decided to re-introduce it. The last occasion which I have been able to trace was on 21st February 1994, during the Committee stage in another place of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The proposal was defeated by 403 votes to 159. So far as I am aware, it has never been resurrected.
The offences for which the death penalty still remains on the statute book include treason, piracy and some offences by members of the Armed Forces against

497
military law. It has not been used for treason since 1946 and I cannot believe that realistically there is any prospect that it will be. The last recorded execution for piracy was in 1830. The retention of the death penalty for offences against military law was last discussed in your Lordships' Chamber on the Motion of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline (Continuation) Order of 19th July 1993, when my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel pointed out that if an IRA sniper shot and killed a member of the Armed Forces he would not suffer the death penalty, but if in order to avoid that outcome the soldier ran away he would be liable for execution. I doubt whether anyone would be found to defend that situation.
It may be that no one is likely to need recourse to this legislation to avoid suffering the death penalty. But there are countries where the issue is still a live one and some of them are countries where trials are not always conducted as we would hope. To include the Sixth Protocol may send an important signal.
The proposed text of the final declaration for the Council of Europe's summit calls for the universal abolition of the death penalty. When my noble and learned friend replies, I hope that he can tell us whether the Government support that text. If so, it would help substantially in creating a climate in which less enlightened states comply with that declaration if the United Kingdom announced that it regarded the issue as substantially closed and embodied it in the Bill. The United Kingdom Government have a commendable record in supporting calls for the abolition globally of the death penalty. It does not add to our credibility if it can be replied that we still have it on our statute book.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I wish to address myself briefly to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and do so from a rather different viewpoint from that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, or my noble friend Lord Russell.
In looking at the White Paper's response to this set of proposals, we are looking at what may be a major missed opportunity for the Government. The Foreign Secretary, in another place, raised the hopes of many people when he said that he regarded human rights as the central pillar of the foreign policy of this Government. It attracted attention from all over the world.
As my noble friend said and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, virtually everything that is embodied in the Fourth Protocol is already recognised in British law or in British practice. We understand that the Government have committed themselves to repealing the continuation of execution orders in the case of Northern Ireland, which was one of the difficulties that arose with regard to Article 2. Article 1 has already been discussed and it is now generally agreed that imprisonment for debt is not something that should happen in a civilised country. Incidentally, it would save a certain amount of public expenditure if it ceased in this country, as it surely should. Article 2 is qualified by Article 3, which allows the right of free
498
movement of peoples to be fundamentally limited in certain situations where organised crime, trade in drugs and other matters are concerned.
The Government are passing up a major opportunity in this matter—I hope they will reconsider the position they take in the White Paper—because at the present time we are in a position to give a major lead to other countries within the European Union and specifically to those countries which are currently applying for membership of the European Union. As a country we have insisted that those who join the Council of Europe and who propose to join the European Union should sign and ratify the protocol that we are discussing in this Chamber this evening. It is strange that a government which should be giving a lead in matters of democracy, human rights and civil liberties should not be willing to sign the protocol they ask others to sign—countries far less able to do so and with far less experience in that field than the United Kingdom.
We have this opportunity now. I see no great objection to it. Both Article 2(1) and Article 4, which concerns the expulsion of aliens, are of critical importance in establishing a democratic culture in central and eastern Europe. Anybody who has seen the horror of Bosnia surely cannot disagree with that proposition. It would therefore be right and apposite, in view of the Government's commitment to human rights and their foreign policy, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were to see fit to undertake in this Bill to complement that stand by saying that the United Kingdom is willing to sign Protocol 4 and, on that position, to advocate powerfully that it should be signed by all those countries which wish to become part of European democracies within our region of the world.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: I was not able to be present at Second Reading and perhaps I may now express my warm welcome for the Bill as a whole. However, I must go on to express a certain unhappiness, having been involved in the field of human rights for some time. It has its delights, not least the ability of every supporter of human rights to wish to get everything, including the kitchen sink, into every step that is considered a step forward for the protection of human rights.
This Bill is designed to repatriate to this country those rights which we currently have to go to Strasbourg to enforce. To introduce matters such as the final abolition of the death penalty and rights of movement—all of which are matters of contention by which we are not bound at the moment and which are not part of the international law of which we are a part—is simply to complicate the situation and put off the day, possibly fatally, in which those matters that are sensible are brought into English law.
When looking at the list of amendments, I ask that we consider what we are trying to do with this Bill. If it is to make enforceable in English law known rights under the covenant which are currently in force in Strasbourg, let us do that. Let us not try to protect for the time being every human right that anyone can think of.

499
More practically and directly, it is said that the matters set out in the Fourth Protocol are already matters to which English law conforms. I am in no position to give that competent advice which others apparently are. I have seen no discussion on the subject in any detail in academic journals, let alone in the courts. I doubt whether English law is such that imprisonment for inability to pay debt is no longer part of it. What are we seeking to achieve? Is it a limited, valid goal? Or are we seeking to put the whole world to rights? I ask that we concentrate on the essentials and not the periphery.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I intended to give unequivocal support to the previous speeches in relation to the Fourth and Sixth protocols. But, having heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, I now need to modify what I would have said in the light of what the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out as to the immediate purpose of the Bill.
Two separate questions arise. One is: what is to be in the Bill? The other is whether we should ratify and then incorporate the Fourth and Sixth protocols. The Government indicated—I welcome this greatly—that they intend to ratify Protocol 7 which closes the gap between the European convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. One of those guarantees which will no doubt then be incorporated under the Bill when it becomes law is one dealing with procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens, which I greatly welcome. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, reminds us of our limited objective, we need to take into account that there will be further rights included which are contained in Protocol 7.
In relation to the Sixth Protocol, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord. Lord Archer of Sandwell, and my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby as to the desirability of ratifying that protocol, for the reasons that they gave. However, I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, that that is not before us at the moment in anything like the same degree of importance as are the obligations to which we are already party.
There is an extremely powerful case for ratification of the Fourth Protocol, as has already been explained. Perhaps I may add two or three points. I sought to persuade the Callaghan Government, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Owen, when he was Foreign Secretary, unsuccessfully of the need to ratify the Fourth Protocol. I tried to persuade the Thatcher Government, in particular Sir Leon Brittan, the then Home Secretary, to ratify. The problem is—I understand the problem—that our immigration and nationality legislation is said by some to be discriminatory. For that reason we entered broad reservations when we ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Speaking for myself—I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with this point in his reply—I see no reason why, since we are already bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
500
since the White Paper rightly points out that the provisions of the Fourth Protocol largely reflect what is in the international covenant, we could not ratify the Fourth Protocol with the wide reservations that have already been made with regard to the international covenant. I agree with those who have said that the contents of the Fourth Protocol largely mirror what is already in our law. I notice that the Government have said that the rights in the Fourth Protocol are important and that they would like to see them given formal recognition in our law. I therefore very much hope that the Government will feel able to enter the necessary reservations to enable them to ratify the Fourth Protocol.
My last point is this—I realise that it goes in a way to the wider questions for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as well as the Home Office. I very much hope that, in the Government's review of these wider questions which is now under way, they will show a willingness to accept the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so as to give jurisdiction to the UN human rights committee. That would go a long way to solving the problem about the Fourth Protocol. Since the international covenant mirrors what is in the Fourth Protocol, it would at least mean that people could have recourse to the UN human rights committee, as is true of every other European state except the micro-states. For example, Ireland recently accepted the optional protocol. Going beyond Europe, Australia and New Zealand have done so. Indeed, all of the European states which have done so have entered appropriate reservations to make sure that there is no double jeopardy for governments under the covenant and the convention. I very much hope that that may happen because that seems to be the bare minimum needed if we are to show our commitment on the international plane with regard to these rights.
To sum up, I agree with aims of the movers of the amendment. I very much hope that sympathetic consideration will be given to ratification of the two protocols and to acceptance of the optional protocol to the international covenant in order to reduce the mismatch. I was once involved in an East-African Asian's case where this really mattered. The effect of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 was to exclude from this country British citizens on racial grounds. We had to go to Strasbourg. The fact that we had not ratified the Fourth Protocol gave us serious problems. In the end the commission had to stretch the meaning of Article 3 of the convention and deal with the problem in that way. It gave some protection. I should like to see much greater protection on the basis of citizenship, which is, after all, fundamental to this country. We surely, as citizens, should have the same civil and political rights as our fellow citizens elsewhere in Europe. The Fourth Protocol is one of the missing ingredients which would place us in the same position as our fellow citizens in other European countries.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Although I am not attracted to this amendment as at present advised, perhaps I may ask the same sort of question of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. What was the

501
Government's reason for excluding Articles 1 to 4 of the Fourth Protocol? I should like to understand why things have been included and why things have not been included. But I would not be in favour of this amendment as at present advised.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I did not take part in the Second Reading of the Bill because I was still at the most recent session of the United Nations human rights committee, of which I am a member. If that is an interest, then I declare it. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about this.
I want to say a few words on the Fourth Protocol from an aspect which is different from any that has previously been mentioned. I recognise, of course, Article 1 from Article 11 of the international covenant, but more particularly I recognise Articles 2 and 3 as they partly are reflected in Articles 12 and 13 of the international covenant. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that they are reflected. In fact the provisions are substantially different in the two different documents. That is one of the reasons why I wish to raise this briefly in your Lordships' Committee.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the question of refugees. The human rights committee deals with periodical first reports from countries. Very often there is an aspiration on the part of those who seek to persuade the committee to ask governments questions of one sort and another to embark on a lengthy consideration of their treatment of refugees. The same points can arise when one is dealing with communications under the first optional protocol, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has just referred. Again, people seem to think that the provisions of the covenant are sufficiently comprehensive to deal with a number of problems faced by refugees. They are not.
There is a very limited application. There is a provision in the international covenant which is not really reflected in the European one unless it is a stretching of Article 3, which was just mentioned, which refers to the conditions in which refugees are detained while a decision is made about their further movements. There are some provisions in Article 12, about their freedom of movement during the period while such decisions are being taken, which are capable of being raised under the international covenant and, therefore, I should have thought, also under the Fourth Protocol. But what happens is that people's expectations are unduly raised, because they think that the effect of these provisions is really to incorporate what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put down as Amendment No. 115, which is the refugee conventions. It does not do so.
If there are other reasons why the Government have decided not to incorporate the provisions of the Fourth Protocol, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned, I would simply add this as another one. It is by no means comprehensive. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, is telling us to stick to the things that are certain, I can tell the Committee that from the international point of view
502
this is not a certain area at all. It is one where a good deal of thought ought to be given before we embark on incorporation into British law of these provisions.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Does the noble Viscount agree with me that the human rights committee has repeatedly and recently urged the United Kingdom Government to incorporate the substantive provisions of the covenant into UK law and to accept the optional protocol?
Viscount Colville of Culross: The first optional protocol. That happened at a session which was the one immediately before I joined it. That had nothing to do with the decision because I would not have been allowed to take part in it in any event. The noble Lord is quite right. The first optional protocol would still raise false expectations if it were ratified because citizens might go to the committee in the expectation which I have just mentioned. They would find themselves sadly disappointed because there is a very limited area in which the human rights committee can help them.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may make one small point of clarification. I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for a great deal of what he said. I would like to clarify the purpose of my Amendment No. 115. It is not to incorporate the UN refugee convention any further than applied in 1993. It is to allow adjudicators and others also to take account of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is why it is relevant to this Bill.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I was simply using the noble Earl's amendment as a reference point as to what it is people tend to think is covered by Articles 12 and 13 of the international covenant and the provisions in the Fourth Protocol. I was not suggesting that the noble Earl was doing anything else.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, a question. When the people of Scotland voted in the referendum on Scottish devolution they were given to understand that one of the possibilities for them, if the White Paper was followed, was the reinstitution of the death penalty in Scotland, although it was not to be reinstituted anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I am not one of those who would have followed that line, but that was a definite understanding. Is it the noble and learned Lord's intention to block off that possibility through this amendment?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Let me make it clear that it certainly was not my intention to intervene in a family quarrel in Scotland. I would not wish to pre-empt the result of any debate which the people of Scotland might wish to have. The matter of course can be dealt with in this Bill without in any way precluding the amendments which the noble Earl and I have moved.
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble and learned Lord's comment demonstrates the soundness of the point made by my noble and learned friend

503
Lord Browne-Wilkinson. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, seeks to incorporate a ban on the death penalty into the definition of the convention. We would then have a situation where, as far as possible, primary legislation has to be read to accord with that abolition. The noble and learned Lord told us that on the statute book there is a law which says that pirates shall be hanged. How on earth does one render a provision that says that pirates shall be hanged compatible with the protocol? Equally, in the unlikely event that either a parliament in the United Kingdom or an assembly or parliament elsewhere says that there shall be a death penalty, how does one render those two compatible? One cannot. The only answer is that one then has a situation where a court says that the two are not compatible.
When there is a provision in substantive law that there shall be the death penalty for particular crimes, surely the right course is for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to bring forward a substantive Bill to abolish the death penalty rather than to create on the face of this Bill an obvious conflict.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The whole purpose of Clause 4 is to bring to the surface precisely those situations where our legislation is inconsistent with what appears to be an international consensus. There will be a declaration and the rest of the procedure in the Bill would follow.
Viscount Bledisloe: We already know that we have that. The time for the court to do that is when, at the end of the argument, it finds that there is a hidden incompatibility. If we know now that there is such an incompatibility, let us have a Bill to abolish the death penalty.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may intervene very briefly to offer a degree of support to the Government Front Bench. I do not know whether that will be the kiss of death to their argument. I await to hear that in due course. When I saw these two amendments I looked to the White Paper, which I believe it was agreed at Second Reading was admirably drafted even though we received it a little late. I looked at the arguments set out and which were rehearsed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in Articles 4(10) and 4(11) in Protocol 4 and Articles 4(12) and 4(13) in Protocol 6. On this occasion I accept the arguments that the Government have put forward in the White Paper. Having listened to the arguments, I do not know whether the Government will be putting forward the same arguments again. On these Benches we shall certainly not support these amendments if they are pressed to a vote.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 113, 114, and 115, the latter being the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There have been carefully argued cases put forward in respect of each of these amendments.
504
I shall do them justice by spending a little time dealing with them because there are serious and important questions here to which the over-arching answer is that propounded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson: that we know the purpose of this Bill and we seek to put it into effect as soon as reasonably and practically convenient.
Amendment No. 4 would include Articles 1 to 4 of Protocol 4 to the convention within the definition of convention rights. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked a specific question on Protocol 4. The reason it is not included in our scheme is that the Government have not ratified it.
Amendment No. 5 would similarly include Article 1 of Protocol 6: Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 would insert the text of those articles into Schedule 1 to the Bill. Amendment No. 115 is a distinct amendment to which I shall turn separately in due time.
I hope that the tone of my reply will be regarded as helpful rather than obstructive. Before we introduced this Bill the Government did conduct a review of the United Kingdom's position on the three protocols to the convention which contain substantive rights which we have not ratified. That is Protocols 4, 6 and 7.
I am obliged for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We explained very clearly in the White Paper that we intend to sign and ratify Protocol 7 once an opportunity arises to legislate to remove some inconsistencies between what is in our domestic law and the provisions of that protocol. Following that review, we have concluded that it is not presently possible to ratify either Protocol 4 or Protocol 6.
Protocol 4 contains important rights. They reaffirm the statement in the White Paper that the Government would like to see them given formal recognition in our international legal obligations. But that would be possible only if potential conflicts with our domestic laws could be resolved. As was foreseen by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, there were particular concerns about Article 3(2) of the protocol which protects the right of nationals not to be excluded from their home state.
Our calculation is that that could possibly be relevant to the position of about 5.5. million people, which is a larger figure than that contended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. It would relate to various categories of British nationals: British dependent territory citizens, British overseas citizens, British subjects and British nationals overseas who do not presently have that right. These matters need careful consideration and therefore we have no plans at present to ratify the protocol.
As regards Protocol 6 and the death penalty matter, I have always had a conscientious objection to the death penalty for murder and in no circumstances that I can contemplate would I ever vote for it. But that is my own personal position. That is a conscientious view that I have come to and I know that other people have a different view. The Government's view has been that the issue of the death penalty—I believe that this has been common currency among all political parties—is a matter of judgment and conscience to be decided by

