Sitting of 20 November 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The President of the Board of Trade was asked—
  DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Export Promotion
    Mr. Goggins: What measures her Department is taking to support British companies in respect of export promotion. [15389]
    Mr. Barry Jones: What new policies she will initiate to improve the prospects of those industries which export abroad. [15396]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Madam Speaker, I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is currently fulfilling an important engagement in Australia, where she will open the "UK Now" exhibition and promote United Kingdom companies.
    My right hon. Friend announced on 4 November the publication of the Export Forum's report, "Towards an Export Initiative". We welcome the thrust of the forum's recommendations, and are looking forward to responding positively in a number of areas identified by the report.
    Mr. Goggins: An increasing number of small local companies are beginning to look abroad for markets for their products and services. LE-AL Furniture in my constituency recently fitted out the parliamentary buildings in Bratislava. What are the Government doing to support and encourage such companies?
    Mrs. Roche: We very much encourage small companies. On behalf of the House, I warmly congratulate the company in my hon. Friend's constituency on its fine efforts. Such companies can truly win for Britain.
    My recently launched "Vision for Business Links" should raise the quality of help and advice given to exporters, including first-time exporters. It will encourage all businesses to make contact with their local business link for expert help and advice.
    Mr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at £4 billion per annum, British Aerospace is a magnificent exporter? Does she also agree that £120 million launch aid investment in the proposed A340–600 project will add
    436
    to British exporting success, create jobs and maintain our leadership in wing design over our German competitors? Even at this late stage, will she ensure that her Department seeks launch aid for that project, bearing it in mind that 2,800 of my constituents who make the Airbus wings deserve that vote of confidence?
    Mrs. Roche: I know of the strong interest that my hon. Friend takes in this matter. He led a delegation from the Broughton site to a meeting on 30 October. The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry was impressed by the quality of the presentation given by that delegation. No final decision on the provision of launch aid has been made, and discussions between British Aerospace and the Government continue.
    Mrs. May: Is the Minister happy with the current level of the exchange rate? What representations have she and other Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry made on this issue to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister on behalf of British industry, especially British exporters? Is she aware that all the appearances under the sun by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at export exhibitions will not make up for the severe damage that is being done to United Kingdom exporters by the Government's exchange rate policy, and by the inordinate delay in granting export licences owing to problems in the DTI?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Lady has asked me a number of questions. I shall be as courteous to her as I can, because she is that most important of parliamentary institutions, my pair.
    We ascribe great value to our exporters, and our most important aim is long-term macro-economic stability. The Government are absolutely committed to helping exporters, as is illustrated by what we did in regard to trade fairs at the beginning of our administration. The best thing that we can do for our exporters is move away from the bust-and-boom policies of the last Government.
    Mr. Swayne: May I point out to the Minister that the pairing system is not particularly valuable, given the shift system that appears to be in operation on the Government Benches and in her Department?
    What action does the Department propose to defend British chocolate manufacturers against protectionism in Europe, and the activities of British Labour MEPs?
    Mrs. Roche: This Government and this party are determined to bat for Britain in any way that we can. Let me also tell the hon. Gentleman that the party of which he is a member, and which formed the previous Government, did a great deal of harm to our business interests by taking the attitude that it took on Europe. We are now reversing that, and making sure that we put British interests at the top of our agenda in order to help British business.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend raise with the President of the Board of Trade the urgent need for an initiative to attract British investment in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia? Compared with its German counterparts, United Kingdom Ltd. is very sluggish and tardy in investing in that market of some 60 million to 70 million people. Some leadership

    437
    and initiative from the Department would be welcome, and it would also pay enormous dividends if we could show the way and demonstrate that central Europe is not on the other side of the moon.
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made an important point. He will be pleased to learn that we have had meetings with our opposite numbers in some of those countries. We see great opportunities for British companies of all sizes there.

    Formula One Racing
    Mr. Wilkinson: What assessment she has made of the effect of participation by British companies in formula one motor racing on the capabilities of the motor manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. [15390]
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Participation in formula one is of fundamental importance to the highly successful motor sport segment of the motor manufacturing industry in Britain. The motor sport segment also makes a valuable contribution to the technical capacity of the wider motor industry.
    Mr. Wilkinson: If British participation in formula one was so important to the British motor manufacturing industry, why did the crucial meetings about the European Union directive that would have banned tobacco promotion at formula one events involve the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health, Chancellor Kohl, the British ambassador in Brussels, representatives of the Cabinet Office and of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Mr. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley—but not to my knowledge, and not according to press reports, any representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry? Could this be just another case of the phantom President in action—or rather, inaction?
    Mr. Battle: This Government are rather more capable of joined-up thinking between Departments than the previous Government. The Department provided factual information about the motor sport industry and its vital contribution to the economy. Let me add that 50,000 people work full time in that sector, supporting some 30,000 who work in engineering.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade unions have also made a great contribution to the success of the British motor industry? Does he also agree that contributions to political parties from trade unions tend, on the whole, to be more benign than those from rich individuals?
    Mr. Battle: Let me say first that formula one, and the whole motor sport industry, make a major contribution to Britain industrially. That involves suppliers in junior formulas, rally, training cars and carting—suppliers right through the supply chain. Their contribution is vital. Many people work in the sector. I would only add, in response to my hon. Friend's question, that I should
    438
    like to see the Conservative party deciding now to join us in publishing donations that are above £5,000. Why cannot that be done so that we know where they stand?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That does not relate at all to the question.
    Mr. Townend: Did the Minister have time to read today's press reports, which show that Mr. Mills still has strong links with formula one racing? Should not that rule out any further involvement by the Minister for Public Health in those matters on the ground of conflict of interest?
    Mr. Battle: I understand that the permanent secretary has confirmed that there are absolutely no problems. It is a bit rich for the Conservatives to raise matters in this way when they will not even publish annual accounts although they have been requested to do so by their party members.

    Post Office Network
    Mr. Barnes: What plans she has to strengthen the viability of the post office network; and if she will make a statement. [15391]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The future of the post office network is an issue which we are considering as part of our review of the Post Office.
    Mr. Barnes: The review, which will extend commercial provisions in post offices, will be welcome, especially in many rural areas of my constituency. Would it not also help if more post offices could be agents for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency? Post offices in my constituency, such as those in Ashover and Danesmoor, would find it valuable to be able to provide such a service instead of having to wait until an agency becomes available, which is how the present system operates.
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I wrote to him on 18 August advising him that Post Office Counters Ltd. is the agent for the DVLA and that, for reasons of cost, that organisation limits the number of post offices providing its service to 4,000 nationally. Consequently, Post Office Counters Ltd. gives the best possible geographical coverage within the limits that are set for it by the DVLA. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government are fully committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. As a consequence of that, and as part of a review, we shall seek to find ways and means to secure additional business in a range of areas for post offices in rural areas in particular. That is unlike the previous Government, who just wanted to privatise the Post Office and close it down.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister look in particular at the interests of the small rural sub-post office? Will he perhaps go a little further than his answer suggested by seeking ways to extend the range of services that sub-post offices can provide? In particular, will he seek an

    439
    acceleration of the introduction of information technology systems in sub-post offices to enable them to participate in much wider provision for rural populations?
    Mr. McCartney: Almost 60 per cent. of villages in the United Kingdom have a post office but only 5 per cent. have a bank. This week, a ground-breaking agreement was reached between the Post Office and the Co-operative bank which will give basic banking services to all post offices. I repeat that, as part of the review, we are keen to see the introduction of new services in post offices throughout the United Kingdom. My offer to the hon. Gentleman is that, when the review and the way in which we intend to take it forward are in the public domain, I shall welcome from all hon. Members ideas on how to encourage new businesses in rural areas. Post offices should be seen not simply from the narrow angle of post offices but as small businesses in their own right. We are committed to promoting that.
    Mr. Prior: Given the Government's commitment to giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom and growing liberalisation in Europe, is the Minister considering the introduction of private capital to the Post Office?
    Mr. McCartney: We have already introduced private capital. A few weeks ago, we gave permission for a joint venture involving the catering services company Quadrant. That will ensure the introduction of private capital into what will become one of the largest and, we hope, the most successful contract catering organisations in Europe, providing services not just to the Post Office but to a range of public and private sector companies which can take advantage of the change.

    Working Time Directive
    Mr. Lock:: If the provisions of the working time directive will apply to British employees of private companies.[15392]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: Yes. The directive covers all sectors of activity, both public and private, with the exception of those involved in the following activities or sectors of activity: air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway, lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea, and doctors in training.
    Mr. Lock: Does my hon. Friend agree that paid holiday is a basic right, which should be available to all civilised people in a civilised country, and that it is a scandal that the previous Government failed to bring that most basic right into United Kingdom domestic law, leaving 8 million people without paid holiday? Does he agree that the directive, which will bring paid holiday to 8 million low-paid workers, will be welcomed? Is it not a shame that the directive has not yet been introduced because the previous Government attempted instead a futile challenge in the European Court of Justice?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government tried to turn Britain into sweatshop Europe, as a consequence of their inactivity. I give a commitment that we shall end the exploitation. It is time to end the imposition of long hours for low pay, and to ensure that
    440
    workers have the right to minimum paid holidays and decent working conditions. That is one of the reasons why we are on the Government Benches and Conservative Members are on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Ruffley: Do Ministers support European Commission proposals to extend the scope of the working time directive by ending exemptions from it?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that consultation is taking place—the European Commission has issued a consultation paper, to which we shall respond. At the end of the consultation, we shall ensure that the British Government put the case in relation to those sectors. One thing is absolutely certain: we have made a priority decision to end the previous Government's opt-out on the working time directive and the young workers directive and to make resources available. We shall participate in the consultation process in respect of those sectors that are excluded, to ensure that workers in Britain will be covered in the same way as workers in Europe

    Minimum Pay Rates
    Mr. Fabricant:: What consideration she has given to setting separate minimum pay rates for different regions of the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [15394]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: The Government intend to introduce a single national rate.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Minister will be aware from his Department's figures that, if the minimum rate is not set quite low, as it is in the United States, it will cause wholesale unemployment, so does he agree with the recent recommendations of the Minister without Portfolio to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be wholesale exemptions, by both industry and class of worker—or does he disagree?
    Mr. McCartney: What a brass neck—a Conservative Member coming here and being an apologist for low pay. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, 5,000 families earn so little that they have to rely on in-work benefits, and 100,000 people in the west midlands earn less than £2.50 a hour. We won the last general election on the principle of a national minimum wage, no separate sector rates and no derogations for companies. It will be a national minimum wage. Within 90 days of taking office, the Government created the Low Pay Commission and soon we shall publish the Bill implementing the national minimum wage. It is a priority policy on which we are proud to have fought the election.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: May I ask Ministers not to have any exemptions from the minimum wage? My constituency in Wales, north-east England and Northern Ireland have the lowest-paid workers—we are at the bottom of the pay league. The minimum wage will do a power of good to thousands of my constituents. We want a minimum wage with no exemptions, because exemptions create just loopholes for big and small business.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that is why we fought and won the general election

    441
    on a policy of a national minimum wage. There will be no sectoral, regional or company derogations and it will be available from day one of employment. There will be a national minimum wage in this country. It is a priority policy of which the Labour Government can be proud. The 18 years of Tory government led to the largest differentiation between low-paid workers and those at the top. The Conservative party is the party of the few and we are the party of the many.
    Mr. Fallon: In that same letter to the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister wanted to exempt seamen, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wanted to exempt some fishermen and the Minister without Portfolio wanted variations by region, by size of business and by sector. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that a national minimum wage is workable when the rest of the Government do not? What is the point of setting up the Low Pay Commission when Ministers are secretly deciding those exemptions behind its back?
    Mr. McCartney: Tory Members cannot accept that they lost a general election on this issue. The position is clear. There will be a national minimum wage with no regional, no sectoral and no company derogations and it will be available to workers from day one of employment. We established the Low Pay Commission within 90 days of taking office. It is independent and is responsible for giving advice to the Government about the starting rate of the minimum wage. We await its report, which we have asked it to produce by the end of May 1998. As a consequence of that, this country will have a national minimum wage. Only Tory Members still oppose a minimum wage. The Conservative party was the party of the fat cats. The Conservative Government drove down wages. We won the general election on the clear and simple premise that there would be a national minimum wage.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands of people in Burnley and east Lancashire who are on low pay or poverty pay will welcome what he has said and the fact that, for the first time for many years, they will get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is correct. This is one of the most popular policies promoted by the Labour Government. That is why Tory Members are isolated. A large proportion of business in Britain now supports, in principle, the concept of a national minimum wage. Businesses throughout Britain are flooding the Low Pay Commission with evidence in support of a national minimum wage. The only people in Britain who are still apologists for poverty pay are Tory Members. I repeat that that is why they are in opposition and we are in government.

    Low Pay Commission
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What representations she has received on the work of the Low Pay Commission. [15397]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: I have received a number of representations on the work of the Low Pay Commission. It is well advanced on its programme of consultation to
    442
    obtain views of employers, employees and other interested organisations and individuals on the national minimum wage through written evidence and by holding meetings.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the President of the Board of Trade, who said that wide-ranging exemptions would be well nigh unworkable and inconsistent with the idea of a national minimum wage? When considering all the submissions from industry, would the Minister care to look at the response of the British Hospitality Association, which is responsible for 2 million jobs—one fifth of the new jobs—and which gives many young people an opportunity to work? That association talks about the dangers of a minimum wage.
    Mr. McCartney: Having listened to the right hon. Lady's contribution, I can see why she was named the poorest Minister in the worst Government in living memory. I made it clear about 30 seconds ago, or less, that there will be a national minimum wage with no sectoral derogations and no opt-out for companies and it will be available from day one of employment.
    The Low Pay Commission has already received over 350 individual items of evidence about the minimum wage. It is on a regional tour of England and will visit Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. There is consensus among its members to produce workable proposals for the establishment of a national minimum wage. The Low Pay Commission is a success. It shows that employers, working with employees, can come forward with proposals to end poverty pay.
    Mr. Winnick: Does it not make my hon. Friend's blood boil—it certainly does mine—that the strenuous objections to a minimum wage come from Conservative Members who not only receive a parliamentary wage, but in almost every case get extra money from outside sources? How can they possibly justify denying fellow citizens a decent wage when so many people in this country, especially in the west midlands, earn a starvation wage? It is a scandal. Conservative Members should be thoroughly ashamed of wanting to deny those people justice when they earn so much money themselves.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. In fact, during the last Parliament, many Conservatives were part-time Members of Parliament. Some of them would not ask a question unless they were paid for doing so. The truth is that Conservative Members show double standards and hypocrisy. For 18 years, they drove down pay for the most vulnerable in the community. Now, this new Government intend to reverse that trend and introduce a national minimum wage, which will be a saviour for low-paid workers.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has included Northern Ireland in his remarks so, as an elected Northern Ireland Member, I do not think that I can be criticised for pressing the point. 1 trust that the Low Pay Commission will not be following our American cousins and recommending the lowest minimum wage.
    Mr. McCartney: The Low Pay Commission was in Northern Ireland this week, taking evidence. Its task

    443
    is that, by the end of May next year, it must make proposals for the establishment of a national minimum wage. At that stage, we shall consider its proposals. Surely the most important point is that, within 90 days of the general election, we established the Low Pay Commission, which is now out in the country taking evidence and working with low-paid workers and employers to try to formulate proposals for the introduction of a minimum wage.

    Radio Spectrum
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement about her Department's policy towards maximising efficient use of the radio spectrum. [15398]
    Mrs. Roche: The Government are committed to the efficient use of the radio spectrum resulting in the creation of wealth, competition, quality and choice, benefiting operators and consumers alike. The Wireless Telegraphy Bill currently before the House includes a number of new powers to improve spectrum efficiency.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Does she agree that this is yet another example of practical action by the Government in new technology? Will not that action benefit the whole economy? Does not this Government's action contrast starkly with the view of the Opposition who, through indecisiveness and backsliding, have managed to take two different views on the matter, one when in government and the other when in opposition?
    Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will provide the spectrum management tools to keep the United Kingdom at the leading edge of the information revolution. Our action contrasts with that of the Opposition, who have made a number of reverses on the Bill. When they were in government, they introduced a White Paper and also included proposals for the Bill in their manifesto at the general election. When we introduced the Bill in the other place, they welcomed it—but when it came to Second Reading in this House, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) denounced it and pledged vehemently to oppose it. However, in Committee last week, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) described it as a modest Bill and not of deep political controversy. I am looking forward to the Opposition's next U-turn on Third Reading.
    Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Lady agree that, in reality, the Bill represents a tax increase of £1,500 million?
    Mrs. Roche: Absolutely not. That is an incredible suggestion given that the proposals were not only in the Conservative party's manifesto—I assume that the hon. Gentleman stood on that manifesto—but were trumpeted by the former President of the Board of Trade. The Bill is not a tax-raising measure and it has been warmly welcomed by industry.
    I understand that the hon. Gentleman has no stomach for the fight. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Wokingham said that the Opposition would keep us in Committee for months. I am glad to tell the House that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks gave up the fight after one week.

    Private Shareholdings
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If she will make a statement on the actions Ministers in her Department have taken to avoid conflicts of interest relating to private shareholdings. [15399]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: Department of Trade and Industry Ministers have acted in accordance with guidance in paragraphs 109 to 123 of the ministerial code, which provide a number of alternative options for avoiding conflicts of interest relating to private shareholdings.
    Mr. Taylor: Why does the Minister not just say what shareholdings Ministers hold or have recently held, so that we can conclude which of them are disqualified from what?
    Mr. McCartney: Ministers have fully complied with the high standards set in the ministerial code. They have avoided conflicts of interest using options in the code. The difference between Labour Ministers and the Tories is a simple one: we are squeaky clean, but they are just squeaky.
    Mr. Redwood: The Minister will not answer the questions today, and the President of the Board of Trade never answers them. She has had to go all the way to Australia to ensure that, today, she is not put under pressure on those questions—so breaking another rule of the ministerial code, which states that, when Parliament is in session, Ministers should not go abroad on Cabinet day. She is running scared down under. Why will the Minister not now tell us the answer to a very simple question: which companies, issues and industries each DTI Minister cannot handle because of a present or past shareholding, or a present or past prejudice? He should tell the House and the public the answer to that question, because they need to know who—if anyone—is conducting business in the DTI.
    Mr. McCartney: True to form, the right hon. Gentleman is shooting from the lip. He has tabled 70 questions on all conceivable details of the positions held by Ministers—but he knows the position. Ministers have complied fully with the high standards set in the ministerial code.
    Mr. Redwood: Answer.
    Mr. McCartney: I am answering. Ministers have avoided conflicts of interest by using options in the code. The shadow Minister has failed comprehensively to get running an allegation and scare story that is completely out of order. Lord Simon, for example, has at all times behaved with complete propriety. That was confirmed by Sir Robin Butler, the Cabinet Secretary. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), has a small shareholding because of a tragic accident, in which his father died. [Hon. MEMBERS: "A pathetic answerl It is absolutely correct. Consequently, my hon. Friend has acted with propriety.
    When the shadow Secretary of State was Secretary of State for Wales, his wife was secretary of British Airways. He declared an interest when she, on behalf of that

    445
    company, was involved in a £100 million investment programme in Wales. He acted in the same way in which Ministers have acted. He has made no case to answer. How much further will he stoop to get a story going that does not exist?

    Rolls-Royce
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the ownership of the Rolls-Royce motor car company. [15400]
    Mr. Battle: The sale of the Rolls-Royce motor car company is a commercial matter for Vickers. If the sale proceeds, it will fall to be considered by the appropriate regulatory authorities.
    Mr. Winterton: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of my deep commitment to manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom and the contribution that it makes to our economy and to employment. Is he not concerned that the last prestige United Kingdom car company could well pass into foreign hands, and that, if it does, decisions relating to its future expansion and employment might be affected by European regulation? Both manufacturing and employment could be taken out of the United Kingdom—out of my county, and out of the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Will he take a very positive interest in the matter, to try to protect British manufacturing industry and British jobs?
    Mr. Battle: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has expressed a passionate concern for manufacturing during his time in the House; we acknowledge that and hope he knows that we share his concern. It is not yet clear whether anyone has made a firm offer. We believe that the company is an example of engineering excellence in Britain, and we hope that that will continue to be so, whoever becomes the owner.
    We are not opposed to inward investment per se, but we want the excellence of that company and its contribution to the automotive industry to continue. We are keen that any investors should maintain and develop the company's product range and safeguard the long-term interests of the work force. We shall have to wait until a serious bid is made to know whether it will have to be referred to the European Commission's merger body or whether our regulatory authorities can handle it.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not a total disgrace, however, that the last remaining wholly British-owned car firm is now at risk of being taken over by German manufacturers who may or may not choose to keep that manufacturing unit in my constituency? The largest employer of the most high-quality engineers is now put at risk because of the greed and voraciousness of Vickers, which has walked away with millions of pounds of taxpayers' money without a thought for the future of manufacturing in this country and without taking any responsibility for this high-quality product.
    Mr. Battle: To some extent, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is fair to say that the UK does not have an automotive industry, but there is a large car industry in Britain—it includes the whole of the supply chain and
    446
    engineering excellence, and it employs many people. I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton): no bid has yet been made for the company, although there are rumours of a bid. At the appropriate time, consideration will be given to whether to refer it to the European Commission's regulatory authorities or whether it can be dealt with here.
    The story outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is the story of what has been going on for the past 20 years—restructuring. However, I would hope that the quality and excellence of our companies means that they can hold their own in the wider world.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Skinner: What representations she has received about maintaining the size of the coal industry; and if she will make a statement. [15401]
    Mr. Battle: We have received a wide range of representations about the future of the coal industry. Our objective is to have secure, diverse and environmentally sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. Deep-mined coal has a part to play in meeting this objective. Since taking office, we have taken several strategic steps to create a more level playing field for the industry to try to ensure that coal is not priced out because we remain convinced of the importance of the coal industry, which still makes a significant contribution to local economies and to the economy as a whole.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the three short years since privatisation, it has become apparent to all who work in the industry and many associated with it that privatisation has failed and that if we are to rescue what remains of it, it should be taken back into public ownership? In the meantime, as the Government are not likely to take that path, will they take three other steps: first, will they curb imports dramatically; secondly, will they get rid of the nuclear subsidy in its entirety; and thirdly, will they stop opencast mining and change the planning considerations that allow it? If the Government do some of these things, they will help those miners who are still hanging on to their jobs, some of whom have been threatened with the sack because they have the audacity to report accidents that happen half a mile underground. Whatever else the Minister does, if any money is going directly or indirectly to Budge, he should take a stake in the industry.
    Mr. Battle: It was not just the coal industry that was privatised by the Conservatives, but the power stations, the grid system and even the means of buying electricity. In other words, the whole of the energy industry was fragmented, which is partly what caused the havoc that resulted. My hon. Friend asked what we can do—we are already doing it. In our six months in office, we have taken action by passing the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill through this place precisely to remove the advantages enjoyed by nuclear power and to tackle the import of nuclear energy from France via the interconnector. We have taken strong action to challenge the European Commission on subsidies for German and Spanish coal. I have asked for a review of the electricity pool to ensure that the playing field is not tilted against coal. We are also challenging the

    447
    gas contracts, asking the regulator to investigate whether coal is disadvantaged in that respect. We are also working hard and making a practical commitment on trying to find a way to develop clean coal technology, which would guarantee a future for deep-mined coal in Britain. Opencast is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
    Mr. Paterson: In 1992, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that, as part of Labour's policy for coal, no more licences would be issued for gas-fired power stations. Why has BP recently been issued with a licence for a substantial gas-fired power station?
    Mr. Battle: A number of power station application consents were under consideration at the time of the general election. There were 25 close to completion. Some have been granted; others are still in the pipeline. The Conservative Government let through 44 gas-fired power stations. The policy was that each should be decided on its merits, after consultation with local communities. That remains our policy. There was no preferential treatment for BP. Some companies are complaining that we are not processing the rest fast enough.
    Mr. Tipping: Did not the previous Government privatise the coal industry and the electricity industry? If there are difficulties with the new contracts expiring on 31 March, is not the problem the fact that the whole industry is in the private sector and the Minister has very limited opportunities to intervene to save the coal industry?
    Hon. Members: Buy it back.
    Mr. Battle: Conservative Members shout, "Buy it back." At the time, they were shouting, "Sell it." The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, was once the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Energy. He has said on television, "With hindsight, we privatised things in the wrong order. Perhaps we ought to have privatised the coal industry first. It should be run like a business and I wish we would hand it over to a great mining company in this country like RTZ. It is all about going out and finding the cheapest source of power, not about employing people in mines." How can the Conservatives complain about employment in the industry?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) is right. I am not party to the discussions between the private companies and the power stations. I encourage them to get on with those discussions. I understand that there has been more encouraging news in recent weeks, despite the talk in the press. RJB is negotiating with Eastern Electricity and National Power. I wish the company well in its negotiations with PowerGen. I hope that those power stations will buy deep-mined coal from RJB and ensure the continuation of Britain's deep-mined coal industry.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give a clearer answer on his policy on the dash for gas? In opposition, Labour said that it would stop the policy to protect the British coal industry. How much capacity will he licence?
    448
    How many pits will that destroy? Is it not true that the only major plant that he has licensed is the BP plant and that at least 25 others are awaiting a decision? Why the different treatment?
    Mr. Battle: There is no different treatment. Others have been accepted. The BP application was one of the first ready for a decision after the election. Seven applications have been determined since the general election, one of which involved the use of orimulsion in Pembroke. We referred that to a public inquiry because we did not think that it should go forward without one. The company then withdrew the application. There is no set timetable for completing consideration of the applications. Each one is considered on its merits against the background of section 36 and section 37 consents. In assessing those applications, we have to address local issues and ensure consistency with our wider objectives of secure, diverse and sustainable supplies.
    Mr. Redwood: How many are there?
    Mr. Battle: There are another 27 in the pipeline. I am prepared to read the right hon. Gentleman the whole list. His allegation that the BP application was the only one accepted is not true.
    We are trying to encourage applicants to consider combined heat and power schemes so that we can have more thermo-efficient energy generation. That is one difference from the Conservatives' policy that we have decided on in order to conserve energy.

    European Structural Funds
    Mr. Andrew George: What progress is being made in the designation of United Kingdom regions for the latest round of European objective 1 aid. [15402]
    Mrs. Roche: On 16 July, the European Commission published some suggestions for the future of structural funds after 1999 in its communication "Agenda 2000". We expect the Commission to publish detailed proposals next year, which will then need to be negotiated in the Council of Ministers and approved by the European Parliament. The final regulations will determine how individual regions and areas become eligible for structural funds.
    Mr. George: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. What assurances can she give the people of Cornwall and other regions with economic and structural difficulties that negotiations on the designation of NUTS—nomenclature of units for territorial statistics—level II regions will be brought to a speedy conclusion? Is she prepared to prioritise potential objective 1 regions on the basis of need? Is she prepared to recognise that the future of economies such as Cornwall's, which has suffered a great deal, very much depends on a speedy and effective conclusion to the negotiations?
    Mrs. Roche: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and I recognise that Cornwall, like many other UK areas, faces specific economic and social issues. The Government's statistical service examined United Kingdom boundaries used for European regional statistics because of recent local government changes and made

    449
    proposals to Eurostat for changes during the summer. One proposal was to separate Cornwall from Devon at NUTS H level. The Government's statistical service is still in discussion with Eurostat. The hon. Gentleman will also be interested to know that the United Kingdom is pushing the Commission to take into account gross domestic product in assessing eligibility for structural funds.
    Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clarity with which she has expressed the Government's concerns. Will she go beyond the issue of the map and tell us whether there is any prospect of the sums involved in attracting industries into the United Kingdom being reviewed? I understand that they have not been looked at since the 1980s. It has been suggested that the figures—£17,000 for objective 1 areas and £6,000 for objective 2 areas—are out of date and put us at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the European Union. Will the Minister look at the sums involved, as well as the map, because they are important in influencing where companies invest?
    Mrs. Roche: I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is looking for fairness and equality in the process. We also want to ensure that the procedures are as fair and as simple as possible so that there can be a clear understanding of the policies.

    Competition
    Mr. Hanson: What measures her Department is taking to promote competition. [15403]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): The Government's commitment to competition is demonstrated by the introduction of the competition Bill, with new laws to focus on genuinely anti-competitive behaviour. It will remove the current bureaucratic laws on cartels. The Confederation of British Industry has welcomed our broad approach.
    Mr. Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the competition Bill will ensure that companies that face anti-competitive behaviour will have a stronger hand in tackling the problem? Will he confirm that the Bill will bring us into line with our European partners? What do consumer groups feel about the Bill? I am sure that they, too, will welcome it.
    Mr. Griffiths: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We have received more than 160 responses to our consultation document. Our approach has attracted broad support across the spectrum from businesses, from consumer organisations and from competition practitioners. The Bill will create the right conditions for the success of British businesses in the global marketplace.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that he will protect local pubs, petrol stations and newsagents from the threat to their trading that the competition Bill poses?
    Mr. Griffiths: I think that we all noted that a note was passed to the hon. Gentleman by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The hon. Gentleman would have done well to have read the Bill and followed its proceedings in the Lords. If he had, he would know that he has just raised a red herring.
    Mr. Bercow: Answer.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am answering. This is part of the clear smear that the Conservatives have mounted to frighten small businesses and others. There is no truth in his allegation.
    Mr. Prosser: I welcome yesterday's announcement by the President of the Board of Trade of the decision to allow the setting up of a merged ferry company, which will provide better opportunities for ferries sailing from my home port of Dover to compete with the channel tunnel. Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the proposals had been rejected, it would have caused far more redundancies than the 1,000 faced by my constituents? Does he understand the anger felt by people in Dover when they see a bankrupt channel tunnel, with £8 billion-worth of debt around its neck, continuing to steal trade from the successful ferry fleet and destroy jobs in Dover?
    Mr. Griffiths: I shall of course pass my hon. Friend's welcoming comments to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Breed: Will the Minister consider introducing measures similar to those in other European countries which would prevent retailers from selling their goods below a certain level in order to protect and enforce fair competition?
    Mr. Griffiths: We have no plans at the moment to introduce such measures. We are guided by the key principle that competition should be fair and should be seen to be fair.
    Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about promoting competition, and especially about the way in which small and medium-sized enterprises should be supported as opposed to larger public companies. Will he investigate a contract which I understand is being tendered this week for the DTI export sales leads service? Will he particularly examine the way in which his Department has dealt with the Cequel Link consortium in my constituency, which has tendered for the project but seems to have been met on most occasions by civil servants who were keen to question the capacity of a consortium comprising small and medium-sized enterprises to run the service, rather than to consider the substantive nature of the positive aspects of the bid? This is an extremely important matter to my constituency.
    Mr. Griffiths: I have listened with care to my hon. Friend. My colleagues and I will certainly give careful consideration to any further evidence that he cares to submit.
    Mrs. Gillan: Given that when considering competition issues the President of the Board of Trade should listen

    451
    to all sides of the case before reaching a conclusion, why did the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs tell the Sunday Mirror on 31 August that he was going to slash the prices of electrical goods more than two weeks before the consultation period on electrical retailing was completed, thereby prejudging any outcome? Has he not totally undermined the President's obligation impartially to consider all representations on competition matters and totally destroyed the industry's confidence in that impartiality? The Minister has already stood aside from three competition inquiries. Will he now stand down from all competition matters to save any further embarrassment?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is a shame that we spend a great deal of time ensuring that the hon. Lady gets copies of DTI press releases. If she had read my right hon. Friend's welcoming comments about the inquiry, she would know that the usual procedures were followed in full and that my right hon. Friend will be considering the matter objectively, as ever. It was interesting to note that the hon. Lady contacted officials at the Department of Trade and Industry twice this week to find out how the procedures worked. I should have thought that someone of her experience—a senior Front-Bench spokesperson—would have known that. Perhaps she should come in for a seminar. I offer her the opportunity.