505
Members of Parliament as they see fit. I believe that all political parties have taken a view on that particular aspect which is different from other human civil rights. Therefore, if we ratified Protocol 6, we could not reintroduce the death penalty for murder, short of renouncing the convention.
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to those rights and freedoms which we have an obligation to secure to individuals in our jurisdiction as a result of our being a party to the convention—that is precisely the observation made more elegantly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson--it is not to make provision for other rights. In due time, if we decide to ratify Protocols 6 or 4 (or any other protocol), your Lordships will have noted that Clause 1 provides the power for rights in Protocols 4, 6 or 7 (or, indeed, in any other) to be added by order to convention rights. That is the scheme that we have set. It seems to be workable, practicable and attainable.
I now turn to Amendment No. 115 and remind the Committee briefly that the thrust of the argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was that it should be possible in appeals to the special adjudicator under the 1993 Act to rely upon rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. It is the Government's intention that it should be possible to rely on those rights in appeals to the special adjudicator under the 1993 Act and we shall consider further whether any amendment to this Bill is needed to allow that result to be achieved. Therefore, it is a happy, felicitous conjunction that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wanted Amendment No. 115 to be debated now because I believe that we have fully satisfied his legitimate expectations.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly for his concluding words. I thank also all those who have spoken in this extremely interesting debate. I should like to respond particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who made what was in some ways the most important speech of the debate. I take his point about not complicating things. He might possibly have chosen a more elevated article of furniture than the kitchen sink, but we shall not argue about that.
I chose this amendment precisely because at present cases regularly go to Strasbourg which would come under Article 4 of Protocol 4 and which, if the amendment were accepted, would be considered in British courts. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has given me a practical and entirely satisfactory answer to that, for which I thank him warmly. I am particularly glad of his assurance that he will look again at the drafting of the Bill to see how that assurance can be made effective.
I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord if I gave him the impression that, as an amateur, I was literally laying down the law about the relationship between Protocol 4 and British law. I think that I used the words, "in line with". I did not intend to pass any judgment on whether the rights are, in fact, law, but
506
merely to suggest that the concepts were not entirely unfamiliar with English legal thinking. If I appeared to suggest more than that, I regret it.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord. Lord Archer of Sandwell, that the death penalty is becoming a dead issue, but I see why the Minister feels otherwise and I do not intend to take the point much further. However, I wondered whether it makes the noble and learned Lord's point—I do not intend to mention any matter which is sub judice even in another jurisdiction—that in the past few weeks the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has chosen to change its mind on that. issue.
To the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I say that if we were to pass the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, it would be perfectly possible to add a repealing schedule dealing with the relevant Acts about piracy. I should have thought that that would be a tidy way of dealing with that. However, having been given the most important practical point for which I have argued, in thankfulness I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol").
The noble and learned Lord said: I hope that it will not be said that I am less than enthusiastic about the purposes of this Bill. I have been urging my party to introduce it for quite a long time. We have listened with the greatest respect to the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, but I am hound to say that I did not quite follow his argument that to include these amendments would somehow make the realisation of those purposes more difficult. I can understand that we should concentrate on them, but it does not necessarily follow that we should concentrate on them to the exclusion of every other matter.
I had hoped that my noble friend would be able to say that at least the Government were proposing to ratify the two protocols in question. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in hoping that in due course the Government will ratify the Fourth Protocol to the International Covenant. Alas, that was not to be today, but that is not the fault of my noble friend. I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page I, line 10, after ("Articles") insert ("13 and").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, unfortunately had to leave the Committee before we reached this point and he has asked me to say that he would support the withdrawal of this amendment provided that we can return to the matter on Report. The Committee will remember that the amendment does not seek to incorporate Article 13 hut is intended

507
specifically to allow the courts to have regard to Article 13, which is different and which seems to reflect the Government's intention as explained by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, it seems that the right course is to say "au revoir" but not "adieu" to the amendment and I therefore do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 7:
Page I, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the Articles constitute provisions of domestic United Kingdom law.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In my respectful submission, this is a very important amendment, although it does no more than indicate the object of the Bill as repeatedly stated by Ministers and again in the White Paper. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, recently repeated that again. The object is to vouchsafe to the citizens of this country rights that they could only previously enjoy by going to the Court at Strasbourg. In addition, the wish has been expressed—and could well be realised—that the human rights which are concerned and vouchsafed in the convention will permeate the whole of our political society. However, there is a danger under the Bill that it might be argued that the Bill falls short of that because it patriates the rights but makes them enforceable only against a public body or authority. That would be at variance with what the Government and Ministers have proclaimed.
The amendment merely seeks to make it certain that those rights permeate the whole of society and that they penetrate the very corners of our law. The amendment would add a new subsection stating:
"For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the Articles constitute provisions of domestic United Kingdom law".
I understood that that was precisely what the Government claimed was being done. The question I venture to ask is: are the articles the provisions of domestic United Kingdom law? If so, is there any harm in seeking to avoid doubt on the matter? I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I rise briefly to support this amendment. It provides an express and clear statement that the articles of the convention are part of United Kingdom law. The drafting of this Bill is admirable, but Clause 1(2) strikes me as a little awkward. It provides:
"Those Articles are to have effect for the purposes of this Act".
That begs the question which was canvassed at the beginning of Committee stage: what are the purposes of the Bill? That may be cleared up with a purpose clause later on. But it would be most unfortunate if there were any doubt in anybody's mind about the status and priority of convention principles in United Kingdom
508
law. I therefore respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that this is an important amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I prefer Amendment No. 9 which I believe serves this exact purpose but in a more appropriate fashion.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am puzzled by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Amendment No. 9 has a wholly different purpose, which is to ensure that domestic courts are bound by judgments, decisions and so on of the European Court of Human Rights, whereas this amendment seeks to ensure that convention rights are secured into domestic law.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. We cannot discuss here the distinction between a means to an end and an end. I hope the noble Lord accepts that I am concerned with the end.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I believe that all noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, agree that one of the purposes of the Bill is to secure the convention rights into domestic law, as is our obligation under the convention. In those circumstances, I am content on this occasion with an appropriate statement to that effect for the avoidance of doubt without necessarily going further than that, provided it is made clear that that is one of the purposes of the legislation.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment would make the articles referred to in Clause 1. the convention rights, part of United Kingdom domestic law. We shall discuss the way in which the Bill gives effect to convention rights in more detail when we come to Clause 3. I observe that the noble and learned Lord has tabled some amendments in relation to that clause which may relate to this. In addressing the present amendment it may be helpful if I explain briefly the approach that underpins the Bill. As the Long Title states, the Bill gives further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights but in a particular way with a very distinctive scheme of incorporation. It achieves the purpose of the Long Title by requiring primary and secondary legislation to be read and given effect so far as possible in a way that is compatible with convention rights. It places a requirement on public authorities to act in a way that is compatible with convention rights and provides for the grant of judicial remedies where they do not do so.
The convention rights will not, however, in themselves become part of our substantive domestic law. The provisions in Clause 3 operate on an interpretative basis and require legislation to be construed in accordance with the convention rights so far as it is possible to do so. That interpretative provision interacts with the obligations put upon public authorities in accordance with the generous definition of "public authority" in the Bill. As we will explain in

509
more detail when we come to the relevant clauses, this provides an effective way of giving effect to the convention rights and avoids constitutional and other difficulties which would arise if we made those rights part of domestic law. For example, Clause 3—which I acknowledge the noble and learned Lord desires to amend—makes provision for the continuing force and effect of legislation that is held to be incompatible with convention rights.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene. Those are amendments to that provision.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand that. One must look at this alongside Clause 3. The scheme of the Bill—one may wish to challenge it—is to make provision so as to respect the sovereignty of Parliament for the continuing force and effect of legislation held by the courts by way of a declaration of incompatibility to be incompatible with the convention rights. If those convention rights were themselves to constitute provisions of domestic United Kingdom law there would be obvious scope for confusion when the courts were obliged to give effect to legislation that predated the coming into force of the Human Rights Bill. That might give rise to the doctrine of implied repeal. That is a doctrine that can have no application because of the express terms of Clause 3.
The courts need to know where they stand on how the_ convention rights on the one hand and legislation on the other should be given effect to when, as will often happen, the two cover the same ground. The scheme of the Bill provides clear information to the courts. The amendment would muddy the waters and sow doubt. I believe that the scheme of the Bill is clear. I have listened with respect to the words of the noble and learned Lord and shall read the report of his speech in Hansard. However, for the present we are of the view that the amendment is inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he can help me in one respect. I strongly support the scheme of the Bill, but I remain in the dark about exactly what is intended. Clause 13 provides that a person may rely on a convention right in proceedings other than a challenge to the act of a public authority. Clause 1 informs us that the convention rights mean the rights set out in Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the convention, and so on. Under Clause 13, in an appropriate dispute involving, let us say, libel law where someone seeks to rely on Article 10 of the convention as a guarantee of the right to free speech, in arguing that there was proper scope for the law of defamation, as I read the Bill, the person may rely on Clause 13, as he can indirectly at present and as was done in the Derbyshire libel case a few years ago.
If I am right on that point, it seems to me that the convention rights are to that extent part of our domestic law and can be relied upon, as Clause 13 states. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say whether I am right on that; or is the intention to cut
510
down the existing position where, for example, common law as developed in the courts matches the convention rights and under this Bill treats the convention rights as part of our law?
The Lord Chancellor: I shall consider what the noble Lord said. The position appears to me to be quite straightforward. It may be more complicated; I shall reflect upon it.
As I understand it, Clause 13 means only that a person may rely on the convention right in the way in which the Bill provides that individuals may rely upon convention rights, but his convention rights are, as it were, a floor of rights; and if there are different or superior rights or freedoms conferred on him by or under any law having effect in the United Kingdom, this is a Bill which only gives and does not take away.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to those noble Lords who supported the amendment. I am glad that my noble and learned friend has undertaken to consider the argument. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that the tone of his reply, as with the earlier amendment, indicates rather that he has nailed the flag of legislative self-righteousness to the mast. I hope that we shall not have that throughout the Committee stage.
My noble and learned friend said that it is not the intention to make the convention rights part of our domestic law. I am bound to say that, with all the propaganda and rhetoric, that is entirely contrary to what people were led to understand. My noble and learned friend gives only one reason why those rights which we were hoping to be vouchsafed should not be part of our domestic law: that to do so would conflict with a later provision of the Bill. However, that provision of the Bill is not engraved in tablets of stone brought down from a holy mountain. In fact it is already subject to an amendment.
I must anticipate what that later provision to which my noble and learned friend referred does. He said in effect, I think, that it abrogates the doctrine of implied abrogation of an earlier statute. As our law stands at present, when a later statute is inconsistent with an earlier one, the earlier one is abrogated impliedly in so far as it is not expressly abrogated. I appeal to my noble and learned friend to say if I have not accurately summarised the law. The later provision of the Bill alters that, and provides that notwithstanding that the later statutory provision which is invoked in the convention rights is inconsistent with the earlier one, the earlier one will nevertheless continue. That is no reason for refusing the citizens of this country the convention rights they were expecting. I trust that the time will come shortly when we shall alter that provision. It is extremely inconvenient. It means that where a later statute is inconsistent with the terms of the earlier statute, the earlier one is not impliedly abrogated as it is at present, but continues until Parliament goes through the complicated provision of a statutory order bringing the two into proper relationship.
Surely the simplest thing, which also maintains the sovereignty of Parliament, is to maintain the existing law. The existing law is very much a manifestation of

511
the sovereignty of Parliament: the right of a later Parliament to abrogate the provisions of an earlier one. I am bitterly disappointed that so fundamental an amendment as this does not find ready acceptability. However, I undertook not to press any of my amendments to a Division and of course I shall stand by that. However reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page I, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) No amendment may be made by an order under subsection (4) unless a draft of the order has been scrutinised and reported upon by the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament, and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, perhaps I may deal briefly with the amendment. I think it was Sydney Smith who said that he never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so. In this case I took the trouble to read the Bill. I find that Clause 20(3) deals with the very point that we addressed in the amendment. If I can have an assurance from the Minister that that is the case, obviously I shall withdraw the amendment post-haste.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Sydney Smith also said that when he died he hoped it would be eating foie gras to the sound of golden trumpets. I know how he feels. I give the assurance.
Lord Henley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interpretation of Convention rights]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): I should inform Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 9 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 10.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("right") to end of line 4 and insert ("shall be bound by any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, and must take into account any—").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 refers to Clause 2(1) which states:
"A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen under this Act in connection with a Convention right must take into account any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights".
The amendment seeks to replace the expression "must take into account any" with the words "shall be bound by".
I can see the superficial attraction of the Government's text. Our courts have hundreds of years of experience in balancing individual rights against public obligations. I am in no doubt that their decisions, if they are examined by the judges in the European
512
Court of Human Rights, carry great weight with them and will in time enrich the jurisprudence of that Court. However, there is another side to which your Lordships' House should give greater weight.
The problem is that if our judges only take account of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, we cast them adrift from their international moorings. The Bill, crewed by the judges, will have no accurate charts by which to sail because the judges are obliged only to take into account the provisions of the convention. That means that the Bill is effectively a domestic Bill of rights and not a proper incorporation of international rights. It means that the judges, at the end of the day, although they must take account of the Bill, are not obliged to act on it and can go in whatever direction they wish. I have great confidence in Her Majesty's judges, but I believe that they need greater guidance than they receive from the expression "take into account". That is the reason for my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not agree with the amendment. The only obligation under the convention is in Article 46, paragraph 1, which obliges the United Kingdom to abide by the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in any case to which it is party but not otherwise. The amendment seeks to bind our courts by other judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, even though the convention does not compel that conclusion.
It is profoundly ironic that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, should seek to move an amendment which is more European than the convention requires, especially in view of the Benches on which he sits and the Front Bench from which he speaks since his party has not been conspicuous in urging that European rights should be given great force in our domestic law.
In any event, to give the judgments of the European Court great persuasive force in our courts is sufficient. If a judgment of our courts turns out to be incompatible with the convention and is against the applicant, no doubt the European Court of Human Rights will eventually so decide.
In the meantime, I believe that our courts, being close to our citizens and our social and political circumstances, are best able to exercise the margin of appreciation enjoyed by our public authorities without being hampered unnecessarily by a doctrine of stare decisis which is not required by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I believe that the intention is, so far as possible, to avoid journeys to the court at Strasbourg and to the Commission. If that be the case, it is not perfectly clear that this should be a mandatory provision and not "taking into account". It is