    Exporters
    Ms Keeble: What measures her Department is taking to support British exporters. [15405]
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: As well as the measures that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry described earlier, the Department of Trade and Industry sponsors the overseas trade services, export development counsellors and a range of other pro-business measures.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What is he doing to encourage small firms, especially those that do not currently export—which includes about 85 per cent. of the firms in Northamptonshire? Is he prepared to encourage closer links between the overseas trade services of the Department and business links, which have become well established in Northamptonshire and had some success in gaining export orders?
    Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is an ambassador for business links. The Department of Trade and Industry has funded export counsellors and 75 are in place in business links. The one in Northamptonshire works with a strong international team and benefits from invaluable expertise from the chamber of commerce

Home Detention Curfew
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about an extension of the electronic monitoring—or tagging—of offenders.
On 30 July, I announced to the House a number of measures, building on our manifesto commitments, to protect the public and to establish a criminal justice system that is fair, swift and effective in tackling crime and disorder. Many of the measures—including new community punishments—will be provided by the crime and disorder Bill that will come before Parliament shortly. Others, such as automatic life sentences for second-time serious sexual and violent offenders and seven-year mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers, were brought into force on 1 October. Work is also in hand to bring the Prison Service and the probation service closer together.
The Government are pledged to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Ex-prisoners are plainly much less likely to reoffend if they have settled into work or if they are actively looking for a job or have a clear prospect of a job. The welfare-to-work programme will guarantee every young person who has been out of work for more than six months the opportunity to work or train. I have ensured that ex-offenders are targeted as a special group within the welfare-to-work programme.
Protecting the public and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system are my primary goals. Prison must be used for serious and persistent offenders. That is why I discharged our manifesto commitment to audit the resources of the Prison Service. As a result, I have provided an extra £43 million to help with the additional population pressures that we inherited and which were not adequately funded by the previous Administration. Since May, the prison population has risen by more than 3,400 to 63,000, an increase more than double the April 1997 predictions of my predecessor. To cope with that increase, I have authorised the building of four new prisons to provide an additional 2,400 places.
We must also give the courts a wider range of options on tough community punishments in which they—and the public—have confidence. Those can now involve greater deprivation of liberty by the use of new technology. Therefore, I am setting out today, to the House and to the public, new action that I am proposing in the use of tagging.
It may be helpful if I give some of the background information. Over the past 10 years, there has been much interest in the use of electronic tagging to provide 24-hour supervision of offenders who have been curfewed. The first trials, in 1989, which were of curfews imposed as a condition of bail—not a sentence—were not a success. The equipment simply did not work as intended.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 provided for a new penalty of a curfew order enforced by electronic tagging. The previous Government delayed the implementation of those provisions until 1995, and then only introduced them in three trial areas—Norfolk, Greater Manchester and Berkshire.
On Tuesday, I published the report of the second year of the trials. To begin with, sentencers were very cautious about using their new powers, and only 83 orders were
454
made in the first year. However, as it became clear that the equipment really did work, and that the orders were effective, more and more use was made of them. In the second year, 375 orders were made. In the last four and a half months alone, a further 269 orders have been made.
There are three reasons for the increase in sentencers' confidence in tagging. First, the equipment has proved absolutely reliable. When an offender is tagged, it really is possible to tell, second by second, whether he or she is complying with the curfew. Not only are absences instantly noted, but any attempt to tamper with the equipment is detected immediately.
Secondly, the two contractors have performed well. Every violation of the curfew conditions is followed up by properly trained and managed staff.
Thirdly, sentencers are using tagging as a high-level penalty, in many cases for offenders who might otherwise have been sent to custody.
Therefore, it is clear that the technology can offer substantial benefits for victims and the public. The trial areas for curfew orders made under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are now being extended into four new areas: West Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and the Middlesex probation area, which covers the London boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow. In addition, from January 1998, in the pilot areas of Greater Manchester and Norfolk, the courts will be able to impose a curfew order, enforced by tagging, as a community punishment on 10 to 15-year-olds, on fine defaulters who would otherwise be sent to prison, and on persistent petty offenders.
I turn to how I propose to use electronic tagging in respect of those who have been in prison and are very near to the end of their sentences. Those who are sentenced to prison typically have lived disordered, irresponsible lives. They are poor at making sensible decisions about their own futures or those of their families. In prison, of course, they do not have to. However, the moment prisoners come out of prison, they have to make critical decisions about what they do with every moment of the day; whether they drift back into crime, and into the company of their criminal associates, or whether they try to bring order into their lives.
Tagging has a key role to play here. If prisoners who are serving short-term sentences are tagged towards the end of the custodial period of their nominal sentence, they can be given the opportunity to structure their lives more effectively and be swiftly brought back to prison if they breach the tagging conditions.
The research into the first year of the trials showed that offenders see curfews enforced by tagging as a very severe restriction of liberty—just as magistrates and judges do. Some offenders have said that they found that the self-discipline required to complete such a curfew order made it harder than prison. Tagging also provides opportunities for offenders to take proper responsibility for working or looking for work, for keeping their families together and for maintaining self-control.
The case for introducing an element of tagging into the last part of a short-term prison sentence is very strong in any event, but it has been reinforced by the recent rise in the prison population. No one wants to see an unnecessarily overcrowded prison system, and it would be the height of irresponsibility not to take advantage of

455
modern technology to help prevent that. The alternatives are bound to be at the expense of constructive prison regimes, and at the expense of improving the prisoners' prospects for resettlement—in other words, at the expense of the law-abiding public.
Therefore, I have decided to seek Parliament's approval to impose electronic monitoring on selected short-term prisoners in the last two months of their sentence. The orders will be called home detention curfews, and the relevant powers will be sought in the forthcoming crime and disorder Bill.
Home detention curfews will be available for prisoners who have received sentences of more than three months' but less than four years' imprisonment. They will be tagged for between two weeks and two months, according to the length of their original sentence. Currently, under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, such prisoners are automatically released at the halfway point of their sentence. All those prisoners will in any event shortly be back in the community.
There will be no automatic entitlement to tagging. The Prison Service will in each case conduct a risk assessment. If the prisoner fails it, he or she will continue to serve the sentence in prison until its halfway point, as now. The prison governor will set the place and times of curfew, in consultation, where needed, with the probation service. It will usually be 12 hours a day and could be more, but will in no case be less than nine hours a day.
That will enable the prisoner to have a specified period each day in which he or she can adjust to living in the community, while still facing a restriction on liberty for a major part of the same day. The curfew conditions will be in addition to the supervision requirements with which anyone with a nominal sentence of 12 months or more must comply.
If a prisoner breaches the conditions of the home detention curfew, he or she can immediately be returned to custody. As with the present trials of curfew orders enforced by tagging, the monitoring will be provided by private sector contractors, and there will be an invitation to tender in due course. Our aim is for the scheme to be operational in 1999.
At the heart of all my policies as Home Secretary is my commitment to provide better protection for the public and for the victims of crime. I am ready to use every measure at my disposal to honour that commitment. We now have a real opportunity to use modern technology to provide a much better transition for carefully selected prisoners from prison into the community. With the support of Parliament, I intend to take that opportunity.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in letting me have an early view of his statement.
Seldom has the House listened to more verbiage to disguise such a massive U-turn in Government policy. I want to apologise to the Home Secretary, because in our debate on policing in London last Friday I suggested that he was only part owner of his job and that he shared it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I was wrong: the Chancellor now sets Home Office policy by himself, and the Home Secretary simply does what he is told.
"Tough on crime" never meant anything, given the Labour party's record in opposition; now its meaning is clear: it means soft on criminals. New Labour's language
456
means anything that it decides that it will mean. According to the Home Secretary's statement, being tough on crime means being willing to put the public at risk in order to save money.
I welcome the Government's conversion to the importance of tagging. Why is the Home Secretary now in favour of tagging, when only a few years ago his party said that tagging was
"a dangerous and irrelevant concept…wrong in principle. It has enormous implications for civil liberties".—[Official Report,Standing Committee A, 18 December 1990; c. 274.]?
Will he confirm that this is another U-turn by his party and that tagging was an initiative of the previous Government in the context of sentences imposed by the courts?
How many prisoners does the Home Secretary expect to be freed each year if his proposals are enacted? How much saving in public expenditure does he expect to achieve? Will he confirm that that money will be clawed back by the Treasury? He mentioned victims, in passing, only twice, brazenly suggesting that this move would add to their protection. How exactly will victims feel more reassured and safer after the early release of offenders from prison?
In this country, courts decide sentences in individual cases. Will the Home Secretary confirm that he plans to breach that principle by substituting governors' judgments for those of the courts? If the Home Secretary wishes to assist criminals to re-enter society—that is a laudable wish shared by both sides of the House—why has he decided to release them two months early with tagging, rather than amend the law to require that they are tagged for the first two months after their release? We all know the answer—the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told him to save money.
The Home Secretary says that the Prison Service will conduct a risk assessment in each case. Who is the Prison Service in this context? Is it prison officers? Is it their union? Is it governors? Is it bureaucrats? Is it Mr. Tilt? Is it the Prisons Minister? Who is it? Who will be responsible to the House when the curfews are broken?
Given the limited nature of the tagging pilots thus far, and of those proposed, how will the Home Secretary reassure people throughout the country that they can have confidence in an untested scheme?
The Home Secretary has consistently refused to put in place mandatory minimum sentences of three years for career multiple burglars. Will he confirm that such criminals will be eligible to take part in the scheme, providing, of course, they have not been sentenced to more than four years? Will he confirm that violent and sexual offenders sentenced to four years or less will also be eligible to take part in the early release scheme?
Will the Home Secretary also confirm that most people sentenced to six months—who would usually serve only three months—by the courts, will, with time on remand and this scheme, effectively be able to walk free from the court, despite its decision that they should serve six months? How does he believe that that will reassure the public? Indeed, will he confirm that he does not believe in honesty in sentencing?
Today, we have seen a significant shift in this country's penal policy—from the victim to the criminal—and all to save the Chancellor of the Exchequer some money.

457
We will not take any more moral lectures from the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister. We will recall the Home Secretary's complacency in the face of crime rates, which are a continuing worry, as he himself said only the other day. Crime rates are coming down as prison numbers are going up—a trend which he is determined to reverse, not because he believes in it, because I do not believe that he does, but because he has been told to get up and say so by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I tell him now that when this bit of the crime and disorder Bill comes before the House, we will resist it.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I believe in honesty in sentencing. The answer is yes, but he obviously believes in confusion in response. There has rarely been a more muddled response to any statement in the House since I have been a Member.
The right hon. Gentleman said that crime rates are a continuing worry. One might put that much stronger: in 18 years of a Conservative Administration, of which he was an adornment, we saw crime double. Despite the welcome modest falls in crime, his Government's record made crime victimisation levels in England and Wales the worst of any of 18 industrialised countries. Britain became a very much less safe place when his Government were in office.
I shall do my best to answer the few coherent questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. He asked me about the numbers likely to be affected. That depends on a number of assumptions, especially about the risk assessments made by prison governors, which relates to his fifth question to which I shall come in a moment. If about half of those who would be eligible for this arrangement are granted home detention orders, the effect on the prison population in a year will be about 3,000. I shall be happy to provide him with further details if he wishes.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about savings in public spending. I have already pointed out that the public spending plans for the Prison Service, which he endorsed as a member of the previous Cabinet, did not provide sufficient funds even for prisoners entering the service on 1 May. As a result of that, I have had to arrange for an additional £43 million—resources which his Government never found—to pay for additional places, as well as order four new prisons. Waffling rhetoric about protecting the public or empty prison places sounds extremely hollow when set against the fact that his Administration, had they remained in office, would not have provided the prison places that I am providing. That is the truth—that is the reality written down in his own public spending plans.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the additional protection that will be given to victims. I should point out that we are acting very differently from his Administration, who—contrary to what he said—suddenly in 1987 decided to change the parole rules and thereby secured the release of many thousands of prisoners, without any protection for the public. There is a world of difference between a prisoner being released on to the streets and a prisoner who is subject to curfew in the last two months of his sentence. Lord Hurd, a former Home Secretary, said in a lecture yesterday:
"Virtually all prisoners come out of prison. The public safety is put at risk if on release they are even less qualified to get a job and lead a law-abiding life than when they were convicted … Security is not just a matter of walls and wires."
458
That is something which the right hon. Gentleman should remember.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this is a breach of the principle of the court deciding. It is not, and I have already referred to the decision taken by his predecessor in 1987. By the way, some of us remember that last summer—before the right hon. Gentleman moved to home affairs—his predecessor let out 500 prisoners, simply by mistake. There was no decision taken—not by the court or even by the Home Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman asked who would provide the assessment. I have made it clear that it will be made by the governor. He asked who will be responsible for that—an interesting question, given the years of evasion about who was responsible for the Prison Service. The first decision that I took in respect of the Prison Service was that I would be responsible. I am responsible and I shall be not only answerable to the House, but responsible if the scheme goes wrong. I have confidence in the scheme—it is not untested.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about time on remand. Again, we need no lectures about the length of time prisoners spend on remand. Thanks to the huge delays that his Administration built into the system, many prisoners spend not two or three months, but six months, nine months, a year, or more, on remand. We are making arrangements for the scheme not to apply where a prisoner has been on remand and is given a sentence by the court that would amount to his immediate release.
Lastly, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read a tract about the Conservative record by his hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), a shadow employment spokesman, who wrote:
"The criminal justice system"—
that is, the Conservatives' criminal justice system—
"too often operates like a classic bad parent".
That is exactly how it operates—by the way, the title of the tract, published since the election, is "Is Conservatism Dead?"
Mr. Ross Cranston: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and regret the response of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Home Affairs is shortly to begin an inquiry into making community sentences more effective. Will he explain his views on making punishment in the community a more effective method of sentencing?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Making community punishments more effective and increasing public confidence in them is of critical importance if such sentences are to command public confidence and greater use is to be made of them. Tagging is one way of improving confidence in community sentences. A second way is for us to secure a better organisation of the probation service and I spelled out the detail of that in a speech to the national probation conference a week ago.
The probation service is set national standards, and some services abide by them, but the overall standard of performance is not as good as it should be. Probation services are supposed to produce pre-sentence reports in 15 days, but they do not: it takes them three weeks. In my

459
first two weeks in office, I came across an outrageous situation in the Uxbridge area, where community sentences were not being carried out. That was exposed by the News of the World. I instituted an immediate inquiry into that service, and effective disciplinary action has been taken.
We should construct effective community punishments. We should call them what they are, because "community service" is a confusing title. We must ensure that they are effectively enforced, and there is no doubt that tagging can play an important role in ensuring their full enforcement.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Home Secretary aware that electronic tagging is not a magic cure for criminality? It is merely a useful way of backing up community supervision. The probation service must have the means to provide that supervision for it to be of any value. Does he recognise that, as virtually all prisoners are ultimately released, what matters for public protection is that the regime inside the prison and any subsequent supervision are effective and lead to a prisoner's rehabilitation? That is not possible with the present vastly overcrowded prisons and the limitations that that places on the service's ability to do the job properly. Is the Home Secretary aware that the previous Government sought to give the impression that they would protect the public by locking up a record number of people for a record length of time, yet they never provided the resources for prison places on the incredible scale that that required? Will he make no effort at all to follow that dreadful example?
Mr. Straw: We all recognise that some people must be locked up, albeit for a short time, as a exemplary punishment, some must be locked up for a very long time to protect the public, and others must be locked up for the whole of their lives. Most offenders are released from prison within a short time. That is why it is extremely important to ensure that the transition from prison into the community is more effective than it is at present.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if regimes are heavily overcrowded, they are less likely to be constructive. Evidence shows that the reoffending rate is higher in those circumstances, so victims are less protected.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will study some of the clear research evidence. An increase in the reoffending rate as a result of locking people up is not a sensible way to protect the public, even though I accept, and always have, that a significant proportion of criminals must be locked up.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I accept that tagging is not a magic cure. Of course, I accept that, but there is no doubt that it is an effective system and is working well. The trials in Greater Manchester had a failure rate of 17 per cent.—an 83 per cent. success rate. The failure rate in Norfolk was even less: the success rate was about 90 per cent., which is higher than the success rate of many probation orders.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to agree that I would not provide any more resources for the Prison Service. I am providing additional resources because of the huge backlog of criminality and offending over which the previous Government presided. More serious criminals are coming before the courts, and they must be
460
sentenced. Some of them will be sent to prison, so the prison population will continue to rise. I have provided £43 million in extra resources for this year and next year to cope with that, and have ensured that many prisons have additional accommodation. I have also ordered four new prisons.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, like many people, we had strong reservations about this scheme when it was first mentioned in the House? Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that there would be a pilot scheme involving 400 Labour Members running about with pagers. I think it works.
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend—I am sorry, I mean my hon. Friend; I do not want to elevate him at this stage—is absolutely right. The success of the electronic media goes well beyond the treatment and care of offenders. [Interruption.] There is no doubt about that.
I will arrange for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be given a pager on a trial basis.
Mr. Skinner: No, no!
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will be returned whence he came if he breaks the trial.
That gives me a cue to reply to a question that the shadow Home Secretary asked me, to which I omitted to reply. The right hon. Gentleman asked about our previous position. We were sceptical about tagging when it started—as were plenty of others—and, what is more, we were right to be sceptical, because the original trial failed comprehensively. Let me make it clear, however, that we supported the scheme when we were in opposition. During our consideration of the Crime (Sentences) Bill last year, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) thanked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for agreeing that
"electronic tagging, although not a panacea, has a part to play."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 November 1996; c. 223.]
Mr. Graham Brady: I trust that electronic tagging of Labour Members will contribute to their early release.
On a serious note, does the Home Secretary agree that if someone is robbed in the street, a woman is raped or a child is abused, it makes no difference whether the attacker is tagged or not? Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House and the public that no violent or sexual offender will be released early because he has taken part in the electronic tagging scheme?
Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The evidence suggests, however, that the tagging system, which will involve a curfew of at least nine hours during the period when people are most likely to commit criminal offences—in the evening and at night; the period is typically 12 hours, but in some cases it is longer—can be very effective. It has been used effectively in respect of some serious sexual offenders on their release from prison.

461
The arrangement will apply only to short-term prisoners. I accept that some may be in the categories that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but there will be a risk assessment in every case. If an individual has a clear propensity towards violence or the commission of sexual offences, it is very unlikely that he will be released on those terms.
An important part of the scheme, which I think will make it much more enforceable than it would be otherwise, is that not only will an offender who breaks the tag face the immediate prospect—not only the risk—of being taken straight back to prison, but, when he gets there, he will be at the basic entry level to prison regimes, rather than at the enhanced level at which he would typically qualify for risk assessment.
Ms Hazel Blears: As I represent one of the areas in which new prisons are likely to be built, I obviously have a great interest in trying to reduce pressure on overcrowded prisons. The people of Salford would welcome a reassurance from my right hon. Friend that his proposals will not result in the release of dangerous prisoners into the community, and that there will be intense supervision of those who are subject to the proposed measures. Will he give that reassurance? Local people need to be reassured that their communities will continue to be safe.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is exactly right: the measures will not result in the release of dangerous offenders. They may result-I hope that they will-in more prisoners who are released going straight, getting jobs and finding a way of leading more orderly lives.
Let me also tell my hon. Friend, whose constituency I know well, that Salford has been ravaged by crime, particularly crime committed by youngsters who are out of control. I believe that the introduction of tagging in the other contexts that I have mentioned-as part of a sentence-will make a big difference in assisting the community in Salford, and helping the police to ensure that curfews that are imposed either as a condition of bail or as a result of a court sentence are enforced effectively.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I welcome the statement. As one who spent the last four years chairing Humberside police authority, I know that police authorities, as well as probation services and prisons, will also welcome it, although they will be a little saddened—if not surprised-by the Conservatives' hostility. They will not be surprised, because of the way in which earlier Governments have treated them during the past few years.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that tagging is a positive step for the reintegration of offenders and an effective tool for dealing with anti-social behaviour, which blights the lives of thousands of people and was completely ignored by the previous Government? Does he further agree that tagging is an effective way to get people early release from prison and a much more effective policy than that of the previous Government which, if I recall it right, was pre-senile dementia?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. Tagging is a positive measure and an effective tool for anti-social
462
behaviour. One of the issues that frustrate the police most about offenders who have been given custodial sentences is not knowing where they are at particular times of the day or night. Tagging ensures that the police and the contractors can track their behaviour. Above all, it should ensure, as many offenders now acknowledge, that offenders can begin to lead orderly lives in the community. Prison is necessary, but the problem is that it does not teach decision making for the kind of decisions that offenders have to take when they come out.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Having boldly stated his full responsibility for the Prison Service, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will resign if any criminal who has been convicted of a serious violent crime escapes from prison or breaks his tag?
Mr. Straw: I am going to decline the invitation. I do not think that any prisoner who has been convicted of a serious sexual offence will in any sense be a candidate for this kind of system.
Mr. Tony McNulty: I welcome the statement. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that public confidence-building measures, which are crucial to all effective community sentences, are in place? Does he agree that we might be better served by far by the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] What am I reading? The floor? [Interruption.] I shall continue when the children have settled down. We might be better served if, rather than indulging in the politics of the gutter, the Conservative party helped us in the fight against crime in those confidence-building measures to ensure that we benefit the entire society and that tagging is a success.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is more optimistic about the quality of the Opposition than I am. I do not see much prospect of the Conservative party becoming constructive. There is an obvious answer to the question that was posed by the hon. Member for Havant in that excellent tract which I recommend to all Conservative Members, "Is Conservatism Dead?" The answer, as we have seen from today's episode 15 of the serial, is yes.
It is crucial that public confidence in community punishments is increased. One of the ways by which we aim to increase it is by the use of demonstration projects, one of which is being undertaken in Shropshire. They aim to provide the sentencers, magistrates and Crown court judges with far better information about the effectiveness of community punishments than they currently receive.
One of the major problems at all levels of the criminal justice system is that it operates in self-contained, hermetically sealed compartments with insufficient information being transmitted from one part to another.
Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment at the response of Conservative Members which does not seem to be based on the findings of the research into trial areas? Among other things, they showed a high degree of control of offenders who were subject to electronic monitoring. Moreover, they showed a great deal of confidence by sentencers in using the system as an alternative to custody.
Does my right hon. Friend expect, as I do, that the proposal may show itself to be a much more effective transition from prison to the community and that it will

463
enable people to avoid offending in future? Is he aware that I understand that all Conservative Members are also to be issued with electronic monitoring equipment? Can he arrange a risk assessment for each of them?
Mr. Straw: On the last point, I take what my hon. Friend says as true. The only difference between our system and the Conservative party's system is that ours works—the Conservatives' will not.
My hon. Friend comes to this issue with much professional experience in dealing with offenders, and her wisdom needs carefully to be listened to. If we are to make this country safer, the crucial thing is, first, to punish offenders, but, secondly, to do our best to ensure that they lead more orderly lives. One way—it is only one—in which we can do that is to secure for short-term offenders a better transition between prison and life outside through electronic tagging.

Business of the House
4.10 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 24 NOVEMBER—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
TUESDAY 25 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until about 7 pm, Third Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Plant Varieties Bill.
THURSDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill [First Day].
FRIDAY 28 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 1 DECEMBER—Opposition Day [5th allotted day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 2 DECEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill [Second Day].
WEDNESDAY 3 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill [Third Day].
THURSDAY 4 DECEMBER—Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 5 DECEMBER—Debate on welfare to work on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 25 November there will be a debate on biotechnological inventions in European Standing Committee B.
On Wednesday 26 November there will a debate on food law in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on harmful tax competition in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that it is proposed that on Tuesday 2 December there will be a debate on tobacco advertising in European Standing Committee B, and on Wednesday 3 December there will be a debate on part-time work, European works councils and parental leave in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
I do not usually announce in advance that there will be statements in the House, but it might be for the convenience of the House if I confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement on his pre-Budget report on Tuesday next week.
[Tuesday 25 November:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 10510/97, Biotechnological Inventions. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-v (1997–98).
Wednesday 26 November:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 8150/97, Food Law; 8386/97, Consumer Health and Food Safety. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 155-ii (1997–98) and HC 1550-v (1997–98).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: COM(97)564 and 10427/97, Harmful Tax Competition. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-viii (1997–98).
Tuesday 2 December:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 6294/97 and Unnumbered, Tobacco Advertising. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vii (1997–98).
Wednesday 3 December:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 10230/97, Part-Time Work; 10975/97, European Works Councils; 10975/97, Parental Leave. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi (1997–98).]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. As I said last week, it is greatly for the convenience of the House to have the draft business for the second week. I thank her also for giving information about the European Standing Committees and, in particular, the advance notice of the Chancellor's statement. That is very helpful for the House.
As the right hon. Lady may recall, last week, I expressed disappointment that the Minister without Portfolio had appeared before the House only once in the past six months and then only for five minutes. Will she please arrange for another and early occasion for the Minister to make a statement to the House, to explain his extraordinary speech yesterday to a Post Office and Civil Service College conference? Commenting on the Government's handling of what we have learnt to call the Bernie crisis, he said:
"We acted against our own principles—that honesty is the first principle of good communications".
The right hon. Lady will readily realise that such a statement was either an admission or an accusation of dishonesty on the Minister's part. Which was it? I think that we should be told.
As Leader of the House, the right hon. Lady must be aware of the extraordinary treatment of the House by the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Lady has not appeared in the House for a debate since June and was even absent from her Department's oral questions today, which means that she will not have answered a question in the House between July and December. Will the Leader of the House arrange for her right hon. Friend to appear in the House next week, first, to reassure us of her continued existence and, secondly, to answer questions on the duties of Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and to explain the issues and industries that they can and cannot handle, given their interests?
466
Such an occasion will enable the President of the Board of Trade to explain to the House when the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe sold his shares in BP and to which charities the shares were given.
Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether there is any authority or body that can prevent a member of the House from carrying out parliamentary duties on behalf of his or her constituents? If there is not, why have we not seen the hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) and for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) recently? Can the right hon. Lady tell us when they were last here and explain to the House what are the rights of constituents who elected them to represent their interests in the House? In the absence from the House of their elected Members, how are those rights being safeguarded?
Will the right hon. Lady comment on the almost incredible bill—some £330,000—casually run up by the Lord Chancellor for the redecoration of his apartments? The new wallpaper alone—we must call it the people's wallpaper—cost £60,000. Is not that the world's most expensive former fat-cat basket?
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments about the extra information that I have been able to give. I shall endeavour to give the House as much forward information as possible, but I hope that the right hon. Lady and others will realise that it may not be possible on all occasions.
In respect of the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, I would say that I wish that Conservative Members had been as open about their funding position as Labour Members have been. Over the years, that would have saved us a great deal of trouble.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was absent from parliamentary questions today because she was fulfilling an engagement, the date of which was set by the previous Government, which involved opening a trade fair in Australia. The date could not be changed because the preparations had been made so far in advance. On the duties of other Ministers, it was made clear again at Question Time that there are no problems with the interests of any of the Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry, which is what we would expect.
The right hon. Lady asked about the attendance of hon. Members in the House. I believe that that is a matter between them and their constituents.
The right hon. Lady asked about the Lord Chancellor's official residence. I think that you, Madam Speaker, will be particularly aware that only two residential apartments in the Palace of Westminster have been preserved and renovated to the standard that we would expect. The Lord Chancellor's accommodation is being changed in a way that was approved some time ago by the House of Lords Administration and Works Sub-Committee. It is a new arrangement that part of that apartment will be open to the public. We would expect work done within the Palace of Westminster to be of a high standard.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Tuesday this week the British Medical Association published a report calling for the legalisation of cannabis derivatives for medical use? The BMA described that as a landmark statement. is not there a case for Health Ministers or Home Office Ministers to come

467
to the House at an early stage to tell us about the Government's response to that important BMA document?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is any reason for a statement on that matter in the near future. My hon. Friend will be aware that procedures are laid down for the testing of any potential medicine. It is always open to drug companies or others to apply for licences, and that can be done for cannabis derivatives. I think that derivatives called cannabinoids have been tested, but there have not been the proper clinical trials to support a hasty decision.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Are the Government examining the various expressions of unease since the debate on Monday evening on the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges—not about the verdict in that particular case, but about the methodology used? Many hon. Members think that there is an urgent need for a review.
I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who has suggested that a Speaker's Conference of all parties should address the issue. I am sure that the Leader of the House will accept that, in the light of the debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House are uneasy about the process of self-regulation.
Will we have an early opportunity to debate the benefit cuts that will be introduced by statutory instrument No. 1841? Has the right hon. Lady seen early-day motion 451, which has been signed by hon. Members from all parties and shows the considerable concern in the House about the matter?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 1841), dated 28th July 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th July be annulled.]
Was the right hon. Lady involved in any way in the consultations with the management of the BBC on the scheduling of the Radio 4 programme "Week in Westminster", which is highly regarded by hon. Members and by opinion formers throughout the country? I draw her attention to early-day motion 458, which again, has been signed by senior Members from all parties.
Has there been any progress on the statement that we were expecting some weeks ago, and to which I referred during business questions two weeks ago, on bovine spongiform encephalopathy? The right hon. Lady will recall that my party asked the Government to set up a judicial inquiry into the shambles that occurred under the previous Government. We had hoped for an announcement by now.
Mrs. Taylor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about the Standards and Privileges Committee, I am glad to have his endorsement of the decision that the House made on Monday night, which I felt was the right decision. I sat through the whole of the debate, so I am aware that there is unease about the methodology. However, there is also some concern, which I share, that we should not rip up the progress that we have made so far on the basis of one case, which, as I said on Monday night, I hope is the worst case with which the House has to deal.
468
In the first instance, it is up to the Standards and Privileges Committee to consider any changes that it may wish to recommend to the House in respect of its procedures, so we should await any conclusions that the Committee reaches.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the early-day motion and the social security regulations, discussions will take place through the usual channels in the usual way.
In respect of the BBC, representations were made some time ago. Concern was expressed not only by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but by Madam Speaker, who tried to make progress on that matter.
On BSE, the hon. Gentleman is aware of what we have said and he knows where the blame lies for the problems that we have inherited. I shall bring his further comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. David Watts: Can my right hon. Friend explain why the first meeting of the Deregulation Committee has not taken place? Can she say when it will meet?
Mrs. Taylor: There has been a problem with the first meeting of the Deregulation Committee. It is the practice of the House for the most senior member of the Committee to call its first meeting. Although that has not happened yet, I can tell my hon. Friend that agreement was reached this afternoon, and I think that the first meeting will be called for Monday.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we have an early debate—it might be entitled, "The Terracotta Army"—arising from the remarks made in the House last night by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? He said:
"I would, in the more liberal times that prevailed in my party before the election, have joined the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby in support of their amendment, which comes closest to my own views but, as Labour Members know, shortly before the election, the standing orders of the Labour party were changed so that to vote against a Labour Government is now an offence against those standing orders and leads to withdrawal of the Whip and debarment from further candidature."—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 398.]
Surely that statement raises issues of the most profound parliamentary and constitutional weight. After those remarks, surely it must be time for the House to take an interest in the matter and attempt to liberate hon. Members of all parties from the tyranny that now seems to prevail in the Labour party.
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that my hon. Friends need liberation with the help of the right hon. Gentleman.
Ms Helen Southworth: May we have an early debate or statement on the effectiveness of the summer literacy scheme, which today's report from the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority states has demonstrably raised young people's motivation and enthusiasm for school and for reading? May we debate extending the scheme—so that it might benefit my constituency?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is very dear to my heart, not least because Earlsheaton high

469
school in Dewsbury ran one of the pilot projects. I saw for myself the benefit that the project brought to many children—not only, as she says, in motivation, but in reading ability. The Government have said that we wish to extend the scheme and allow other children to benefit from it. Although I do not think that a statement on the scheme's success is necessary, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to press for schemes next year in their constituencies.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Last week, the right hon. Lady answered in a most dismissive manner an important question that I asked her, saying that she needed no lessons from the Conservative party. I was not trying to teach her a lesson in any sense, and I should be grateful if she answered my question in a reasonable manner. Does she not agree that for the Government to spend £750 million on the millennium dome without the sanction of or debate in the House is a monstrous, contemptible mistreatment of Parliament?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should remember some basic facts, and I shall remind him of two. The first is that that type of expenditure will be audited. The second, very basic fact is that the expenditure was started under the previous Government.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the workings of the Highways Agency—thereby not only allowing hon. Members to bring to light some of the problems with the M5 widening, which has caused many difficulties for hon. Members representing the south-west, but giving us a chance to investigate why the agency has allowed two years' work and £50 million of public money more for the contract than the independent consultants recommended? Important questions must be answered, as many hon. Members believe that all with that Highways Agency contract is not as it seems.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not aware of the problems with the contract or the scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He may wish to apply for an Adjournment debate or something of that type. I shall certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, because I cannot find time for a debate in the very near future.
Sir David Madel: Will the right hon. Lady re-examine the exchanges on 17 November, when the Government said that they could not introduce plans to reform and improve the Child Support Agency until next year? In my constituency, public confidence in the CSA is sliding again. Moreover, as we come near to Christmas, earnings rise because of bonuses and extra overtime, providing the CSA with another opportunity to get its calculations wrong. We simply cannot go on with the agency as it is. It has had chance after chance to get it right. Cannot the Government, after nearly seven months in office, produce something before Christmas to improve it?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present during business questions a couple
470
of weeks ago, when there were several requests from Labour Members for a debate on the Child Support Agency and when I expressed my own dismay at the workings of the CSA. It is something of a cheek for Conservative Members to say that we should put right in seven months the problems created by the previous Government over many years. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is attempting to make progress on the matter and, of course, we had a debate on the problems surrounding the CSA some time ago.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on reports that members of the Conservative party are to be given psychological and psychometric tests to ensure that they are appropriate candidates for Parliament? Could not that involve us in some large-scale expenditure, in view of the redundancy payments necessary for many Conservative Members?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is tempting to follow his line of thought and consider what the outcome might be, but I think it would be better if I said that the internal arrangements for the selection of candidates are a matter for the Conservative party.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Leader of the House make time in the very near future for a debate on the purpose of the Register of Members' Interests? Given that in 1995 the now Deputy Prime Minister went to Silverstone and declared his visit, and that in 1996 the now Paymaster General went to Silverstone with his family and declared his visit, would not the Prime Minister relish the opportunity to explain why he believes that he is above the rules of the House, according to the advice that I am given, and failed to declare his visit in 1996? Would it not also give the Prime Minister the opportunity to declare the involvement of one David Ward, a professional lobbyist working on behalf of the FIA, and explain why a professional lobbyist wanted him to go to Silverstone?
Mrs. Taylor: I would hope that the purpose of the Register of Members' Interests was clear to all hon. Members. Of course, we now have a code of conduct, which should help to guide hon. Members on such matters. On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, I admitted last week that I thought that it was tempting to arrange a general debate on the funding of both political parties, and it is still very tempting.
Mr. Graham Brady: Given the Government's recent decision to refuse to hold a public inquiry into Manchester United's plans to build on 100 acres of farmland at Carrington Moss, will the Leader of the House call the Deputy Prime Minister to the House to explain the Government's new policy of not protecting green-belt land?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is scope for a debate on that matter in the near future. As I said last week, the Government are committed to their green-belt policy but, under this Government, as under the previous Government, every decision has to be considered on its merits.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Lady confirm her commitment to the Select

471
Committee system? Does she agree that Select Committees have an important role to play, on behalf of Parliament, in investigating the activities of the Executive? In that connection, will she initiate an early debate on the role of Select Committees and undertake to read the transcript of yesterday afternoon's meeting of the Select Committee on European Legislation, when the Chairman tried to gag the three Conservative Members on that Committee and prevent them from asking questions which were in order and very, very pertinent?
Mrs. Taylor: I can confirm that I think that Select Committees are extremely important. I do not think that we need a debate on their role at the moment but, of course, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of the Commons intends to consider how best to use the talents of hon. Members, especially on Select Committees. As for what happened yesterday, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that his colleagues were capable of being gagged, it is a remarkable admission. I do not believe that the Chairman of any Committee of the House would deliberately seek to gag hon. Members.
Mr. Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have announced a working party to develop citizenship education in schools. Will she allow parliamentary time for a debate on the importance of promoting that, in both formal and informal education? Many young people are alienated and disillusioned and do not feel connected to the political world that we inhabit. Is it not important to encourage, wherever possible, the involvement of young people, so that they have a greater say in decisions that affect their lives?
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the establishment of the working party. I hope that all hon. Members agree that citizenship education is an important objective for schools. I cannot find Government time for a debate in the near future, but it might be possible to debate that, along with many other issues, when we consider forthcoming education legislation. Many hon. Members might be interested in contributing to the debate on how best to deliver such education. Perhaps my hon. Friend could apply for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady find time next week for a statement by the President of the Board of Trade? Following the press conference earlier this year by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, it is vital that we should be told whether he has sold all his BP shares, when he did so, what profit he made from them and to which charity or charities that profit has been donated.
Mrs. Taylor: There is no need for a statement. It is striking how obsessive the Conservatives are on that issue, mainly because they cannot come to terms with the fact that senior business men support the Labour party.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Further to that question, what does the Leader of the House regard as a reasonable attitude from Ministers to questions asked in the House? Some Conservative Members have been asking for some months for clear, simple details about the timing of the sale of certain shares. Those are matters of
472
great public import. Will the Leader of the House give us and her colleagues some guidance on the standards that should be maintained in answering such questions?
Mrs. Taylor: If questions relate to matters covered by the code of guidance to Ministers, and the permanent secretary and the Cabinet Secretary are satisfied with the procedures that Ministers have adopted, there is no need for further questions.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: In an interview at the weekend, the Prime Minister expressed dissatisfaction that he could be thought capable of any wrongdoing. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate, so that the representatives of the people can express their apology to the dear leader and so that he might have the opportunity to explain why he alone among his co-religionists has escaped taint of original sin? Has he become a Pelagian?
Mrs. Taylor: I hardly think that that is worthy of an answer.
Mr. Owen Paterson: As a new Member, I understand that my main role is to ask the Executive pertinent questions. Since May, I have been astonished by the Government's refusal to answer questions. We had an appalling example yesterday, when the Prime Minister slapped down my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). At Trade and Industry questions today, time after time questions were not answered. Could we have a full debate on the role of Question Time?
Mrs. Taylor: We have had a question at last. The answer is no.
Mr. Paul Burstow: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for hon. Members to debate disability living allowance and the review of disability benefits? Hon. Members have shown their interest in the issue by signing early-day motion 448.
[That this House is gravely concerned by the implementation of the benefit integrity project which is resulting in apparently arbitrary and superficial decisions currently being made to withdraw disability living allowance and associated benefits from many people with severe disabilities, some of whom had been awarded the benefit for life; and accordingly asks the Government to take urgent action to ensure that persons suffering from disabilities which prevent them from taking employment are treated sympathetically and that benefits are not withdrawn without proper reasons.]
Hon. Members have also signed early-day motion 483. They are clearly concerned on behalf of their constituents about the way in which the benefit integrity programme is proceeding and the fact that it is leading to the withdrawal of disability living allowance. They are concerned about current Government reviews, which could lead to cuts in the benefits or their removal. May we have a debate so that those matters can be aired and we can find out the Government's true intentions?
Mrs. Taylor: We had Social Security questions earlier this week, and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman

473
asked a question then. We have, of course, a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that all benefit payments are made correctly. The hon. Gentleman will he aware that there is a comprehensive spending review, and benefits for disabled people are part of that. There is nothing that we can usefully add at this stage.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if she acceded to requests for a debate on Ministers not answering questions in this House, I would be able to point out that Lady Thatcher's Government had a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who did not answer a single question in this House, the reason being that he was not a Member of this House, but a Member of the House of Lords?
As I am in a helpful mood, will my right hon. Friend pass on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before next Tuesday's statement the thought that as tax income has risen by about £10 billion in the first nine months of this financial year and as the lone parent premium costs only £65 million, the premium could be kept quite easily?
Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend is in such a helpful mood, I guarantee that I shall pass his comments to the Chancellor who, I am sure, will deal with those matters on Tuesday.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following from what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, we now have a point of order for your consideration. The Leader of the House has repeatedly refused to answer the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and by other Conservative Members. Should we not be given proper answers, especially to questions about the role of the Minister without Portfolio, the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister? There has been no statement on the many unanswered questions arising from the Bernie affair and we have simply had refusals to answer at Prime Minister's Question Time. is it not clear that the Government have entirely ignored their role, which is to answer questions and not to meet them with other questions or to be dismissive?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to extend business questions. I do not think that he tried to catch my eye to put a question to the Leader of the House. As he and the House know, Ministers answer questions. They are responsible for their comments, which are nothing to do with the Chair. They are responsible for what they say in the House.

Public Accounts
4.42 pm
Mr. David Davis: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the First to Twenty-fifth Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1996–97 and of the relevant Treasury Minutes (Cm 3559, 3577 and 3714), with particular reference to the following Reports:
Second, Progress in Completing the New British Library (HC 38);
Fifth, Highways Agency: The Bridge Programme (HC 83);
Eighth, Information Technology Services Agency: Outsourcing the Service Delivery Operations (HC 98);
Thirteenth, HM Treasury: The Second Sale of Shares in National Power and PowerGen (HC 151);
Sixteenth, The Work of the Directors General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services and Electricity Supply (HC 89);
Twenty-second, British Rail Maintenance Ltd.: The Sale of Maintenance Depots (HC 168).
This is a unique occasion in that it is the first time in the history of the modem Public Accounts Committee that the motion has been moved by anybody other than my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It will become apparent that I hold the right hon. Gentleman in great esteem, admiration and affection. He held the post of Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for a record 14 years, during which he presided over the publication of almost 600 reports, all of them unanimous.
The right hon. Gentleman developed a formidable reputation based on hard work, good judgment and fearless tenacity in pursuing public officials who wasted or mis-spent taxpayers' money. All his reports made a significant contribution to better government and better service for the taxpayer. If I have to pick out one report, it is the seminal eighth report of 1994. It investigated the standards of conduct in public life and set out the measures needed to uphold integrity and competence. I look to that report as a benchmark for the future.
As the only Chairman since the National Audit Act 1983, my predecessor has been the man most responsible for the power and effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee in its modem form and for the respect in which the Committee is held today. I shall consider myself successful if I can even approach the standard the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has set. All in the House will join me in thanking him for his sterling work over many years.
I am fortunate in several other regards. First, the Committee has the formidable asset of the National Audit Office under the capable command of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The NAO does an extremely effective if somewhat unsung task in scrutinising the Government's accounts. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, has done a first-class job in enhancing the professionalism and the professional recognition of the NAO in recent years. The Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General, John Dowdall, and his staff in the Northern Ireland Audit Office have also done a very good job in the uniquely difficult conditions in Northern Ireland today.
The Committee is very fortunate in its excellent Clerk, Mr. Ken Brown, who has steered the neophytes of the Committee, including me, through the ocean of documents that the Committee receives. We are all very grateful for his skill and patience.

475
Judging by the first few meetings, I am also fortunate to have an outstandingly capable Committee—terrifyingly so, sometimes. My only concern is that the members are so good that I shall lose rather a lot of them to Front-Bench posts before long. I must tell the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), who is the Whip today, that given their interrogation skills some of them may end up in the Government Whips Office.
I welcome the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as an ex officio member of our Committee. I do not think that I am speaking out of turn when I tell her that she has been described in many ways in the Committee already. She has been referred to as our fairy godmother at the Treasury and, on a rather more aggressive note, as someone who might give a new meaning to the phrase "dawn raid". We shall see.
The Public Accounts Committee has existed since 1861, when it was created by Gladstone who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Throughout its history, it has been a powerful and effective force for good in British public life. It has been no small contributor to the outstanding international reputation for integrity and competence that has, rightly, long been held by British public servants.
What the Committee stands for is still highly relevant today. First, it stands for propriety and integrity in the administration of public affairs. The importance of that barely needs restating in modern times. Secondly, it stands for keeping tight control over the expenditure of taxpayers' money. In an era in which most political parties recognise the importance of low taxes, that is a vital function. Thirdly, the Committee stands for value for money in service delivery. That has been at the centre of a huge amount of policy innovation in many countries, including the United States, New Zealand and, in recent years, the United Kingdom. The 1983 Act was ahead of its time in that it recognised the importance of the measurement of service delivery—the efficiency and effectiveness criteria. I expect the new Committee, as was true of the previous Committee, to deal with a growing proportion of cases that deal with how well the Government deliver public services.
The previous annual debate on the subject took place on 16 October 1996 when the motion encompassed 48 reports and the associated Government replies. This year's motion covers 25 reports agreed by the previous Committee before the general election and the replies are those of the previous Administration.
The sheer number and technical complexity of the reports can make drawing useful lessons difficult; it is easy to lose sight of the wood for the trees. It is a little simpler if we divide the Government's public service delivery into three stages or phases. The first is the acquisition of assets and services, the second is the operation and delivery of those public services and the third is the redeployment and/or disposal of those assets and services.
The first phase includes project management, the acquisition of buildings and major equipment, the procurement of supplies and services, the contracting out and outsourcing of public sector activities and private finance projects. The second phase involves an emphasis on service for the customer, including the timely and effective delivery of services, the regulation of service providers, management and control processes, target setting and
476
performance measurement. The third phase—asset redeployment and disposal—covers the effective use of assets, the disposal of surplus assets and property, and privatisation.
Those phases cover the full cycle of how Her Majesty's Government acquire assets, employ them to provide public services, and analyse, redeploy or otherwise dispose of them. Each phase can lead to a different type of problem and a different lesson to be learnt. In each phase, we in the PAC look for good practice to encourage and disseminate, bad practice to discourage and eliminate and improper practice to condemn and punish. In short, in each phase we look for the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of public service.
I shall start with the acquisition of assets and services. The best example of good practice that the Committee considered last year has not progressed to a public report, so I cannot properly debate it at length. I can however direct the House to the National Audit Office report on the management of utilities by the Ministry of Defence, which demonstrated the advantages of procuring services competitively. It demonstrated millions of pounds of savings in the procurement of electricity and the proposal to extend such competitive processes to other service acquisitions, particularly gas. The Committee's report on this subject will be published shortly.
The report in this area that has been published is that on the outsourcing of service delivery operations by the Information Technology Service Agency—the eighth report. It shows the potential financial benefits of outsourcing the activities of public bodies and the need for strong contractual provisions to allow effective monitoring and control of contractors' performance.
The service delivery operations of the Department of Social Security's Information Technology Service Agency mainly cover the operation of computers on which social security benefits are calculated and administered and which produce giro cheques and order books. The contracts are worth £577 million over 10 years and were placed in 1995 with three separate firms. The Department estimated that it would save £399 million through outsourcing those services.
The Committee was surprised at the difference of £399 million between the agency's costs over 10 years and the contractors' price and concluded that there must have been substantial inefficiencies in the agency prior to outsourcing. I suspect that many permanent secretaries around Whitehall see a PAC inquiry as a no-win game. Perhaps they think that the PAC always sees a half-full glass as half empty. I have some sympathy with them in this case, but a £399 million saving is just that: a £399 million saving. That is why I list it as a good example.
That being said, the Committee agreed with the Comptroller and Auditor General that the agency needed to monitor the contractors' performance closely and make full use of contractual provisions to control price increases. There were already potential increases in the pipeline of £74 million as a result of increases in volume of business and changes of specification. There was a need for control and monitoring and the agency accepted that.
The Committee was also surprised—rightly—that the agency was not able to tell it what safeguards contractors had in place to prevent the use of benefit claimants'

477
records for financial gain and recommended that the agency seek specific information and assurances from contractors in that regard. Again, the agency has done that.
The bad example under the heading of acquisition of assets—the example to avoid—is in the Committee's second report, "Progress in Completing the New British Library". The report illustrates the dangers of failing to define adequately responsibilities for major procurement projects. The Committee observed that it was unacceptable that responsibility for the construction of the library was not vested in a single Department until 1992 and that the project management arrangements had been far too complicated so that responsibilities could not be clearly attributed to individuals.
The effect of those errors contributed to unacceptable delays of more than four years before the building could be opened to the public. They also led to a reduction in the scale of the completed building and a cost increase of £115 million in the first phase of the project. There is little better way to summarise that than to quote the Committee's report, where it says that the new British library
"could be used as a model of how not to manage a major construction project".
Now to the ugly aspects. The clearest issue of propriety was raised by the Committee's 12th report, "Overseas Development Administration Turkish Universities Equipment Project". It demonstrated the importance of proper controls and effective monitoring of bodies involved in public sector transactions to protect against potential conflicts of interest which could lead to impropriety.
In 1991, the ODA agreed to provide £23 million in support of a contract between the Turkish higher Education Council and a United Kingdom company, TecQuipment, for the supply of facilities to engineering faculties in 28 Turkish universities. A number of conflicts of interest arose. TecQuipment was not only the project manager but the supplier of equipment and the adviser to the Turkish Higher Education Council. Fisons assisted TecQuipment to secure a bank guarantee and bid to supply equipment. Another company, Sangari International, acted for TecQuipment as well as for a number of other suppliers to supply goods.
The Committee was—not surprisingly—disturbed that so many conflicts of interest had arisen in one project. It was especially concerned that TecQuipment had significant overlapping roles in the project and was therefore potentially in a position to influence the placing of contracts in its favour. The Committee commented:
"such conflict gave rise to potential dangers for the taxpayer, not only in terms of value for money but of propriety in the use of public money."
It acknowledged that the ODA had learnt a number of lessons from the project and that action had been taken to implement them, but it was disturbed that such basic lessons had to be learnt by a Department that has so much experience in administering aid projects. I agree with that conclusion.
I come now to the operation and supply of public services. The first good example in this area is in the Committee's 16th report, "The Work of the Directors
478
General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services and Electricity Supply" which demonstrates the importance of effective regulation of privatised industries to protect the interests of customers. The report covered four directors general responsible for regulating the telecoms, gas, water and electricity industries, which between them use assets valued at £240 billion. In 1994–95, they had a combined turnover of £51 billion. The regulators were appointed due to the limited competition in the industries.
The Committee noted that all the directors general were taking action to promote competition in their respective industries and expected competition to provide customers with greater choice, better service and increased value for money. It welcomed the reductions in prices in real terms that had occurred in the telecoms, gas and electricity industries, but noted that, in the five years immediately after privatisation, before current regulation arrangements were in place, the water companies made profits totalling £7.4 billion. The Committee also noted that average water and sewerage bills increased in real terms by 40 per cent. and 37 per cent. respectively and that the Director General of Water Services attributed increases to the need for investment to improve water quality while expressing concern over future profit levels.
The Committee recommended that the directors general impress on companies the risk that they faced through loss of public confidence and trust if they paid excessive emoluments to top executives. The directors general recognised the widespread public concern about the level of executive remuneration.
The example of bad practice in the supply of services is best seen in the fifth report, "Highways Agency: The Bridge Programme". The Committee expressed concern at the slippage in the programme for assessing and, where necessary, strengthening bridges to meet the European directive to carry 40-tonne lorries from January 1999. The slippage in the programme, which the National Audit Office brought to light, has meant that the UK will comply with the European directive only by using temporary measures to strengthen some bridges. That is likely to result in traffic restrictions on some bridges and inconvenience and congestion for road users. It may lead to extra costs in temporarily propping bridges until such time as they can be permanently strengthened.
The Committee also highlighted failures in programme management, including a shortfall in the number of bridge inspections, failure to compare the costs of doing similar work across the country and a lack of accurate national information on the condition of bridges and the progress of the programme. All contributed to the failure to keep costs and progress under closer control and, therefore, gave a serious lesson in bad management and programme control for the rest of the Government.
The ugly issue of service supply is the question of propriety that arose in the 14th report on "Financial Control of Payments Made Under the Training For Work and Youth Training Programmes". It demonstrated the importance of ensuring that strong financial controls operate in the bodies funded by Government Departments to provide public services. The training programmes are managed by 74 training and enterprise councils, which are private companies operating under contract to the Department for Education and Employment.

479
For the most part, TECs subcontract the provision of training to training providers, including local authorities, voluntary bodies and private companies. The Committee examined the handling by the Department for Education and Employment of allegations of irregular payments, the financial control of payments to TECs and training providers and the steps taken to secure value for money from the programme. The Committee was concerned that £150,000 had been overpaid by the Department to Cumbria TEC because of irregular claims from a training provider and that overpayments of £231,000 were made to Durham TEC in respect of claims made by another provider. It found deplorable the fact that money that should have been spent on equipping people with skills for work had been siphoned out of the system in this way. It is hard to disagree. The Committee expressed concern that as many as 71 cases of suspected and alleged irregularity had been recorded by the Department for Education and Employment since 1995, of which 41 had been investigated and only one referred to the police.
On the public accountability framework in which the Department and the TECs operate, the Committee asked the Comptroller and Auditor General whether he would be prepared to be the external auditor of TECs, which derive most of their income from public funds. The Committee welcomed his positive response and I will return to that subject when I deal with the issue of access.
The third phase of Government activity is asset redeployment and disposal. The best example of that is described in the Committee's 13th report on "The Second Sale of Shares in National Power and PowerGen" and it provided an example of a well-managed sale of Government assets by the Treasury. It demonstrated the significant advantages that can be gained by selling public utilities in stages if the market is uncertain at the time of privatisation. The Committee welcomed the fact that additional proceeds of some £2.3 billion were raised by not selling all the shares in 1991. That was consistent with the Committee's long-held belief that when the market value of the shares was uncertain it could be advantageous to the public purse to conduct such sales in stages. That was what was done and it was a very good example to the Treasury for future privatisations.
The bad example in this category is described in the 22nd report on "British Rail Maintenance Ltd. The Sale of Maintenance Depots", which demonstrates the need to undertake proper valuations of assets prior to disposal and to ensure the extraction of cash before the sale to maximise the return to the taxpayer. The Committee expressed regret that the then Department of Transport did not ensure that the comprehensive valuations of maintenance depots were carried out and strongly recommended that vendors carry out valuations in advance of sales. The Committee was also concerned that cash was not extracted prior to sale, allowing £13 million to accrue to the purchasers. Both those points are straightforward and should automatically apply to every such sale throughout government.
I have described only a few of the past reports and achievements of the Public Accounts Committee. My predecessor and his team did an excellent job promoting the good, highlighting the bad and exposing the ugly. The new Committee has every intention of following in their footsteps, but I would especially like the Committee to pursue the efficiency and effectiveness criteria and seek out ways to enhance the Government's delivery of high
480
levels of public service at the best possible value for money to the taxpayer. There is still work to be done to enhance further our capabilities as a Committee to that end. That brings me to the question of access.
It may surprise the House to learn that the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have automatic access to all areas of Government expenditure. To achieve what we are setting out to do, we need to improve the Comptroller and Auditor General's access powers to all bodies that spend public money and deliver public services. For example, for some large and important bodies such as the Legal Aid Board—which does not have that brilliant a record and which spends more than £1.3 billion of public funds a year—the auditor is appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Comptroller and Auditor General has to rely on inspection rights to report to Parliament.
Other bodies, such as housing associations—which spend £1.8 billion a year—appoint their own auditors and the Comptroller and Auditor General has to negotiate to obtain access on a case-by-case basis. At the worst end of the spectrum, some important public services are under contract to private firms. Camelot is the biggest and has the highest profile of such bodies, but the Comptroller and Auditor General has been refused the access he needs to confirm that its systems are operating properly and that the income to the national lottery distribution funds is complete.
We should deal with the problem of access and I shall discuss how that can be done. First, the so-called executive non-departmental public bodies—I hope that the House will forgive me for spelling that out, but they are normally known as quangos—should be dealt with by making the Comptroller and Auditor General responsible for the audit in all cases. That would include the Legal Aid Board, the Housing Corporation and 140 other bodies covering some hundreds of millions of pounds. Secondly, we should deal with so-called local spending bodies by providing independently guaranteed rights to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That would cover TECs and housing associations.
Thirdly, the functions provided by contractors should be covered by providing independently guaranteed rights in all cases to the Comptroller and Auditor General that are at least equivalent to the powers of the European Court of Auditors. Some £6 billion of public money is spent through contractors already and it is a serious anomaly that the Comptroller and Auditor General of the House is not in at least as good a position as the European Court of Auditors. The private finance initiative, for which I understand the Government have great plans, will make that issue even more important.
Finally, for publicly owned companies—companies owned by public bodies or the state in large part or in total—we should allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to undertake the audit. Some 200 such companies have been set up in the past few years and the Companies Acts preclude the Comptroller and Auditor General from auditing them. We will need legislation, when we next have a Companies Bill, to correct that.
Those are general issues, but I wish to address another, perhaps more controversial, aspect of access. Our predecessors examined the estate management of the royal palaces in occupation, including Buckingham palace, Windsor castle, Kensington palace and St. James's palace, originally as a result of the public funding of the repair

481
of damage caused by the fire—five years ago today—at Windsor castle. The Committee received reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General on that and related matters, based on examination by the National Audit Office of the Department of National Heritage's monitoring records and related correspondence. The reports were not based on a direct examination of the books and records of the royal household because the Comptroller and Auditor General has no right of access to them. That said, to be fair to the royal household, it did assist the Comptroller's study and supplied information and statistics to staff of the NAO. In addition, the director of finance attended the Committee's meetings, but this is insufficient.
It is a principle of audit and of parliamentary Supply that Parliament's auditor, the Comptroller and Auditor General, should have direct access to papers and people, rather than have to depend on the willingness of those whom he is auditing and the papers they choose to make available. That cannot be right.
The Government often provide for access to funding bodies outside, but they do not have to and can, as in this case, decide not to. We are not talking here about the private matters of Her Majesty the Queen and, as a confirmed and committed monarchist, I would not countenance such an idea in any event. I must say, en passant, that I got as much pleasure as everyone else from the pictures in today's newspapers and, for once, I agreed with the Prime Minister's words. The royal family is making great efforts to increase transparency and openness in its affairs. Those efforts will strengthen public support for the monarchy and we can all applaud them. Our proposals go entirely with the grain of those efforts.
We are talking about a departmental grant in aid of £20.4 million of taxpayers' money in 1995–96, given to the royal household to run the functions of the monarchy, including the maintenance of properties and gardens that form part of Britain's heritage, grace and favour residences and their rents and remuneration for public servants who work for the Queen. Wherever these are financed from public money, it is in the interests of Her Majesty the Queen and Parliament that the usual principles of access for the Comptroller and Auditor General should apply.
The consideration of this matter was not concluded by our predecessors and my colleagues and I must consider it and associated issues, including the civil list, where the Comptroller and Auditor General, and hence the PAC, is excluded.
Taken together, the general increases in access would allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to follow public money wherever it goes and to report to Parliament whether that money has been used as intended and in line with the proper conduct of public business. That does not mean that there would be a greater burden of audit and regulation; indeed, it would reduce the total audit burden on quangos or executive non-departmental public bodies. Elsewhere, it would rationalise unnecessary bureaucracy.
A series of critical questions are posed by the Government's devolution measures. It is important that devolution does not diminish the PAC's oversight of the £21 billion a year that is to be granted to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Effective audit and
482
accountability arrangements are needed to ensure robust practices for financial management and accountability. Audit arrangements should provide for independence without the mushrooming of auditors and regulators.
The Committee needs to be able to consider issues involved in the administration of the new Parliament and Assembly; for example where a breakdown in financial control occurs. The Comptroller and Auditor General will need continued access to support the Committee in considering these issues.
In recent years, there has been some concern at the proliferation of regulators, inspectors and auditors of public services. I have some sympathy with that view. Oversight bodies such as the PAC and the NAO must continually justify their existence. To that end, I shall finish with a short review of the impact of the work of the previous Committee. Over the past year, 92 per cent. of the recommendations made by the PAC have been accepted by the Government. In 1996, audited bodies made around 2,600 significant changes to their systems and procedures as a result of recommendations in the reports of the PAC and the NAO.
As a result, the PAC and the NAO saved the taxpayer more than £900 million in the past three years—more than £7 for every pound spent on running the NAO. Beyond that, advice and guidance on good practice provided by the reports of the Committee and the NAO have a further impact that it is not possible to quantify, but provide long-lasting savings as well as benefits to the quality of service and the governance of public bodies.
Perhaps I may finish as I began: all of this arose as a direct result of the excellent work done by my predecessor as Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, and his Committee and from the excellent relationship they maintained with the Treasury. I look forward, as I am sure do my colleagues on the Committee, to equally hard work and, I hope, an equally good relationship with the present Financial Secretary.
5.15 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I would like to begin by echoing the words of the new Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), whose distinguished 14-year-long chairmanship gave the Committee a degree of solidity and a reputation for assiduity in its supervision of the public expenditure of the previous Administration.
The Committee that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has the honour of chairing has acquired its reputation in no small part because of its traditional ability to reach consensus and produce unanimous reports; it is the Committee least scarred of any by cross-party tensions. I value that, and it must be the way in which the Committee continues in the future.
In wishing the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden all success in the discharge of his new job, I express a little wry internal amusement that someone who conducted himself in the Foreign Office—perhaps the least contentious Department—with a degree of combativeness that was not characteristic of Ministers in that Department may find the ambience of the PAC somewhat different, although no doubt challenging.