513
a mandatory provision that they shall be bound. I have listened to the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and I do not find it at all convincing.
Lord Meston: The answer is that it is mandatory in the terms of the Bill. The judgment must be taken into account.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: Perhaps I may be heard briefly on this point because soon it will concern me intimately. I am not a great supporter of the amendment. The doctrine of stare decisis, the doctrine of precedent, whereby we manage to tie ourselves up in knots for ever bound by an earlier decision of an English court, does not find much favour north of the Border, finds no favour across the Channel and is an indigenous growth of dubious merit. It would be unhappy if in dealing with the convention law we enacted that an English court, unlike any other court subject to the convention, was bound to follow an earlier decision of the European Court at Strasbourg.
It is an unhappy fact, inherent in all legal systems, that they develop. Decisions move some of the earlier things one wishes one had never said and greater light comes to be cast. It is undesirable when old cases are carved in stone and are incapable of being moved along.
I make my second point with all respect. I have found the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights excellent, but a major change is taking place. We are now seeing a wider range of judges adjudicating such matters, a number of them drawn from jurisdictions 10 years ago not famous for their observance of human rights. It might be dangerous to tie ourselves to that, and I hope that your Lordships will not favour the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I found the phrase "take into account" far too vague for a legal concept. I tabled an amendment to replace it with the word "follow", which is on the lines of the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It seemed to me to be the proper word in respect of paragraph (a), but I was much less certain about the other paragraphs. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is a great expert on that matter and no doubt in reply he will clear it up.
At present, if an English court does not follow a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the unsuccessful litigant can go to that Court and obtain a reaffirmation of the views of the Court. Under those circumstances, I cannot see the difficulty in enjoining that English courts should follow the decision. Indeed, it seems to me in every way advantageous in saving an unnecessarily expensive and extremely dilatory visit to Strasbourg.
The Lord Chancellor: In common with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I was intrigued to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, move the amendment and be more European than the Europeans. I shall not embarrass him by asking him—as he sits on the Front Bench and comes to tell us what he proposes to invite the Committee to do about the amendment—whether he and his party support in principle the Bill and its
514
objectives. I shall not embarrass him, but if he feels free to inform us, I dare say that the information will be of great interest to the Committee.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said that he was not a great supporter of the amendment. I am an opponent of the amendment and I was relieved when the noble and learned Lord moved into the substance, as distinct from the courtesies of his speech, and it emerged that he was really an opponent after all. Clause 2(1) requires a court or tribunal determining a question in connection with a convention right to take account of relevant judgments, decisions, declarations and opinions made or given by the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Amendment No. 9 would provide that such judgments, etc., were binding if made or given by the European Court of Human Rights, while leaving their status under the Bill unaffected; that is to say, they would have to be taken into account but would not be binding if made or given by the European Commission of Human Rights or the Committee of Ministers.
We believe that Clause 2 gets it right in requiring domestic courts to take into account judgments of the European Court, but not making them binding. To make the courts bound by Strasbourg decisions could, for example, result in the Bill being confusing if not internally inconsistent when the courts are faced with incompatible legislation. In addition, the word "binding" is the language of precedent but the convention is the ultimate source of the relevant law. It is also unclear to me how "binding" would fit within the doctrine of margin of appreciation under the convention. I think that "binding" certainly goes further—and I understood that was what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had in mind—than the convention itself requires. It was in that sense that I said I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was being more European than the Europeans.
We must remember that Clause 2 requires the courts to take account of all the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, regardless of whether they have been given in a case involving the United Kingdom. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester: the United Kingdom is not bound in international law to follow that Court's judgments in cases to which the United Kingdom had not been a party, and it would be strange to require courts in the United Kingdom to be bound by such cases. It would also be quite inappropriate to do so since such cases deal with laws and practices which are not those of the United Kingdom. They are a source of jurisprudence indeed, but not binding precedents which we necessarily should follow or even necessarily desire to follow.
The Bill would of course permit United Kingdom courts to depart from existing Strasbourg decisions and upon occasion it might well be appropriate to do so, and it is possible they might give a successful lead to Strasbourg. For example, it would permit the United Kingdom courts to depart from Strasbourg decisions where there has been no precise ruling on the matter and a commission opinion which does so has not taken into account subsequent Strasbourg court case law.

515
These cases aside, it is not considered necessary to set out to provide that United Kingdom courts and tribunals are bound by Strasbourg jurisprudence, since where it is relevant we would of course expect our courts to apply convention jurisprudence and its principles to the cases before them. More fundamentally, this amendment, to my mind, suggests putting the courts in some kind of straitjacket where flexibility is what is required. That is what Clause 2 achieves, and, in my submission, our courts must be free to try to give a lead to Europe as well as to be led. The correct principle is to require our courts to take into account relevant European jurisprudence. That is what Clause 2 and indeed also Clause 8(4) in the special context of damages require our courts to do.
We will of course reflect on the arguments of those who have spoken for these amendments in the time between Committee and Report stages, but at present I have to confess that I am not persuaded to favour this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: In thanking the noble and learned Lord for his response, I should like to say that the Opposition is against this Bill, although of course we are bound by the Salisbury Convention not to vote against it; but we are against it and our amendments are intended to convey that. If the noble and learned Lord accepts all our amendments we may change our position on that, but at the moment we are against the Bill.
Essentially, what the noble and learned Lord has said in his reply is that he is incorporating the substance of the convention but not its jurisprudence. It is therefore, in my submission, superficially the incorporation of an international treaty but in effect the presentation to this Chamber of a domestic Bill of Rights. It is our position in principle that a domestic Bill of Rights giving the kind of power that is given to the judges sits unhappily with our constitutional traditions, and it is for that reason and not for any European reason that this amendment has been tabled. If we were going to propose a domestic Bill of Rights, we would certainly want to look very closely at the substance of the convention to see how we could improve it, because I think that there are many things in the convention—which was after all drafted not long after the Second World War—which are now in need of refurbishment. So if it really is a domestic Bill of Rights, why does not the noble and learned Lord take this opportunity to look at it in the light of 1997 and to think again about the text? In short, as the jurisprudence of the convention is not binding, judges can really range over the substance of the Bill in any way that they want.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will reflect on the contents of this amendment, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw it.
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble Lord sits down, if he is opposed and his party is opposed—and I take it from his answer that he and his party are
516
opposed—to the principles of the Bill, how can he tell the Committee that he would change his position if we accepted all his amendments? Would that not, as a minimum, entail that all his amendments would have to add up to wrecking amendments which would wreck the principles of the Bill? Would he explain how that would be consistent with the acceptance of the Salisbury Convention?
Lord Kingsland: To the extent that I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying, I do not accept that the amendments that we have tabled are wrecking amendments. I would need, at the end of the process, if he had acceded to the amendments, to reflect on the ultimate shape of the Bill and to see what position the Opposition would take at a subsequent stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("take into account") and insert ("follow").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this already in connection with the previous amendment.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 18, leave out second ("the").
The noble Lord said: This is an economic amendment which leaves out the word "the", which is redundant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Any rule made under this section shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a relatively simple amendment which seeks that any rule made under subsection (3) should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before both Houses. That was addressed by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in its report printed on 5th November and referred to at paragraph 31.
I believe that that is the first reference that we have had this afternoon to that report. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that they will take note, as we always did, of the report of that committee. It has made a number of suggestions, all of which should be followed.
Following that report, we tabled Amendment No. 13 and I see that that has been grouped with government Amendments Nos. 105 to 108 which I assume achieve more or less what I set out to achieve in my amendment, but no doubt those government amendments achieve it in a more efficient manner. I should like an assurance

517
from the Minister that that is the case and that the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure will be followed. If I have that assurance, I shall obviously withdraw my Amendment No. 13 and we can deal with the government amendments when we reach them in due course.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful for the noble Lord's approach. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 13 and it may be convenient if I speak also to government Amendments Nos. 105 to 108.
I deal first with Amendment No. 105. That amends Clause 20 in order to provide a procedure for making rules, other than rules of court, under Clauses 2(3) or 7(8). By virtue of Amendment No. 108 to Clause 20, those rules are to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That is the normal procedure for rules of court as, for example, in relation to rules made under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and the Supreme Court Act 1981. Our amendments—and I believe that this is the assurance which the noble Lord seeks—are exactly in line with the comments made in paragraphs 31 to 33, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred, of the recent report on the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which noted the omission of the procedure from the Bill.
Amendment No. 13, which I understand will not be pressed, would make rules of court in Clause 2 and other rules made under Clause 2 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It goes much further if it is intended as a response to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee because it requires the rules to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which we think is unnecessary. Those are technical rules whose only purpose is to ensure that the Strasbourg jurisprudence is considered in an appropriate form by the courts and tribunals which will be interpreting the convention rights.
Amendment No. 106 is a technical amendment and is consequential on Amendment No. 105. "Any such instrument" in Clause 20(2), which refers back to "statutory instrument" in Clause 20(1), needs to become "any statutory instrument" because the insertion of a new subsection before Clause 20(2) by the first amendment prevents a reference back in the existing terms. Therefore, that is a tidying amendment.
Amendment No. 107 corrects a contradiction in Clause 20(2) and (3). Subsection (2) requires a statutory instrument under Clause 16—whether under subsection (2) or (7)—to be laid before Parliament, but not to be subject to any particular procedure. Subsection (3) makes an order under Clause 16(2) subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. This amendment provides that the reference in subsection (2) is to Clause 16(7) only rather than to Clause 16 as a whole.
Finally, Amendment No. 108 corrects a mistaken reference in Clause 20(4) to Clause 18(5). It should refer to Clause 18(6). It provides also, as I indicated earlier, that the order referred to in the new subsection inserted by Amendment No. 105 is, like an order under Clause 18(6), to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope that with that short explanation, I have set any
518
doubts which might still be lingering happily to bed, a good deal earlier than we shall all he going there, but there we are.
Lord Meston: Before the Minister sits down, will he indicate, in answer to the concern which has been raised by the Bar Council among others, that there will be wide consultation on the draft rules and that there will be a proper opportunity for the professional bodies to comment on draft rules?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course, and I am happy to give that assurance. We take the stance that the more informed consultation there can be, particularly on intricate, technical matters, the better the final form is likely to be. I am happy to give that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation of his amendments and as to why he believes the negative rather than the affirmative resolution procedure is more appropriate. I note, as the noble Lord made clear, that that is the normal procedure for various other rules of court which must come before the House.
I have considerable sympathy for the noble Lord because I spent a number of years arguing on many occasions that the negative procedure was more appropriate. I can remember a number of noble Lords who have continually pressed for the affirmative resolution procedure when the negative procedure was appropriate.
At this stage, I should prefer to look again extremely carefully at what the noble Lord said and reserve the right to return to this matter either later in Committee, in that we shall not reach the government amendments until some time next week, or on Report. However, at this stage I shall withdraw my amendment and I suspect that I shall find myself agreeing with the noble Lord that the negative procedure is adequate on this occasion. However, I believe that it is right to at least reserve my position to return the matter. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("(4) Nothing in this Act affects the rule of law that if a provision of an earlier statute is inconsistent with that of a later statute the former is impliedly (if not expressly) abrogated.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This was a matter that was raised earlier by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and to which I replied. But it requires something more to be said. It relates to the doctrine to which I referred earlier that a later statute abrogates the earlier one with which it is inconsistent. That of course is entirely in accordance with the sovereignty of Parliament and nobody has ever argued otherwise.
In framing this Bill, the Government were faced with a jurisprudential difficulty: namely, how to reconcile the importation of a supervening code of human rights with

519
the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. While I am on the subject of parliamentary sovereignty, perhaps I may say that it tends to be exaggerated because our Parliament is not really sovereign in a global sense since it is amenable on appeal to the decrees of the European Court of Human Rights and, indeed, the European Court.
One must not exaggerate parliamentary sovereignty when Parliament is so much under the thumb of the Executive. That is nothing new. It has been going on for more than a decade, but it is perhaps more marked now when we have a Government of a distinctly dictatorial temper and aspect.
However, the Government were faced with trying to reconcile the patriation of the convention with domestic parliamentary sovereignty. So far as future legislation is concerned, I think their ingenious scheme, even if somewhat circuitous and cumbrous, must be accepted. It relies on the court making a declaration of incompatibility, whereupon the machinery to galvanise Parliament into bringing our domestic law into line with the convention rights is set in motion. But that is entirely unnecessary so far as pre-existing legislation is concerned because parliamentary sovereignty is, as I have suggested, completely vindicated by the doctrine of implied abrogation of an earlier provision by a later one with which it is inconsistent.
Therefore it is quite absurd for the Government, wedded as they are to their own drafting, to insist that a quite unnecessarily cumbrous and circuitous process should be set in motion as regards preceding legislation when the existing doctrine of implied repeal is available. My noble and learned friend has now taken off his wig and therefore he can, if he wishes, scratch his right ear with his left hand. But that is not a sensible way to set about it, nor is the extremely burdensome, circuitous and drawn out process of reconciling parliamentary sovereignty with the convention rights so far as pre-existing legislation is concerned. That is quite unnecessary. The amendment states,
"Nothing in this Act affects the rule of law that if a provision of an earlier statute is inconsistent with that of a later statute the former is impliedly (if not expressly) abrogated".
I ask my noble and learned friend to say whether that is not a correct statement of the existing law and why, if it is, it should not be applied to statutes that have been passed before the court finds that the convention rights override the earlier decision or the earlier decision is inconsistent with the convention rights which are made part of English law by this Bill. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I respectfully agree with a great deal of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, I part company from him when he suggests that the Bill is circuitous, complex and, as it were, contrary to principle. I think that the opposite is the case and I should like to try to explain why. I think that this is a satisfactory, if subtle, reconciliation of the principles of
520
parliamentary sovereignty with the need for the judiciary to be able to provide effective domestic remedies.
The problem that the Committee is being asked to consider is what are the principles to be applied by our courts in interpreting legislation so as to be compatible, where possible, with the convention. The policy of the Bill is that where primary legislation cannot possibly be read in accordance with the convention, the courts must give deference to parliamentary sovereignty, grant a declaration of incompatibility and then leave it to government and Parliament to remove the mismatch and provide the remedy. That is similar to what is known as the New Zealand model based on the New Zealand Bill of Rights. However, the Government have, in my view wisely, omitted from this Bill what I believe is Section 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights which expressly ousted the doctrine of implied repeal to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has referred.
Every time the courts give a declaration of incompatibility there will in a sense have been a systemic failure because it will mean that the statute book does not properly give effect in the judges' opinion to our international treaty obligations, and there will then have to be inconvenient speedy legislation to put the matter right. The way in which the Bill therefore seeks to reduce that systemic failure to the minimum is by commanding the judges in Clause 3(1) to construe legislation so far as is possible to give effect to convention rights. It leaves entirely to the judges the task of developing the principles of interpretation to give effect to that command; namely, as far as possible to construe legislation compatible with the convention.
I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is in his place because at least 17 years ago he gave a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an appeal from Bermuda, The Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher in 1980, in which he said that in order to give effect to the object and purpose of legislation to incorporate the European convention into the domestic law of Bermuda, one should give a generous interpretation to the rights and should avoid what has been called the austerity of tabulated legalism. He explained how the courts need to fashion their own principles of interpretation to accomplish that objective. That approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, was followed by Lord Diplock in another Privy Council case, entitled, I believe, Jobe v. The Attorney-General of the Gambia. I believe that our judges, in complying with Clause 3(1), will fashion, where possible, principles of interpretation to enable legislation to be read in accordance with the convention.
I find nothing in the Bill to prevent the courts, where appropriate, from using the doctrine of implied repeal to achieve that objective. There are difficulties about the doctrine of implied repeal—it is not wholly uncontroversial—but there is nothing that I can see in the Bill, as I say, to prevent that tool or instrument of interpretation from being used in appropriate cases for existing legislation. As regards future legislation, the Government—again, wisely, in my view—have taken another leaf from the New Zealand book and imposed an obligation on themselves, through Parliament, to