483
The right hon. Gentleman comes to his new job with the good wishes of all who serve with him, and I have been greatly encouraged by his opening remarks this afternoon. He homed in on the critical questions of policy: how the work of the Committee should be conducted; how it should be valued; and how the audit of public spending should be conducted. I particularly agree with his concluding remarks about access, a point repeatedly made by the previous Chairman and members of the Committee, on which I had the honour of serving for a number of years.
It is right that the National Audit Office should follow public money wherever it goes. That broad principle is one that I hope will inform the Government in their review of the work of quangos, initiated in a recent consultation paper. It must be right to start, as the Chairman of the Committee suggested, with the scrutiny of the spending of the executive non-departmental public bodies. However, I think that the Committee could go beyond that to look at some of the advisory bodies, which involve a considerable expenditure of public funds.
I am happy, too, that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden referred to the oversight of expenditure on the upkeep of royal palaces. He made the point, in a wholly non-partisan and appropriate way, that it cannot but be in the interests of the sovereign to have public moneys voted for that purpose brought under the scrutiny of the House.
The question is often asked: how effective is the Public Accounts Committee? It is difficult to evaluate that, but the right hon. Gentleman has done so by making projections of possible savings. We can legitimately try to make such claims, although they are sometimes difficult to carry through.
Given the sheer number of reports undertaken by the Committee, it is a virtual certainty that all senior civil servants will fairly frequently be subject to its scrutiny. They and those close to them know that they will be treated fairly but with considerable probing. That, I believe, affects their view of their role as accounting officers; it is not a remote role, but one that exposes them directly to democratic accountability to the House.
It is sometimes asked, when a large phalanx of people troop in to the hearings behind the accounting officer, whether that is really necessary—whether it takes so many people to answer the questions. The answer is almost certainly no, but there is a certain educative effect on civil servants, which most people would consider extremely valuable. It makes them realise that, although under the Armstrong memorandum they have formerly been regarded as primarily—Lord Armstrong of Ilminster would have said solely, and I believe that he errs constitutionally in that—accountable to the Government of the day, they must also answer to the House of Commons on some important matters.
How does one construct a debate logically, sensibly and coherently around such a proliferation of interesting reports? It can be done thematically or by illustration, and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden chose both approaches. I intend to duck out of those approaches and simply refer briefly to a few reports that raise points in which I am personally interested, not because I think that they are more important than the other reports, but because they caught my fancy and illustrate something of the way in which the Committee works.
484
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the second report, "Progress in Completing the New British Library". If he had not already quoted its conclusion at paragraph 68, I would have done so. The saga of mismanagement goes back a long way. The single most important lesson is that the Treasury should have insisted at a much earlier stage that the project be overseen by a single Government Department. The Department of National Heritage must take some of the blame for that.
The story of the mishaps became all too familiar, and I will not rehearse again the losses incurred. As is clear from the report and from the evidence given to the Committee, we have less than we bargained for as a result of the mismanagement: we have a library which is smaller than was envisaged and which will be full by 2003. That is a serious consequence for the country. As we have already spent so much money, the Government should now secure enough money to ensure that the new library operates effectively.
Budgetary evidence that has become available since the report's publication shows that the Government have cut the library's grant in aid by £1.7 million from their own planning figures, which is worrying given the plague of technical problems that has afflicted the building. The story of the project has been of people not knowing when to cancel aspects of the development and admit that money has been wasted, or not taking the decision to bite the bullet and build it as it should be.
I hope that the use of the four acres of land to the north of the site to enable the library to expand, to deal with the problems of space and access to electronic media, will be authorised, and that the necessary money will be made available. It is not satisfactory if the library cannot be run effectively and cannot continue to buy books internationally and conserve those that it has. There is already a backlog of items awaiting conservation that will not grow any smaller if the grant in aid is cut.
I candidly admit that I have gone beyond the Committee's recommendations, but that we should be in this position today is due to the inefficiencies—to put it as moderately as one can—in the expenditure of the vast sums of money already dedicated to the project.
Like the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, I alighted on the 20th report, "Payments to the National Lottery Distribution Fund", which was published on 17 March 1997. The Committee noted that the director general of Oflot had been unable to levy a fine on Camelot, despite a serious breach of its licence agreement.
In the Treasury minute of July 1997, the Government agreed with the Committee's point and said that they would consider the necessary legislative change. We anticipate that legislation will be introduced before Christmas and I hope that it will deal fully with that point.
The Committee expressed concern that the National Audit Office
"were only able to satisfy themselves that all payments recorded as due to the Distribution Fund had been made punctually and in full. They were not able to express an opinion on whether the sums recorded as due were correct."
Again, I agree wholly with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden about the nature of audit and that the Committee and the National Audit Office should have the power of direct access that was denied in this case.

485
In its 17th report, "Health of the Nation: a Progress Report", published on 15 March 1997, the Committee expressed concern that
"a working definition of severe mental illness has not yet been agreed, and at the length of time it is taking to gather data on the incidence and severity of mental illness."
That may be thought a narrow point, but it has attracted a not entirely satisfactory response in the Treasury minute. I do not expect the Minister to allude to it, because it is a matter for the Department of Health. I confess that the point flows from a certain lack of tautness of expression in the Committee's original recommendation.
The Treasury minute response to our report referred to a national survey on mental health that was undertaken three years ago, for which much is claimed. No doubt that historical survey is of value, but it appears to lack a continuing collection of current statistical information about severe mental illness on an agreed national basis. The minute referred to a current pilot study which it is hoped will be completed by the autumn of next year, with implementation, if the study is deemed satisfactory, one or two years later. That does not support the view that the allocation of resources to mental health today rests on a firmly based evaluation of need. As mental illness apparently accounts for about 14 per cent. of national health service in-patient costs, 23 per cent. of pharmaceutical expenditure and 14 per cent. of certificated absence from work, it is astonishing how little effort has been made, or is being made, on the incidence and definition of severe mental illness and the needs of those suffering from it.
The Treasury minute, rather than simply accepting our Committee's call for a working definition of severe mental illness, apparently encourages what it calls
"the development of appropriate local definitions, taking into account the diverse nature of services and local population's needs."
I candidly confess that I do not understand the point that the Department is making. The measurement of medical need cannot, surely, depend on the availability of particular medical services.
My interest in this issue is not merely academic. Mental illness not only has an impact on the purse of society but can cause acute distress to sufferers and their families and can sometimes result in anti-social behaviour. In certain sectors of the community, as the Committee found, specific therapeutic interventions may be necessary. We noted the need for measures to prevent deliberate self-harm among farmers and among women of Asian descent—two groups on which we heard evidence about the high levels of suicide.
Perhaps the Committee's use of the words "working definition" of severe mental illness allowed the Department to interpret our concerns as being the problems of clinicians and carers. Their problems of diagnosis are not made difficult by a lack of statistics; their problems flow from inadequate or unsuitable resources for treatment, which in turn flow from failures to measure need. It is extremely important that such a survey is carried out and that severe mental illness is defined so that proper allocation of resources can be made in future.
The reason why our Committee's recommendations seem to carry weight is that they focus not on policy—in some cases not even inferentially—but on experience of
486
administration and actions. They may flow from policy, but we are interested in the outturn when assessing whether the country has had value for money. That is the Committee's distinctive role. We come in after the event. Our Committee's reports cast long shadows, and can—and do—result in better administration in this country. The Committee's work is one of the most effective areas of the work of the House of Commons. I hope that it will long remain so.
5.33 pm
Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, particularly as new Member of Parliament.
As a Back Bencher I want to play a role not only in scrutinising legislation, but, equally important, in checking the Executive and ensuring that the functions of Government are monitored rigorously. I am enormously privileged to have been placed on the Public Accounts Committee so early in my parliamentary career. We should emphasise more often than we do that the Committee monitors Government expenditure—the expenditure of taxpayers' money—and works in conjunction with the National Audit Office to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. Those are the aspects that I particularly value. All Back Benchers, regardless of party, need to keep an eye on those aspects of our role—not that it is for me to lecture hon. Members, who are always more senior than me.
I was interested to join the Public Accounts Committee not only because of its role in acting as a check on the Executive, but because of the circular way in which the accountability mechanism has developed over time. To me, the history of the Public Accounts Committee is fascinating. Representatives from Departments can be subpoenaed and witnesses cross-examined. The Committee makes its recommendations, to which the Treasury responds, and then we debate them annually, as we are doing today.
I should emphasise that accountability is a good mechanism for government. It is one of the best ways in which the Committees of the House of Commons work. I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the staff of the Public Accounts Committee, to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the National Audit Office, as well as to the Committee's former Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and to its current Chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who has been doing sterling work so far. I am sure that that work will continue.
I have been a local councillor in Bradford for the past four years. Perhaps it is a small amount, but Bradford council spends £400 million annually. Councillors have a great deal of hands-on involvement in deciding how money is spent, especially when budgets are tight and resources are decreasing. They go through local government expenditure line by line, scrutinising exactly where the money is spent.
Members of Parliament have a different experience, partly because most spending decisions are taken by Ministers, which makes it much more difficult for Back Benchers to scrutinise the way in which every penny is spent. We need to make a special effort to ensure, through the Public Accounts Committee and similar institutions, that we scrutinise Government expenditure more closely.

487
Although I was not a member of the Public Accounts Committee in the year that we are debating, I have read through all 25 reports—at least trying to skim through the summaries—and I can see that it has done excellent work in uncovering not only waste but incompetence and mis-spent money. I shall point out a few examples that highlight those aspects.
The activities highlighted in the 19th report on the former Yorkshire regional health authority, which merged and became the North Yorkshire health authority in 1994, will be of great interest to my constituents. The report highlights crucial issues of corporate governance, which need to be monitored and implemented more rigorously throughout all Government Departments. What stood out most was the way in which relocation expenses were paid to managers, board members and consultants. Some £447,000 was paid to members of staff. We learn from the report that only £143,000 is ever likely to be repaid. An astounding amount was spent on dinners and functions—£695,000—between April 1992 and March 1994. That is an appalling amount. I get very angry when I think how that money could have been spent far more effectively and to the benefit of my constituents. Yet it seems that there is little that the Government can do to recover that money. That is also a theme I detect throughout the PAC reports and Treasury responses. There is great need to look at individual responsibility for mis-spending and to ensure that we chase up those individuals and bring them to justice if there has been wrongdoing.
The report on the Yorkshire health authority details severance payments and specialist payments made without necessary approvals and describes how a personnel manager awarded contracts worth £43,000 to her husband's company without declaring an interest. Yorkshire health authority entered into a long-term contract—15 years—with Yorkshire Water for clinical waste disposal, which involved £7.2 million expenditure; yet the contract was awarded without competitive tendering. It seems obvious today that competitive tendering in the awarding of Government contracts is vital and we need to ensure that Government Departments never again operate as the former Yorkshire health authority did.
The second theme that I want to highlight comes in the 16th report: "The Work of the Directors General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services and Electricity Supply". The report shows the good work done by the directors general, but also highlights other failures of general Government expenditure. For example, in 1989, proceeds from privatisation totalled £3.6 billion, yet now the replacement value of the companies involved is estimated to be £138 billion. That is an enormous amount of money. The fact that those companies were sold off at such a low price is a scandal to which the PAC rightly drew attention.
My third theme can be seen in the 23rd report on: "Ministry of Defence Management of the Military Operations in the Former Yugoslavia". There were massive failures and weaknesses in accounting for stores, assets and ammunition, examples of which include £1.3 million-worth of ammunition with no supporting documentation and £4.1 million-worth of untraced ammunition. To me, the outstanding example of the need for greater concentration on accounting for the way in which the Ministry spends its money is the matter of
488
vehicles that were either refurbished or written off. The estimate of the cost of that has risen from £20 million to £134 million—an astonishing figure and a lot of vehicles.
A further theme running through the reports is that—unlike the arrangements obtaining in local government, where there is personal surcharging—there is no real holding of individuals to account for such failures. That is why the PAC calling witnesses and cross-examining them is the vital link in the chain, and I am glad to play my part in that. However, there are several other matters that the PAC should promote and persuade the Treasury to implement as soon as possible.
To highlight more effectively mis-spending of Government money where it occurs and to throw a spotlight on inefficiency, we need to ensure that resource accounting is implemented across more Government Departments, more speedily, because that way of presenting departmental finances helps to show which areas are more questionable than others. I urge Ministers to consider the way in which resource accounting mechanisms are being implemented throughout Government and to ensure that the process is accelerated.
I agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden about access. It is anomalous for the PAC to have access to some areas of Government expenditure but not others. The Committee is limited in respect of publicly owned corporations, recipients of grants and contractors. Representatives from the National Audit Office should have access to training and enterprise councils, so that they can examine how money is spent. TECs are required to hold only one public meeting a year, which provides nowhere near enough accountability to the public, never mind to the other arms of Government or to Parliament. There are other areas of Government spending—housing associations, Rai1track, Camelot, the royal palaces and so on—that need to be opened up to access by the PAC and the NAO so that we can ensure greater rigour in the scrutiny of their expenditure.
I would also suggest that there is a need for greater co-operation between the Treasury and other Departments, not least because, too often, when the Treasury can be held to account for certain aspects of expenditure and the Department for others, certain matters slip through the net. Progress has been made in recent years, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to seek to create a system of government that works across the divides and artificial boundaries between Departments. Then we can look at Government expenditure as a whole and highlight general areas of policy and expenditure, which should be reviewed.
In conclusion, I emphasise that, when we are talking about rigorous monitoring of Government expenditure, we are talking about taxpayers' money. I become angry when I read through the reports and see how much money is wasted, goes missing or is unaccounted for. One way of quenching that anger has been to become a member of the PAC, because there is no greater pleasure than to haul some of those guys in front of us and put them on the spot. That should be done more often. All the matters I have raised have been touched on before by the PAC and the NAO and I hope that, in the coming year, we can be equally rigorous in our examination of public expenditure.
5.46 pm
Mr. Richard Page: It is quite like old times to return to the annual Public Accounts Committee debate after an enforced absence of two or three years. As I look around, I see that little has changed: only a small number of hon. Members are attending, despite the wealth of ammunition and the excitement that our reports can produce. Year after year, I keep hoping that the debate will be better attended, because of the enormous amount of valuable work that should be given better public examination and see more of the light of day.
Before turning to the reports, I add my thanks to those already expressed to the previous Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He guided our Committee for some 14 years quietly and without histrionics, although the opportunity for drama certainly presented itself. With quiet determination, he put greater emphasis and underscored more strongly the importance of our reports when they emerged. I wish the same success to his successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). I shall watch with interest to see what profile he stamps on the chairmanship as the weeks and months unroll.
At the end of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden was right to flag up the importance of the NAO's role in following taxpayers' money. There should be no bar to finding out how the money has been spent: it comes out of our people's pockets and is spent via the various systems of government, so it is absolutely right that we look carefully and closely at that expenditure. I want to flag up well in advance my belief that the role of the National Audit Office should not be diminished because of the results of the referendums in Scotland and Wales. It might be different if Scotland and Wales were financially self-sustaining, but as each receives a substantial amount of money per head of population under the Barnett formula, the role of the NAO and the PAC should continue undiminished.
In fact, I should like to take that argument even further and extend into European financial affairs the work of the NAO in examining where our money goes. I suspect that the NAO might be slightly more rigorous than some other bodies in tracing where the money goes, finding out how it is spent and ensuring that we get value for money. That concern was taken up in the Committee's sixth report. Paragraph 16 of its conclusions says:
"We are pleased to note the extensive co-operation between the Court and the National Audit Office on the audit of the Community's transactions. However, we are concerned that the scope for such co-operation is restricted in that, unlike the Court, the Comptroller and Auditor General does not always have access to the final recipients of European monies."
That includes some of our money.
The report continues:
"We expressed our concerns over this limitation in the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers in our 10th Report of Session 1995–96, and we recommended that his powers be brought in line with those of the Court and the Commission."
I look to the Minister to bring about a change. It goes on:
"We are therefore disappointed that, in the Treasury Minute of 22 May 1996, the Government rejected our recommendation on the grounds that the Comptroller and Auditor General does not need to perform work carried out in areas covered by the Court in order to report fully and effectively to the House."
490
We should reconsider the National Audit Office's remit so that the Committee can monitor how our money is spent in Europe.
When I first served on the Committee, more years ago than I care to remember, I looked through the catalogue of horrors and thought to myself, "Good heavens, the Departments will realise their mistakes and these disasters will dry up." Then I thought, "Hang on, the Public Accounts Committee has been going for a hundred years, so it is unlikely that matters will dramatically improve just because Richard Page is on it," and thus it has proved.
The pile of reports is equally as impressive as it was when I was on the Committee two or three years ago. One or two old friends have come back to greet me, such as the new British library and the various excitements in a health authority. Two hon. Members have commented on the new British library. I query the word "new", because it was started in 1982, and it will not seem new when it eventually opens—I am tempted to say "if' it eventually opens, but let us travel in hope.
The second report refers to the PAC's examination in 1990. I took part in that examination and in the critical report. Quite frankly, we wasted our time seven years ago. We need not have bothered. We hear about the power of the PAC, but it did not work very well on that occasion. At that time, we were told that
"the new British Library would be completed in 1996 within a cash limit of £450 million."
Is it open now? No. Is it within the £450 million limit? No. The report says that
"the building will be on a scale less than was envisaged at the outset; the building will not be fully open to the public until 1999; and the cash limit has increased to £511.1 million".
I queried the word "new", because technology has moved on. The report says that there will be only 12 per cent. more reader seats. With the advent of new technology, that is unacceptable: in fact, it is a disaster. I knew that it would be a disaster, because I visited the site 10 years ago. I asked the gentleman who was showing me round, "What will go in this big hole in the ground?" and he said, "All the books will go in there." I asked him what sort of books, and he said, "All sorts of books." I said to him tongue in cheek, "Will you have the assembled works of Lord Archer?" and he said "Yes." I then knew that the British library would not travel smoothly towards its completion.
Information technology has not been used correctly. The British library has another site in Boston, so a good fibre-optic cable and more automatic readers should be the way forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden summed up the general lessons to be learnt. The report says:
"In our view the new British Library could be used as a model of how not to manage a major construction project."
I emphasise that comment. The Committee examined this matter seven years ago, and there is precious little to show for it.
The 19th report dealt with the former Yorkshire regional health authority, which the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) touched on. I can do no better than to quote my close friend the late Sir Michael Shersby, who took evidence from Mr. Langlands. Sir Michael said:
"I must say that when I read this report I came to the conclusion that it was really one of the worst cases that I have had the misfortune to consider since I joined this Committee in 1983."

491
He was absolutely right. It is unacceptable that the personnel director of the former authority was awarding contracts worth £43,000, one of which she was intending to manage when she retired. She did not declare any of them.
The former local authority spent £695,000 on luncheons, functions and dinners at hotels, including £10,000 on two "Super Sleuth" weekends, which may have been exciting and interesting, but did not significantly advance the general health care of people in Yorkshire.
I could go through the report and refer to the failures and errors one by one. The £447,000 relocation expenses were paid after the employees had relocated: they were not paid in advance to enable them to move. It would be interesting to know to what extent health care in Yorkshire has suffered as a result of those vast relocation expenses and the sums that were spent on "Super Sleuth" weekends and grand dinners. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is as though I had never been away.
5.58 pm
Mr. Marsha Singh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I freely confess that accounts are not one of my strong points, even though I began my professional career in banking. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) who, with his enthusiasm for this topic, almost persuaded me that it was exciting. Scrutiny of accounts is essential for good and prudent government. We must never forget that we are merely the custodians of the people's money.
Before I come to the main body of my speech, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Max Madden, who served Bradford, West from 1983. He will be remembered as a hard-working and conscientious Member of Parliament. I am proud to have been the chair of his constituency party for many years. Max had a distinguished parliamentary career, which included service on the Front Bench. He will be remembered as a man of principle: a man who was not afraid to speak his mind, and a man who stuck to his guns. Max was not a man who courted popularity at the expense of principle, and although he did not seek unpopularity he never shirked difficult issues. It is an honour and a privilege to follow in his footsteps.
I feel that it is also appropriate to pay tribute to another past Member of Parliament for Bradford, West. I refer to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who represented the constituency in the early 1970s. He is still well remembered and respected for his services to my constituency.
It gladdens my heart to see the strong connection between the House and Bradford, not only on Government Benches but on the Opposition Benches. I refer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), a former leader of Bradford city council. I thank him for the warm welcome that he gave to me on my arrival in the House.
Before talking about my constituency, I should like to refer to the identity crisis that I am undergoing. None other than The Times referred to me as the first Asian woman Member of Parliament. I was even invited to the first meeting of the parliamentary Labour party women's
492
group, which I found delightful. I have also been congratulated on my success by women's groups throughout the country, for which I am grateful.
I must tell hon. Members the truth: I am not the first Asian woman to enter the House. I am not even a woman Member of Parliament. I am not one of Blair's babes—although I hope that that is not too much of a disadvantage at the outset of my parliamentary career. I also hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to make the mistake that others have made in addressing you as Madam Speaker.
Other sections of the media have sought to pigeonhole me as an Asian Member of Parliament, an Indian Member of Parliament or a black Member of Parliament. I do not seek to deny my Asian background—I am proud of my cultural heritage—but I state emphatically that I am a Labour Member of Parliament, a Bradford Member of Parliament, a Yorkshire Member of Parliament and a British Member of Parliament, and I will represent all my constituents irrespective of colour, creed or religion.
I am a product not only of my parents' culture, but of Britain's many cultures. In today's multicultural Britain, I and others like me are the presagers of the truly multicultural person. I believe that that will be a positive strength not only for my city, but for my country.
I have lived in Bradford all my life, and I have lived in my constituency for well over 20 years. I was educated at Midland Road nursery school and at Green Lane primary school—which, incidentally, was the first school in the country to introduce school meals, and one of whose headmasters was the father of J. B. Priestley. I then went to Frizinghall junior high school and to Belle Vue boys' school. Belle Vue had the distinction of having taught J. B. Priestley himself.
One of the great things about Britain is that although privilege bestows advantages—as we know—a lack of privilege is not necessarily a bar to progress and ambition. If I am proud of anything, it is precisely that—the fact that, from the streets of inner-city Manningham, a working-class lad can reach the House of Commons. If I have a message for youngsters in Bradford schools today, it is this: with education, hard work and commitment, the only limits on their ambition will be the limits of their own imagination.
My constituency comprises the wards of Heaton, Toiler, Little Horton, University, Thornton and Clayton, and Fairweather Green, the ward in which I live. There is a mixed population, with a large community of Asian origin. The constituency contains some of the poorest areas of Bradford, as well as some of the best residential neighbourhoods in the city—but its problems are all too real. Nearly a third of the population of working age are unemployed, and the constituency ranks 14th in England and Wales in that regard. Overcrowding is three times the national average, and Bradford, West ranks as number eight in that table of shame. More than 43 per cent. of households lack central heating.
I give the House those few statistics only to highlight the problems faced by my constituents. Unemployment, overcrowding and poverty have led to increased levels of crime. I am particularly concerned about the problem of drugs, especially heroin. I know that my constituency is not alone in that regard, and I know that the House will agree with me that the peddlers of heroin are particularly loathsome and evil. First they kill their victims' will, then they poison their character, and finally they destroy

493
their lives. The police cannot tackle that evil alone; the courage, commitment and vigilance of communities themselves, in partnership with the police, are required to stamp out that evil and wickedness.
I am also concerned about educational achievement. I praise the efforts of teachers in my constituency who often work with insufficient resources, in poor buildings and in difficult circumstances. I believe that we must have the highest possible expectation of every child, and that no child should be allowed to see school as a soft option. The primacy and mastery of English is paramount. English is the essential currency of our society, and without a high degree of literacy and numeracy school leavers will be left behind in the competitive world of the modern job market.
A considerable percentage of my constituents are of Kashmiri origin. I share their concern, distress and anger at the continued human rights abuses in Indian-held Kashmir. That dispute is the historical legacy of partition and British rule and I hope that the House shares my sense of responsibility for the present situation. The dispute continues to destabilise the region and frequently threatens to cause the outbreak of a disastrous war. A continuing military build-up and an arms race between India and Pakistan are not in the interests of either the Indian or the Pakistani people, and certainly not in the interests of the Kashmiri people.
I am sure that the money that is spent on arms would be better spent on education, health, jobs and homes. Internal repression cannot be a solution, short, medium or long term. Repression cannot be a substitute for dialogue and conflict resolution. Self-determination is not a privilege: it is a right, and I will continue to support the aspirations of my Kashmiri constituents for self-determination in Kashmir.
I love Bradford. Bradford is the most tolerant city in the world, and Bradford people are the best people in the world. However, love should never blind us to unpalatable truths. The American author Bill Bryson visited Bradford three years ago and wrote in his book "Notes from a Small Island":
"Bradford seems steeped in a perilous and irreversible decline. Nearly everything suffers from well intentioned but misguided meddling by planners. You would never guess that Bradford had ever known greatness."
A natural Bradford reaction would be to tell him to shove off, but every Bradfordian knows the truth of his words, and the effects of what has happened to our city in the past 20 years.
So what went wrong? Recessions were largely to blame, but no one took Bradford by the scruff of its neck. I lay part of the blame at the door of Bradford's leading organisation, the local authority, which has in the past lacked collective leadership and long-term vision. There is no doubt in my mind that many fiddled while Bradford declined.
I genuinely believe, however, that Bradford has turned the corner. We now have a chance to grow. My message to the city's fathers and mothers is that this is not a time for political machinations—it is a time for vision and dynamic leadership, but we need real achievements and not pipe dreams. I well remember the 3D development project, which was meant to be a spectacular regeneration
494
of Bradford's west end. The council was led by the nose for more than a decade, but nothing happened—so please let us have no more pipe dreams.
There is much to be optimistic about, however. I welcome the council's new regeneration committee, which should be a flagship committee. I welcome the economic strategy for Bradford and district which has been produced by the Bradford congress. I welcome the new commitment to co-ordination, partnership and leadership. But we need to do more. We need to involve Bradford's entrepreneurs and captains of industry far more than we ever have. We need to tap into the imagination, energy and experience of entrepreneurs such as the late Jonathan Silver who single-handedly transformed Salts mill into a gallery containing the world's largest collection of David Hockney paintings and a high-tech factory containing Pace Electronics. That is a shining example of what regeneration is all about. We also need the Government's help, which is why a regional development agency is so important for Bradford.
Bradford has much to offer. It has an excellent communications network with access to the M1, M6, M62 and the A1. Leeds-Bradford airport is only half an hour away and Manchester international airport is a mere hour away. Bradford has a growing, young and vibrant work force. My constituency contains Bradford university and Bradford and Ilkley community college—two well-respected institutions with nearly 9,000 full-time students and providing employment for 4,000 people.
Grattons plc, Morrisons, Yorkshire Co-operative and Provident Financial are all key employers in my constituency, which also contains thriving businesses set up by Asian entrepreneurs, including Kashmir Crown bakeries, Mumtaz Paanhouse, Empire Electronics and Nirmal Razai mart.
My constituency also boasts the Alhambra theatre and the national museum of film and photography with the world's largest Imax cinerama screen.
Bradford is the gateway to Brontë country and the spectacular scenery of the dales. It also boasts the rugby league champions: the Bradford Bulls—the best rugby league team in the country. I congratulate the Bulls.
The Independent Labour party was founded in my constituency. Consequently, we in Bradford lay claim to the founding of the Labour party itself. I take this opportunity to invite the first Labour Prime Minister for over 18 years to come to Bradford and see the challenges and opportunities that face us in the lead-up to and into the next millennium. He will be made very welcome with traditional Bradford hospitality.
I am proud to represent Bradford, West and honoured to be elected in Bradford's centenary year. My electors have sent me here to bat for Bradford and that is exactly what I intend to do.
6.11 pm
Mr. Charles Wardle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) on his witty, entertaining and eloquent speech and on his enthusiastic account of his constituency. I am sure that he will turn the gender confusion that he has experienced to his advantage. I admire him for saying so unequivocally that he will represent all his constituents. No one who has heard him could have any doubt about that. As a son of Bradford, he said that he had much to do and I wish him well in that regard.

495
I join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to his predecessor, Max Madden. When I was the Minister with responsibility for immigration, I saw a great deal of Max Madden from the Dispatch Box and in Committee, and when he presented case after case. I had the utmost admiration for his fearless integrity and his commitment to his constituents, now those of the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his warm remarks about two of my hon. Friends who hail from his part of the world.
I join right hon. and hon. Members who have paid tribute to the previous Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). When I joined the Committee in the final months of the previous Parliament I appreciated his hugely helpful advice and encouragement. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) will be a fitting successor. On this day of royal celebration, fainter hearts might have set aside what my right hon. Friend said about palaces. He has set an excellent example.
I have brief comments on two of the reports that are listed in the Treasury minute of October and then I shall make some general observations about the work of the National Audit Office and the Committee and about the response of senior officials from Departments to the Committee's questions. The way in which officials react to cross-examination by the Committee says a great deal about the weight that they attach not just to prudent financial controls on the use of taxpayers' money but to modern management methods.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden alluded to the 12th report and I have a few comments about that and about the 18th report. They dealt with quite different operations—the 12th report with the Turkish universities equipment project, which was run by the Overseas Development Administration, now the Department for International Development, and the 18th report with National Savings financial reporting. They effectively illustrate how little financial acumen and practical management controls that would be taken for granted as routine disciplines in the private sector exist in some parts of Whitehall.
In the case of the Turkish universities equipment project, the ODA officials seem to have been completely ignorant of the financial standing of the UK company TecQuipment, which had been approved as the main agent for the project. The amount of taxpayers' money that was shelled out to TecQuipment was considerably more than that company's net worth and represented much more than the company had ever achieved in annual turnover. In the private sector, where one's own money or that of shareholders is at stake and there is not a bottomless pool of funds from the Exchequer, which some civil servants think it is their right to spend, it would be more than one's business life was worth not to run a credit check on a bidder or supplier. Most business men and business women know that small companies are at greatest risk in periods of rapid expansion, even when they are to receive money from the Exchequer.
There were disturbing examples in the Turkish universities equipment project of conflicts of interest in regard to a major supplier to the project that also stepped in as a financial guarantor of the agent, and there were serious questions about single tender bids whereby orders that were worth more than £23 million were placed without any vestige of competition.
496
Anxiety was also expressed about the role of Sangari International, the Turkish company which was contract adviser and negotiator for successful suppliers from other countries as well as for TecQuipment from this country. Sangari emerged with a commission of more than £6 million out of a total project value of £33 million. It is encouraging that the Department has accepted most of the criticism about this dubious set of arrangements under which taxpayers' money went to a very small opportunistic firm without any notion of the need for competitiveness or value for money. Large backhanders seem to have been paid to the Turkish middleman.
For British followers of our foreign aid programme who might have hoped that undiluted aid and trade were being directed for the good of Turkish universities and their students, the reality must have been a disappointment. The Department now says that its standing instructions to procurement agents deal with the correct handling of bids, but it is astonishing that such lapses could ever have occurred. It is even more disturbing that, during the Committee hearing, the ODA' s senior civil servant at first seemed reluctant to grasp the import of the full and frank criticism that the 12th report prompted from many members of the Committee.
The 18th report, on National Savings, is another example of appalling omissions in the most rudimentary financial controls. In this case, the language used in the Committee's conclusions was as blunt as it was strong. The conclusions state:
"We consider that the number and size of the discrepancies and unreconciled balances which have been shown to exist in National Savings financial accounting systems are unacceptable. The Agency's failure to tackle in a timely manner the serious weaknesses … point to a lack of competence on the part of those managing the Agency … the amount due from Post Office Counters Limited is some £12 million less than is shown … by the statements provided by Post Office Counters Limited … and … one of the Agency's accounts showed an amount owed by investors of £37 million, although depositors cannot owe money to the Agency".
That is because those depositors are creditors. The report referred to "seriously inadequate" financial accounting systems and to a failure to apply "basic accounting controls". This is a horrendous tale of neglect and it is made all the more disturbing by the thought of millions of small investors, thrifty and responsible people, putting their money and their complete faith in the hands of National Savings which either did not understand accounting and control procedures or could not be bothered and left the whole system wide open to the possibility of fraud and malpractice. The fact that the taxpayer would effectively indemnify any saver from losses is no excuse for this hopelessly bad performance.
It is encouraging that, following the NAO's exposé and the Committee's tough line, accounts are now to be produced for all National Savings products and to be audited by the NAO, but one is left wondering about the fate of the culprits in this saga of neglect. In the private sector, there can be no doubt that they would have faced the sack and a deservedly hard struggle to justify employment elsewhere. Under the protective umbrella of the civil service, however, the probability is that they will be given a sideways move—at worst, a spell of gardening leave until the storm blows over, and the prospect of a secure index-linked pension on retirement.

497
It is little wonder that there is such impatience in the private sector, whose wealth creation and taxes largely fund the salaries of officials, with the all too frequent failure of Government Departments to subject themselves to the rigours of modern management disciplines.
On those and other reports, the NAO's investigative work has thrown light on management shortcomings in many sectors of Whitehall. If taxpayers' money is to be deployed to best effect by the Government of the day, it stands to reason that the officials who are charged with responsibility for public expenditure and for the operations and services, whether delivered in-house or contracted out, should meet the highest possible management standards.
That is not always the case in Whitehall, where the prevailing culture among successive generations of mandarins, and all the people who aspire to succeed them, has for too long been all about policy rather than administrative excellence. Policy remains the great adventure in Whitehall for the ambitious career civil servant. The object is to influence policy, preferably to create it when Ministers do not even notice and to concentrate ministerial minds on the political rewards to be won by translating policy into legislation in Parliament and, more recently, in Brussels and Strasbourg. However, once a Bill makes it to the statute book and the next step is implementation of the new measure, official enthusiasm has been known to fade.
Without doubt, many executive and administrative officers—the backbone of the civil service—work tirelessly and impartially, coping with endless amendments to statutory authority in the day-to-day duties of public administration, but the higher echelons of officialdom, who should provide the cutting edge of modern management, have traditionally relegated management skills and judgment to a lower priority than policy formulation. That is a serious weakness when much of the rest of the United Kingdom has undergone a management revolution—and not before time—in which a new generation of computer-literate, market-aware and outward-looking executives and entrepreneurs have emerged in the private sector.
That is not yet true in Whitehall, where the initiative tests for would-be fast streamers—higher executive officer development staff—are years behind the times, and where senior officials scarcely know a lot of their own rank and file staff, and understand too little about the modernisation processes that have been thrust on them in attempts to introduce a more efficient, at times even commercial, sense of reality through contracting out, privatisation, market testing, agency status, the private finance initiative and so on.
As a result, the careers of too many people in middle management—executive officers and the grade 7s and grade 5s—remain undeveloped and unfulfilled. I hope that that will change. Perhaps it will, with the introduction of resource accounting and the use of corporate plans and budgets that genuinely involve officials down the management line, and facilitate the allocation of measurable tasks and challenges to junior staff, thereby enhancing job satisfaction.
If ministerial policy about the future transformation of Whitehall into a modern management machine is a matter for the Government, and perhaps for another debate,
498
the measurement of current performance and the evaluation of departmental effectiveness in delivering the declared objectives are the responsibility of the NAO and the Committee.
In that context, I add my support to the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and of other hon. Members that, as things stand, the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have automatic access to significant sectors of public expenditure for audit purposes. If the CAG is to help the Committee and the House to hold the Government of the day fully accountable to Parliament, and if he is to demonstrate how inefficiencies can be remedied, taxpayers' money saved and public services improved, he needs greater access.
In particular, as the House has already heard, the CAG needs access to non-departmental public bodies that are audited by private firms appointed by the relevant Secretary of State, to local spending bodies, to public sector companies, to recipients of Government and European Union grants, to housing associations, to bodies operating under the auspices of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the National Lottery, and to private sector contractors carrying out functions for the Government, at taxpayers' expense, under contract.
Central Government have contracted out work worth £6 billion to private sector companies and the PFI has already extended private sector involvement with orders worth £7 billion. If the CAG is to be able to follow public money wherever it goes, he needs access to those private sector contractors, to be in a position to audit the accounts of the recipient of the contract or grant, and to examine value for money in the work undertaken at the Government's behest.
The CAG has powers of access to the papers of audited Departments, but he cannot automatically lay his hands on the records of private firms working under Government contract, if such access has not been stipulated in the contract. Therefore, the CAG has to negotiate on a case-by-case basis the access that he should properly have. That allows the audited body to determine whether access to him should be allowed; there is evidence, as we have heard, that, on occasions, access may be refused or, at any rate, limited. It is essential, if genuine accountability to Parliament is to be maintained, that access is written into every contract as a standard clause, and made a standard condition for grants. That should be provided for in legislation.
To do that would merely put the CAG on an equal footing with the European Court of Auditors and the European audit and accounts commissions. It cannot be right that the CAG is at a disadvantage to his European counterparts in meeting his responsibilities to Parliament.
I shall conclude with two examples of where the CAG's access to the information he needs is unsatisfactory; my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden has alluded to one. Camelot, the national lottery operator, has annual turnover of some £6.4 billion, of which £1.9 billion is payable to the national lottery distribution fund. The CAG does not have the access that he needs to be able to confirm whether the systems at Camelot operate correctly and to obtain assurance about the completeness of income to the distribution fund. The Committee's 20th report of 1996–97 said that he should have full access to Camelot's records relating to

499
the financial control of lottery activities. The matter is under review, but the CAG does not yet have the right to such access.
In 1996–97, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising made payments of £1.8 billion to train operating companies, but the franchise agreements with those companies do not give the CAG a right of access to verify independently the Opraf data that are used to ensure that the franchisees have met their objectives, as they are required to do. The need for such access is generally agreed, but it is not yet available as a matter of right.
There can be no doubt that there is growing public interest in, and enthusiasm for, greater accountability on the part of the people who spend taxpayers' money. Nor is it in doubt that the demands on the Exchequer for public expenditure will continue to grow. That means that the pressure on Whitehall to achieve greater efficiency and to use up-to-date management techniques in public administration will inevitably increase. For the NAO and the Committee to be able to assure the House that the spotlight is fully on the providers of public operations and services in that regard, unfettered access for the CAG—wherever public money flows—must be an immediate priority.
6.29 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: I join the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) in the fullest praise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). I was delighted that my hon. Friend paid tribute to Max Madden, because those of us who class Max as a friend know that he was a strong and fine parliamentarian. My hon. Friend was right to praise him, and I hope that he follows in his footsteps during his time in the House. If his maiden speech is anything to go by, we can be assured of that.
My hon. Friend also gave a detailed account of his constituency. He was right to criticise the corrosive nature of drug abuse and to say that we need to tackle that in a firm and positive way. I join my hon. Friend in his condemnation of those who push drugs in our communities; we see daily the damage that they cause.
My hon. Friend talked positively about Bradford, and I view with great approval his reference to the Yorkshire Co-op. I have been a lifelong member of the Co-operative movement and value the benefits that it offers. Its presence in Bradford is a great sense of pride within the movement.
On a serious note, my hon. Friend referred to the multicultural nature of society today. His call for tolerance was a powerful message. Given events elsewhere this week, the demand for greater tolerance within the international community must be underlined, and his speech has done a great deal to promote that. It was an important part of a good speech.
My hon. Friend had the temerity to remind us about the success of Bradford Northern, or should I say Bradford Bulls. I am a member of the all-party rugby league group and a supporter of Warrington—the Wire. My hon. Friend is right to say that the Bradford Bulls is the best team in the super league now—but not for long, we hope.
My hon. Friend made an eloquent speech, full of insight. He said that it is polite in Bradford to tell people to, "Shove off." I can reassure him that when he next
500
speaks in the House he will be listened to with great interest because of the quality of his maiden speech and we will certainly not invite him to shove off.
My hon. Friend also referred to the confusion over his gender. I know that at one time he was down to be a member of Emily's List. I was envious of the fact that he was invited to join the photocall with the Prime Minister after the first meeting of the parliamentary Labour party. There would have then been 101 women and two men, not one. We look forward to many contributions from him in the future. If they are anything like his speech today, they will be absolutely fantastic and well worth listening to.
I join other hon. Members, particularly the new Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), in their praise for the outgoing Chairman of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I nearly referred to him as Bob because, when I was growing up in Ashton-under-Lyne, my right hon. Friend was my Member of Parliament. I have a great deal of respect for him. He has been a close friend of my family over the years and has done a terrific job as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that that had nothing to do with the fact that I was appointed to that Committee on 9 June 1992 when a vacancy occurred at short notice.
It was a great pleasure to be a member of the PAC. It taught me a great deal about what goes on in the Departments. As an Opposition Back Bencher at that time, it gave me great insight and enabled me to come close to the workings of government. Membership of that Committee is of great benefit to Opposition Back Benchers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne always used to tell us that the Public Accounts Committee was the hardest-working Select Committee in the House. When one looks at the volume of work that it gets through and the number of reports produced, one can see that that is not just a boast but a statement of fact.
We are considering 25 reports from 1996–97. We must remember that we are looking at only half a year and that there are still 22 outstanding reports from that year. I hope that they will be published, because they are important pieces of work that need to be drawn to the Government's attention. We need to learn the lessons in government of some of the mistakes that have been made in the past.
I offer full praise to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff for the work they do behind the scenes on the Public Accounts Committee. Their value-for-money audits and full financial audits mean that when a report appears before the Committee, it is no trivial matter. The National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General deserve fullest praise from the House for the work that they do on financial probity and protecting taxpayers' money.
The current Chairman of the Committee was right to draw attention to the national lottery and to the lack of access that the Comptroller and Auditor General has to Camelot's books. That has concerned the Committee greatly since the inception of the national lottery. It is an apposite reference at this time when Camelot has just disclosed its six-monthly pre-tax profits at something short of £34 million, which means that it wins £1 million

501
on the national lottery every week. Personally, I would like to see the lottery run by an organisation that is not involved in making profit. I am sure that that will happen at some time, and I look forward to it.
The seminal report of the PAC—the eighth report, published on 17 January 1994—has already been mentioned. The opening paragraph of that report is still relevant to the problems that the Committee addresses. I make no apology for repeating it in this debate as I have done in previous years. It says:
"In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of serious failures in the administrative and financial systems and controls within departments and other public bodies, which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years. This was the period following the publication of the Northcote and Trevelyan Report which condemned the nepotism, the incompetence and other defects of the Civil Service and brought about fundamental change. It is from that period that we acquired the principles and the standards which have come to be copied by some countries and admired by many more. It is our task to retain those standards."
Paragraph 6 of the report makes some important comments, particularly in the light of the 25 reports before the House today. It says:
"We emphasise that we are not calling for any more detailed rules. Almost every case we have examined involved breaches of existing rules or guidance."
I can say with confidence that, when we consider the reports before us, that paragraph still applies. If the proper rules of accountability had been applied in the subjects considered in the reports, we would be debating a far better state of affairs from the 1996–97 series of PAC reports.
The first report to which I wish to refer in detail is the 12th report on the Overseas Development Administration and the Turkish universities computer equipment project. It is an astonishing project. A total of £23.36 million of aid has gone to support a total project worth £66.7 million. It was managed by a United Kingdom company called TecQuipment Ltd.
The first mistake made by the ODA was that it did not award the contract after competitive tender, which was a breach of the existing rules. The project involves the provision of technical equipment to support undergraduates and postgraduates in 29 Turkish universities.
The PAC found that TecQuipment had significantly overlapping roles in the aid project. I think that that is a slight understatement, because TQ was the project manager, it supplied the equipment procured with the ODA aid and advised the Turkish Higher Education Council on the tender evaluation. TecQuipment was involved in every stage of the project: no Chinese walls, no declarations of interest and no avoidance of any pecuniary interest by the organisations involved in the bid. Therefore, TQ was in a powerful and pivotal position to influence the contracts awarded. It was not surprising to note that TQ received orders worth £5.8 million, with £3.3 million of that coming from one bid.
TecQuipment had only small financial assets and, before entertaining the idea of its working on the project, the ODA demanded a bank guarantee. TecQuipment went to Fisons for a guarantee. Coincidentally, Fisons underwrote its guarantee for £10 million and the House
502
will not be surprised to know that Fisons won a bid for the project totalling £10 million. The coincidence is too obvious to miss.
This sorry and sleazy affair is topped by the involvement of a company called Sangari International, which acted for TQ in managing the project. It also acted for companies bidding to supply the equipment and—guess what?—it advised the Turkish Higher Education Council on placing the contracts.
The House will not be surprised to hear that Sangari International secured £33 million of business on the project for the companies that it was advising. There is a lack of value for money, there is a threat to financial probity, and taxpayers' money has not been properly used. Sangari received £6 million for its share of the action, as well as undisclosed management fees. The new Chairman of the PAC was right to draw attention to that sorry state of affairs.
The second report to which I want to refer has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie). It is closer to home for him than it is for me. It is the 19th report into the former Yorkshire regional health authority. It was to the credit of Alan Langlands, the chief executive of the national health service, that he commissioned an inquiry into what happened in that region before 1 April 1994. The inquiry uncovered abuse, unlawful payments, tax avoidance, financial conflicts of interest, fundamental management failure, complacency over accounting of public money, breaches of financial controls, abuse of authority, dodgy land deals and money borrowed for one purpose and spent on another. That refers to the money given to secure loans for people who had moved house. They borrowed the money under a deal that had not been approved by the Treasury and then spent it on something else.
The health authority also took advance payments, a practice completely outside Treasury rules. I believe that in the days before the abolition of the health authority, the rule book had been thrown away.
I want to pick mit three aspects of what was going on. The first is minor, but lessons were learned from it. Before the merger, Yorkshire regional health authority provided the chair of the trust with a Range Rover. That was outside Treasury guidance. When it was sold, it cost the taxpayer £10,000. It also provided a car for another member of staff, but the report does not say how much that cost the taxpayer. The NHS executive then issued guidance to all trusts stating that it was not appropriate for trusts to spend money on providing Crown cars for the chairs of regional health authorities, health authorities or trusts. That guidance has generally been followed, although there are at least two examples of action having to be taken after the guidance had been issued.
Secondly, the health authority joined with Yorkshire Water to provide a clinical waste incinerator. It was a capital investment cost of £7.2 million, with a guarantee of £2 million a year for 15 years for the incineration of clinical waste. Again, that contract was not let subject to competition. The contract was far too long as it stretched over 15 years—and, more important, it did not receive the necessary approval of the NHS executive. Health authorities and trusts now have to write any corporate projects into their business plans. When they need to borrow money and get involved in such deals, they need the approval of the NHS executive. That is another lesson learned from this very sorry affair.

503
The third issue, which has already been referred to by a number of hon. Members, was the authority spending £695,000 on functions and dinners between April 1992 and March 1994. The report records that it must have bought some very expensive wine. As has already been mentioned, the functions included two "Super Sleuth" weekends in a hotel, costing £10,000. We do not need to be super sleuths to work out that that sort of expenditure on hospitality is wholly unacceptable.
The PAC was right to demand that health authorities and trusts should have a clear responsibility to ensure that the funds that they are given for health care are spent on health care and not wasted in the way outlined in the report.
The seventh report, on the hospital information support systems initiative, is rightly critical of the NHS executive, for two main reasons. First, in 1992–93 the Committee, in its 63rd report, on the Wessex regional health authority regional information systems, made severe criticisms about the lack of management, a lack of planning, the lack of a corporate approach to computer purchasing and the lack of proper project management. It was very critical.
The seventh report shows that the same problems have repeated themselves. For example, it found that the day-to-day project management was slow to deliver the benefits of improved patient care. There were delays of between eight months and three years in the six pilot projects referred to in the report. The initial project cost was £47 million, but that rose to £61 million. The report records that the extra £14 million had to be found from other budgets, with a consequential impact on patient care in the hospitals involved. When we tried to draw comparisons with the Wessex report some years previously, Alan Langlands disputed that there was any connection. Despite his protestations, the PAC recorded extreme disappointment that some of the Wessex problems had been repeated.
There was all the more cause for concern when I read Ceefax yesterday and noted that the Audit Commission has reported that there is
"no good central information about the effectiveness of drugs and treatment"
within the NHS. We have two critical reports from the PAC about the need to co-ordinate information to improve patient care, yet in 1997, the Audit Commission has drawn attention to the fact that there is no central information about the effectiveness of drugs and treatment within the NHS. I hope that Ministers in the Department of Health with take heed of that report and act swiftly to ensure that we get the sort of information that we need in the NHS to ensure that all patients receive the care to which they are entitled.
One report that has not been referred to so far is the third report, into the mining operations of British Coal. I shall refresh the memory of those who do not remember the details of the sale of British Coal. The Government sold British Coal in December 1994 for the reported sum of £926 million. However, the PAC drew attention to the fact that the Government, in preparing British Coal for privatisation, had spent £37 million specifically on those preparations. They had spent another £582 million on minor redundancies. A post-sale adjustment to the price reduced it by £6.4 million. Another £136 million was deferred. Logic and mathematics show that the Government received only £212 million in cash for the whole of the British coal industry.
504
That is not the full story. Before the Government sold British Coal, they wrote off £2 billion of debt and, at the point of the sale, they wrote off another £1.6 billion. The class IV vote for 1994–95 shows that in that year the taxpayer was receiving £112 million per anum from British Coal in interest payments. The Government had only to keep British Coal in public ownership for another three years and we would have had more money in the public purse than they received for selling it—unless we take into account the fact that, because British Coal was sold, the Government were able to reclaim £2 billion from the surplus in the British Coal pension fund. Even taking that into account, by my reckoning the taxpayer is still £1 billion out of pocket. Only this month, we have heard of the problems now besetting the privatised British coal fields.
I am very concerned about the role of Rothschild in that privatisation. It was awarded a £9.1 million contract to advise British Coal on the sale. Initially, firms were invited to tender for the provision of advice on the preliminary sale. Rothschild was the preferred bidder for the preliminary work, but it was then appointed, without further competition, to advise on the whole sale. The decision was taken by the then Secretary of State for Energy, now Lord Wakeham. It was contrary to the guidelines set out in the PAC's eighth report in 1993 about open competition for Government business. It was probably also outside European guidelines. What concerns me most is that on 20 May 1996, when we took evidence on the sale of British Coal, we were told that Lord Wakeham was then working for Rothschild.
The report on the completion of the new British library has been referred to by many hon. Members. When I cross-examined the permanent secretary at the Department of National Heritage, I referred him to the story in "Yes, Minister" when Jim Hacker said to his permanent secretary at the Department of Administrative Affairs, "It takes longer to get planning permission for a bungalow than it took to build the pyramids." I put that to Mr. Hayden Phillips, and he said that he did not consider the project in those terms. He had looked back in history and found a better comparison. It took 939 years to build Prague cathedral, whereas it took only 22 years to build the new British library.
The British library project was started in 1988 and was estimated to cost £300 million. By the time that the PAC took evidence on it, in June 1996, the estimated cost had risen to £511 million. I made a note saying that the British taxpayer would probably be charged an additional £61 million in settling construction work charges.
As we have been told, once the library fully opens, it will not be long before it is filled to capacity. We were told that we will be provided with only 12 extra reading rooms, which is a 25 per cent. capacity increase over the previous location. We were told also that, when the building construction work at the new library was inspected, 230,000 items—dealing with shelving, cabling and fire protection—required correction.
Laing was involved in the project, for the benefit of the British taxpayer. It was given the job—at a cost to the taxpayer of £38 million—of supervising the works. It was responsible for ensuring that the works were completed to standard specifications, for maintenance and for quality control.

505
Laing did not achieve what it had been paid to do. The House will therefore be surprised to learn that the supervision contract, when it was renegotiated in 1991, was awarded to Laing. That beggars belief. Although the British library project was never a contender for the best civil service project of the year award, the British taxpayer certainly did not get value for money.
The Committee's sixth report, which was encouraging, deals with the European Court of Auditors. The Chairman and some of the members of the PAC went to Luxembourg to observe how the court operated. Some reports in the press this weekend stated that the European Union has been found to have lost in waste and fraud 5.4 per cent. of its £52 billion budget for 1996. I hope that the sixth report will help to enable the European Court of Auditors to do the same work for the European Union that the Public Accounts Committee does on behalf of the British taxpayer.
I am reassured that the Amsterdam treaty changes have strengthened the powers of the European Court of Auditors, and that they will make it easier for the European Union to agree legislation to deal with fraud in the EU budget. I am even more encouraged that—in the first half of next year, under the British presidency of the European Union—one of our Labour Government's first priorities will be to propose an active agenda to deal with waste and fraud.
6.52 pm
Maria Eagle: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak in the debate.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) on his elevation to the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee. It is a momentous occasion, because it is the first time since 1983 that the chairmanship of that important Committee has changed. I hope that he will not think that I am making a partisan point if I wish him as long and successful a tenure in the position as that enjoyed by his predecessor.
I should like to add my voice to those paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for his tenure and success in carrying the flag, since 1983, for the Public Accounts Committee. Although 14 years seems a long time, it soon becomes apparent—once one sniffs around a bit—that his interest in the Committee's workings and in the subject of Government audit goes back much further. He was first appointed to the Committee in 1965, and he was writing Fabian pamphlets about auditing Government accounts in 1973. His interest, understanding and experience are therefore about as long as any other hon. Member's.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne may also be credited with having shaped the Government audit regime since the advent of the National Audit Act 1983. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden will have a hard act to follow, but I am sure that he will do so with great flair.
I should like to echo briefly the tributes paid to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff at the National Audit Office. It is apparent, even in my
506
extremely short time in the House and on the Committee, that it would be impossible for us to do our job were it not for the work that they do. I am constantly amazed not only by the speed with which we manage to deal with issues, but by the amount of good work that we must get through every week to do our job. I add my appreciation to that of other hon. Members who have seen at first hand the extent of good work done by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office.
It would not be possible for the Committee to work well without the efficiency and effectiveness of the Clerk to the Committee and his staff.
I was not a member of the Committee or an hon. Member when the reports that we are debating were considered by the Public Accounts Committee. I have therefore decided to take a rather wider look, through the eyes of a new hon. Member, at the work that we try to do.
The Committee operates at the very centre of one of the traditional roles of the House—to scrutinise the Executive. For many hundreds of years, it has been difficult for the House to get that task right. Such scrutiny was even an underlying and serious cause of civil war and regicide. With the maturing of our democracy and the passage of years, however, we have managed to become at least a little more civilised in performing it. It now seems to come down to a close examination of how money granted to the Executive by Parliament is spent.
Over the years, hon. Members and other parliamentarians have wrestled with the issue of how to perform that role, which is one of the House's most difficult jobs. Until the end of the 19th century, Supply was examined on the Floor of the House, when each Department would bring to the House its estimates. There would be a Committee of the whole House, and hon. Members were able to examine—line by line, as some people in local government still do—the estimates, to suggest amendments and occasionally even to win votes on amendments. These days, however, such consideration is no longer practical—if it ever was.
In 1905, in the first debate when the Public Accounts Committee's work was submitted to the House, Mr. Winston Churchill examined the effectiveness of how things were done in those days, when there was a Committee of Supply and Supply days. On the Committee of Supply, he said that
"the value of Supply days as occasions for raising grievances and discussing questions of policy"
was evident,
"but so far as any systematic and scientific examination of the expenditure of the country was concerned, they were a series of farces from beginning to end."
Mr. Churchill also suggested that it was not possible for any human being
"not possessed of expert information or access to official documents"
to
"possibly bring any effective criticism—except by accident—to bear upon the details of expenditure in Committee of Supply."
On proceedings on the Floor of the House, he said that
"It was absurd to suggest that a system under which 670 Members, dominated by partisanship and Party feeling, strolled in and out on Supply days, and voted without having heard the debates, involved any definite, methodical, and scientific examination of the expenditure of the country."—[Official Report, 26 July 1905; Vol. 150, c. 443.]

507
The issues that Mr. Churchill was dealing with on that day are still with us—to the same if not to a greater extent, because we deal with much more Government money, and the Government undertake a much wider range of activities. The issues that he raised are as serious now as they were then.
How can the House scrutinise seriously and effectively the spending of public money by the Executive? These days, we do it slightly differently. We have reached a compromise in the sense that the PAC itself will formally examine appropriation accounts but, in reality, will concentrate on issues flagged up in the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. As has been said, the PAC also does a great deal more work on value for money, which is a good thing. I do not think that it is possible to scrutinise the vast amount of public expenditure any more sensibly than we do already. However, it is important that the PAC retains a reputation for being a formidable body, especially in respect of its hearings.
It is appropriate that accounting officers who come before the PAC should quake in their boots a little before they come through the door. I shall certainly do my bit to ensure that they continue to do so. I know that some accounting officers have complained about the confrontational way in which members of the PAC take evidence. I make no apologies for that; it is important that it continues. Last year, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) questioned the accounting officer for the Office of the National Lottery in a confrontational way, he found that it was possible to discover by cross—examination things which even the National Audit Office had not uncovered. That is an important contribution that hon. Members without accountancy skills can make.
It is clear, even to a new Member of Parliament like me, that the Executive do not enjoy being scrutinised, and that has been true for centuries. The 22nd report of the PAC deals with British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and the sale of its maintenance depots. Referring to the Department of Transport, one of the report's conclusions states:
"We welcome the Department's decision to abandon the 'Not for NAO Eyes' convention".
Government Departments and elements of the Executive developed their own ways of dealing with the challenges of external audit and tried to keep things covered up. One of them was the convention of writing on the top of papers, "Not for National Audit Office eyes". I, for one, am glad that the Department in that case has agreed to abandon that convention, but it is a warning to us all: while we enjoy a cosy relationship with the Treasury and the Executive, and while the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is a member of the PAC, it is still possible for the Executive and Government Departments to take steps to try to avoid our scrutiny. It is important that those of us participating in the scrutiny do not get taken in, but retain our critical faculties.
In my brief experience, I have found that there are one or two issues of general concern and faults in the way in which we do things. I do not yet have the answers, but I shall certainly be thinking about them in the coming months and years.
It seems that the accounting officers who come before the PAC are often not the people who have made the decisions that they are having to defend to us. They are accounting officers, and, in that sense, have to account for
508
decisions that are made, but I wonder whether dragging along a chairman or two, especially those of non-departmental public bodies, might make some of the people who do take the decisions think a little more carefully before doing so.
Despite the general feeling that the PAC and its proceedings are well covered by the media, I do not think that the media make enough of what we dig up. The green reports prepared by the NAO are well covered when they are published, but that is less so in respect of oral evidence and PAC reports. The media may like to take a closer look at all stages of the scrutiny process.
Despite the fact that 92 per cent. of recommendations are accepted by the Government and the Treasury, those recommendations are not always acted on. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and some Labour Members expressed dissatisfaction with the action taken following the reports. All we can do as members of the PAC is return to a subject and produce another report—perhaps we ought to think of another way to ensure that recommendations are acted on.
In any event, I am grateful to have been appointed to the PAC, although I was somewhat surprised, being a new Member of Parliament. Who knows how the minds of those on the Committee of Selection work and on what basis I was appointed? I am grateful to have been appointed and look forward to participating in this debate in future years, when I shall know more of the detail of the reports being considered, as I shall have contributed to them.
7.5 pm
Mr. Alan Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, albeit as a new member of the Public Accounts Committee commenting on reports of a previous Committee. Before I do that, I, too, pay tribute to the role of Sir John Bourn and his staff in providing support to Committee members. New members in particular benefited from that support. I also thank the Clerk to the Committee.
We have, quite rightly, heard a great deal about the need to scrutinise the Executive. In last year's debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) spoke about the "redefining of ministerial accountability". I should like to comment on that against the background of enormous change in public service and, in particular, to say something about the growth in the number of public service regulators.
Regulators have become something of an industry in their own right. There are now some 134 regulators employing 14,000 staff, at a cost of about £766 million of taxpayers' money. Recent research by the London School of Economics stated:
"It is an industry which seems to have grown topsy-like with no overall rationalisation or consistent practice".
Furthermore, it would appear—I am not making a party political point—that the previous Government saw the increase in the number of regulators, but failed to ensure that the regulators themselves were properly regulated. Clearly, regulators cover diverse and often unrelated areas, but they are nevertheless linked by their obligation and duty to seek the highest possible standards for the public.
My comments refer almost exclusively to the 20th report, dated 17 March, on the workings of the Office of the National Lottery. The report contains

509
some serious criticisms of the role of Oflot and, in particular, of the role of the director general. Some of those criticisms arise from weaknesses in the original licence provisions and from confusion over whose role it was to intervene and to regulate.
For example, the report draws attention to several instances when interest from accounts went to Camelot rather than to the players' trust. It draws attention to the two-day delay in paying in receipts from retailers, which meant that £420,000 in interest went to Camelot rather than to the players' trust. Similarly, the interest paid from the annual prize shortfall, worth some £6 million in 1995, again went to Camelot rather than to the distribution fund. I understand that that was to be put right on 1 April this year, but it is interesting to note that that decision was taken only after a recommendation by the PAC.
The clear Treasury view is that such matters are the responsibility of the director general. If there is still confusion, it must be cleared up. There may be confusion in the original licensing provision, but the report makes further criticism of the director general and the way in which he sought to apply his powers. For example, he failed to give sufficient priority to the compliance programme, although I am again pleased to note that after the PAC's criticisms, work on most of the programmes is under way. The report comments on the director general's lack of vigour in ensuring that money was paid into the players' trust, which resulted in losses to the trust of £500,000. The trust's difficulties stem partly from the director general's decision not to get involved in the detail of the trust.
The report concludes that the director general's approach was
"less active and vigorous than that adopted by other regulators, such as the Directors General who regulate the electricity, gas, water and telecommunications services."
I hope that he takes that on board. I believe that there was a call in last year's debate for his resignation. If my comments fall short of that, I hope that he does not take it as a vote of confidence.
The most worrying aspect of the report has already been touched on by other right hon. and hon. Members—the lack of access for the National Audit Office to Camelot's records. The NAO was unable to satisfy itself that payments to the distribution fund had been correctly made. Unless the NAO can negotiate sufficient access to do its work, it cannot advise Parliament properly. That is unacceptable. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering ways of accessing Camelot's records.
The Committee notes that the lottery has raised substantial sums for good causes. We all acknowledge that. I hope that we shall get a sports hall development at Marden Bridge in my constituency, which will transform sport for schoolchildren there. However, that does not remove the need for vigorous examination and criticism, when warranted. It also does not excuse the lack of a more proactive and positive approach from the director general. He has an important role in facilitating parliamentary accountability. The report acknowledges his crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the lottery and reassuring the public.
I welcome the action of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its intention to transform the national
510
lottery into the people's lottery. If it is to be a people's lottery, it must have public confidence. The public buy the tickets and keep the lottery going, and their interests must be paramount. The regulator must promote the public interest, not the operator's interest. There are lessons in that for all regulators. It may well mean making operations more transparent. If it means giving regulators more powers to be able to discharge their work better, so be it.
I welcome the report, as I welcome the lottery White Paper. In view of the serious concerns raised in the report, the Government's determination to carry out a significant overhaul of the system is fully justified.
7.13 pm
Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) on his elevation to Chairman of the Committee. I look forward to serving under his stewardship. As a new member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have found the first few meetings most enlightening, reinforcing the importance of democratic scrutiny of Government spending. I add my congratulations to all former members of the Committee on the determination and rigour with which they have exercised their duties. Preparing for and participating in the work of the Committee requires a good deal of time. The value of its work can be seen in the Committee's reports. I add my tribute to the former Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for his superb leadership—an example that we all aspire to follow.
The reports show the vital role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee in holding the Government to account for their performance and ensuring value for money. I have chosen my top four reports from the 25 before us. I wish that I had been here to take part in those debates. My No. 1 was the second report, revealing incompetence in the delays and cost overruns in completing the British library—a tale of appalling mismanagement. The 16th report exposes the billions of pounds of excess profits made by water and electricity companies following privatisation. The 19th report reveals the intolerable irregular relocation payments made by the former Yorkshire regional health authority. The 22nd report shows that the failure to ensure comprehensive valuations of the British Rail maintenance depots before their sale resulted in a bad deal for the taxpayer.
I hope that the new Committee, with many new members, including me, will continue the excellent work that has been done in the past. In the four or five hearings so far, we have exposed gross inefficiency in the work of the Child Support Agency, revealing that 85 per cent. of its maintenance payment balances are wrong, causing great distress and misery. We have also uncovered some appalling judgments, such as the Inland Revenue's decision not to implement a £20,000 computer database scheme, leading directly to the loss of several millions of pounds—if not hundreds of millions—of tax revenue from employers.
Given the benefits to the public purse of past and current PAC scrutiny, I add my voice to those of other right hon. and hon. Members who have asked for increased access for the Comptroller and Auditor General—and therefore for the PAC and Parliament—to follow and scrutinise public money wherever it goes.