521
inform Parliament whether they consider a future statutory provision to be incompatible with the convention. Again, that will enable our courts, in looking at future legislation, to give primacy to convention rights in the absence of a clear and unequivocal expression to the contrary, normally in a ministerial statement to both Chambers.
I regard the Bill as an ingenious and successful reconciliation of principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the need for effective domestic remedies. I feel a little like Sky Masterson in "Guys and Dolls", as a sinner who has converted, because in my first Private Member's Bill I sought to give the courts the power to strike down inconsistent legislation. I believe on reflection that, in the second Bill, after a good deal of arm twisting by some Members of this place rather more noble and learned than myself, I was persuaded that that was too strong, and that something along the lines of this Bill was more appropriate.
I now believe that the Bill produces a better solution than the aggressive strike-down power for which I originally contended, for all kinds of reasons with which I need not detain the Committee. For those reasons, I do not consider the amendment to be necessary and would rather leave it to the judges to fashion their own principles of interpretation in accordance with the command in Clause 3(1).
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his kind and considered observations about the quality of the Bill, but I doubt that those will persuade the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. In my view the amendments would destroy the intended purpose of Clause 3. In speaking to Amendment No. 14 I take the opportunity to speak to Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 22.
To accept the amendments would destroy the intended purpose of Clause 3 and the scheme of the Bill. That clause sets out the relationship between the convention rights and both primary and subordinate legislation. The central point is that the Bill provides for an interpretative approach. As Clause 3(1) states:
"So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has consistently said that when in future statements of compatibility are made by Ministers, that will encourage the judiciary in its interpretative endeavours.
Having decided to adopt that interpretative approach it is of course helpful to the courts (and other public authorities) for the Bill to signal what the position is intended to be where a compatible construction is impossible. That information is supplied by subsection (1) itself and also, in conjunction with subsection (2)(a), by paragraphs (b) and (c); that is, the two paragraphs which the noble and learned Lord is seeking to remove. Those two paragraphs make it clear that the requirement to interpret legislation in accordance with the convention rights does not mean that incompatible primary legislation, or inevitably incompatible subordinate legislation, since deriving from parent legislation which itself is incompatible, is to be
522
invalidated or otherwise made inoperable because of that incompatibility. They ensure that the courts cannot disapply, refuse to give effect to, or ignore Acts of Parliament on the grounds of their incompatibility with the convention rights. That is what we intend. We submit that this scheme is consistent with the sovereignty of Parliament as traditionally understood.
The effect of removing Clause 3(2)(b) and (c), and the inclusion of a new subsection (4) in Clause 2, stating that the Bill does not affect the doctrine of implied repeal would be contrary to the principles underlying the Bill. Under the method adopted by the Bill to give effect to the convention rights, it is just not relevant to cite the doctrine of implied repeal. The convention rights will not, as I have already said when responding to a previous amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, become part of our domestic law, and will therefore not supersede existing legislation or be superseded by future legislation. In both cases the convention rights will be used to interpret and give effect to that legislation.
The two amendments to Clause 4 are consequential to Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. Clause 4 is the mechanism provided by the Bill for handling situations where the court finds legislation, whenever enacted, to be incompatible with the convention rights. It avoids the pitfalls of this set of amendments by ensuring that the courts are not brought into conflict with Parliament when a discrepancy is identified. It is also in harmony with the UK's existing constitutional arrangements. When we reach that clause, we will be able to discuss this matter in more detail.
I do not accept that the Bill adopts a scheme which is cumbrous and circuitous. On the contrary, I believe that the scheme is right. It rests happily with our traditions. It is intellectually coherent and, with respect to the parliamentary draftsman, it is also elegant. The scheme of this Bill is that if statutes are held incompatible on convention grounds, then it is for Parliament to remedy that. We do not wish to incorporate the convention rights, and then, in reliance on the doctrine of implied repeal, allow the courts to strike down Acts of Parliament.
The intended scheme of this Bill rests more comfortably with our tradition of parliamentary sovereignty. I believe also that this is a scheme of incorporation which is welcome to the higher judiciary. The doctrine of implied repeal is not without its own difficulties, but I have no quarrel with the noble and learned Lord's short statement of that doctrine. We are, by Clause 3, inviting Parliament to accept a wholly different scheme of incorporation. It is one which rejects the route of the doctrine of implied repeal, which, together with express incorporation of the convention rights, the noble and learned Lord would prefer us to follow, but it is one which we do not intend to follow.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down I wonder whether, without imposing upon him too much, I could clarify just one matter. I fully support everything that he has said.

523
I wonder whether he could help in this way: does it follow from what he said that where there is existing legislation, before the Human Rights Bill becomes law that has to be interpreted so far as possible to comply with convention rights in accordance with Clause 3(1), that the courts' obligation will be to strive, wherever possible, to read the existing legislation in accordance with the convention, using whatever interpretative tools they think fit, and, if they fail, to grant a declaration of incompatibility, if that is their conclusion? That is how I understand the position. One does not need the doctrine of implied repeal, which would involve saying that the existing statute is, as it were, void, has been overtaken by a subsequent Act, but instead, by a process of judicial interpretation, the existing legislation is to be read in accordance with the convention rights wherever possible, which is what Clause 3(1) says. If that is the position, I am entirely content.
The Lord Chancellor: In my view that is what the Bill means. The interpretative provision of Clause 3 applies to legislation in being prior to the passage of this Act and legislation that comes into being after the passage of this Act. I see no need for any reliance on the doctrine of implied repeal.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am afraid that, once again, I found that a most disappointing reply. The main thrust was that the doctrine of implied repeal, which is part of existing law, is inconsistent with the scheme of Clause 3. So it is, because every amendment tends to be inconsistent with the provision of the Bill. If every amendment is to be dismissed because the Government have drafted their Bill otherwise, we might as well tear up the Marshalled List and go home.
I asked my noble and learned friend whether he accepted that the doctrine of implied repeal was an existing part of English law. I believe he accepted that it was, although he said that there might be difficulties in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, thinks that this provision in the amendment may be unnecessary, because the courts will endeavour to construe previous legislation consistently with the convention rights. I said that that should, and will, be so. But nevertheless, there are cases of inconsistency. The Government have faced them so far as legislation passed after the Bill has been enacted. They accepted that the inconsistency should be dealt with by a way which is consistent, however cumbrous—I know that my noble and learned friend does not like that word—but at any rate it can bring the two into line consistently with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
However, that is quite unnecessary so far as legislation passed before this Bill becomes law is concerned, because the doctrine of implied repeal deals with it immediately and consistently with parliamentary sovereignty. All the appearances are, I am afraid, that my noble and learned friend is devoted to his Bill—every line, every word, every note of punctuation. However, I really must ask him to consider again the argument that has been put.
524
Members of the Committee may remember the story of a mediaeval English king campaigning in France. He and his men came to the walls of a small town and demanded that the citizens should surrender the keys. The city fathers came out, clad only in their shirts and with halters round their necks, and presented a petition giving 100 reasons why they should not surrender the keys. The first reason was that they had lost the keys—whereupon the king very graciously dispensed with the other 99. If my noble and learned friend would even give one good reason for rejecting this amendment, I would willingly withdraw any requirement of anything further to be said. However, having undertaken not to press my amendments to a Division, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Colville of Culross: Have I time to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a brief question at this stage?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Had I beaten the noble Viscount to the punch on the previous amendment? I thought that the noble and learned Lord had withdrawn it. The Question is that Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill. Of course there is time for the noble Viscount's question.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I simply did not want to run over the allotted time for this part of the discussion on the Bill, which I do not think I shall.
The debate on Clause 2 has been at a very high level of jurisprudence. Nevertheless, as I understand it, the Bill is expected to have quite considerable effects on the criminal law. I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor two questions about the practicalities of this provision. If I am talking about matters that are banal and humble, I apologise. But that, unfortunately, is where the criminal law starts.
To take an example, there is on the statute book an Act entitled the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, which was passed last year. It lays down timetables and procedures for preparing trials in the Crown Court. There is also a provision in Clause 3 which states that the courts shall interpret that legislation and subordinate legislation made under it—and there is some laying down of timetables—in such a way as to be compatible with convention rights. Included in Article 6 of the convention are the due process rights. I note particularly that a defendant is to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf.
The first problem is that that sort of point—that is to say, the timetable of the trial, the preparation of the defence, the ability of defence witnesses to come—is raised at the very early stage of a trial, and at a comparatively humble level of the judiciary, exemplified by myself. I do not think that I am the only circuit judge who is not at all familiar with what the European Court has said about due process. I happen to

525
know a good deal more about what has been said under the international convention, but certainly not under the European convention.
We shall need to know what sort of latitude is available in the exercise of a judicial discretion when we are looking at what is adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence, and what it is reasonable to allow by way of holding up the case for a very long time in order that a particular defence witness can be called. I am sure that the European Court has been entirely reasonable in its interpretation of these provisions; however, I do not think that on the whole the judges will know. Nor do I believe that the magistrates will know, if such a case comes before them.
I simply ask the noble and learned Lord this: are we to have training in relation to the application of the Bill in the comparatively humble courts? The Government must have worked out which parts of the convention are likely to be appropriate for the type of matter about which I have spoken and the level to which I referred. It would not be a major imposition to ask the Judicial Studies Board to give us information about the likely impact of the Bill on our day-to-day work.
Another point is that there is certainly not in my library, nor on offer from the south-eastern circuit library service, copies of the European human rights reports. That is where, under Clause 2(1)(a) we are to find out what was the judgment, decision or declaration of the European Court of Human Rights. Without ready access to those when the point turns up at the interlocutory stages which I have mentioned, I do not think that we shall make much progress.
It is not an idle matter because if the courts get it wrong at that stage, the trial will go ahead and the Court of Appeal will pronounce. I do not think there would be any universal guidelines arising out of one particular case. The danger is that the case will have to be sent back for re-trial and we shall spend a great deal of time and money on it. These practicalities, though probably intensely boring to the Committee, will nevertheless be one of the cases where the Bill strikes. I should like some assurance from the noble and learned Lord on the point.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble and learned Lord replies to that question, perhaps I may ask him about a matter of fact. It is whether the judgments, decisions, declarations and advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights, which it is essential for the judiciary to study, are available on the worldwide web. If they are, then obviously the lower echelons of the judiciary would have ready access to them, provided they are properly trained in the use of the web. I hope that that is already the case.
Viscount Colville of Cuiross: In reply to the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, I must say that that would be so if we had the equipment with which we could access the worldwide web. We do not have such equipment and there is nothing on the horizon to provide it.
The Lord Chancellor: First, let me assure Members of the Committee that plans for judicial training are well
526
in hand under the auspices of the Judicial Studies Board, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Henry. The board is working on plans for judicial training at every level. Sums have been set aside for that purpose within existing budgets.
I do not know the answer to whether the judgments and decisions of the kind referred to in Clause 2(1)(a) are on the worldwide web but I shall write to Members of the Committee who asked about it.
However, I wish to make a more fundamental point. The noble Viscount's second question seemed to entail an assumption that counsel should be spoon-fed. Counsel should not be spoon-fed. It is the duty of counsel to research their case and, if they have a convention point which they desire to raise, they must equip themselves to do so and gain copies of any relevant reports that they desire to draw to the attention of the court. It is not the function of the state to do counsel's research for him.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord Chancellor sits down, will he confirm the following? In a case where the accused person or the defendant represents himself and raises some general point based on convention rights, as the Bill is drafted it is not intended that there should be any duty whatever on the court to research the jurisprudence set out in the various judgments, decisions, opinions and the rest of the matters referred to in Clause 2(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d). If the jurisprudence is not cited, the judge is perfectly entitled to go ahead and decide the matter on the arguments advanced by the party defendant himself.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, will he confirm that textbooks already exist which are inexpensive and comprehensive? They summarise the case law. In addition there are periodicals that keep practitioners up to date, even though the convention is not incorporated. Is it right that the Government propose to spend up to £4.5 million, as is made clear in the Explanatory Memorandum, on ensuring that judges and members of tribunals are properly trained in that new area of jurisprudence for them?
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly I can confirm that there are textbooks which are comparatively inexpensive and that there are comprehensive periodicals. They are readily accessible. I repeat what I said, that counsel are not to be spoon-fed but must educate themselves as part of a continuing process of self-education in developing areas of the law. It is intended that convention rights and values shall permeate the work of the courts at all levels. It is up to counsel to get themselves up to speed in that endeavour.
As regards the unrepresented defendant, in this country it is usually a matter of choice because in the criminal courts legal aid will be available. But where a defendant insists upon defending himself, there is a well

527
recognised and honourable tradition in the courts of the judge giving the defendant the maximum assistance that he can.
Lord Meston: Will the noble and learned Lord also agree that there is a tradition that prosecuting counsel should assist the court in those circumstances?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Maritime Differential Correction Systems) Order 1997
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons and Maritime Differential Correction System) Order 1997 was laid in draft on 28th October. This order defines a differential signal as an aid to marine navigation and permits the General Lighthouse Authorities to operate a system and the General Lighthouse Fund to meet the operating costs.
The General Lighthouse Authorities (GLAs) are the statutory providers of marine aids to navigation in the waters surrounding the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. They are: the Trinity House Lighthouse Service, responsible for England, Wales and the Channel Islands; the Northern Lighthouse Board, responsible for Scotland and the Isle of Man, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, which is an all-Ireland body and responsible for both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
They provide traditional aids to navigation—lighthouses, buoys and beacons—together with radionavigation aids—the Decca Navigator, radiobeacons and radar beacons (more commonly known as Racons). The GLAs are not publicly funded. They are funded from the General Lighthouse Fund, which draws most of its income from the levy of light dues on commercial and fishing vessels calling at UK and Republic ports. The GLAs spend around £65 million per annum. They have an excellent record of efficient operation and joint working over recent
528
years which has resulted in light dues being held at 1993 levels until 1997, when they were reduced by 4.6 per cent.
The statutory position of the GLAs as providers of aids to navigation and of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions as managers or trustees of the General Lighthouse Fund are set out in Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
Turning to the order, in 1995 the GLAs carried out a joint consultation exercise to determine the provision of marine aids to navigation over the next 25 years or so. The resulting proposals received qualified acceptance from Ministers on 18th March 1997 (Hansard, col. 505). The future provision will include: maintaining traditional aids—lighthouses, buoys and beacons; discontinuation of the Decca Navigator System around the year 2000; an interest in adopting the North West Europe Loran C System when acceptable UK coverage is available; termination of the current radiobeacon system, which is now little used, and the provision of a differential global positioning system. This order deals with the latter system.
The Global Positioning system is well known. It is generally used to refer to the US Department of Defense-operated satellite system though there is also a Russian system. GPS can be used free of charge by the end user but the system can be subject to variations and perhaps failure without the end user realising that there is a problem. That can be corrected by the addition of differential signal. That is transmitted from a known location where GPS is monitored, the known position compared with that indicated by GPS, and corrections are transmitted to suitably equipped receivers.
Section 223(3) of the MSA 1995 provides powers for the Secretary of State to propose (by affirmative order) that a different type of aid to navigation shall be construed as an aid to navigation. As such, it can be operated by the GLAs and the costs can be met from the GLF. That power has been used three times; twice in 1987 to permit the GLAs to adopt the Decca Navigator (two orders were required, one to cope with the general UK provision, with a second dealing with the particular requirements of operating a transmitter from Jersey) and again in 1991, when provision was made for the GLAs to operate the Loran C system. In the event the latter power has not been used but has been retained in the event of the UK adopting the scheme.
The Republic of Ireland proposes to make similar provisions within the Merchant Shipping Act (Commissioners of Irish Lights) Bill 1997, which is currently under consideration in the Republic's Parliament.
Apart from a clear contribution to safety, the provision of DGPS is part of a package which is expected to save about £30 million over 25 years. The system is expected to cost £1.7 million in capital with running costs of about £35,000 per annum. That compares with the £3.5 million annual running costs of the Decca Navigator. Provision for the capital costs has already been made within the expenditure proposals of the GLAs and the detailed financial planning arrangements of the GLF. There would be no