511
In particular, we should increase his powers over and access to executive non-departmental public bodies, such as the Housing Corporation and the Legal Aid Board.
All local public bodies funded at arm's length should be included in the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit. That includes the further and higher education institutions, training and enterprise councils and, in particular, housing associations. We should ensure that we can scrutinise the final recipients of Government and European Community grants, including farmers, companies and voluntary bodies. We need to scrutinise contractors when Government functions are under contract to the private sector. We need to ensure that Railtrack and the rail operating companies, which are regulated by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, are properly scrutinised by the Comptroller and Auditor General. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) said, we must ensure that Camelot, regulated by the Office of the National Lottery, is properly brought under parliamentary scrutiny.
Extending access in that way would increase the scope of the NAO to many more areas of public spending and extend the benefit to the taxpayer of its work, which recoups at least £7 for every £1 that it costs to run.
Every member of the PAC is committed to ensuring the best value for money from Government spending. Like our predecessors, we shall perform our duties with determination and rigour. Already in the new Parliament, our hearings have exposed inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the Child Support Agency and the Inland Revenue. I ask for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee to be given the extra tools and powers that we need to pursue economy, efficiency and effectiveness wherever public money is spent.
7.19 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) has returned to the Chamber as I now have the opportunity to congratulate him on a witty and entertaining speech that will, I am sure, go down exceptionally well in his constituency.
I am a new member of the Public Accounts Committee and I am acutely aware of my lack of knowledge and experience of its work. In my brief period on the Committee, I have been overwhelmed not only by the diversity and complexity of the reports, but by the work load. I do not know whether there are any Whips in the Chamber at the moment. If there are, I suspect that they will be smiling. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said she did not know why she had been appointed to the PAC. I do not know either; I wonder whether the last laugh is with the Whips rather than with us.
I pay tribute to all the previous members of the Committee. They produced not only the 25 reports that we are considering, but another 22 that have come out in the past year. Much of the credit for that record must go to the National Audit Office and to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn.
I thank Ken Brown, the Clerk to the PAC, and his staff for dealing efficiently with the bewildering array of papers that we are sent continually. I also thank them for
512
their helpful attitude and their patience and forbearance in dealing with new Members such as me.
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the previous Chairman of the PAC, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I welcome the new Chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). I wish him well in his duties during this Parliament.
When I became a member of the Committee, I was worried by the fact that it always reached a consensus—something that is very hard to achieve in politics—but having seen the Committee in operation over the past few weeks, I can understand the strength of the concept that Gladstone envisaged when he set up the PAC. It does not comment on policy; its role is to scrutinise, to combat fraud and corruption, to ensure that public funds are spent according to the purposes they are voted for by Parliament and to achieve value for money.
Unanimity adds greater force to our recommendations. According to the National Audit Act 1983, the PAC has a duty to investigate "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" in the public sector. That requires access, but access is not available in certain areas of the public services. I associate myself with the comments made by the Chairman and other members. We must have access to all areas of public expenditure and to all bodies, whether quangos, housing associations, Camelot or, as mentioned by the Chairman, royal palaces.
We often think of this country as having a reputation for public probity and scrutiny. I am concerned that the European Court of Auditors has greater powers of access than the National Audit Office. That point applies not only to European institutions but to some British bodies. We need to look at that matter carefully.
The second report dealt with progress in completing the new British library. In this context, "progress" is a misnomer. The report followed a 1991 PAC report that catalogued the disasters that had overtaken the project. There had been a delay of three years in opening and, as I understand it, the library has still not opened. It has been developed on a smaller scale than originally envisaged, with increased costs of £61 million. The reason was described in the report, somewhat euphemistically, as "technical defects"; book shelving and electrical cabling had to be replaced. I was amazed to read that four years passed before the Department of National Heritage was informed that there had been problems. That is a shocking indictment of the control of the project.
The problem was exacerbated by there being two clients—the Department of National Heritage and the British library—rather than one and by a complicated management arrangement that resulted in weak quality control and difficulty allocating responsibility for defects and cost overruns. That was a recipe for disaster. It was, however, nothing compared with the lack of control over expenditure. There was no total cash budget and no firm budgets for work packages. That left the Department, as the report says,
"poorly placed to resist claims".

513
There was great concern that that was not the way in which to manage a major construction project. The report concluded:
"In our view the new British Library could be used as a model of how not to manage a major construction project."
I was attracted to the fifth report, "Highways Agency: The Bridge Programme" because of experience of the programme in my constituency. About a year ago, the Highways Agency commenced remedial works to a bridge on the A10 which is the largest trunk road and the busiest north-south route through my constituency. We thought that the remedial works were intended to cover deterioration that had taken place over the past 10 years. Less than two months after those works had been completed, further work was undertaken and we discovered that the second round related to bridge strengthening under the Highways Agency programme. We had a series of disruptions the first time round and within two months we had a second series of disruptions, which are only now coming to an end. That was incompetence of the highest order and it led me to take a close interest in the report.
The PAC examined the 15-year programme to restore motorway and trunk road bridges to good condition and to enable them to cope with vehicles of up to 40 tonnes, in line with the European directive. That is what was explained in my constituency. The report highlighted the fact that, halfway through the programme, only £131 million out of the £700 million that had been spent had been devoted to assessment and strengthening. That is against the backdrop of an increased work load due to an increased number of bridges with problems and improved inspection procedures—which led to concern about ensuring that under-strength bridges remained safe to use without width or weight restrictions that imposed severe traffic disruption.
The report criticised the monitoring of the agency's maintenance agent and the failure to introduce a systematic national approach to monitoring and recommended that the Department set up as a matter of urgency a bridge management information system to ensure that the limited funds were deployed in the most cost-effective manner. That was surely the greatest condemnation of the programme up to that date. I understand that significant progress has since been made on the report's recommendations, which I welcome.
I shall deal briefly with the 13th report, "The Second Sale of Shares in National Power and PowerGen". The sale was overshadowed immediately by the announcement by the Director General of Electricity Supply of a review of regional electricity companies' price controls. The report noted a significant price fall, following the announcement, on the second day of trading.
While I do not demur from the Treasury view that it could not anticipate that the market would interpret the announcement as having implications for other regulatory regimes, the report concluded that Ministers should have been consulted before the final decision to proceed with the sale. There was inevitably some fall-out in the attitude of large institutional investors, although evidence from the Treasury subsequently suggests it to have been a short-term phenomenon that did not affect later flotations.
514
On a brighter note, the report welcomed the additional proceeds from the state's sale of shares. The sale was oversubscribed, in line with Treasury predictions, and achieved with less costly incentives than previous ones. The report recognised the bank of experience and expertise built up in the Treasury from many other privatisations. The only question that remains is whether that expertise will be put to any significant use in future.
7.31 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I congratulate all members of the Committee and their Chairman. They have expressed their thoughts on the reports and described their onerous duties. I wish them well.
I am not a member of the PAC and I have but one very narrow focus for my comments. It relates to the eighth report, "Information Technology Services Agency: Outsourcing the Service Delivery Operations". My concern lies more in the Treasury response to the report than in the report itself. There was very useful invigilation by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) of some of the issues relating to the Public Accounts Committee about which I am concerned, but the Treasury's response is worrying.
I shall quote the section that worries me most. It relates to PAC conclusion xiii.
"We note that EDS have won significant amounts of public sector IT business … We are very surprised that Treasury were not able to provide more than fragmentary information of the extent of work done by EDS … We look to the Treasury to provide this Committee with complete and comprehensive information on the distribution of central government IT business amongst private sector computer companies."
That is a very reasonable statement to which I shall return.
The Treasury's response was:
"The Treasury notes the Committee's conclusion. It is not part of the Treasury's role or responsibilities to collect information on the distribution of central government IT business amongst private sector companies. Nor is such data collected by either the Government Centre for Information Systems or the Central Information Technology Unit."
In other words, nobody does that task.
PAC conclusion xiv said:
"We recommend that, as part of the evaluation of bids for individual contracts in future, the implications of concentrating sources of supply in one or a few contractors should be … assessed across the totality"—
I stress the word totality—
"of government IT business."
I shall not quote the Treasury response, but it was essentially complacent and uninformative.
Before I entered the House, I was an IT director of a sizeable company and contributed to the development of an IT strategy for a FTSE 100 company. I would not wish to tempt hon. Members to get in touch with me if their computers are not working—I do not do that—but I have some interest in and knowledge of the development of strategy in information technology.
The Treasury response reveals three things: first, an exclusively departmental focus on such matters—there was no coherent view across government on the issue—secondly, an alarming incoherence of purchasing in an incredibly expensive and complex area, and thirdly, a total lack of an information or technical strategy across government. That is extremely alarming.

515
I have tested the theory more recently through a variety of questions on various issues relating to the purchasing of commodity systems such as payroll and purchasing. A number of major contracts in that area are to be let shortly. I was looking for some reassurance that the situation was changing. I am pleased to say that there is a greater willingness to share information across Departments, of which the Minister has assured me. That is welcome indeed, but there is still no clear grasp of the need for a clear strategy or a coherent purchasing approach.
What is required is a definition of commodity services—what we can basically say are reliable functions that all large organisations use to run their affairs. Such systems are available widely and processes on which we can rely have been mapped and coherently identified over a period of time. Purchasing them is relatively straightforward. Then we need a set of differentiated functions which we can say are clearly different for each Department, for which individual systems must be purchased and individual sets of processes defined. That is quite a small list. No steps have yet been taken to identify the difference between those two categories of systems and processes and it is important that that is done.
If we do not do that, we risk the kind of things at which the report hinted, such as continued incoherence of purchasing from individual suppliers that do not know exactly the scale of their relationship with the Government. We do not have, either, any critical technology focus that defines what technical obligations we place on a supplier when it delivers services. That seems to be desperately lacking. I would very much welcome the PAC devoting rather more time to such things so that it can develop some of the very useful thoughts that emerged in the report.
7.37 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) on his appointment as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He made a very thoughtful, clear and trenchant speech, which bodes extremely well for his successorship in the post formerly held by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who served for many years with great distinction. We all appreciate his contribution.
I remember from a debate some years ago comments made by the right hon. Member for Ashton—under—Lyne that appear to have nothing to do with public accounts but which stuck in my mind and which I have often quoted. He said that the House should remember that, when somebody comes to see us during a constituency surgery, we are always on their side. That has a relevance to accounting because, given that resources may be limited—they are—when the Committee or the House stops £1 of public money being wasted, that money immediately becomes available for translation into services. That surely is a central function of the House that is not as well recognised as it should be.
I come to the substance of the reports at relatively short notice and I wish only to draw out two major points. The first is the management of long-term construction projects. The problems of the British library have been extensively rehearsed and I do not intend to repeat what has been said. The lessons of the British library have
516
a wider application to any major project in which the Government have to stitch things together by working with the private sector, because that is always complicated.
I cite in comparison the success of the Daventry international rail freight terminal in my constituency, which was opened by the Princess Royal last week. The project has been led by the private sector with the enthusiastic support of the local authorities, which have been mainly Labour in the past few years. It has been built in remarkably short time and very successfully. It is not lacking in technology, even though building railways—let alone rail freight terminals—is not something that we have done much of recently. The cost is not trivial either; many millions of pounds were spent over an extensive area. It is a good-news story and the moral is that one main customer—obviously with different interests behind it—and one main contractor leads to a simple relationship, which was conspicuously lacking in the British library project.
The second example is drawn from my ministerial experience and involves the relationships between Departments and their non-departmental public bodies and contractors and others who service Government needs with taxpayers' money in different capacities. We have not got those relationships entirely right, but it is a question of experience and a steep learning curve. I always felt uneasy politically, because if anything went wrong in a quango the Minister was, in the end, responsible. That was only right, but Ministers could not intervene in every executive decision made by a quango. We need a means to manage the relationship effectively and to ensure that quangos are properly run in the interests of the public. I strongly endorse, and will return to, some of the points that have been made in the debate.
I shall cite the specific example from my experience in education of the Higher Education Quality Council, which is an academic-run, rather than a Government-run, body. Some years ago, it considered the academic audit systems in Oxford university. I remember that its report, which was a good read, said, "Of course, we know the university, but we understand that there are a lot of colleges that carry out the teaching and we are not quite sure what the relationship is with them and we cannot look into them at the moment"—or words to that effect. That is the difficulty with all such issues—they unpack as they are investigated.
I shall not comment on the details of the thoughtful speeches by hon. Members from all parties, as is traditional on such occasions. All showed a strong bipartisan instinct, but it would wrong of me not to refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). He spoke with great eloquence, knowledge and a passionate commitment to his constituency and he brought an interesting and helpful perspective to the debate. We know the issues are sensitive, but his speech did great credit to him and his constituency. I have had informal conversations with the hon. Gentleman on a few occasions and I am sure that he will have contributions to make in the future. We look forward to them.
I do not know whether Sir Humphrey still stalks the world, but if he were here he might turn to Jim Hacker when he received one of the reports by the Public Accounts Committee and say, "Of course, Minister, the fact that we have been criticised in the report shows

517
the strength of public administration. It is a sign of health, not weakness." If he were to say that, he would be substantially right. I do not say that complacently. The reports to the House rightly reveal severe shortcomings, but they also reveal the strength of the system that has been built up by the Committee and the National Audit Office to delve into the difficulties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden made a telling point when he said that permanent secretaries—those I have known do not enjoy their appearances before the Committee—are caught in a dilemma. If waste is revealed, it is bad news and a bad mark for their careers; but if savings are revealed, such as £399 million in the case of the information technology strategy, that is also a disaster because the figures must be wrong.
I do not wish to imply that everything is all right—that is not the message of this debate—but we should make the point that public administration is essentially run well, although we all want to make it better. It would be wrong to use this debate as a platform for criticism, although it is understandable that some of our constituents wish to do so. When they have a problem, it is very real to them. When they see change—the closure of a school or a hospital, for example—they extrapolate and think that the education service is failing or the national health service is in crisis. That is not the case. Sometimes things go wrong—I am sure that the Financial Secretary will join me in predicting that things will go wrong in the future, although I will not necessarily make her take the blame politically—but we have to have a system that picks up when things go wrong, reports on them to the House, through the Committee, and does something about them. We have the makings of such a system and, in the members of the Committee, including its Chairman, we have a commitment to do so.
One continuing theme of the debate has been the importance of access. I strongly endorse what has been said. I recall documents—although I cannot remember any specific ones—that had the magic words at the top, "Not for National Audit Office eyes". I do not know—perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell me—whether such documents have been expunged from all Departments. I hope so.
Access is not simply a matter of playing ducks and drakes with the NAO and I hope that Departments do not think that it is. The openness and accountability of the various tributaries through which public money is streamed is the mirror image of what I hope the Government will do—although they seem somewhat diffident about doing anything at the moment—on open government. We need to open up the processes and the way in which money flows and resources are spent to ensure that the taxpayers can be satisfied that they are getting a good service and value for money.
The moral that should be drawn from the debate is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I do not wish to suggest that our public life or central Government finance are corrupt or unsatisfactory. The civil service, Ministers and the accounting bodies have a strong commitment to seeing that things are done properly. The reports before us tonight cover the failures: the successes do not need to take up our time. The purpose of our debate and of the
518
future work of the Committee is to let in as much sunlight as possible to the benefit of us all, and taxpayers in particular.
7.48 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): It gives me great pleasure to reply to the debate on behalf of the Government. I start by thanking the Public Accounts Committee for all the hard work it has done in 1996–97. It again proved itself the hardest-working and most effective of our parliamentary Committees. As the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, although it is the job of the PAC to throw light where some would wish it not to be cast, it should equally be the Committee's job to praise the many fine things which go on on our behalf within Departments.
One of the reasons for the Committee's effectiveness has been the excellent chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who brought admirable dedication to all aspects of his job. My right hon. Friend has now stepped down from a position that he held for 14 years, during which time, by my reckoning, the PAC produced about 550 reports. The whole House will want to join me in thanking him for his excellent contribution and, in particular, for his concentration on the need to ensure high standards in public life.
I give his successor, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), and the new Committee, my bestwishes. I have never heard a Treasury Minister described in such kindly terms as the right hon. Gentleman used—long may it continue! As an accomplished Member of this place, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is no dishonour to him if I say that he has a hard act to follow. However, I know that, under his chairmanship, the PAC will blossom. I have every confidence that the Committee will continue to achieve the high standards to which we have become accustomed.
I welcome the hon. Member for Daventry to the debate and to the Opposition Front Bench. I know that it is a difficult job—I did it a number of times—to struggle with so many reports. But he entered into the spirit of the debate, which has been to ensure cross-party support for the pursuit of the Committee's objectives.
I want to pay tribute to the work of two people who have been very senior members of the PAC. The former Member for Uxbridge, Sir Michael Shersby, was a delightful hon. Member who paid great attention to his work and was courteous to every hon. Member. I know that we will all miss him, particularly the members of the PAC. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is still a member of the Committee, but cannot be here tonight. He and the late Sir Michael brought experience to the PAC from which we all benefited.
I wish to thank the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and their respective comptrollers and auditors general. Although they are not Government Departments, the bodies have a critical role in promoting good value for money and high standards. We depend on their work to a huge extent, and we are lucky to have such effective organisations. I have met the Comptroller and Auditor General and will be visiting his offices in the near future to ensure that I am fully acquainted with the working practices of the body

519
I shall try to group my responses to the debate by theme. This has been a thorough debate and it would not be appropriate for me to repeat all the points. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden highlighted the importance of integrity in controlling taxpayers' money, and referred to value for money. He demonstrated excellently the considerations we need to keep in our minds when seeking efficiency in government. Much still needs to be done, as he said, and he will be seeking out ways with the Committee to improve that role. He referred on a number of occasions—in a thoughtful speech to which I listened with great care—to access for the NAO, as did many other hon. Members.
It was suggested that the NAO should have a statutory right to follow public money wherever it goes; the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) suggested that it follow public money into the private sector. The Government are listening carefully and we need to have further discussions as part of our commitment to effective, accountable and better government. I caution hon. Members on some of the points made this evening, as these are complex issues—we must look at who audits whom.
pay tribute to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who paid tribute to his predecessors—particularly Max Madden, whom we all held in high regard. He will have realised that his speech was incredibly well received by the House for its fluency, wit and confidence, and for the sensitive points he made on behalf of his constituents. He referred to the drugs problem in his constituency, and underlined his commitment to tolerance in our society and the world. Like all other hon. Members, I very much look forward to his future speeches which will add greatly to our debates.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) raised a number of points, and referred particularly to quangos and their accountability. After consulting on a range of issues, the Government will publish a White Paper on quangos encompassing the points that he made about the importance of accountability. He referred also to the NHS and to the 17th report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will publish a Green Paper on a new health strategy aimed at picking up the issues to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We must make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
Several hon. Members referred to the national lottery, and in particular to the access of the NAO to Camelot's records. As is now well known, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is looking at this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) talked about accountability and quangos, and referred to resource accounting and budgeting, to which I shall return in a moment.
The hon. member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) made some important points about the role of the PAC and reflected on his experience on the other side of the fence—dare I say it, he is a poacher turned gamekeeper. I am sure that his experience will prove valuable.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle spoke about National Savings and referred to the Turkish universities project. There is nothing to be added to what the report on the latter said, but I can tell him about developments
520
on National Savings, as he is absolutely right to be concerned, and he and other hon. Members have starkly exposed the problems.
The 1996–97 accounts for all products have been completed and passed to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit—that is very important—but the agency has an urgent programme of work to resolve past discrepancies and improve financial controls. It is too soon to know the final outcome of work on discrepancies and unreconciled balances, but major improvements have been instituted, and I am sure that members of the Committee will continue to take an interest in that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) talked about why she was on the Committee and about not getting taken in. In my experience of her considerable abilities, there is absolutely no chance of her being taken in by anyone. Her explanation of the development of the Committee's role since its first debate in 1905 and the comments of Winston Churchill showed the complexities that exist for Parliament in pursuing and ensuring accountability in relation to public money. I am not sure whether I would use the phrase, "quaking in their shoes", but I hope that civil servants will strive not to have to come before the Committee and will realise that its work assists them in discharging their duties.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) referred to the eighth report. I struggled somewhat with some of the technical points—they seemed technical to me—about systems and processes, but I listened very carefully, because he made some important points. The wheels are turning and, in our facilitating and enabling role, there is a cross-departmental Committee, under Treasury chairmanship, to consider data collection and market shares. We should look carefully at my hon. Friend's other points in Hansard and add them to the points already made by the Committee.
There must be transparency in relation to the work of Departments and agencies. Parliament and the public have a right to know what is going on and need an assurance that the Government are doing what they say they are doing. Effective public sector audit has an important part to play in achieving that, although other factors are important, including the quality of financial reporting and the openness to which the hon. Member for Daventry referred.
Primarily for those reasons, the Government announced soon after taking office that the National Audit Office would be invited to audit the assumptions underlying the forecast of public finances. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that innovation was not only an important step in openness but a clear statement by the Government about the high regard in which they held the NAO. The acceptance of that outside the House shows the high regard in which the NAO is generally held.
It was also with a view to promoting openness that the Government announced in July, in response to the 22nd report, the abolition of "Not for NAO eyes". I can confirm that that applies across government. To get the best out of the public sector audit, we need an effective system of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability; that is why we are lucky that the PAC lies at the heart of our system. It is no surprise that the Committee's work has been a model for other systems in other Parliaments

521
around the world. The prospect of having to appear before the PAC when things have gone wrong provides a powerful incentive to accounting officers to get things right in the first place.
Much has been said about the need to improve the management of projects. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked specifically about the new British library. By no stretch of the imagination could that project be described as well managed or a model for others to follow. The listed 12 lessons that have been urged on the Treasury to ensure that other Departments and agencies are aware of the problems show clearly that the project was not well managed.
The Treasury originally planned to issue further guidance in March this year on achieving value for money in construction procurement, including project management, but decided to improve the value of the guidance by taking account of the Construction Industry Board's latest codes of practice, which were to be issued in a final form this summer, and to consult widely with the industry's umbrella bodies.
As a consequence, the first batch of new guidance will be available early in December. This is the first time that the industry has been so closely involved in drawing up guidelines. I hope that the guidelines will go a long way towards dealing with the project management points so starkly made in the report. Public-private partnership is another significant way of improving value for money. We look to the Committee and the NAO to make a continuing valuable contribution in the development of such partnerships, to secure the efficient delivery of public services. The Government have acted swiftly: we commissioned an independent review of the previous Government's private finance initiative, and the recommendations of the Bates review, delivered in June, will streamline and standardise procedures.
The House will note that the Bates recommendations endorsed those of the NAO in the two reports—on the Skye bridge and on the replacement of the national insurance recording system—not yet reported on by the Committee. It is vital that, as mechanisms develop for delivering public services, we ensure that accountability and auditing mechanisms develop alongside them. I know from the comments of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden that he intends to keep that firmly on the agenda.
The use of resource accounting and budgeting represents an enormously important change in the way in which the Government run business; in the long term, its introduction will be the most effective way of promoting efficient asset use. The PAC is particularly interested in that. Hon. Members have said that they want to ensure that the Government proceed at a pace that is respectable but effective.
The introduction of resource accounting and budgeting represents the biggest change in financial control within Government since the Gladstone reforms more than 100 years ago. The support of the Committee and the National Audit Office for resource accounting and budgeting is crucial if we are to implement the changes effectively.
522
In taking forward the proposals, the Government will pay very close attention to the Committee's views. I note its recommendation that there should be an extended period of live, parallel running of the present cash-based system and the resource-based system for voting and accounting for Supply. The Government believe that there is already sufficient time for dry running—if I may call it that—and testing in this nine-year project, and are confident that Parliament's ability to exercise control will not be jeopardised. None the less, it is very important and we shall pay attention to it.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden referred to the deployment and disposal of assets that the Government no longer require. On Monday, the Government will publish the national asset register, so delivering on our manifesto promise that all Departments will have drawn up a comprehensive list of their assets by November 1997. It will be the first time that any Government have had a full picture of all the assets that they own. It sounds breathtaking that that has not happened before—the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made a point about National Savings: we did not know what all our assets were. I understand that there have been some interesting discoveries. That will be a vital starting point in the comprehensive spending reviews for an examination of whether efficient and appropriate use is being made of the Government's assets. That echoes the points made by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks.
Mr. Maclennan: We await with unbated curiosity the publication of the document. May I, with just a wry smile, inquire whether the Minister knows whether included among the assets are the works of art that the Public Accounts Committee discovered had not been cared for by Departments with any assiduity or concern in past years?
Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the register will make fascinating reading and include the points that the right hon. Gentleman made, and perhaps cross-reference to previous PAC reports. It may take his fancy. He explained earlier why he identified particular points in reports.
Public audit and, more generally, the work of the Public Accounts Committee has a major role to play in promoting high standards in central Government bodies. It is particularly crucial that we use as our touchstone, as many hon. Members did, the eighth report of the 1993–94 Session, "The Proper Conduct of Public Business". Many hon. Members will share my view that among the many reports that the Public Accounts Committee has completed in recent years, "The Proper Conduct of Public Business" ranks first in importance.
In reflection of that, the Treasury's new handbook—to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall)—"Regularity and Propriety" includes the checklist from the eighth report in full. No doubt that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne described it as wholly admirable. I am pleased to tell the House that more than 8,000 copies have been circulated. I would also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in the Treasury minute in response to the Committee's report on the Plymouth development corporation, the Government emphasised the importance of high standards of conduct at all levels in the public service.

523
I remind the House that, in seeking better value for money and greater accountability for the taxpayer, we are all on the same side. Although the 25 reports deal with activities under the previous Government, the present Government fully accept the need to carry their lessons into the future. For this purpose, we need to count not only on our own efforts but on the continuing vigilance of the Committee, the National Audit Office and other national audit agencies.
Good government cannot happen without vigorous external scrutiny. We look forward to many more years of constructive engagement with the Committee. The speeches made by hon. Members this evening demonstrate the expertise and ability that they bring to that role, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I look forward to continuing excellent relationships between me, the Treasury and the Committee as we strive to reach these objectives.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the First to Twenty-fifth Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1996–97 and of the relevant Treasury Minutes (Cm 3559, 3577 and 3714), with particular reference to the following Reports:
Second, Progress in Completing the New British Library (HC 38); Fifth, Highways Agency: The Bridge Programme (HC 83);
Eighth, Information Technology Services Agency: Outsourcing the Service Delivery Operations (HC 98);
Thirteenth, HM Treasury: The Second Sale of Shares in National Power and PowerGen (HC 151);
Sixteenth, The Work of the Directors General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services and Electricity Supply (HC 89);
Twenty-second, British Rail Maintenance Ltd.: The Sale of Maintenance Depots (HC 168).

Insulin Pen Needles
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
8.15 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a very important matter. I declare an interest as an insulin-dependant diabetic and user of the pen needle system.
There is an irony about the timing of the debate. The last time that diabetes was raised in an Adjournment debate, by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), was in June 1996. The Minister responding at that time was Gerald Malone, who cannot be here today as he is quite busy—and I hope that he will not be here next week either. The debate was wide ranging and touched on the pen needle issue. The then Minister's reply was as follows:
"The BDA"—
the British Diabetic Association—
"submitted … a comprehensive document earlier this year, which is being considered by Ministers and officials in the Department. Although it was not my specific responsibility within the Department, I was interested to see the document in detail. It was a first-class effort in putting together a sound, economically based case as to why it might make sense to move in that direction.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I cannot give any commitment about that tonight, but I can reassure him that the matter is being treated extremely seriously. Discussions are under way, and I hope that we can make some progress towards reaching a common position and an understanding of the facts and economics that underlie the case made by the BDA."—[Official Report, 5 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 697.]
I hope that the present Minister will be able to confirm that further progress has been made in the past 18 months.
Diabetes is a common condition in which the amount of glucose in the blood is too high because the body is unable to use it properly. This is because the body's method of converting glucose—sugar—into energy is not working as it should.
The British Diabetic Association estimates that 1.4 million people in the United Kingdom have diabetes, and there might be as many as 1 million more undiagnosed. Diabetes is the single biggest cause of blindness among people of working age in the United Kingdom. Men with diabetes are two to three times more likely to suffer from coronary heart disease than the general population, while women have a four to five times greater risk. The risk of stroke is increased two to three times in people with diabetes. Half of lower limb amputations, other than those following trauma, are a consequence of diabetes. People with diabetes have a 15 times higher risk of amputation than the general population.
There are two types of diabetes: insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent. Today we are discussing the former, in which the condition is treated by insulin injections and diet. It is worth remembering that before the discovery of insulin such diabetics simply died; today they can lead normal lives, but the key is control of their condition. Well-controlled insulin-dependent diabetics will test their blood sugar levels regularly and take appropriate action in the light of the results.

525
The health service provides a number of items on prescription to help diabetics to maintain control: insulin, in both vial form for syringe injections and cartridge form for the pen needle; tester strips so that people can test their blood in glucose meters; lancets, the little pricking devices to enable the blood to be drawn for the blood test; and syringes—but not pen needles. Although general practitioners and hospitals are free to supply pen needles, it is unfair for health professionals to be placed in the position of determining needy cases. It is also unfair that access to free pen needles depends on where the diabetic lives or who is consulted for advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) showed me a letter today from one of his constituents who lives in a part of the country where free pen needles are not available. His constituent—who was progressing from non-insulin-dependent diabetes, treated by tablets and diet, to insulin-dependent diabetes—was offered the pen but was aghast at having to pay for the needles. All hon. Members should be aware of that problem, because we all have constituents in that position. Pen needles cost patients around £10 per box of 100. Unlike syringe needles, pen needles can be used more than once; consequently, some diabetics will need only two boxes a year, while others require four or five and a minority will use slightly more.
Using a pen device is much more convenient as it is self-contained. There is a stigma attached to hypodermic needles, whereas the pen is a well-disguised object that enables people to inject themselves discreetly—sometimes when other people are around, but without their noticing. That is not possible with a syringe, which has to be drawn up, thereby broadcasting all sorts of connotations to those who witness it. The pen is discreet because it looks like a fountain pen; it is quicker than having to draw up a syringe; and it is much easier to use, especially by children, people with arthritis, the elderly and the visually impaired. Instead of drawing up the dose of insulin, one simply clicks the pen and one can hear the dose of insulin as it goes in. That is a significant benefit to the groups I listed. Many people need mixed insulin, in which case they have to carry two vials and draw from both before injecting themselves. With the pen, the insulin can be ready-mixed in the cartridge, thus avoiding the necessity of carrying around glass bottles in one's pocket or handbag.
The pen system encourages better control of blood sugar level and that is the key consideration. It reduces the chances of the onset of costly health complications. Yet despite all that, three quarters of people still use a syringe.
It is estimated that providing pen needles on prescription would cost the health service budget around £5 million a year. Diabetes as a whole costs the national health service about £2 billion a year, mostly from acute care. Poor control leads to complications, often involving acute care. The latest figures I have been able to get are for 1993–94, when 926 leg, 155 foot and 812 toe amputations took place in England with diabetes as the main diagnosis—each and every one a costly operation, necessitating a hospital stay.
In addition, a considerable amount of money would have to be spent on adaptations to housing and equipment; and consequent loss of employment might lead to almost
526
complete—in some cases complete—dependence on the welfare system. Poorly controlled diabetes can also lead to blindness, kidney failure, heart disease and strokes, with all the associated additional costs to the state. When the savings to the NHS acute care costs from better control of diabetes are taken into account, the overall cost of supplying pen needles on prescription is much reduced—or could even result in savings.
Other savings add weight to the economic case for free pen needles: for example, district nurses would no longer have to visit at home those people who need assistance with injections through a syringe; improved control would lead to fewer days off work for those who are sick as a consequence of poor control; and the nation's welfare bill would be reduced.
A total of 370,000 people in this country inject themselves with insulin in order to stay alive. Too many of them are discouraged from using a proven method of reducing their risk of complications. To sum up, the current system is unfair: access to free pen needles depends on where one lives, not on one's medical needs. Children, the elderly, people who have arthritis or are visually impaired will benefit the most. It makes good economic sense and it is logical. A decision from the Government is long overdue and I trust that the Minister will be able to respond positively today.
8.26 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for raising such an important issue. I am aware of his close interest in diabetes as the chairman of the all-party group on diabetes. I know that the group is due to meet my noble Friend Baroness Jay, a Minister of State in the Department, in the new year, and I am sure that the subject will be discussed in detail during that meeting.
The subject is an important issue for patients and one on which I am determined that we should make substantial progress. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I was able to report progress and I hope that, towards the end of my speech, I shall be able to reassure him that progress is being made.
Before I respond on the specific issue of insulin pen needles, it might be a helpful if I put it into the wider context of what the Government are doing to tackle diabetes more generally. We take the matter very seriously. In its different forms, diabetes is estimated to affect 2.4 per cent. of the adult population in this country—more than 1 million people—and 10 to 15 per cent. of those with diabetes are dependent on regular insulin injections.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, diabetes and its complications often cause severe problems for those affected, their families and their carers and, inevitably, the disease imposes heavy burdens on the health services. If diabetes is not properly managed, it can cause terrible long-term complications such as blindness, renal failure and cardiovascular disease.
Obviously, the Government are concerned to tackle these problems. I shall briefly outline five important signals of the priority that we attach to improving services for people with diabetes. First, let me point out that we spend over £1 billion a year on the various services and drugs to help those with diabetes and associated problems.