529
requirement for an increase in light dues in the short term. In the longer term, the expectation of closing the Decca Navigator around 2000 will greatly assist the department in maintaining light dues at low levels. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October he approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lord, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this order and giving the House such a comprehensive view of what it does. I am sure that everyone will agree that it is a different kettle of fish to what has been debated so far this afternoon. Nevertheless, it is important to many people, including yachtsmen, among whom I count myself.
I congratulate the General Lighthouse Authorities on what they have been able to do over the past two years, culminating this year in a reduction in light dues. I welcome the order as it stands. As the noble Baroness said, it foreshadows—I do not know whether that requires any further parliamentary time—the end of the Decca system around the end of the year 2000. That was an issue with which I had some involvement some six years ago. I should have liked to see it done then, but it was not possible. The Decca system was a good one but, unfortunately, it is expensive to run. The fact is that Decca can no longer obtain money from selling the system, which means that it receives no income. That is why it has become a cost on the General Lighthouse Fund. In the old days it obtained a little money from every hit it sold.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that the GPS is operated by the United States Department of Defense and is now what most people use. Sets can be bought for as little as £200 each. The problem with it is, as the noble Baroness said, that the United States Government can alter its accuracy and therefore we need to have this mechanism in place which can compensate for that.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness one or two questions. I have not given notice, and I apologise for that. If she cannot answer them, perhaps she will write to me in due course. At one time there was a proposal that it might be possible to make a contribution towards the cost of GPS in order to obtain a better guarantee from the United States Government. I do not know whether anything happened in that regard or whether it has been pursued. I appreciate the difficulties that it may cause and that we may not obtain the necessary guarantees as to the validity of the system.
The noble Baroness mentioned also the Commissioners of Irish Lights. In my day there was considerable argument about the cost of the Irish lighthouse authorities and how much was coming from UK light dues. I do not know what the present situation is and whether we are still subsidising Irish lights to the extent that we were. I realise that it is an all-Ireland body and therefore we must take care of the Ulster part of it, but we are subsidising the Republic part of it by a considerable amount. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell me what progress has been made over the years on that.
530
Generally, I welcome the order and I am encouraged to hear of the possible savings of £30 million over the next 25 years. I am sure that we shall end up with a better system than what we have now, and the GPS is the system that most people use at the moment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Baroness for so comprehensively explaining the order and its background. I should like to thank also my noble friend Lord Brabazon. I am someone who prefers to keep his feet firmly on terra firma and it was extremely helpful to hear his remarks. This order seems to combine saving lives with saving money, which is an excellent proposition, and we support it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for raising his two questions and for his support for the order. Perhaps I may write to him in detail in relation to the financial proposals with regard to possible support of the United States' system and the benefits.
With regard to the Irish subsidy, the current arrangements pre-date the establishment of the Irish Republic, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware. Officials will be proposing to Ministers that negotiations commence later to look at the current and future funding arrangements. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport and Works (Description of Works Interfering with Navigation) (Amendment) Order 1997
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity of inviting this House to approve an affirmative order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA for short). This order involves minor, but useful, amendments to the original 1992 order and should not, I believe, be controversial.
It would doubtless be helpful if I first explain to the House the background and purpose of the proposed order.
Although the TWA is mainly concerned with new railway and tramway schemes, it also enables other types of projects in England and Wales which would previously have been authorised by private Acts to be approved by ministerial orders. Those include inland waterways and projects which interfere with rights of navigation, such as, for example, river barrages.
The order-making system is set out in Part I of the Act. Section 3 enables the Secretary of State to make an order for the carrying out of works which would interfere with rights of navigation and are of a

531
description prescribed by order made under Section 4. The legislation was framed in this way to ensure that the powers were sufficiently flexible to enable the order-making procedure to extend to novel or unforeseen projects without further primary legislation. In hindsight, the Act might have been framed so as to permit any types of works to be approved under Section 3 without the need for specific descriptions. But there was concern at the time that the scope of the order-making powers should be carefully circumscribed.
The first Section 4 order—the Transport and Works (Descriptions of Works Interfering with Navigation) Order 1992—prescribed 10 categories of works. The effect of the order is to enable promoters of the prescribed works to make an application under Section 3 of the TWA. It does not mean that works of such description will necessarily be approved. The case for approving particular projects is considered only in relation to specific applications made to the Secretary of State under Section 3.
The first order sought to cover the full range of projects which might interfere with rights of navigation, but works projects have been developed more recently which were not foreseen at the time. We have in mind in particular proposals for certain millennium works in Portsmouth Harbour which require a Section 3(1)(b) order and are not prescribed in the existing Section 4 order. These projects include a retail development to be constructed on a piled platform, an observation tower and an illuminated water fountain sending out jets of water periodically across the harbour. The amending Section 4 order prescribes these types of works.
We have undertaken a public consultation exercise on the proposed changes. Those consultees who responded have generally been supportive or have offered no comments. Two organisations questioned the need for the order but their concerns appear to be based on misunderstandings about the overall purpose and nature of the TWA order-making process. One of those two respondents thought that the order would enable works to be authorised by Section 3 order which would more appropriately be approved under other statutory powers. The proposed order was therefore an unnecessary duplication. The second objector argued that by not prescribing the proposed categories of works in the first Section 4 order, Parliament had indicated that such works should continue to be authorised by Private Bill and there was no compelling case for enabling them to be subject to approval by TWA order rather than by an Act of Parliament.
On the first point, the TWA procedure is permissive. It is for promoters to decide whether they need the statutory powers and protection from actions in nuisance afforded by a Section 3 order. They are unlikely to apply for such an order if there is another more convenient and appropriate means of approving a project. Moreover, the Secretary of State can refuse to make an order where he considers that the necessary powers could be obtained by other means—Section 13(2) of the Act. In the case of the proposed works in Portsmouth Harbour, we are satisfied that a Section 3 order under the TWA is the appropriate mechanism for obtaining statutory
532
authorisation. Having regard to Section 3(2) of the TWA, which prevents the Secretary of State from making a Section 3 order if the primary object could be achieved by means of an order under the Harbours Act 1964, we are satisfied that a harbour order is not suitable because the proposed works are not for a harbour purpose and the promoters do not have a substantial interest in the harbour as required under the 1964 Act.
Turning to the second point, Parliament decided in enacting the TWA that it was no longer appropriate for infrastructure projects, involving as they do consideration of detailed and local planning issues, to be the subject of Private Bills. Sections 2 and 4 of the Act were therefore inserted to enable the range of projects coming within Sections 1 and 3 to be prescribed and extended by order with the aim of ensuring that all works schemes are normally determined by the TWA procedure where the only alternative would be a Private Bill. Parliament clearly envisaged that there might need to be more than one order made under Sections 2 and 4 by referring in these sections to "orders" in the plural.
It is worth repeating that, by bringing forward the order, the Government are not necessarily signalling their support for any of the proposed projects covered by the extended descriptions of works. Each application under Section 3 of the TWA will be considered on its merits, after taking into account any objections to the proposals. What we are saying is that, in line with the whole thrust and purpose of the 1992 Act, the proposed works in Portsmouth Harbour and other similar projects should be subject to the TWA statutory approvals process where the only alternative would be a Private Bill. That is what this order, if made, will ensure. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved [1Ith Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, very briefly and rather frivolously, the noble Baroness said that she hoped that the order would be non-controversial. The explanatory note on the back of the order says that it amends the meaning of "pier". Provided she keeps to that spelling of "pier", it will be non-controversial.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her comprehensive overview of the circumstances bringing about the tabling of the order. Speaking purely personally, I have always been in favour of fountains. If the order makes it easier to bring about the creation of new fountains where it is everyone's wish that there should be such things, I am sure everyone will be in favour of it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.56 to 8.35 p.m.]

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 3[Legislation]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("possible") and insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: I can put the point that lies behind this amendment simply. It relates to the debate on the previous amendment. The noble and learned Lord may well take the view, having heard me, that he has already responded adequately. The point is simply this: is Clause 3(1) intended to be a reflection or an extension of the common law rules of statutory interpretation? I believe that 1 need add nothing further to my question. I beg to move.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, earlier in Committee, mentioned the New Zealand Act. As Clause 3 is the corresponding provision of the United Kingdom Bill, it seems appropriate to say just a word or two comparing the two.
One appreciates that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has perhaps suggested, Clause 3(1) of the Bill definitely goes further than the existing common law rules of statutory interpretation, because it enjoins a search for possible meanings as distinct from the true meaning—which has been the traditional approach in the matter of statutory interpretation in the courts.
The difference is not as huge as might be thought at first sight. Even under the New Zealand corresponding provision, the courts have said that the kind of interpretation now enjoined is not a strained interpretation; it is one that is fairly possible. I suspect that the very strength of the clause, as it is now worded, may have been of material assistance to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in forming the view which he expressed at Second Reading that declarations of incompatibility would be rare.
The corresponding New Zealand provision is in different language and in some respects the United Kingdom proposed provision may be slightly wider. I shall read the two provisions. It seems to me that in substance in the important matters there is no difference. The New Zealand provision is Section 6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It provides:
"Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall he preferred to any other meaning".
The United Kingdom Bill provides that:
"So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights".
The words,
"must he read and given effect",
may arguably be slightly wider than the New Zealand words, although I doubt that. What is much more important is that both provisions contain strong mandatory words. In the New Zealand provision those words are "can" and "shall"; in the United Kingdom provision, as proposed, the words are "possible" and "must". It is manifest that any dilution—I avoid the word "wrecking"—any watering down of the strength
534
of the United Kingdom provision, as contained in the Bill, will strike at its very heart. I suggest that Clause 3(1) is a key provision in the proposed legislation, possibly even the most important provision.
In this country the New Zealand Bill of Rights is sometimes stigmatised as weak. That is not necessarily so when its interpretation is in judicial hands; but it would be a sad state of affairs if, when the New Zealand provision is criticised in that way and it is widely urged that the United Kingdom Bill is not strong enough, the United Kingdom Parliament were to enact a measure more timid than, or a weaker version of, the New Zealand Bill. That would be an extraordinary result of the long consideration and the long gestation which the United Kingdom Bill has undergone. I respectfully urge the Committee and the Government not to be persuaded to do anything to weaken Clause 3(1).
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seemed in inverse proportion to his enthusiasm for the amendment. He spoke with extraordinary brevity on an amendment of great importance.
It gives me great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, and I should like to add a few words of agreement. If one looks across the Commonwealth, including the dependent territories, to the constitutional Bills of Rights which incorporate the European Convention into domestic law in Africa and the Caribbean, in Bermuda and in Hong Kong before and after the resumption of sovereignty of the People's Republic of China, one finds in all those jurisdictions (except New Zealand) that the courts are given aggressive power to strike down inconsistent legislation. However, the Government have chosen not to adopt that course for reasons that I understand and support as long as all that we are engaged in is giving domestic effect to the European convention rather than creating a full constitutional Bill of Rights of our own, which I hope will occur one day in my lifetime.
If one looks across the Commonwealth, one finds that the weakest form of a Bill of Rights is, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, the so-called New Zealand model. As far as I am concerned, the command to the judges as far as possible to construe legislation in conformity with convention rights is an elegant way of reconciling sovereignty with effective judicial remedies.
If one were to adopt the amendment and seek instead only a "reasonable" interpretation, we would be close to the current principles of interpretation which are already applied in an unincorporated convention since the courts already construe existing legislation on the basis that Parliament intends to conform to the convention in exercising legislative power and therefore ambiguities or manifest absurdities are to be dealt with by having recourse to the convention where reasonably possible.
My view is that the Government are right in seeking to adopt a stronger command to the judges in order to reduce the mismatch and the need for declarations of incompatibilities, for the reasons raised in the previous debate. At first sight, nothing could seem more reasonable than to say to the judges, "Adopt an

535
interpretation if you reasonably can" rather than, "if you possibly can". One can imagine a jurisprudence seminar lasting several hours examining the merits of both views in terms of the three branches of our government. However, if one of the main aims of the Bill is to secure speedy and effective domestic remedies for violations of the convention and to put our courts as far as possible in the same position as the European Court of Human Rights so that recourse to the European judges is kept to the minimum, it seems to me that Clause 3(1) as it stands is the right approach. Speaking for myself, if there were to be any dilution of Clause 3(1), I would cease to be a friend of the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not desire to be unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the difficulty of whose position I well understand, but it is incumbent on him to explain to the Committee what his amendment would mean rather than ask me a question about whether the Bill is a departure from ordinary principles of construction. However. I leave that and assist the Committee as best I can.
We want the courts to strive to find an interpretation of legislation which is consistent with convention rights so far as the language of the legislation allows and only in the last resort to conclude that the legislation is simply incompatible with them. I have to speculate about the purpose of the amendment, but it would appear to reflect a desire to have the courts stop some way short of that point as far as interpretation is concerned, which means that they would arrive at more, rather than fewer, conclusions that the legislation is incompatible with the convention. Speaking for myself, I cannot see what is gained by that objective. Our position is that the courts should apply the law and not make it and that they should not be dragged into the area of opinion or into judgment of a political character perhaps to a greater or lesser extent.
The word "possible" is the plainest means that we can devise for simply asking the courts to find the construction consistent with the intentions of Parliament and the wording of legislation which is nearest to the convention rights. On the other hand, "reasonable" is an evaluative criterion and the proponents of the amendment do not offer us any guidance as to what the criteria might be.
All I need say in resisting this amendment is that we want the courts to construe statutes so that they bear a meaning that is consistent with the convention whenever that is possible according to the language of the statutes but not when it is impossible to achieve that. More generally, we proceed on the basis that Parliament, at least post-ratification of the convention, must be deemed to have intended its statutes to be compatible with the convention to which the United Kingdom is bound, and that courts should hold that that deemed general intention has not been carried successfully into effect only where it is impossible to construe a statute as having that effect. This seems to me to be a sensible principle and is consistent both with Parliament's presumed intention post-ratification and with ministerial
536
statements of compatibility, when they come to be made, under Clause 19 of the Bill. If this amendment were agreed to, the only intention that I could divine behind it would be to maximise rather than minimise declarations of incompatibility which would tend to bring the statute book into unnecessary disrepute. For those reasons, I am not persuaded by the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This clause departs from ordinary rules of construction, and to my mind does so rightly. However, I do not agree with my noble and learned friend in his objection to the very use of the word "reasonable". That word is used every day in the courts and is a perfectly well understood standard. It is the standard of the ordinary man in the street. I believe that the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, prefers "reasonable" to "possible" is that the latter may be taken to include what is fanciful, but I do not believe that it is necessary for that purpose. Judges do not take account of fanciful considerations. I prefer "reasonably possible". I do not suppose that my noble and learned friend will for a moment consider that because it interferes with the language that is written down in tablets of stone.
As I understand it, the ordinary rule is that the courts endeavour to get at the meaning of the words that Parliament has used, not the words that Parliament meant to use. That was the Nazi rule of construction in the name of the Reich. In a statute like this, which is meant for ordinary people, first they try to find the ordinary sense of the word. That is known as the golden rule of interpretation. They do that by considering the ordinary meaning of the words in their context. Their context includes the objective of the statute. But sometimes the ordinary meaning even in context leads to something unjust, anomalous, contradictory or ambiguous. The courts then say that Parliament cannot have meant such a thing.
They look then at secondary meanings and have various rules to help them. One rule which is relevant to this clause is that they endeavour to find a secondary meaning which accords with international law. But this provision goes further. It says that they must look not only for a secondary meaning but for a possible meaning. I apprehend that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, fears that that may lead to a fanciful meaning. I do not believe that it would. I believe that the words will be construed by the courts as meaning "reasonably possible". Even though any change in the wording rises in the gorge of my noble and learned friend, I believe that that is how judges will interpret those words. It means that the provision goes further than the existing rules of interpretation, but so be it. My noble and learned friend has given reasons why that should be so, and I presume to agree with them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If this is to be interpreted by the Bench as "reasonably possible", as will obviously be the case, what are we worrying about?
Lord Kingsland: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord fails to understand the aim of this amendment. I thought that my opening explanation had

537
made it crystal clear. The intention was to find out whether or not the Bill proposed a form of interpretation by the judges which went beyond the common law rules. It is quite clear both from the reply of the noble and learned Lord and the subsequent debate that that is what is proposed. I am perfectly happy to learn that and will reflect upon it. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 2. leave out lines 29 to 34.
The noble and learned Lord said: I believe that my noble and learned friend dealt with this matter in answer to an earlier debate. In those circumstances, I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No.17 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: We have given notice of our intention to oppose this Question for the sole purpose of seeking from the Government an undertaking that, before the Bill reaches Report stage, the devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales are published. That will enable your Lordships to scrutinise the provisions of this Bill against the provisions of those two major constitutional Bills that we await with interest.
This evening I have listened with a measure of fascination to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explaining the scheme of the Bill and the interpretative approach. I shall read again tomorrow with interest what he said. He observed at one stage that that may be the reason that the Bill has been welcomed by the higher judiciary. I am sorry to disappoint the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It may be that the higher judiciary north of the Border are not quite so fulsome in their welcome of this legislation, as may be evidenced by the speech made at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. One possible explanation for that is that when the Scottish judges scrutinise Acts of the Scottish parliament against the provisions of the Bill they will require to follow a different approach from that in relation to Acts of this Parliament.
For those reasons, I believe that it is essential that we have this undertaking. I anticipate no difficulty in it being given. Having heard it, I shall be happy to withdraw opposition to the Motion.
9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not in a position to give any undertaking about the timing of the publication of the devolution Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In view of the comment in the White Paper that the approach will be different in Scotland, it seems impossible that we should pass this legislation through this House without knowing what
538
that difference is. As I understand it, there is no mention of those differences in the Bill at present. Some assurance would surely be essential to us.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Although I am not qualified in Scots law, I am a Scot and have interests in Scotland. I wholly support the objections made by my noble friends. I beg that they be met, answered and taken seriously.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not understand the problem. It is true that the Scottish courts have so far been somewhat behind the English courts in giving domestic effect to the European Convention on Human Rights. One looks in vain in Scottish jurisprudence for as strong an interpretation of the convention as has been given by the English courts. But that is not the point of the Question, although it is fair to say that one effect of the Bill will be to ensure an even application of the convention domestically throughout the whole kingdom. I welcome that since these international obligations apply throughout the territory of the United Kingdom.
However, what I do not understand is this. When we have a devolved Scottish parliament, as was made clear during the Second Reading debate, that parliament, any Welsh senate, English regional assembly, Northern Irish parliament or other public authority exercising legislative or executive powers as a subordinate body will be bound as a public authority by the convention, both under international law and this Bill when it becomes a statute. Our courts, north and south of the Border will have the duty of ensuring full compliance by all subordinate legislative and executive bodies with the requirements of the convention. That is wholly unaffected by the devolution legislation since whatever form it takes we can be completely sure that any Scottish parliament will have to obey the international legal obligations that are binding already in international law and will become binding in domestic law under the Bill. Therefore I fail to perceive any further problem which should give rise to difficulty under Clause 3 or any other provision of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As a humble layman I probably should not intervene. However, I refer the noble and learned Lord to paragraphs 2.20 and 2.21 of the White Paper. They do not describe the situation such as was described by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The Scottish parliament will be a legislative body. If the White Paper is to be followed, it will produce legislation which will become law by ensuring that it is ultra vires. Therefore it has a different status to the Westminster Parliament.
I did not dare speak at Second Reading. I had thought that this issue would be amplified by everyone, but it was not. I was anxious about it. I wish to know—I am sure many distinguished lawyers in Scotland want to know—exactly how this will be achieved in the devolution Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I was about to come to paragraphs 2.20 and 2.21 of the White Paper when I

539
gave way to the noble Baroness who, as a layman, should never be inhibited in the presence of lawyers and who, in my long experience of her, never is.
The position is this. I am relying of course on the White Paper. I am not anticipating the provisions of the Bill which is not yet published. Nor am I suggesting or implying that there will be any departure in principle by the Bill from the White Paper. As regards the issues that we are addressing in Committee this evening, in relation to the European convention the powers of the courts in Scotland will be exactly the same as the powers of the English courts. That is what one would expect. All courts, whether Scottish or English, will be required to interpret the legislation in a way which, so far as possible, is compatible with the convention. If a provision is found to be incompatible with the convention, just as the courts in England at the relevant high level will be enabled to make a declaration of incompatibility, so also will the Scots courts, except that they will call it a declarator of incompatibility—and good luck to them! In Scotland it is a declarator. Exactly the same applies in Scotland as in England so far as concerns this Bill.
We now move to an entirely separate question: whether or not the Scottish parliament, if it acts incompatibly with the European convention, will act ultra vires. One of two views would have been possible. One could equate it with the English, or Westminster, Parliament and take the view that to provide a remedy for a court-made declaration of incompatibility should be for the Scottish parliament. That is the view that has been taken for the Westminster Parliament.
However, the Scottish parliament will exercise devolved powers. It is therefore well within the entitlement of the United Kingdom Parliament, when devolving powers to Scotland, to hold that any Act of the Scottish parliament which is incompatible with the convention is ultra vires. The Scottish parliament is not sovereign in the sense that the Westminster Parliament is. As the noble Baroness knows, having read paragraph 2.21 of the White Paper, compatibility with the convention is heralded by that paragraph as a vires issue and therefore that is what she should anticipate the Bill will provide when it is published. I cannot undertake that it will be published before the Report stage of this Bill and I do not do so. There is every expectation that it will be published before the year end, on time.
Lord Meston: Does it follow from what the noble and learned Lord has been saying, without committing the Government in any way, that it is likely that the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and whatever may arise in Northern Ireland will be given a procedure similar to that given by Clause 12 to effect a fast-track remedy of any incompatibility?
The Lord Chancellor: I do not desire to go further than I have in fairly responding to questions which go more to the content of the devolution Bills than they go to the issue of whether this clause shall stand part.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I regret that the noble and learned Lord has not been able to give the
540
undertaking that I sought. It was not an undertaking as to when the devolution Bills will be published; it was an undertaking that your Lordships' House will not be passed to the Report stage of this Bill until those major constitutional Bills have been seen.
I fully understand the legal logic of the position, as explained by the noble and learned Lord tonight, as I fully understood the logic of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on Second Reading. At paragraph 2.13 of the White Paper the Government indicate that one of the reasons they have chosen such a route in relation to Acts of this Parliament is that to do otherwise would be likely on occasions to draw the judiciary into serious conflict with Parliament. As a result, there is a concern in Scotland, which is shared by lawyers and non-lawyers alike, that the man on the street will not fully understand why Scottish judges have the right to strike down Acts of the Scottish parliament but not Acts of this Parliament.
The situation will be accentuated when Scottish courts come to consider statutory provisions which have originated in this House as a section of an Act of this Parliament and have been amended by an Act of the Scottish parliament so that the statutory provision under scrutiny will be partly passed by this Parliament and partly passed by the Scottish parliament. As I understand the legal logic, the Scottish courts will have the right to strike down part of the section but no such right in relation to the other part—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. From the way in which he is developing his argument, I am not clear whether the position of his party is that the Scottish parliament should exercise sovereignty in the same way as the Westminster Parliament so that its legislative Acts will be beyond judicial scrutiny where they breach the international obligations imposed on the United Kingdom as a whole. If that is not his position I do not follow the conclusion which he is arguing towards.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord will forgive me if, like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not anticipate what is in the devolution Bill. I wish to see the devolution Bill before this Bill moves towards the next stage of consideration in this Chamber. On any view, this Bill is a major piece of constitutional legislation. Indeed, at a dinner I attended last week I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, saying that in his opinion this Bill was likely to have a greater impact on the Scottish courts, at least in the first few years, than the devolution Bill. If he is correct in that assessment, it is incumbent upon your Lordships to consider the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to the Scottish courts as being somewhat behind their English counterparts in these matters. I venture to suggest that some people in Scotland might take the view that there was a measure of value in being slightly behind and that it would be wrong to criticise different attitudes in Scotland, particularly when Scotland is about to be faced with major constitutional legislation. On further reflection, it may be that the means by which it is

541
decided when Report stage is to take place is through the usual channels rather than seeking to test the opinion of the Committee on a matter of this importance. On that understanding, I should like to make it extremely clear that I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not been able to give the undertaking that I seek, and I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the Question.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In view of the recent intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whatever may be the policy of the party to which I adhere, it is wholly irrelevant to the question we are discussing. It goes far beyond that. It is a matter of substance that warrants sympathetic consideration.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Declaration of incompatibility]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("primary").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19 and to speak to Amendment No. 21 which is grouped with it, and which I shall move formally in due course.
I shall also refer to Amendment No. 73 to Clause 10(1)(a), which will not be debated today but which is triggered by these amendments to Clause 4. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asked my noble friend Lord Henley a fairly reasonable question as to where we stood on policy. He did not receive an entirely categoric reply and assuredly I, on the third row of these Back Benches, am not in the position to give one. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is entitled to know, as indeed is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, where I personally stand before I address your Lordships on what to me is a matter of considerable consequence.
I stand behind the principle of incorporation, as referred to at page 35 of the manifesto and as expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today. That is where I stand. But the means proposed of remedial action under Clauses 10 to 12, triggered by Clause 4, are utterly rejected as a novel, unnecessary and unconstitutional fast-track procedure which any authoritarian government might wish to resolve.
It is not the intention to pre-empt discussion on these amendments to Clauses 10 to 12 or as to whether those clauses stand part. However, Amendment No. 73 to Clauses 10 to 12 lies at the heart of the discussion of these amendments which I move today. It is very short; it is in plain English and therefore obviously defective; and has been drafted by me. If your Lordships would allow me, it should read as follows:
"Page 6, line 16, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
('( )If a Minister of the Crown considers that, in order to remove incompatibility it is appropriate that legislation should be amended, he may—

(a) as regards primary legislation, introduce an amendment bill in either House of Parliament; and

542

(b) as regards subordinate legislation, make a draft order containing the proposed amendments, which order shall he laid before Parliament and subject to approval by resolution of each liouse.')"

Assimilation of a convention into English law is no simple, straightforward process to be achieved by judicial declaration without resort to the parliamentary process, a process as it applies respectively to primary and secondary legislation.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment No. 19, which, again, is produced in fairly simple English, and again is probably equally effective, states "leave out ('primary')". The effect of that is quite simply, if one looks at Clause 4, to say:
"Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of legislation is compatible with one or more of the Convention rights.
That means primary or secondary legislation.
Amendment No. 21 says,
"leave out subsections (3) and (4)".
Thus, I read on:
"If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with one or more of the Convention rights, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility".
Could anything be simpler? It reflects the extant position by which we deal with such matters, by convention for I do not know how long but by tradition for about 300 years; and it has not served us too badly.
I ask your Lordships to accept that those amendments to Clause 4, to which I have spoken, do not foreclose in any way on the remedial action as proposed under Clauses 10 to 12, with which I most heartily disagree. But they afford a measure of flexibility to enable amendments to Clauses 10 to 12, including the amendment in my name to which I have referred—Amendment No. 73—to be debated on their merits.
As to that, the Committee has the advice of the Select Committee at paragraphs 22 to 25 of the 6th report in context with the Henry VIII taint to the proposed procedure. The Committee may wish to consider in context with these amendments to which I speak whether it really is acceptable that, on the basis of mere judicial declaration, it is appropriate that on the say-so of a Minister of the Crown, primary legislation should be amended by order in council—because, if I am not mistaken, that is what is proposed—and that subsidiary legislation should be amended without the affirmation of both Houses of Parliament. I always keep the Labour manifesto with me; I have it on the seat here. I always read it for every debate in which I speak because it is the basis of policy. Policy is a matter for the Government and not for the Opposition. I always start with the Labour policy in the manifesto and then—I do not want to be unkind about it—see where we get to.
There was no reference in the manifesto, at page 35, as to these proposed means of implementation of the principle under Clauses 4, 10 and 12. It is a novel regime which is totally in violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers as between Parliament and the judiciary. There seems to be a sort of impression that a manifesto confers a blank cheque. However, it does not. It confers no blank cheque on our elected representatives

543
to change the constitution unless such means of change, and means of implementation of the principle, have been put before the electorate, which they have not. Therefore, as regards this provision or my Amendment No. 73—which I shall have considerably more to say about when we reach it than I have today, unless we are discussing it at about this time of night—the Salisbury Convention cannot apply.
In conclusion, it is of crucial consequence to understand that these amendments to Clause 4, which affect remedial action under Clauses 10 to 12, are in a sense inconsistent with Clauses 10 to 12. The point is that whatever the position of inconsistency may be, that should not be prayed in aid by retaining Clause 4 as it stands, which inhibits or could pre-empt the discussion on subsequent amendments. Such is the spirit in which I move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I intervene briefly to say that like my noble friend I expect we shall have much more to say about his Amendment No. 73 and our Amendment No. 85 when we reach them at some later occasion, at, I hope, a better time of night than is the case at the moment. My noble friend makes a good point. These are important issues and they are issues that have been referred to by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. All I require from the Government when they respond is an assurance from them that, when they look at the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, they will abide by the recommendations that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has made, just as we always abided by them when we were in government, as we were always recommended to do by noble Lords opposite when they were in opposition.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Committee of course is not dealing in these amendments with the remedial powers of Parliament and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, with which I, respectfully, do not wholly agree. However, that is for another occasion. With these amendments the Committee is concerned solely with what the judicial branch of government has to do in relation to declarations of incompatibility, not what Parliament has to do, and how it is to do it.
I do not understand what the fuss is about. Clause 4, as it stands, empowers the courts to grant declarations of incompatibility in relation to primary legislation, which the amendment would seek to turn into any legislation, not just primary legislation. It then provides, in relation to subordinate legislation, that if the parent statute cannot be construed compatibly with the convention rights, the courts may so declare. What then happens as a consequence comes later in the Bill when Parliament seeks to put right the mismatch.
I wholly fail to understand what is wrong in the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, with the power of the courts to grant declarations of incompatibility where the parent statute requires subordinate legislation, and cannot be read any other way, and would breach the convention. It therefore
544
seems to me that this is—if I may be forgiven the phrase—truly an emasculating amendment which would destroy one of the main purposes of the Bill. I am therefore strongly opposed to it.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Let us suppose that the noble Lord is right. With respect to him, I think that he has failed to understand—perhaps it is a bit late—what I was saying. Perhaps the late hour made it difficult for me to explain it. He has misconceived and totally misconstrued what I said. Let us assume that he is right. Either Clause 4 as it stands does not preclude the type of amendment and discussion to which I have referred, or it does. If it does not preclude such a discussion—I am satisfied that subsections (3) and (4) do—so be it. But at least I wish it to be understood that if, as my noble friend Lord Henley said a moment ago, we can reach a suitable accommodation at this hour in the form of an assurance, I do not have to waste the Committee's time in seeking to convince the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that the position in principle of his party might not be relevant to our discussions this evening. I am, in principle, minded to agree with that, as with many other discussions in which we might engage this evening or any other evening. At one point he appeared to be protesting at the simple English of the provisions. That appears to me to be their principal virtue. I was pleased to hear of the respect in which he holds the Labour Party manifesto. I am delighted to hear that it is his vade mecum. It is, after all, an exemplar of how to win elections, and on our compliance with it we shall be judged, and are happy to be judged, at the next general election.
The position simply is that at present subordinate legislation may be struck down by the courts on the same grounds as in the case of other forms of administrative action. That is most commonly on vires grounds, but also on procedural grounds where a mandatory provision for making the subordinate legislation has not been complied with or, less commonly, on the ground that a discretion has been exercised unreasonably or irrationally.
Clause 6(1) of the Bill, by making it unlawful for a public authority to act in a manner inconsistent with the convention rights, will make it unlawful for a Minister to exercise a power to make subordinate legislation so as to make provision which is incompatible with the convention. However, subordinate legislation which is incompatible with the convention rights will thus become susceptible to challenge on vires grounds in the ordinary way. These provisions deal essentially with a situation where subordinate legislation is incompatible with the convention because that incompatibility has been dictated by the terms of parent legislation which is in itself incompatible.
The problem with Amendments Nos. 19 and 21 tabled by the noble Lord is that they would apply subsections (1) and (2) to both primary and subordinate legislation and would delete subsections (3) and (4). The effect of