527
That is over 5 per cent. of the budget for the NHS. It is useful to bear that in mind in considering the issue of pen needles.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health launched new guidance to the NHS last week, to coincide with World Diabetes Day. The guidance, entitled "Key features of a good diabetes service", was developed by a small group involving the Department of Health, patients, GPs, nurses, NHS managers and the British Diabetic Association. It is important to put on the record the value that the Government accord to the BDA's work on behalf of people with diabetes, in its roles as adviser and advocate.
The new guidance sets out to the NHS how health authorities working with GPs can secure and deliver a good diabetes service. It places special emphasis on partnership: the organisation of diabetes services can involve many parties—primary and community care teams, secondary care teams, carers and people with diabetes, who, of course, have a pivotal role in managing their care. We want to make sure that services for people with diabetes are better tailored to the needs of individuals.
The guidance emphasises prevention and the need to raise awareness of diabetes. It has long been recognised that the education of people with the disease is vital for promoting effective self-care. The guidance was welcomed by the British Diabetic Association, which described it as "a major step forward". It is significant that the association gave it such a positive response.
Thirdly, the Government have endorsed the international St. Vincent declaration, which highlights the scope for reducing the complications resulting from diabetes, and proposes a number of outcome targets, which include the reduction of cases of new blindness due to diabetes by one third or more; the reduction in the numbers entering end-stage diabetic renal failure by at least a third; and the reduction of lower limb amputations for diabetic gangrene by a half.
Those are challenging targets and are widely recognised as such. It is important for us to make progress on them. Indeed, I was pleased that the follow-up conference to St. Vincent, which was held in Athens last year, accorded this country the honour of being in the vanguard in Europe of improving diabetes services. We have done well, but we are not complacent, as there is still much progress to be made.
We must continue to strive to improve the care of people with diabetes and the quality of their lives. We are pledged to work in partnership not only with the NHS and health professionals, but with the British Diabetic Association and the all-party group on diabetes. We are always happy to discuss these issues in the House or in private meetings, if that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Fourthly, the Government support much vital research into diabetes. The Medical Research Council, which is the main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research, spends about £3 million a year in this area. The Department of Health is funding three important studies at a total value of £1 million, which is on top of the Department's research and development programme.
Finally, there is a whole programme of work in support of diabetes, such as clinical audit and monitoring. We have recently commissioned new national clinical
528
guidelines for non-insulin-dependent diabetes and other clinical effectiveness materials, which will ensure that the very best practice in the NHS is shared better in the future.
I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me for sketching some of the general developments in the treatment of diabetes that the Government are intent on promoting. We are considering the specific issue of pen needles in the context of that broad programme.
For some time, we have been discussing the merits or otherwise of listing insulin injection pen needles and the pens themselves in the drug tariff. That would allow the needles to be prescribed on the NHS by family doctors. At present, insulin injection syringes, and their related needles, are listed in the drug tariff, so are prescribable on the NHS by GPs.
The issue of the availability of injection pens is slightly more complex: perhaps even more complex than the hon. Gentleman suggested. There are two types of pen. The disposable pen is prescribable only because it is a container for the insulin, and the prescription for the insulin automatically includes its container. The reusable pen, on the other hand, does not come pre-filled with insulin, so it is not automatically prescribed when the insulin is prescribed. That may be as clear as mud, but that is the position. Indeed, there is less need to prescribe reusable pens, as they usually last two to three years. I understand that reusable pens are made widely available to patients by the manufacturers, which often distribute them free, sometimes through diabetic clinics.
Needles for injection pens fit either type of pen, but are not interchangeable with the needles used with syringes. They are not currently listed in the drug tariff, and may not be prescribed on the NHS by family doctors. That sets out the rather complicated current position.
The Government are considering whether pen needles should be placed on the drug tariff list, so that they could be prescribed with the insulin. We are giving the issue serious consideration, as I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman in parliamentary answers or when he has written to me. It is said that many people find the pens more convenient and comfortable to use than syringes. We do not dispute that, and we acknowledge that convenience and comfort are important considerations when people have to inject themselves frequently.
The major stumbling block is quite simply the cost. The NHS is not a bottomless pit, and we have to use taxpayers' money responsibly. We must ensure that it is used as efficiently and wisely as possible. Pen needles cost about four times as much as syringe needles. Our estimate is that the costs of placing the reusable pen on the drug tariff could range from £10 million a year at the lower end to £30 million a year at the upper end, depending on the uptake. If people switched from syringes to pens, or from reusable pens to disposable pens, costs would range towards the upper figure.
I shall be frank with the hon. Gentleman. The problem at the moment is that we are unclear about whether, or to what extent, such switches are likely to occur, and whether the cost of listing injection pen needles would be significantly higher than the British Diabetic Association's 1995 estimate of £9.5 million over two years.
However, costs cannot be the only consideration when such important issues affecting so many people are involved. The Government are committed to ensuring that

529
we try to improve the care of people with diabetes and their quality of life. For that reason, I have asked officials in the Department of Health to examine, in discussions with interested parties if necessary, whether we can be more certain on the cost points. They have held a number of meetings with the major suppliers, and negotiations are currently under way.
It is still a little early to place a precise time scale on this work, particularly given the delicate nature of our discussions with the companies concerned. We do not want to delay decisions unnecessarily and, equally, we do not want to take premature decisions if costing issues still
530
have to be resolved. Nevertheless, this is an important issue on which we are determined to make progress in the interests of patients and of the NHS more generally.
The hon. Gentleman was right to seek this debate. Ministers have signed many letters in response to hon. Members who have expressed concern about the issue. The Government are aware of the concerns in the House and in the country. Many people suffer from diabetes, and many people have relatives, friends and neighbours who have diabetes. We want to make progress, and I shall be happy to update the hon. Gentleman in due course when we have advanced a little further.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Nine O'clock.

DEFENCE

  Burma Railway Memorial
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide funds to support a memorial to commemorate allied service men who, while prisoners of war, died during the construction of the Burma railway; and if he will make a statement.[14490]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government are very aware of the hardships and suffering endured by prisoners of war who were forced by their captors to build the Burma-Siam Railway during the Second World War.

  While we have the greatest sympathy for those men and their families and acknowledge the need for remembrance and commemoration, it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments that the cost of memorials is not usually met from public funds, but from private donations or public subscription.

  The Ministry of Defence is, therefore, unable to assist with the funding of the memorial.

  The organisers intend to site the memorial in Thailand and the Ministry of Defence would be happy to provide representation at any dedication ceremony, should the necessary funding be raised.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Salisbury can expect a reply to his letter to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, dated 24 July, about the closure of the Army Base Repair Organisation depot at Ludgershall.[16947]

  Dr. Reid
  I replied yesterday to the hon. Member's letter. I regret not having done so sooner.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will further review the(a) number of and (b) timetable for its delivery of Eurofighter 2000.[17006]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answers I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 4 November 1997,Official Report, column 111.

  Gene Science
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research projects concerned with aspects of gene science have been commissioned by his Department in each year since 1987; and if he will list these in date order.[16789]
  244
  Mr. Spellar
  My Department commissions research into a wide variety of what might be called genetic science applications, mainly in support of chemical and biological defence. Examples range from the use of gene probes to develop improved detection of biological warfare agents, to the use of genetic engineering for research into new vaccines. Most of this research is conducted at Porton Down, where an initial survey indicates that the number of genetic engineering projects undertaken since 1987 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of projects

  1987

  8

  1988

  11

  1989

  19

  1990

  8

  1991

  12

  1992

  19

  1993

  15

  1994

  13

  1995

  8

  1996

  20

  I am withholding details of these and similarly aimed research projects under the terms of exemption category 1 of the Code of Practice on Government Information.

  Army (Engineer Resources)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Army's engineer resources.[17550]

  Dr. Reid
  My predecessor announced in August 1995 that the Army Engineer Resources Organisation, based at Long Marston in Warwickshire, would collocate with another Royal Engineers organization—the Military Work Force—on a single site at Chilwell near Nottingham. A number of subsequent developments have led to a review of this decision.

  In order to ensure that the Engineer Resources organisation was configured in the most efficient way for the transfer to Chilwell and subsequent Market Testing, a comprehensive business review of this organisation was carried out. This concluded that many of the Engineer tasks—notably storage, provisioning and repair—could be carried out more efficiently by other parts of the Army support organisation, for which they are core business.

  In parallel, further work was undertaken on the Army's overall storage requirement. The Storage Rationalisation Study, about which we made a separate announcement on 13 November 1997, Official Report, column 611,concluded that the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency had sufficient space to absorb the Engineer Resources storage task. In the light of this work, an investment appraisal has been carried out which has demonstrated that disaggregation of the Engineer Resources task is substantially more cost-effective by some 15 per cent. (approximately £21 million over 25 years in net present value terms) than any option for collocation at Chilwell.

  Obtaining greater efficiency from Defence spending is a central part of the Strategic Defence Review. All support activities are being rigorously scrutinised against the benchmark of value for money and the need to ensure that

  245
  we retain only those assets which are essential for Defence needs. I have therefore accepted, as the basis for consultation, a recommendation to proceed with the disaggregation of the Engineer Resources tasks to other service providers. Long Marston will close by December 1999. Final decisions will be taken in the light of representations made during the consultation period. A copy of the consultative document is being placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Penalty Points
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reduce the number of penalty points that result in disqualification; and if he will make a statement.[16344]

  Mr. Michael
  There are no present plans to reduce the number of points which would result in disqualification. However, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, I keep under review the number of points which may be imposed for individual offences.

  Poaching
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to increase the penalties for poaching.[16627]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government have no plans to increase the penalties for poaching. Penalties were last amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Rural Crime
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government will take to encourage and support Rural Watch and Farm Watch schemes.[16630]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government recognise that, in rural areas, the police response to crime cannot always be as quick as they or the public would like and it is imperative that people take reasonable precautions against becoming victims of crime.

  The most effective response to rural crime is a partnership approach between the police and local communities. We encourage schemes such as Farm Watch and Rural Watch which enable members of the public—with the support of the local police—to do something positive in the fight against crime.

  In the Crime and Disorder Bill, we will introduce a new statutory duty for the police and local authorities jointly to analyse and identify local problems of crime and disorder and, together with the local community, draw up and implement strategies for tackling such problems. Schemes such as Farm Watch and Rural Watch will play a positive role in this partnership. The support of local communities will make a significant impact on crime in the countryside.
  246
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals the Government have to tackle rural crime.[16629]

  Mr. Michael
  Rural communities suffer from most of the same types of crime as, but have different needs from, urban communities. The most effective answer to rural crime is a partnership between the police and local communities.

  The Crime and Disorder Bill will provide for new statutory duties for local authorities and the police jointly to analyse and identify local problems of crime and disorder. With input from local communities, a strategy will be drawn up and implemented to tackle those problems. This will apply in both rural and urban areas.

  The partnership ideal is already evident in many rural communities, and the creation of many and diverse "Watch" schemes are testimony to the efficacy of this approach.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide additional financial assistance to North Yorkshire Police for radio communications in remote areas.[16631]

  Mr. Michael
  North Yorkshire Police Authority's spending capacity increased by £2.8 million (4%) to £72.4 million in 1997–98, which was an increase above the national average. The provisional police revenue settlement for 1998–99 is likely to be announced in December, along with capital funding allocations. Once the allocations have been made, it is entirely for individual chief constables and their police authorities to determine their spending priorities. This Government have undertaken to keep within the public expenditure limits we inherited from the previous Government and no allowance has been made for additional capital funding to be provided to North Yorkshire Police for radio communications in remote areas.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) amount and (b) percentage of his Department's expenditure, in (i) the current and (ii) the next financial year, will be spent on crime prevention.[16540]

  Mr. Michael
  Home Office expenditure specifically allocated to crime prevention in 1997–98 is £19.3 million. That figure is additional to £7.2 billion public expenditure on the police service. The prevention of crime is one of the key functions of the police service and the Government are committed to encouraging a partnership approach to crime prevention.

  It is not possible to identify the level of public expenditure on the police service or other programmes within the Home Office budget which is devoted to crime prevention. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a percentage of the overall budget devoted to crime prevention.

  Detailed expenditure plans for 1998–99 have yet to be finalised.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government will take to tackle alcohol abuse by young people.[16635]
  247
  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 16 July, Official Report, column 173, and to the letter which I sent to all hon. Members on 17 July.

  Prison Enterprise Services
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to contract out the Prison Enterprise Services to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.[16552]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]There are no plans to contract out Prison Enterprise Services (which provides advice and support to prisons in managing their industrial and commercial activity) or to contract out industrial activity in other prisons.

  My right hon. Friend and I have agreed to a partnership between Wackenhut United Kingdom and the Prison Service under which the company will manage the industrial work at Coldingley prison although the governor will be involved in decisions on major new lines of production and there will be a profit-sharing arrangement with the prison.

  Beer Glasses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce regulations for strengthened beer glasses for use in public houses.[16912]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have no present plans to do so. I understand that approximately one third of straight-sided beer glasses in pubs are already made of toughened glass. The recommendation on 22 October by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association that its members should use toughened glasses will very significantly increase their use. The Government will be monitoring developments closely.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effect of the Amsterdam Treaty on the status under national law of(a) churches, (b) religious associations and (c) organisations which his Department classifies as cults in the United Kingdom.[16985]

  Ms Quin
  Declaration 11 to the Treaty of Amsterdam refers to the status of churches, religious associations and non-confessional organisations. It is non-binding and has no effect on national law.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the terms of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the death penalty in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) her dependencies.[17016]

  Mr. Michael
  The Treaty of Amsterdam has no effect on the position in the United Kingdom or her dependencies so far as the death penalty is concerned. The policy of the Government remains that it is for Parliament to decide on the reintroduction or abolition of the death penalty in the United Kingdom.
  248

  Drugs Prevention Initiative
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish a report on the progress of his Department's Drugs Prevention Initiative.[17438]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am publishing tomorrow the Drugs Prevention Initiative's seventh annual progress report. The report summarises encouraging progress. An extensive and innovative programme is now providing some useful findings about effective community-based drugs prevention work. The programme aims to show more fully by March 1999 what action communities themselves can take to tackle local drugs problems. I am placing a copy of the report in the Library tomorrow at 10.30 am.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances a licence can be awarded under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in respect of a product or ingredient of a product already freely available on the United Kingdom market.[16458]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Other than finished cosmetic products, for which no new authorities to test will be issued, such authorities under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are issued for testing only when there is a specific regulatory requirement: for example, to meet the requirements of the Dangerous Substances Directive, the Biocidal Products Directive or the Medical Devices Directive.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the availability of public information under section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.[16459]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no plans to change section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It will therefore remain an offence to disclose information given in confidence. Such information includes the details of establishments and individuals licensed under the Act, and details of licence applications.

  We do, however, plan to make more information available on how the Act is operated. The policy and procedures for handling infringements were described in the 1996 annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee. The Committee is also planning to produce an extended statement on the cost-benefit assessment required under section 5(4) of the Act and I understand that this will describe the process by which programmes of work are assessed. A revised and updated version of the "Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986" is also being produced.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licence applications put before the Animal Procedures Committee in 1996 were(a) approved and (b) refused.[16460]

  Mr. George Howarth
  During 1996, the Committee considered two new project licence applications.
  249
  The Committee does not grant or refuse applications. It can only advise the Secretary of State on whether licences should be granted. In these cases, the Home Secretary decided that the two licences should be granted.

  The Committee also saw two applications to amend existing licence authorities. One requested an extension of the licence to the maximum allowed term of five years. This was granted by the Home Secretary. The other, requesting changes to the existing authorities, was considered on several occasions by the Committee during 1996. Some of the requested amendments were granted.

  Further details of these considerations were published in the Committee's annual report for 1996.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which Alice, the Macaque monkey at the Institute of Neurology, died; which procedures were authorised to be undertaken on the animal; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which the evidence given in application for a project licence to use Alice met the requirements of section 5(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.[16461]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Alice was used in a non-recovery procedure under anaesthesia in February 1996.

  After craniotomy and laminectomy under general anaesthesia, her brain was stimulated electrically and recordings were made from spinal nerves. (The purpose was to investigate the way in which cells in the motor cortex address motoneurones controlling hand and forearm activity.) Alice was then given an overdose of anaesthetic.

  Section 5(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that applicants give adequate consideration to the feasibility of achieving the purposes of the programme of work by means not involving protected animals. This work could only be undertaken in living animals because the complexity of the neurological processes cannot be reproduced by other means.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library a copy of the internal departmental guidance on the dissemination of information; and if he will make a statement.[16286]

  The Attorney-General
  The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies in relation to my own office and to the Treasury Solicitor's Department, for which I have responsibility. In the light of the exemptions from disclosure under the Code and the nature of the work we do, requests falling within the Code are unlikely. Internal guidance prepared by the Treasury Solicitor's Department none-the-less exists and is being updated. A copy of the new guidance will be placed in the Library.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy in respect of the faxing of press releases 250
  on the day of release to Opposition party spokesmen; what changes have been introduced since 1 May; and if he will make a statement.[16285]

  The Attorney-General
  It has not been my practice to fax press releases to Opposition party spokesmen on the day of release and this has not changed since 1 May. However, I would willingly do so in future if requested.

  "The Last Governor"
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given to proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1989 in relation to disclosures contained in the book "The Last Governor."[17551]

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions was asked to consider whether the circumstances disclosed a possible offence under the Official Secrets Act 1989 such as to require a criminal investigation. She therefore sought my views on the public interest aspect of the case because any prosecution would by statute have required my consent.

  I considered the matter with the DPP and I then invited relevant colleagues to draw to my attention matters which the public interest required be taken into account in accordance with the long-standing procedures described to the House by my predecessor on 29 January 1951, Official Report,columns 683–684 Following such consultation I concluded that intelligence and foreign relations considerations outweighed other public interest considerations which might otherwise have required a prosecution in respect of any offence established by a criminal investigation. It followed that no useful purpose would have been served for there to have been a police investigation in this matter.

  Although that view took account of the considerations advanced by Ministerial colleagues, the assessment of those considerations was my responsibility alone as a Law Officer acting independently of Government but after further consultation with the DPP, the DPP concurred with my view.

CABINET OFFICE

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio in respect of which sections of the Treaty of Amsterdam his Office contributed to drafting.[17014]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The United Kingdom position on the draft Treaty of Amsterdam was reached after consultation between relevant Government Departments.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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.[16293]
  251
  Dr. David Clark
  Press notices are not routinely faxed to Opposition spokesmen. They are available on request and are automatically posted to individuals who have asked to be put onto the Cabinet Office press notice mailing list. There has been no change since 1 May.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the expenditure on the Government Car Service for the last year for which figures are available, and separately identifying the cost of ministerial cars.[16995]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 20 November 1997 The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, has asked me in my capacity as the Chief Executive responsible for the Government Car Service to reply to your Parliamentary Question dated 17 November 1997.
  The total cost of providing all Government Car Service services in 1996–97 was £7.6 million. The estimated cost of vehicles and drivers allocated to Ministers and their private offices was £4.1 million, although they are also used for several other purposes such as the movement of documents and for use by officials as directed by the ministerial private office.
  The Government Car and Despatch Agency charges customer departments for the services provided on a basis that recovers all costs.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Farmed Land (Foreign Ownership)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the percentage of the farmed area in the United Kingdom which is in foreign ownership.[15968]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Question concerns a specific operational matter on which the Chief Executive of the Land Registry is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the Chief Executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Stuart Hill to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 20 November 1997 I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on the percentage of the farmed area in the United Kingdom in foreign ownership.
  I regret that statistics relating to the nationality of registered proprietors are not maintained by the Registry and I am therefore unable to supply the information required.

  Family Law
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if those attending pilot group divorce information meetings under the Family Law Act 1996 received the full range of divorce information referred to in Section 8(9) of the Act at such meetings.[16079]
  252
  Mr. Hoon
  With the exception of marriage counselling and support services, attendees at group information presentations receive the full range of information. Information on marriage support is additionally given in individual meetings.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total cost of the research into the pilot projects for the provision of divorce information under the Family Law Act 1996.[16072]

  Mr. Hoon
  Negotiations are continuing in relation to further pilots and disclosure of costings would be likely to affect our negotiating position with potential pilot providers. Therefore, this information must remain confidential at present.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when it is proposed to produce Welsh language leaflets to be distributed to attendees at divorce information meetings under the Family Law Act 1996.[16081]

  Mr. Hoon
  All leaflets specially commissioned for the information meetings pilots are available in Welsh for those attending meetings organised by the pilot project in South Wales and have been from its commencement in June 1997.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the budget for producing and distributing the leaflets given to attendees at the pilot divorce information meetings under the Family Law Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [16080]

  Mr. Hoon
  Negotiations are continuing in relation to further pilots and disclosure of costings would be likely to affect our negotiating position with potential pilot providers. Therefore, this information must remain confidential at present.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the overall budget is for piloting arrangements for the provision of divorce information under section 8 of the Family Law Act 1996; and if he will make a statement.[16085]

  Mr. Hoon
  Negotiations are continuing in relation to further pilots and disclosure of costings would be likely to affect our negotiating position with potential pilot providers. Therefore, this information must remain confidential at present.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Sectary, Lord Chancellor's Department if alternatives to meetings for the provision of divorce information under the Family Law Act 1996 have been piloted; and in what form. [16071]

  Mr. Hoon
  Both models being currently tested in the pilots involve personal attendance at meetings.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the relationship is between the pilot group divorce information meetings for married and unmarried individuals and the statutory framework under the Family Law Act 1996 of one to one meetings for married individuals; and if he will make a statement.[16083]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information presentations to a number of attendees constitute one of the models of information meetings currently being piloted. For married persons,
  253
  these presentations are preceded by an individual information meeting. The individual meetings are within the statutory framework of the Family Law Act. Non-married persons do not first attend an individual meeting.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was of producing the video being shown at the pilot group divorce information meetings under the Family Law Act 1996; and if he will make a statement.[16082]

  Mr. Hoon
  Negotiations are continuing in relation to further pilots and disclosure of costings would be likely to affect our negotiating position with potential pilot providers. Therefore, this information must remain confidential at present.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements exist for consultation on the contents of phases II and III of the divorce information pilot projects under the Family Law Act 1996; when and with whom this consultation will take place; and if he will make a statement.[16078]

  Mr. Hoon
  All aspects of the pilot projects are being objectively tested through research. The views of the public who attend meetings, those involved in organisation and delivery of the pilots and all professionals and organisations within the pilot areas are being sought. Consultation on the content of the leaflets took place with relevant organisations. As required by section 8 (10) of the Family Law Act, before making any regulations under subsection (6) of section 8, the Lord Chancellor must consult such persons concerned with the provision of relevant information as he considers appropriate. The Lord Chancellor will do so.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total cost of the tendering process for research into the pilot projects for the provision of divorce information under the Family Law Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [16073]

  Mr. Hoon
  There was no competition for the evaluation element of the pilots as opposed to the pilot provision itself which was subject to competition. In the course of this competition the Department received a manifestly suitable set of proposals for the evaluation and an application for a grant in aid. No separate competition for the evaluation element was therefore necessary.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the budget is for providing pilot group divorce information meetings for married and unmarried individuals under the Family Law Act 1996.[16084]

  Mr. Hoon
  Negotiations are continuing in relation to further pilots and disclosure of costings would be likely to affect our negotiating position with potential pilot providers. Therefore, this information must remain confidential at present.

  Courts
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the ratio between the cost of maintaining courts in(a) rural and (b) urban areas.[15945]
  254
  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not hold information on the comparative cost of maintaining individual magistrates courts. Expenditure information is only collected at magistrates committee level and this will, in many cases, cover more than one court.

  The Court Service does hold information on the maintenance cost of individual crown and county court centres but does not classify them as either rural or urban.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department what account was taken of representations received from courts committees in formulating the strategic plan for 1997 to 2007; and what savings will be made as a result of the closure of court houses under the strategic plan.[15977]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not formulated a strategic plan for the years 1997 to 2007. The Dorset Magistrates Courts Committee has drawn up a plan covering those years. The Lord Chancellor's Department was not consulted about the content of the plan and there is no statutory requirement for the Committee to have done so. It is for the Committee itself to determine what account should be taken of any representations received during the formulation of its plan.

  The strategic plan makes no specific reference to the level of savings that could be achieved through the closure of court houses.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the practice whereby individuals representing themselves at court in civil cases, who win their cases, are not entitled to claim for costs other than travel expenses.[15947]

  Mr. Hoon
  Under the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975, litigants in person are entitled to recover costs other than travel expenses, including disbursements incurred and time for preparing their case. However, as part of the civil justice reform programme, my Department issued a consultation paper in August 1997, on the general provisions relevant to taxation of costs, including the costs of litigants in person.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Garnider
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the insurers and insurance companies with whom the Lord Chancellor or his officials have held discussions about the Government's legal aid reform proposals, indicating in each case where and when the discussion took place and who was present.[16321]

  Mr. Hoon
  Officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department have had contact with various insurers and their representatives for some years. However since my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, announced his intentions to reform legal aid on 18 October 1997, his officials have met a delegation from the Association of British Insurers on 29 October 1997. The meeting took place at the Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters (Selborne House). The Lord Chancellor also met James Innes of Abbey Legal Protection Ltd. on 14 November 1997 in the Lord Chancellor's office in the House of Lords. Those meetings have been in addition to less formal contact over the telephone and in correspondence.
  255

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what part his Department played in the formulation of the Treaty of Amsterdam material concerning(a) qualified majority voting in employment matters and (b) the treatment of employment as a matter of common concern; and if he will make a statement. [17017]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Department for Education and Employment played a full part in the formulation of the UK position on the new Employment Chapter in the Amsterdam Treaty, in conjunction with other interested Departments.

  The Government's objectives at the Amsterdam European Council in relation to employment were: to agree a new Employment Chapter; to ensure that tackling unemployment is a priority for the EU; and to secure recognition of the importance of employability and flexible labour markets in any employment strategy.

  All these objectives were met.

TREASURY

  Taxation Changes
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total net revenue cost to the Exchequer in 1998–99 of(a) introducing a new rate of income tax of 50 per cent. on taxable income of over f100,000 per annum, (b) abolishing mortgage interest tax relief, (c) abolishing the married couple's tax allowance, (d) restricting the value of the personal tax allowance to the basic rate of income tax, (e) applying tax on savings at the marginal rate of income tax, (f) abolishing the lower rate of income tax, (g) abolishing the capital gains tax annual exempt amount and (h) raising the value of the personal income tax allowance to £10,000 per annum.[13249]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]The latest available information is for 1997–98. Separate costs or yields for each of the individual measures are given in the table. The combined cost of all of the measures may differ significantly from the sum of the figures for the individual measures. The estimates do not allow for any behavioural changes.

  Full year cost (-)/yield (+) at 1997–98 income levels

  (a) 50 per cent, of taxable income above £100,000

  +£1.4 billion

  (b) abolish mortgage interest tax relief

  +£2.6 billion

  (c) abolish the married couple's allowance and related allowances1

  +£3.3 billion

  (d) restrict the value of personal allowance to the basic rate

  +£1.9 billion

  (e) apply tax on savings (excluding dividends) at the marginal rate of income tax

  +£0.2 billion

  256

  Full year cost (-)/yield (+) at 1997–98 income levels

  (f) abolish the lower rate of tax, but leave savings and dividends rate at 20 per cent.

  +£2.7 billion

  (g) cost of capital gains tax annual exempt amount2

  -£2.5 billion

  (h) raise non aged and aged personal allowances to £10,000

  -£2.9 billion

  1This figure includes the cost of abolishing the additional personal allowance of £220 million and the cost of abolishing the widow's bereavement allowance of £25 million.

  2 This figure allows for windfall gains arising from the disposal of shares issued in connection with building society and insurance company de-mutualisations. It is particularly uncertain due to the exceptional level of de-mutualisation activity during this year. This estimate represents the reduction in tax liabilities from the existence of the relief and cannot generally be interpreted as the yield from withdrawing it. In practice, withdrawing a relief would often result in significant changes to taxpayers' behaviour and might require changes to other reliefs.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will estimate the percentage change in after-tax income per income decile as a consequence of announced changes to direct and indirect taxation over the period 1998–99 to 2000–01; and if he will make a statement.[13280]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 11 July, Official Report, column 167–68.

  Estimates of the impact on after-tax per income decile in 1998–99 will depend on measures announced in the spring Budget.

  Business Insolvency
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he has issued to(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) HM Customs and Excise in respect of bankruptcy orders in business insolvency cases. [16196]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have a statutory duty to collect tax that is legally due. It is their responsibility, to the Exchequer and to taxpayers generally, to do so speedily and effectively, taking the action they consider appropriate to obtain payment. However both Departments recognise the need to balance their duty to collect tax with the proper concern for the taxpayer to continue in business. Insolvency proceedings are only taken as a last resort, after all other attempts to secure payment within a reasonable time-scale have failed.

  Elderly People (North Norfolk)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the number of people in North Norfolk over the ages of(a) 65 and (b) 75 years in (i) 1977, (ii) 1987, (iii) 1997, (iv) 2007 and (v) 2017.[16533]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  257
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Prior, dated 20 November 1997 The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on the number of people in North Norfolk aged over 65 and 75.
  Population estimates are available for North Norfolk for 1977 and 1987. This information is set out below

  District of North Norfolk

  65 and over

  75 and over

  Population estimates

  1978

  17,300

  6,500

  1987

  21,200

  9,600

  Population projections are only available for counties, metropolitan districts and London Boroughs, and are not available for smaller geographical areas such as that of North Norfolk. Therefore, the figures for 1997, 2007 and 2017 are provided for the county of Norfolk only. Comparable population estimates are also given.

  County of Norfolk

  65 and over

  75 and over

  Population estimates

  1977

  114,700

  42,200

  1987

  136,300

  59,500

  Population projections

  1997

  153,400

  73,400

  2007

  164,000

  85,200

  2017

  198,900

  92,200

  Sources:

  1977 and 1987—based Population estimates for England and Wales. 1993—based Subnational Population Projection for England (PP3 no. 9, 1995).

  Airport Taxes
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to reduce the burden of United Kingdom airport taxes on foreign children making flights on medical grounds to the United Kingdom.[16916]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Cases of this type are usually administered by UK registered charities which already benefit from a range of tax reliefs such as gift aid and the payroll scheme. These encourage donations to charity by focusing on what people give rather than what charities spend. Additionally, in his last Budget, the Chancellor announced a review of the taxation of charities and invited contributions from interested parties. Although the main focus of the review will be the current VAT arrangements, all aspects of the tax system will be taken into consideration.