545
the amendments might well therefore be to allow the courts to make declarations of incompatibility in relation to subordinate legislation which is not inevitably incompatible. That power, however, is simply not required in these cases because the courts have available to them their ordinary powers to quash or set aside subordinate legislation. The power to make a declaration of incompatibility should be, and is, reserved for those cases where it is needed because the courts have no power to do anything else. The subordinate legislation is necessarily incompatible because the parent legislation causes it to be so. The rational outcome, therefore, is that both the parent and the subordinate legislation are subject to a declaration of incompatibility.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is concerned about the fate of his Amendment No. 73. We shall have our debate on that amendment on another day. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, invites me to say that I agree here and now to abide by the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That is a matter that we shall address in its due time, which is not now. We are not now dealing with the remedial powers conferred upon Parliament where courts have made declarations of incompatibility. We shall have all these debates, but in their due time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the courteous way in which he dealt with this amendment, and for the great consideration given to it in the brief from which he was reading. He will forgive me if I could not quite take and understand everything that was said. However, I appreciate that it was prepared with great care and I am grateful for that consideration. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way to my noble friend Lady Carnegy so that she could make her point in the debate a moment ago.
Nobody, if they have any sense, ever thinks that they are right until they have heard all the arguments. I shall read seriously what has been said. However, I respectfully reserve the right to return to Amendment No. 73, which is near to my heart. I am worried about the fast-track procedure. I do not believe that it will work; I do not believe that it will make for good legislation: I do not believe it is the way to make legislation. I shall return to that matter at the next stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 20 and 24 are simple little probing amendments. I should be grateful for a response from the Government to them. In Clause 4(2) we are told that:
"If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with one or more of the Convention rights, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility".
We suggest that the "may" should be "shall" and I have used the word "shall" instead of "may" to test the Government's intentions. I ask why the court is being
546
given a discretion and what are the occasions on which the court would exercise that discretion? When would it not exercise the discretion? What remedies would be available if it did not exercise the discretion, if one or other party wished to contest it? I should be grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the answer to my queries. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 4(2) and (4) give a court, if satisfied that a provision of primary or subordinate legislation is incompatible with the convention rights, a discretion to make a declaration of incompatibility. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, says that his amendments are probing, to remove the discretion and require the courts to make a declaration in those circumstances. Why that is a subject on which those who are opposed to the principle of the Bill desire to probe is not entirely plain to me, but none the less I shall endeavour to assist in their probing.
The reason Clause 4 only confers a discretion is in part that in our domestic law a declaration is generally a discretionary remedy. A Clause 4 declaration has no operative or coercive effect and in particular does not prevent either party relying on, or the courts enforcing, the law in question unless and until changed by Parliament.
The courts may, therefore, not wish to make a declaration of incompatibility in all cases. It is possible that the facts of particular cases may suggest that legislation as it is applied in that case is incompatible with the convention, but there may be reasons peculiar to the particular case why the legislation should not be declared incompatible on the occasion when the court would be free to do that.
To assist the noble Lord, whose interest in this Bill to which he is opposed in principle is so great, I suggest that I certainly would expect courts generally to make declarations of incompatibility when they find an Act to be incompatible with the convention. However, we do not wish to deny them a discretion not to do so because of the particular circumstances of any case.
If the noble Lord asks me for examples of that, I suggest that there might be an alternative statutory appeal route which the court might think it preferable to follow, or there might be any other procedure which the court in its discretion thought the applicant should exhaust before seeking a declaration which would then put Parliament under pressure to follow a remedial route.
I cannot envisage many more particular circumstances, but it appears to me to be sensible to leave the courts a discretion, while I well recognise that in the great majority of cases courts would want to make declarations of incompatibility, where that was appropriate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to ask, if the court were minded to make the declaration and then somebody sought leave to appeal, what would happen? A court might say: "In those circumstances I shall stay the making of a declaration. I shall not make a

547
declaration. I shall further this matter in the Court of Appeal. What happens in practice if there is no application for leave to appeal to a High Court judge and subsequently an application is made followed by an appeal to the Court of Appeal? What happens then to the position of making out the declaration? How will it work out?
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: A court strives, so far as possible, to construe a statute to be compatible. It fails. Therefore it may—not must—make a declaration of incompatibility. If it makes a declaration of incompatibility, nothing at all flows. The statute remains in full force and effect and that is so whether or not there is another route of appeal. However, the declaration of incompatibility puts some pressure on Parliament to make a remedial order.
Lord Henley: The first part of the noble and learned Lord's response was quite extraordinary. He asked why, when we were opposed to the Bill in principle, I was tabling probing amendments. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will understand that one of our duties as the Opposition, which I dare say even the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, understands, is that we must table probing amendments. We must seek to find out what the Government intend with their Bill.
That becomes more important when, for example, the party of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and the Government are at one over the Bill and seek total agreement. The greater the agreement, the more need there is to probe the arguments and ensure that they are tested properly in Committee, at Report stage and at Third Reading. That is why I tabled the amendment and that is why we tabled many more amendments, some of which the noble and learned Lord will be the first to point out contradict each other. I have no qualms about that. The vital job of opposition—one in which I invite the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to join—is to table amendments to probe the intentions behind the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He does not need to give lessons to me in the art of constructive opposition. I entirely agree that it is the function of the Opposition to test legislation and probe. However, does not the noble Lord agree that when one does that, one must do it based upon some notion of principle of one's own, some notion of policy of one's own, and some argument as to the mischief that one is seeking to probe?
In this instance we have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explaining what is obvious as to the discretionary nature of declaratory relief and the need to give the courts a discretionary power. Having heard that reply to the question, which is plain and obvious, I do not understand why the constructive Opposition do not then express gratitude for the explanation and immediately withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: I was dealing with the first point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when
548
he asked why I tabled the amendment. I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has a great deal more experience of opposition than I do; we are only just beginning to learn the art and I hope we shall not have to learn for too long.
I felt that it was important to address that point. I resent being told that there is no point in my tabling the amendment. It is thoroughly honourable to table an amendment of this sort and to ask what the Government are about. We heard an explanation from the noble and learned Lord and that explanation bears some scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be pleased to hear that I shall look at the explanation with considerable—
The Lord Chancellor: Scepticism!
Lord Henley: The noble and learned Lord says "scepticism". I hope that I can look at it with considerable scepticism; one of the jobs of the Opposition is to look at amendments with scepticism. The noble and learned Lord would be worried if I did not look at it with considerable scepticism. I shall look at it in some detail and, because he advises me, with a degree of scepticism, and I shall look at the examples he gave. Those examples were the first things I wrote down. I wanted to know what examples he could give me. He gave me some examples. I give a guarantee to the noble and learned Lord that I shall look at those examples. I shall possibly come back to this at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, leave out lines 10 to 14.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 25 is tabled in the spirit of a probing amendment. However, the Committee may or may not be interested to know that my thinking on this matter has now matured somewhat and it is reflected currently in Amendment No. 66, which is somewhat in advance of our proceedings tonight because it relates to Clause 10. I believe it will help if I explain the thinking behind the two amendments to enable the Lord Chancellor to respond appropriately.
We have identified a problem. It may be an imaginary one because the noble and learned Lord may either have dealt with it in another part of the Bill or have some other means of dealing with it. Let us suppose that a judge of the High Court makes a declaration of incompatibility and as a consequence of that declaration Parliament initiates the fast track procedure. Meanwhile, the losing litigant in the High Court appeals to the Court of Appeal. Just as the responsible Minister has tabled the relevant Order in Council, the Court of Appeal reverses the decision of the High Court—in other words, it decides that there is no incompatibility whatever.
That is a difficult situation for Parliament to deal with. How does it deal with it? Does it cease the order procedure; does it wait on the prospect of a further appeal to the House of Lords; or, if it has passed the

549
order, does it then immediately proceed to reverse it as a result of the decision of the appeal court? That is the problem. I have sought to deal with it in Amendment No. 66 by suggesting that until the legal process is exhausted the process in Parliament should not begin.
I shall quite understand if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that the problem is resolved elsewhere in the Bill or in some other way. But we thought it worth tabling a probing amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, tells me that this is a probing amendment. I, of course, accept that. It is also a very positive amendment because what it proposes is to reserve to the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the power to make a declaration of incompatibility. It would not allow a declaration to be made by the High Court or Court of Appeal or the equivalent bodies specified in Clause 4(3). The noble Lord envisaged a state of affairs where a declaration of incompatibility is made—let us say, in the High Court—hut then the case is moving on appeal to the higher courts. In all probability, from a practical point of view, government and parliament would not do anything in a highly contentious case if it was going through the appellate process; that is, they would not move to make a remedial order. That would be the practicality of it. But Parliament at any time can pre-empt litigation and pass amending legislation whether or not declarations of incompatibility have been sought.
Treating the amendment seriously, it would have one of two possible results, both undesirable. One would be to reduce significantly the number of occasions on which a declaration of incompatibility could be made because only a small proportion of cases are heard by the High Court and the Court of Appeal and then go on to the House of Lords or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. For example, a declaration would not be available in the course of proceedings in the High Court for judicial review or in the course of an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against a Crown Court conviction. That would seriously reduce the usefulness of the provision in Clause 4.
The other possible result would be an inevitable increase in the number of applications for leave to appeal to the House of Lords simply because that would be the only place where a declaration of incompatibility could be made. That would overload the list of the House of Lords and obviously we want to avoid that. In some cases it may well be obvious, once the High Court has given a reasoned judgment, that a provision in legislation is incompatible with the convention rights. No one in their right mind would want to go to appeal, but the amendment would require individuals to have to go all the way to the House of Lords to obtain a declaration. So these amendments seem to me to promote unnecessary litigation.
In any event, we do not have any desire to restrict the power to make a declaration in the way that this amendment suggests. The High Court, the Court of Appeal and equivalent courts, are served by senior judges who are well equipped to resolve difficult points of law.
550
Very often the resolution of such matters begins and ends with them. For example, in England the judges who deal with judicial review are all permanent High Court judges drawn from the Crown Office list. We have no doubt whatsoever that they are more than competent to consider and to make declarations about the incompatibility of domestic legislation with the convention rights.
I appreciate that it is the function of opposition to make probing amendments, but it is a good Bill unless one is opposed to it in principle. One must really avoid giving the impression of looking for things to complain about.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that on this occasion he has been uncharacteristically unfair, because I coupled my remark about the probing amendment with the observation that Amendment No. 66 provided a constructive solution to the problem he posed, preserving the right of the High Court and the Court of Appeal to make a declaration of incompatibility but allowing a period to elapse so that any rights of appeal were exhausted before Parliament leapt into action.
It seems to me that if the incompatibility between the European Convention on Human Rights and any domestic statute or common law is a matter of law, then Parliament owes it to the courts to make up its mind filially whether the incompatibility exists. The courts cannot make up their mind finally to decide whether or not the incompatibility exists until the appeal procedures have been exhausted. The problem could become a particular embarrassment if halfway through Parliament's fast-track procedure the courts changed their mind about whether incompatibility existed.
With great respect, I put it to the noble and learned Lord that if he sees my opening statement in the context of Amendment No. 66, he will see that it is—"for once" he might say—a genuine attempt to provide a constructive solution to what I think is quite a serious problem. I invite the noble and learned Lord to have a further public reflection on the matter.
The Lord Chancellor: I undertake to have a further private reflection on that point.
Lord Kingsland: That is good enough for me and in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line II, leave out ("sitting as a court of criminal appeal").
The noble and learned Lord said: As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be aware, this is one of a number of amendments that have been suggested by the Law Society in Scotland and have been circulated, together with appropriate briefings, to a number of noble Lords who are taking an interest in the passage of the Bill.
Amendment No. 26 seeks to explore, in the context of Clause 4(5)(d)) the reason why "declarators of incompatibility", as I understand them to be called in

551
Scotland, can be made by a High Court judge sitting in his civil jurisdiction as a judge in a Court of Session, but not by the same High Court judge sitting in his criminal capacity as a judge in the High Court of Justiciary. In criminal matters, it is only when a case has reached the Court of Criminal Appeal that the option of a declarator will be open.
One can anticipate that in criminal cases issues will arise as to whether the statutory provision upon which a charge is based is compatible with Convention rights. One can envisage also arising situations when evidence is recovered in terms of a search warrant granted in terms of statutory provisions alleged to be incompatible with Convention rights. If those issues are to be raised, it will be the duty of counsel to address the High Court judge on the legal argument. He will undoubtedly form a view as to whether there is that alleged incompatibility with Convention rights.
The purpose of the amendment is to see why the judge is not to be given that option in criminal matters when, if similar issues arise in civil cases, he will have such an option. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I wonder whether what lies behind the noble and learned Lord's amendment is concern that somehow or other the statutory provision may be operating as some kind of slight on the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. Not so. The Bill does not call in question the standing of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland and well understands that it is of equivalent rank to the High Court in England. The intention is not to confer on judges presiding over criminal trials, whatever their rank, the power to grant declarations of incompatibility. In fact, High Court judges in England who sit in crime at, say, the Old Bailey in London or anywhere in the country, sit in the Crown Court albeit that they are High Court Judges; whereas it is well understood that when Scottish judges sit as criminal judges and in the High Court of Justiciary, they do so in a rank which, for the purposes of criminal cases, is equivalent to the rank that they occupy in the Court of Session. That is well understood.
The point is different. Put simply, the policy that the Bill reflects is that judges who preside over criminal trials should not have the power to make declarations of incompatibility. However, judges sitting in the High Court in England, not as judges sitting in the Court of Session in Scotland, in a judicial review matter would be empowered to make declarations or declarators of incompatibility. But the policy that lies behind the existing statutory provision is that we do not believe that trials should be upset, or potentially upset, by declarations of incompatibility that may go to the very foundations of the prosecution.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert ("or the Court of the Lord Lyon or any Court of the Church of Scotland.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 27 touches on another Scottish peculiarity of this Bill; namely, the possible application of the provisions of the Bill first to the Court of the Lord Lyon and, secondly, to the courts of the Church of Scotland. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that the Lyon Court in Scotland deals with all matters relating to heraldry and makes rulings on genealogy, some of which are accepted by the Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House in claims regarding Scottish peerage cases. There is a right of appeal from the Lyon Court to the Inner House of the Court of Session but, subject to that right of appeal, matters are left to Lord Lyon and his court. The issue arises as to why that court does not fall to be included in Clause 4(5).
How the provisions of this Bill will affect the courts of the Church of Scotland is a much more fundamental question. A number of questions arise which I know are of interest not only to the Law Society who have promoted this amendment but to the Church itself. Since the amendment was framed I have spoken to the Procurator to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I know that he will be considering the matter very anxiously and will welcome any explanation that can be given as to the effect of these provisions on those courts and their legislative powers. I understand from Clause 21(1) that "primary legislation" which is defined in paragraph (d) as including a "Measure of the Church Assembly" is not intended to refer to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
On that basis I ask the noble and learned Lord: what is the intention of the Government as to the effect of this Bill on the Church? Is it intended that the courts of the Church shall fall within the phrase "A court or tribunal" in Clause 2(2)? Is it intended that the provisions of Clause 3(1) apply to the courts of the Church who, during the course of their work, have to construe and apply primary legislation of this Parliament and any subordinate legislation that may flow from it? Is it intended that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as a body that passes church legislation should fall within the definition of "public authority", which is relevant to the provisions of Clause 6? More importantly perhaps, is it intended that the courts of the Church and those who have the duty to refer and present disciplinary cases to those courts should fall within the definition of public authority as set out in Clause 6(3)(c)?
These are important issues in Scotland and important issues for the Church of Scotland. Since the passing of the Church of Scotland Act 1921, it has vigorously defended before the courts in Scotland its right to have sole jurisdiction to determine all questions concerning membership and office in the Church, the constitution and membership of the courts of the Church, the mode of election of its office bearers and the defining of the boundaries of the spheres of labour of its ministers and

553
other office spheres. It has resisted any right of any civil authority, including the civil courts in Scotland, to interfere with the proceedings or judgments of the Church within the sphere of its spiritual government and jurisdiction.
These are complex and important matters. It may well be that tonight is not the night to expect the noble and learned Lord to give a full response to them. But they are matters to which I anticipate that I shall wish to return at Report stage. At this time, in the absence of any Scottish lawyer on the Front Bench, an undertaking to respond in writing to the points I have raised to allow me and others to reflect on them before Report stage may make it possible to pass from the amendment without unnecessary delay. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We are in deep waters. I have no wish to plumb the depths of them tonight. However, it seems to me that so far as concerns the Lord Lyon King of Arms, it is difficult to think of a situation in which any decision he might make, whether with or without Garter King of Arms—for example, as to whether my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead is entitled to call himself "of Hillhead" as well as "in the County of Swansea" in his title, to take a working example—could possibly trigger a claim of breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
So far as concerns Church courts, it seems to me in the first place that it is fairly clear from English public law principles—1 imagine that they would apply mutatis mutandis north of the Border—that the courts would not regard the decisions taken by the Chief Rabbi, for example, in an actual case, or the senate, or the bishops of the Catholic Church, any more than they regard visitors of universities in their visitorial jurisdiction as falling within the scope normally of judicial review as bodies that are public authorities exercising public powers. They are careful to draw the line between those kinds of decisions and decisions they habitually review. I should have thought that one would expect a similar approach to be taken to Scots public law—it is a matter of Scots law in the end—especially under the Act of Union and its guarantee of the position of the Church in Scotland and of the court system.
In any event, I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which any of those bodies would be likely to trigger breaches of the convention. I wonder whether any examples have been given by the Law Society of Scotland to show that it is a real issue rather than an abstract, theoretical one. On the face of it, it seems hard to imagine a situation arising in which this would be a problem.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall undertake to write to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, as he indicated, on the detail of his questions. However, I shall try to assist him so far as I can. I am certainly familiar with the nature of the office of Lord Lyon King of Arms. I well recall in 1987, when I had the privilege of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House, that there were discussions between two "creatures" called Garter and the Lyon as to the territorial title which I might be entitled to take.
554
I certainly had a vision of those two elderly gentlemen, as they then were, discussing the odd one which had come in front of them for decision.
I understand that the Court of the Lord Lyon adjudicates on grants of heraldic arms and it also carries out other functions in relation to peerages. honours and ceremonial matters. Appeals on matters of matriculation of arms go directly to the inner house of the Court of Session, and not to the outer house, and then to the House of Lords. In a sense, that signals the seniority of the position in the hierarchy of the Court of the Lord Lyon.
However, it appears to me in this way at this stage that, although appeals lie to the inner house of the Court of Session—that is, the equivalent of the Court of Appeal in England —the Lyon Court is not a court which sets precedent in any mainstream legal sense. We would not expect it to be hearing any significant number, perhaps none, of cases raising convention issues.
By contrast, the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court in England develop mainstream law and over time they are likely to hear a significant number of cases raising convention issues. I would require a vast amount of persuasion that any case was made out for including the Court of the Lord Lyon among those empowered to make a declaration of incompatibility.
As regards the courts of the Church of Scotland, I understand that they deal primarily with internal matters such as discipline in relation to ministers. Without in any way underestimating their importance in the Church hierarchy, clearly they are not the equivalent of the courts which are expressly empowered to make a declaration under Clause 4. Even if the amendment were restricted, as it is not, to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland—that is, the supreme court and governing body of the Church of Scotland—I would have reservations about empowering it to make declarations of incompatibility. At present, my view is that that must be for the higher secular courts, not for domestic courts and even the highest domestic court of the Church of Scotland.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I fully accept that, in selecting places in the remoter parts of Scotland, such as Lairg and Drumadoon, Lyon has an informal role to play in discussing matters with Garter. However, he adjudicates on more significant and important issues, including the succession to Scottish peerages. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, who was recently introduced to your Lordships' House, took a case to the Lyon Court two or three years ago in order to establish that, having disclaimed the peerage himself, his son and not his cousin had the right to succeed to the peerage and to inherit certain assets which went with it. Therefore, Lyon has by no means an academic or advisory jurisdiction.
As regards Church law, I doubt whether the approach of applying English public law principles mutatis mutandis would be correct. The fundamental issue

555
which this amendment seeks to raise is not so much the role of the Church courts in making such declarations, but the extent to which the provisions of this Bill, the need to respect and comply with convention rights, is a duty which will be placed on the courts of the Church and on the General Assembly of the Church in passing legislation. That is certainly the issue which I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would address when he comes to reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Right of Crown to intervene]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("Crown") to end of line 24.
The noble Lord said: If I may speak very briefly to Amendment No. 29, again this is a probing amendment and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will accept that I am entitled to make probing amendments on certain occasions. On this occasion it is a very simple question that I am asking. The subsection suggests that it may be a Minister of the Crown or a person nominated by a Minister of the Crown. The question I wish to put to the noble and learned Lord is simply why one needs to have the phrase, "a person nominated". What is wrong with a Minister of the Crown? Surely the phrase "by a Minister of the Crown" includes any person to whom he might delegate such matters. I look forward with interest to hearing the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: It may give pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to be reassured by me that I regard this as an entirely genuine probing amendment. Clause 5(2) entitles a Minister of the Crown or a person nominated by a Minister of the Crown to be joined as a party to the proceedings where a court is considering making a declaration of incompatibility. The effect of this amendment would be to restrict this entitlement to a Minister of the Crown. It appears to us that it will, or may in some cases, be more appropriate for a person nominated by a Minister of the Crown rather than a Minister to be joined as a party to the proceedings.
That is true, for example, in relation to private Acts or to measures of the Church Assembly or to measures of the General Synod or to regulators of public utilities or to the Director General of Fair Trading, to name but a few. In these cases the court may be considering making a declaration of incompatibility and the appropriate person to intervene may well not be the relevant government minister, but the relevant government minister may recognise that there is another more appropriate person to represent the court in this particular legislative area, and then will so nominate. So
556
the object of the provision is to enable the responsible Minister to nominate a more appropriate person to assist the court in relation to particular legislation.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. I am not entirely sure that I fully understood what he has said and I will look very carefully at his reply. I would have thought that the words "a Minister of the Crown" would to some extent in fact embrace someone that the Minister nominated. I appreciate that this is a purely a drafting point, and the noble and learned Lord will know far more about the drafting of legislation than I do; but surely the words "a Minister of the Crown" would embrace a person acting as his agent in these matters.
The Lord Chancellor: I will write to the noble Lord. I have to confess that I had thought that the purpose of the amendment was to suggest that the true position should be that there should never be a nomination and that a Minister of the Crown should not be entitled to nominate any person other than himself. However, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has now intimated that he sees the purpose of his amendment not so much as to preclude nomination but rather to suggest that the entitlement in the Minister of the Crown to nominate some other person is superfluous. That is a different basis from the one on which he put the matter in the first instance. However, I shall certainly write to him.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will not the nominated person frequently be a Law Officer or Treasury devil? As I understand it, apart from this Bill, they can intervene and are entitled to intervene when the prerogatives of the Crown are in question. This is a wider power, is it not?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, it is, and it is intended to be. The explanation which I first gave to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is the explanation as I understand it. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggests that what is intended by the provision in its existing form is merely to authorise representation in court of the Minister by a Law Officer or Treasury junior. In my understanding, that is not what is intended, although no doubt it would include that. It is intended that a person other than a Minister of the Crown or lawyer acting for a Minister of the Crown could be joined as a party to the proceedings if thought by the Minister of the Crown to be more appropriate because that would offer greater assistance to the court in relation to the legislation under consideration.
Lord Henley: I suspect that I am becoming even more confused than I was at the beginning. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seemed to imply that I moved the amendment and then started to go down a different track. I hope that I was not doing that. I was merely trying to suggest the removal of a number of words on the basis that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, frequently suggests: the more superfluous words we can remove from legislation, the better it is.

557
At this stage, I shall look extremely carefully at what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said and at what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. I look forward also to receiving a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explaining, as he promised me, precisely his reasoning behind those matters. With that, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3. line 28, at end insert—
("( ) The legal expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in making an application under subsection (2) and in taking part in any proceedings to which he is made a party shall be borne by the Crown.").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is another relatively simple probing amendment whereby in Clause 5 we seek an assurance from the Government that in those cases where a Minister of the Crown wishes to intervene, should there be extra costs as a result of that, the other parties in the case will not be subject to the extra costs caused by that intervention and that those costs will be met by the Crown. That is a relatively simple point. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor understands it and can give me an assurance that that will be the case.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have some sympathy with this amendment. I am entirely in favour of the right of the Crown to intervene where a declaration of incompatibility is being considered. That is obviously extremely important.
I welcome also the wide range of persons who will be entitled to intervene under Clause 5(2). However, given the deterrent effect of costs orders, which was mentioned on Second Reading, it seems to me extremely important that the litigant should not be deterred by the risk that he will have to pay the costs of the intervention of the Crown in such a case.
Obviously it would normally be dealt with as a matter of discretion by the courts, but it seems to me that it would be right to put the matter beyond doubt in the way that this amendment suggests so there is no sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the litigant that if there is a Crown intervention, then there may be liability for his costs, the respondent's costs and the Crown's costs as well.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is plainly a genuine probing amendment—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As indeed all the earlier ones undoubtedly were. This is of course an important question, but we believe it is best dealt with in a different way. I shall take a moment or two to explain why. As the Committee will be aware, the courts, in particular the higher courts to which this clause is relevant, already have considerable discretion to make
558
orders for costs affecting both parties and non-parties to litigation. Although there are few Members of the Committee present, quite a number of those have had fairly frequent experience of reaching a conclusion about orders for costs.
In relation to civil cases in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, Section 51(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 states that,
"the Court shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid."
Various well known provisions on the award of costs in criminal cases are contained in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
I suggest, with great respect, that there are good reasons why the allocation of costs should be left to the judges' discretion. The important point, among others, is that the court in question has heard the case fully; it knows all the relevant facts and it has had the benefit of submission from counsel for all parties. There are many factors which judges would properly want to take into account when assessing how costs should be allocated. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but these would include whether the case put forward by the party seeking the declaration had any substantive merit. Some cases are more meritorious than others and some which get to court have little merit at all except the opportunity of outdoor relief for members of the Bar. Perhaps it ought to be indoor relief for members of the Bar! We all know of litigants who insist on taking up court time when it is not reasonable or legitimate to do so. This is a matter for the judge's decision, having heard—I stress—all the facts of the case and considered all the interlocking legislative provisions.
Another question could be: was there any wider public interest in the case? That ought to be a matter affecting the judge when he decides on the costs order. He would probably want legitimately in this area to consider the financial position of the applicant. That is not, of course, a strong aspect of judicial discretion in costs orders in the generality of cases, but it might—if a particular judge thought it appropriate—be relevant in this class of case. What is the outcome of the case? Is a declaration of incompatibility or a declarator ultimately awarded? How many other members of the public might be affected? What is the ambit of the legislative component which is the subject of a declaration of incompatibility? All those are subtle questions that judges ought to balance rather than being disqualified from carrying out that balance simply by the brutality of this present amendment. It is only right and proper that I should try to protect the judiciary from brutality from any quarter, even probing brutality.
We do not think it would be reasonable or sensible to put a specific provision in the Bill that in every case the Crown should bear the cost of a Minister applying for or being joined as a party. I do not regard this response as in any sense a party political point. It seems to us much better to leave questions of discretion with the judge in question. Judges do this every day of the week and by and large, if I may say so, they do it extremely well. They are well accustomed to deciding those issues, not least, for instance, in the general analogy of which one might think: in cases of judicial review.

559
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already plainly indicated—this was reaffirmed on Second Reading—that he regards those cases as particular, because he spoke of—he repeated it earlier today in Committee—a dedicated fund that there may well be for litigation within this general area. Bearing in mind that this will be peculiar litigation, and the clear indication which my noble and learned friend has given, I should have thought that this was an occasion when one should come to the conclusion: trust the judges. They know the full facts. This place, however infinitely wise, is not necessarily possessed of a crystal ball which would be suitably accommodating for every conceivable occasion in the future.
There might well be cases many years from now when this Government are no longer in power. Behind me I hear "shame" and "oh", but I am such a naÏve country boy that I can contemplate that further in the future perhaps than Members opposite. It might well be the case that a Minister of any governmental party would want to have a matter tested, but not within the constrained straitjacket that costs would always be dictated by Act of Parliament rather than by the discretion of the judge.
We do not believe that it is reasonable or sensible to insert a specific provision in the Bill that in every case the Crown should bear the costs of the Minister. There are likely to be cases—one recognises this—where the Crown would be required to meet its own costs. For instance, a tribunal might feel that the point behind the declaration of incompatibility was so plain that the Minister in question had behaved irrationally or unreasonably in contesting the matter. It might be thought that the interest of the Crown was so marginal that the relevant Minister might perhaps never have applied to be joined, on the powers given him in the Bill.
There is a wide spectrum of possibilities which reinforces our stance. In some cases of course the Crown may be required to meet its own costs, as I said a moment or two ago. It may even be that there would be circumstances where the Crown would have to meet the costs of other parties. There might be some cases where neither would be appropriate.
We do not see any grounds for moving away from the general well-known position that the allocation of costs in individual cases is a matter for the courts to determine in the light of individual and particular circumstances. I have taken a moment or two, because, although it is late, and although it does not go to the heart of the Bill, it is an important aspect. I hope that the noble Lord will think that I have done his amendment justice in replying as fully as I can.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister sits down, he has rightly indicated that this is important. because it is about access to justice and the deterrent effect of costs. I wonder whether he could deal with my point, which goes more to Crown policy than to fettering the judges' discretion. I shall give just two examples. In the past year I have known public authorities—in one
560
case the Official Solicitor and in the other the Human Embryo and Fertilisation Authority—to seek costs orders against a meritorious applicant—in one case as a condition for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and in the other where an amicus curiae had been appointed.
In both cases it happened that the same judge—a compassionate and commonsense judge—refused the application for costs, but the deterrent effect of the possibility of a costs order being made against those litigants was extremely severe. Had they not had confident counsel who encouraged them to take the substantial risk, they might never have been able to get their cases finally determined.
My question is: granted that the courts need to have wide discretion in deciding costs matters, will the Minister assure the Committee that, so far as concerns this Administration, the Crown would not normally seek a costs order against a litigant where there was a strongly arguable case, properly brought, on a genuine issue of public importance, because, with that assurance, the deterrent effect to which I referred would be much less? I realise that one cannot fetter the Crown and that one cannot give an absolute, unequivocal undertaking; but what I am seeking from the Minister is some indication of how the Crown sees the matter generally in terms of the deterrent effect.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Fundamentally, all litigation is about questions of access to justice. Therefore this particular area of litigation, though extremely important, is not different in principle to any litigant wanting his or her rights upheld in the courts.
It would be quite improper for me to give any indication of Crown policy generally which would attempt to bind my colleagues for the future. After all, any government is the steward of public funds and ought not legitimately to say, "This is going to be our policy in these matters".
However, I reiterate—and I should have thought it would be a source of comfort—what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his Cardiff speech and has reiterated today, and what was said by me on his authority in winding up at Second Reading; namely, of course we regard these cases as important. One signpost of that is his fund, about which he is consulting, which would be devoted entirely to this class of case. Beyond that I do not believe that any Minister ought properly and prudently to go.
Again I reiterate the remarks of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The judges who will try this class of case will be High Court judges, well accustomed, well attuned, particularly over the past 10 years—far more attuned than many political figures—to these important questions. They will be alert and astute to the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I believe it is better to trust the judges on these matters. They know the facts of the case and the importance of the issues. I believe that they will know

561
where their duty, judicially, lies in coming to a proper, fair balance in everyone's interest in relation to applications for costs.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving such a long and full answer. If I dare say so in the presence of quite so many members of the Bar scattered round the Chamber, and particularly in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, at whose feet I sat as a pupil some 20 years ago, I, too, am not a great believer in outdoor relief at the Bar. However, that is a matter that others will no doubt address in due course.
I am glad that the noble Lord recognised that the amendment was purely probing. I am grateful on this occasion to receive some support from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Chief Whip, that I shall certainly not press this amendment to a Division at this time of night. As I indicated in my opening words,
562
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, did full justice to this amendment. Obviously, I shall want to consider that in due course and take some advice on it.
For the moment, all I can say is that I note what the noble Lord has to say. I will take that away and look at it. It is possible that I myself and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Tenancy Succession Rights
  Tenancy Succession Rights
  Cycling
  Cycling
  A.44: Accident Statistics
  A.44: Accident Statistics
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  Tobacco Advertising and Formula One
  Tobacco Advertising and Formula One
  Student Loans Company: Annual Report and Accounts
  Student Loans Company: Annual Report and Accounts
  Pregnant Women and Employment Law
  Pregnant Women and Employment Law
  Excluded Pupils
  Excluded Pupils
  Schools' Budget Statements, England
  Schools' Budget Statements, England