  The Government receive many appeals of this nature for relief of taxes and duties. While we are sympathetic to the causes it would be difficult to justify discrimination by granting relief in some cases but not in others.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a progressive duty in respect of the brewing industry.[15414]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.
  258

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television (Sporting Event)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the England v. Australia Rugby Union international on Saturday 15 November not being available live to terrestrial viewers.[16569]

  Mr. Fisher
  Mr right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received one representation on the subject of the coverage of this particular match. He has received eight representations on the subject of the coverage of England Rugby Union matches in general. This match was shown live by BSkyB under the terms of its contract with the English Rugby Football Union. Coverage of the whole match was transmitted by ITV later on the same afternoon, and I understand that this will be the arrangement for television coverage of all home England internationals until 2001.

  Tourism
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the value of the tourism industry to(a) the East Midlands, (b) Leicestershire and (c) Loughborough.[16571]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  In 1996, the tourism industry generated an estimated £1,700 million in the East Midlands and an estimated £370 million in Leicestershire.

  Official data sources do not provide reliable estimates of tourism expenditure in Loughborough or other sub-county local authority areas.

  Museums (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if grant in aid per visitor is a factor he is taking into account in his current review of Tyne and Wear museums funding; and if he will make a statement.[16516]

  Mr. Fisher
  The main focus of the Department's current review of the funding arrangements of the Tyne and Wear Museums Service is on whether the annual grant from the Museums and Galleries Commission should continue in the light of the Department's wider spending review. The review will take into account relevant factors including value-for-money considerations such as cost per visitor from all funding sources, and TWMS's record of achievement in the delivery of public services.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what factors have been taken into account in his review of Government direct funding of the Tyne and Wear Museums Service; and if he will make a statement.[16625]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Department is reviewing the current funding arrangements for the Tyne and Wear Museums Service as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. That Review, embracing all aspects of the Government's public expenditure programmes, includes a consideration of the Department's funding of the museums sector overall. The grant to TWMS cannot be exempt from that consideration.
  259

  Listed Buildings (Ecclesiastical Exemption)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he has received Mr. John Newman's report on the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building and conservation area controls.[17573]

  Mr. Banks
  Mr. Newman has completed his review of the ecclesiastical exemption and copies of his report have been placed in the Library. His overall conclusion is that the six denominations should continue to enjoy the exemption for the time being. He none the less proposes a number of changes to procedure within each of the denominations and recommends that a further formal review be conducted after a year in the case of the Baptist Union and after three years in the case of the other denominations.

  Copies of the report are today being sent to all the exempt denominations and other interested bodies with an invitation to comment on its conclusions. The Government look to each of the denominations to give serious consideration to those recommendations which relate to it. My Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales propose to have discussions with each denomination on the action needed in the light of Mr. Newman's report. The Government propose to accept Mr. Newman's recommendation concerning the need for further reviews.

  Written comments submitted to Mr. Newman in the course of his review are open to inspection in the Libraries of my Department and of the Welsh Office.

  "The BBC and the Future of Broadcasting"
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish his response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report "The BBC and the Future of Broadcasting".[17574]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government welcome the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report "The BBC and the Future of Broadcasting" and are grateful to the Committee for its inquiry into this area. I have today published Command Paper 3799, which constitutes the Government's response to the report. Copies were laid before Parliament earlier today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Dependent Territories
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to encourage all remaining British dependent territories to seek their independence; and if he will make a statement.[16675]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We shall not seek in any way to influence opinion on independence, but will respond positively wherever this is the clearly and constitutionally expressed wish of the citizens of a Dependent Territory, and where it is an option.

  Quota Hopping
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement 260
  on the legal authority of the letter from the President of the European Commission, agreed at Amsterdam, on quota hopping.[16945]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The letter records the interpretation of the Commission of how a Member State may, within the rules of the Single Market, establish an economic link between fishing activity and fishing communities. Under Article 155 of the EC Treaty the Commission is the guardian of the Treaty, and the letter carries that authority.

  EU Border Controls
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department's officials were first notified that the presidency of the European Union had accepted the non-participation of the United Kingdom within the relaxation of border controls set out in the Amsterdam Treaty.[16942]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The decision to include an explicit recognition in the Amsterdam Treaty of the UK's right to maintain internal frontier controls was one which had to be taken by all Member States. No such decision was taken until the Amsterdam Summit. It was not a decision which the EU presidency alone could have taken.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with the Spanish Foreign Minister the voting arrangements for the United Kingdom opt-in to border controls.[16941]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I have no such plans.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the reforms required to European Union institutions to enable enlargement to take place.[16943]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the provisions of the protocol on the Institutions in the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU Member States are committed to seeking a resolution to the issues of Commission size and the reweighting of votes in Council prior to enlargement.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on those reforms to the voting arrangements of the European Union required to enable enlargement to proceed. [16944]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We welcome the commitment contained in the Protocol on the Institutions in the Amsterdam Treaty to tackle the issues of the size of the Commission and the Weighting of the votes in Council.

  Media Relations
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to change(a) procedures and (b) staff involved in media relations; and if he will make a statement.[17001]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None, but I would expect to implement any new procedures which might result from the current review of the Government Information Service.
  261

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the legal status of a declaration to the Treaty of Amsterdam.[16946]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Conference declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam are not part of the Treaty. They comprise political commitments or exhortations, interpretative statements and statements of fact of which the Conference takes note. They form part of the context of the Treaty for the purpose of its interpretation, including in the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

  Brazil
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Brazil concerning the threat to indigenous peoples of the rain forest arising from logging and other developments.[16678]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  We regularly raise the interests of indigenous peoples with the Government of Brazil, at Ministerial and other levels, We also work closely with the Government of Brazil on projects to conserve the environment and improve people's livelihood, with a particular focus on the Amazon rain forest. Our technical co-operation programme tackles issues such as sustainable forest management and conservation of plant and animal wildlife. The expressed needs of local people, including indigenous people, form an integral part of such projects. These aim to involve indigenous people in the decision-making process and thereby help to preserve their traditional way of life while enhancing their social, political and economic circumstances.

SCOTLAND

  Accident Reports
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will encourage the police forces in Scotland to include in accident reports information as to whether the pass-plus course has been taken.[16037]

  Mr. McLeish
  No. This information is not routinely available to the police. It would need to be specifically requested by the officers attending the scene of the accident, and then verified, all at additional cost. I understand that it would not be possible to draw statistically valid conclusions from such information.

  Local Government Funding
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the additional £8.9 million allocated to local authorities in the current financial year and the extra £26.7 million allocated for each of the following four years for capital expenditure on the repair and replacement of school buildings, will be allocated to Argyll and Bute.[16409]
  262
  Mr. Wilson
  £202,000 in the current financial year and £607,000 in each of the following four years.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the additional £59 million to be allocated to local authorities for general education current spending in the next financial year will be allocated to Argyll and Bute.[ 16410]

  Mr. Chisholm
  These funds will form part of the local government current expenditure settlement, and will be included in the Grant-Aided Expenditure Assessment arrangements. Each council's share of this will be announced in the settlement in the normal way.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the additional £15 million to be distributed to local authorities for general spend-to-save measures through capital expenditure will be allocated to Argyll and Bute.[16412]

  Mr. Wilson
  £341,000. The Council was also successful in its application for £440,000 of a further £15 million which has been set aside to support school rationalisation on a spend-to-save basis. These figures will be included in the local government finance settlement.

  Montserrat Evacuees
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that adequate housing is available for evacuees from Montserrat.[17519]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Local authorities need to be able to respond as flexibly as possible to the needs of Montserratians arriving under the Government's Montserrat Assisted Passage Scheme (MAP Scheme), which provides for voluntary evacuation.

  We recognise that authorities will incur additional costs when bringing accommodation into use for Montserratian evacuees. We must do our best to ensure that evacuees coming to Scotland under the MAP Scheme are given as smooth and welcoming a reception as possible.

  We are proposing to offer a special grant to encourage local authorities to make vacant property available more quickly to house evacuees who have chosen to come to Scotland under the MAP Scheme and who have nowhere to stay. The grant will also be payable to housing associations which offer accommodation. The special grant to local authorities would be provided for under section 108A of the Local Government Act 1992. Payments to housing associations would be made direct by Scottish Homes.

  The Scottish Office Development Department has written today to local authorities, Scottish Homes, and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations setting out details of the scheme and arrangements for making claims. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library. Subject to approval of the House, grants will be made available for each unit of accommodation provided for qualifying households placed with local authorities or housing associations under the MAP Scheme between 27 August 1997 and 31 January 1998, at a rate of £500 or £1,500 depending on the costs involved. The grant scheme has been drawn up after consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
  263

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of which sections of the Treaty of Amsterdam his Department contributed to the drafting. [17013]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The United Kingdom position on the Draft Treaty of Amsterdam was reached after consultation between relevant Government Departments.

  Gaelic
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that Gaelic is carried on digital terrestrial television; and if he will make a statement. [16579]

  Mr. Fisher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Scottish Television and Grampian Television are required to broadcast on Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) their existing terrestrial analogue services, which must include at least one hour a week on average of programmes in Gaelic. S4C Digital Networks (SDN) have been awarded the licence to operate the DTT multiplex which will carry Channel 5 and S4C. SDN are also required to broadcast on that multiplex in Scotland a minimum of half an hour each day of programmes in Gaelic during peak time—between 6 pm and 10.30 pm, and the BBC, Scottish Television and Grampian are each required to make at least 30 hours of Gaelic programming a year available to SDN, free of charge, for re-broadcasting as part of their programme service. These provisions, taken together with the increase in capacity which digital terrestrial television will bring, should provide the opportunity for an increase in the amount of Gaelic programming available on television services.

WALES

  Clydach Hospital
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the head injury rehabilitation section at Clydach Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [16074]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  This is a matter for the Health Authority and Morriston Hospital NHS Trust. However, I understand that Clydach Hospital is temporarily closed due to the sick absence of the Consultant in Rehabilitation who is responsible for Neuro-rehabilitation. Patients are currently receiving treatment at Morriston Hospital, where a new ward facility has been opened as a contingency measure.

  NHS Bureaucracy and Waste
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what measures he has taken since 2 May to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy; and if he will make a statement; [16106]
  264
  (2) what is his estimate of the amount of money saved by his actions against waste in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [16100]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have set in train a number of measures that will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and lead to better services for patients, business and the general public. These include:NHS: Management cost savings of £6 million this year; a White Paper to come on abolishing the internal market; a review of Trust configuration.
  Quangos: The creation of a single Economic Powerhouse for Wales and the absorption of Tai Cymru and 2 Special Health Authorities into the Assembly.
  Education: Abolition of the nursery voucher scheme.
  Local Government: Consultation on proposals to give local authorities more flexibility when conducting tendering exercises.
  TECs: Planned reduction in the number of Training and Enterprise Councils from 6 to 4.

  Smoking
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy regarding his aim to bring about a reduction in smoking in Wales with particular reference to children of school age. [16102]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend has set NHS Wales a number of targets to improve health and health services. These include a reduction in the number of people in Wales who smoke, including teenagers. Responsibility for achieving the targets to reduce smoking rests with Health Authorities working closely with the activities of other agencies such as the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the internal departmental guidance on the dissemination of information; and if he will make a statement. [16300]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Departmental guidance on the dissemination of information is contained within the Welsh Office Handbook. Copies of this guidance have been placed in the Library.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average funding per student in further education in each of the last five years. [16508]

  Mr. Hain
  The average funding per Further Education Funding Council for Wales-funded full-time equivalent student in further education over the last four years (the 1992–93 figure is not on a comparable basis), including capital, was as follows:

  1993–94: £3,038

  1994–95: £3,366

  1995–96: £3,220

  1996–97: £3,000.

  265

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of which sections of the Treaty of Amsterdam his Department contributed to the drafting. [17011]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The United Kingdom position on the draft Treaty of Amsterdam was reached after consultation between relevant Government Departments.

  Fires
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) injuries and (b) fatalities were caused through fires in (i) houses in multiple occupation, (ii) the rest of the private rented sector, (iii) council houses and (iv) other social housing in Wales in each of the past 10 years; [16513]

  Table 1: Fatal casualties from fires in dwellings by type of dwelling and cause of death, Wales, 1988 to 1995

  Cause of death

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  21995

  Single occupancy/dwelling

  Overcome by gas or smoke

  20

  12

  12

  21

  18

  15

  1

  12

  Burns and overcome by gas or smoke

  2

  2

  0

  5

  0

  2

  3

  13

  All causes

  28

  18

  17

  32

  28

  23

  16

  30

  Multiple occupancy dwelling

  Overcome by gas or smoke

  5

  6

  2

  8

  4

  2

  2

  2

  Burns and overcome by gas or smoke

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  All causes

  6

  8

  3

  9

  6

  5

  2

  5

  Other or unspecified dwellings

  Overcome by gas or smoke

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  3

  Burns and overcome by gas or smoke

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All causes

  2

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  4

  All types of dwelling

  Overcome by gas or smoke

  26

  18

  14

  31

  23

  17

  10

  17

  Burns and overcome by gas or smoke

  2

  3

  0

  5

  0

  2

  3

  15

  All causes

  36

  26

  21

  43

  35

  28

  19

  39

  1 Including additional late call and heat and smoke damage incidents (not recorded prior to 1994).

  Table 2: Non fatal casualties from fires in dwellings by type of dwelling and nature of injury, Wales, 1988 to 1995

  Nature of injury

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  21995

  Single occupancy dwelling

  Overcome by gas or smoke

  102

  93

  91

  125

  119

  141

  123

  149

  Burns and overcome by gas or smoke

  12

  7

  8

  3

  12

  5

  9

  7

  All types of casualty

  343

  299

  322

  328

  361

  328

  413

  401

  Of which:

  precautionary check up

  64

  77

  71

  93

  97

  54

  141

  104

  Multiple occupancy dwelling

  Overcome by gas or smoke

  35

  57

  64

  79

  71

  71

  58

  118

  Burns and overcome by gas or smoke

  1

  3

  0

  5

  1

  3

  8

  2

  All types of casualty

  127

  142

  131

  165

  152

  172

  189

  203

  Of which:

  precautionary check up

  35

  31

  32

  33

  40

  59

  78

  51

  Other or unspecified dwellings

  Overcome by gas or smoke

  2

  0

  5

  2

  2

  4

  2

  1

  Burns and overcome by gas or smoke

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All types of casualty

  5

  5

  13

  8

  9

  10

  6

  3

  Of which:

  precautionary check up

  2

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  1

  0

  266
  (2) how many (a) injuries and (b) fatalities were caused by carbon monoxide poisoning from house fires in (a) houses of multiple occupation; (b) the rest of the private rented sector, (c) council housing and (d) other social housing in Wales in each of the past 10 years. [16512]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The readily available information on fires in dwellings in Wales is given in the tables.

  Casualties from carbon monoxide poisoning cannot be identified centrally. The data for 1994 and 1995 do not reliably distinguish houses in multiple occupation from other types of dwelling, such as flats and maisonettes.

  Information for 1987 and earlier years is not available. Information for 1996 will be available early in 1998.
  267

  Table 2: Non fatal casualties from fires in dwellings by type of dwelling and nature of injury, Wales, 1988 to 1995

  Nature of injury

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  21995

  All types of dwelling

  Overcome by gas or smoke

  139

  150

  160

  206

  192

  216

  183

  268

  Burns and overcome by gas or smoke

  13

  10

  8

  10

  13

  8

  17

  9

  All types of casualty

  475

  446

  466

  501

  522

  510

  608

  607

  Of which:

  precautionary check up

  101

  108

  103

  126

  140

  115

  220

  155

  1 Including additional late call and heat and smoke damage incidents (not recorded prior to 1994).

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [15276]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The overseas visits I have made since 2 May are listed below. The costs given represent the costs brought to account to date and may not be the final cost to my office of the visit.

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost to Date £

  Noordwijk1

  Special European Council

  —

  Paris

  NATO/Russia Summit

  10,557

  Bonn/Malmo

  German bilateral/European Socialist Meeting

  22,115

  Paris

  Bilateral with M. Chirac

  3,482

  Amsterdam

  European Council

  28,482

  Denver

  G7/8 Economic Summit

  61,687

  New York

  UN Special Session on the Environment

  86,581

  Hong Kong

  Handover

  16,743

  Madrid

  NATO Summit

  23,010

  Moscow1

  Bilateral with President Yeltsin

  —

  Luxembourg/Strasbourg1

  Special European Council

  —

  1Bills not in yet.

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 10 November from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,Official Report, column 441, if he will make it the Government's policy to ensure that e-mail addresses for all Ministers are available to all hon. and right hon. Members.[15845]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: E-mail can be an effective additional way of communicating between Ministers, officials and the public.

  It is up to individual Ministers to decide whether to establish and publish e-mail addresses.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is willing to provide a central list of e-mail addresses along the lines indicated in his reply of 10 November, Official Report, column 441.
  268

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the minutes of his meeting with Mr. Bernie Ecclestone held on 16 October. [16319]

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the minutes of the meeting he held with Mr. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley on 16 October; which ministers were present; and where it took place. [16740]

  The Prime Minister
  Because of the level of public interest in this matter, and as an exception to the normal practice, I have released the notes of the meeting which I held with Mr. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley on 16 October at 10 Downing Street. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he informed the Secretary of State for Health of his decision to exempt Formula 1 from the proposed ban on tobacco sponsorship; and by what means he notified him of the decision; [16744]

  (2) when the decision was made to exempt Formula 1 from the proposed ban on tobacco sponsorship; and what factors led him to conclude that there was an appearance of conflict of interest between the donation the Labour Party received from Mr. Ecclestone and the decision to exempt Formula 1 from the ban on tobacco sponsorship; [16737]

  (3) what criteria he used in making his decision to refer the donation from Mr. Eccelstone to Sir Patrick Neill. [16743]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave in the House on 12 November,Official Report, columns 898–99.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria he used when deciding to meet representatives from sporting organisations affected by the proposed ban on tobacco sponsorship. [16742]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave in the House on 12 November,Official Report, column 900.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those sports where representatives met Ministers to discuss the impact of a ban on tobacco sponsorship on their sports, indicating the date of appointment, and the names of those he saw and the organisations they represent. [16753]
  269
  The Prime Minister
  On 24 June, the Minister for Sport met Maurice Lindsay of the Rugby Football League, Richard Little of the England and Wales Cricket Board, Jonathan Ashman of the RAC Motorsports Association and Martyn Blake of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association.

  In addition, the Minister for Sport was present when the Minister for Public Health met Max Mosley of the Federation Internationale de L'Automobile on 23 September.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors he took into account when deciding to publish the letter that was sent at his request to Sir Patrick Neill on 4 November and his subsequent reply.[16738]

  The Prime Minister
  The decision to publish the letter was taken by the author, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, with my agreement. The main factor I took into account in giving my agreement was transparency.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister how many meetings his Chief of Staff has attended with Mr. Bernard Ecclestone since his appointment; and if he will give their dates.[16851]

  The Prime Minister
  One. On 16 October he attended my meeting with Mr. Ecclestone together with a Private Secretary.

  Cabinet Business
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria he uses to determine which Government policies are referred to full Cabinet for discussion and decision.[16681]

  The Prime Minister
  Paragraph 3 of the Ministerial Code, copies of which are available in the Library, states:"Cabinet and Ministerial Committee business consists, in the main, of:

  questions which significantly engage the collective responsibility of the Government, because they raise major issues of policy or because they are of critical importance to the public;

  questions on which there is an unresolved argument between Departments."

  Only where matters cannot be satisfactorily resolved elsewhere need they be referred to the full Cabinet.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it one of his recommendations to the Neill Committee that political parties which have received substantial donations from animal rights organisations return such donations, together with an appropriate amount in interest.[16636]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria he uses to determine whether potential conflicts of interest exist between Government policy decisions and political donations from companies subsequently affected. [16739]
  270
  The Prime Minister
  General advice on the avoidance of potential conflicts of interest between a Minister's private interests and his or her official duties is set out in the Ministerial Code, a copy of which was placed in the Library in July. I have also asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life to review and make recommendations on the complex issues relating to Party funding.

  Anglo-French Summit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors were taken into account in the decision to use Canary Wharf rather than buildings in public ownership to host the recent Anglo-French summit.[16752]

  The Prime Minister
  The Canary Wharf Tower was chosen to reflect the modern and forward-looking partnership between Britain and France. The setting provided opportunities for the Government to work with the private sector in promoting an area of London of growing importance, and contemporary British design.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Prime Minister what account was taken of the public contract for tendering provisions of the European Union in awarding the contracts for furnishing and decorating the Canary Wharf venue for the Anglo-French summit.[16581]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 November 1997]We were not required to take account of European Union tendering provisions since Government expenditure was below the threshold.

  Chequers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister how many days he has spent in residence at Chequers since 1 May. [16116]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer of 30 October,Official Report, column 858.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) names, (b) dates of appointment and (c) appointing body of the independent trustees of Chequers.[16115]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]In accordance with the Chequers Estate Act 1958 the trustees are:

  The Lord Privy Seal, the right hon. the Lord Richard QC (Chairman, ex-officio);

  The right hon. the Lord Camoys DL, appointee of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (appointed 1 November 1991);

  Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher, appointee of the Prime Minister (appointed 13 June 1997);

  Ms J. C. Lomas, public Trustee ex-officio;

  Mr. Charles Nunneley, Chairman of the National Trust ex-officio.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the departmental responsibilities in respect of xenotransplantation.[16457]
  271
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 November 1997]The United Kingdom Health Departments are responsible for regulating the development of xenotransplantation as a medical procedure. The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) was established in January 1997 to advise my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State responsible for the UK Health Departments, on the safety and efficacy and any other pre-conditions for xenotransplantation for human use and the acceptability of any specific applications to proceed with xenotransplantation in humans. The UKXIRA also provides a focal point on xenotransplantation issues across Government. All the Departments concerned have regular contact on specific issues and meet occasionally in an Inter-departmental Group on Xenotransplantation.

  Other Departments with specific interests in aspects of the development of xenotransplantation include:-
  the Home Office, with regard to its responsibilities for the use of animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986;
  the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Health and Safety Executive in relation to legislation controlling Genetically Modified Organisms in respect of Human Health and safety and environmental protection;
  the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to any potential use of animals, bred in the development of xenotransplantation, within the food chain, the welfare of farm animals and the importation of animals or animal tissue;
  the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the sponsorship of the industrial exploitation of biotechnology and, through the Science Budget, underpinning basic and strategic research in the fields of biomedical sciences.

  Prime Minister's Diary
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister if his Chief of Staff has overall responsibility for keeping the Prime Minister's diary.[16852]

  The Prime Minister
  The Diary Secretary has responsibility for keeping the Prime Minister's diary.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr, John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated number of ME sufferers in Northern Ireland; if he will assess the advantage of providing a clinic to diagnose and manage ME: if she will examine best practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.[15914]

  Mr. Worthington
  Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of patients presenting with ME. Data are collected on finished consultant episodes in Northern Ireland hospitals. In 1996–97, the latest year for which information is provisionally available, there were 29 finished consultant episodes with a diagnosis of "postviral fatigue syndrome". In 11 of these cases, "postviral fatigue syndrome" was the primary diagnosis.
  272
  The report of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Psychiatrists and General Practitioners produced in 1996 concluded that most patients with ME should be managed in primary care and that the needs of those patients who do require specialist care could be addressed through a reconfiguration of general hospital services. I have asked Health and Social Services Boards for their views as to how services for people with ME and other similar conditions could be improved.

  Union Flag
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at whose request the Union flag was flown at the headquarters of the Southern Area Health Board at Tower Hill, Armagh City on 9 November; and if she will make a statement.[15913]

  Mr. Worthington
  A letter was sent to all Health and Social Services Boards on 1 May 1997 advising them of the days in 1997 on which the Union flag should be flown on Central Government Buildings. There is, however no requirement for the Boards to fly the Union flag on these dates. It is at the discretion of each organisation whether the flag should be flown on those buildings occupied by their staff.

  The Union flag was not flown at the Southern Health and Social Services Board, Tower Hill, Armagh on 9 November 1997.

  Street Lighting (Millisle)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to erect street lights along the Novella Road and the Moss Road in Millisle, Co. Down.[16038]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. P. Fraser to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 18 November 1997 The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about what plans there are to erect street lighting along Novella Road and Moss Road, Millisle, County Down. In Mr. McCoubrey's absence I am replying.
  First, I assume that your reference to Novella Road should be Movilla Road, Newtonards. The latter is linked to Moss Road, Millisle, by the Ballyblack Road East. Street lighting is already provided on those parts of Movilla Road and Moss Road which are within the urban boundaries of Newtonwards and Millisle. The remaining unlighted sections of both roads are mainly rural in character.
  Roads Service's criteria for the provision of street lighting on rural roads are based on housing density, general traffic conditions and road safety. The sections of road in question do not meet this criteria given that they have only sporadic roadside development and a good accident record. In the circumstances we have no plans to extend the street lighting along these roads.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.
  273

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what communications there were between the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office and(a) the Minister of State, Scottish Office, (b) his officials and (c) the Scottish Prison Service about the application for transfer of Jason Campbell from HM Prison Shotts to the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland; and what were the dates of such communications.[16218]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]On 25 September I received confirmation from my officials that Jason Campbell had applied for transfer to Northern Ireland.

  There were no communications between myself and the Minister of State at the Scottish Office nor between myself and the Scottish Prison Service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what discussions the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had with the Forestry Commission about its decision to start selling Forestry Commission land in England and Wales again; what steps are being taken to ensure public access to such land; and how much land he expects to be sold in the current financial year.[14693]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]There are no Commission forests being offered for sale in England. A moratorium on the sale of Forestry Commission forests was imposed immediately after the election. It is still in place. The Commission is, however, completing those sales which were agreed before the election. Wherever possible, the Commission offers to enter into access agreements with local authorities for every area of forest land that it sells. These agreements ensure that public access is protected in perpetuity.

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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.[15873]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The information requested is being placed in the Library.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of beef is currently imported into the United Kingdom; from which countries; and what proposals he has to review those countries permitted to export beef to the United Kingdom. [15948]
  274
  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested for the period September 1996 to August 1997 is set out in the table. All fresh meat imported into the UK, whether from other Member States or third countries, must have been produced in accordance with harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC and must comply with Community legislation governing imports into the European Union. In addition, national legislation prohibits the sale for human consumption of all bovine meat derived from bovines which, at the time of slaughter were more than 30 months old, other than those born, reared and slaughtered in the following third countries:

  Argentina

  Australia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Paraguay

  Poland

  South Africa

  Swaziland

  Uruguay

  USA

  Zimbabwe.

  National and Community legislation governing beef imports is kept under constant review.

  UK imports of beef September 1996 to August 1997

  Country

  Tonnes

  Imports of bovine carcase meat

  Irish Republic

  51,979

  Netherlands

  15,567

  Uruguay

  11,598

  Argentina

  9,130

  Australia

  8,034

  Germany

  7,457

  Botswana

  5,698

  Zimbabwe

  5,060

  Namibia

  4,792

  New Zealand

  4,517

  France

  4,471

  Brazil

  3,577

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  1,630

  U.S.A.

  1,520

  Spain

  1,080

  Denmark

  688

  Other

  1,069

  Total

  137,866

  Imports of bovine offal

  Irish Republic

  4,460

  Netherlands

  1,822

  France

  1,563

  Germany

  894

  New Zealand

  522

  Australia

  481

  Other

  1,224

  Total

  10,966

  Imports of meat and offal of bovine animals, prepared and preserved

  Brazil

  34,044

  Argentina

  14,697

  Irish Republic

  14,225

  Uruguay

  4,715

  Mauritius

  3,262

  275

  UK imports of beef September 1996 to August 1997

  Country

  Tonnes

  Zimbabwe

  2,316

  Botswana

  554

  Netherlands

  452

  Other

  1,362

  Total

  75,628

  Total beef imported

  224,459

  Source

  Business and Trade Statistics Ltd.

  Data prepared by Stats (C and F) C, ESG.

  All data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  The above data include an estimate of below threshold trade, but excludes an estimate for non-response.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which EU member states dairy farmers in the less-favoured areas receive help under the terms of EC Directive 75/268/EEC.[16345]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  A working document produced by the European Commission last year indicated that in 1995 compensatory allowances were payable in all other Member States to farmers in less-favoured areas on limited numbers of dairy cows. No more recent information is available.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned on the relationship between stocking density and the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle; and if he will make a statement.[16338]

  Mr. Rooker
  No research has been commissioned specifically to study the relationship between stocking density and the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle. However, several studies have examined the behaviour of cattle in herds. For example, as cattle numbers increase, cattle do not avoid grass contaminated by badger faeces as much as usual. Professor Krebs's Committee has examined current research on bovine tuberculosis and is expected to report shortly.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned on the levels and types of soil bacteria found in (i) organic agriculture and (ii) conventional agriculture; and what assessment he has made of the implications of that research for the eradication of tuberculosis in cattle.[16341]

  Mr. Rooker
  No MAFF-funded research has been commissioned to study levels and types of soil bacteria found in either organic or conventional agriculture in the context of tuberculosis in cattle. However, some research has been carried out on the survival times of bovine TB in soil under experimental conditions. Further work has been carried out in the south west of England on the effect of farming practices on environmental mycobacteria. It has been suggested that these mycobacteria can prime the immune response in animals and humans, and may alter their response to subsequent infection and pathogens. Professor Krebs's Committee has examined current research on bovine tuberculosis and is expected to report shortly.
  276

  BSE
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what data he has collated concerning the existence of BSE in the United States cattle herd; and if he will make a statement.[16683]

  Mr. Rooker
  No cases of BSE in cattle have been reported by the USA authorities to the Office International des Epizooties (OIE). The USA has carried out detailed risk assessments which have been made available to us. It has traced, investigated and destroyed cattle imported from the UK and initiated surveillance for BSE in cattle presented for slaughter, concentrating particularly on adult animals with neurological symptoms.

  The demography of the USA cattle and sheep populations, the regional nature of its distribution of rendered protein and its low incidence of scrapie suggest that the risk from BSE in the USA is low. Nevertheless, the presence of three transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, namely scrapie in sheep, CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease) in elk and mule-deer and more rarely THE (Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy), indicate that the risk cannot be zero.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current operation of the EC-sponsored scheme to reduce the number of United Kingdom fishing vessels. [16505]

  Mr. Morley
  The Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1997 has now been approved by Parliament. We are currently assessing the 203 bids made under this Scheme and I expect to announce the results very shortly.

  Agriculture Council
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 17 to 18 November; and if he will make a statement. [17437]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the European Union Agriculture Council on 17 and 18 November.

  The principal task of the Council was to reach conclusions on the proposals to reform the Common Agricultural Policy in the context of the Commission's Agenda 2000 initiative. Discussions on these proposals have gone on in the Council since September. After long negotiations, it was possible to reach agreement on conclusions that met the key requirements which I had identified for the UK. These are, first, that there should be a rapid start to negotiating the necessary legislative changes to agricultural market regimes in order to give effect to CAP reform; second, that there should be recognition of the need for EU agriculture to be sustainable and competitive on domestic and international markets; third, that CAP reform should facilitate EU enlargement and allow the EU to take a positive negotiating stance in the next WTO round; and fourth, that there should be confirmation that the agricultural guideline imposes an absolute ceiling on spending in this sector. The Council confirmed the approach to reform along the lines I have advocated, namely reduced

  277
  price-support, compensated through direct aid and complemented by reinforced agri-environmental and rural development measures.

  The conclusions finally adopted fully achieved these objectives. They were endorsed by 14 of the 15 member states, Spain being unable to associate itself with the language reconfirming the unchanged nature of the agricultural guideline. The Council's conclusions will be passed to the General Affairs Council and ultimately to Heads of Government for consideration at their meeting in Luxembourg in December.

  In my view, this Council marked an important step in the process of reforming the Common Agricultural Policy, which is a key Government objective in the EU. I look forward to beginning the process of detailed negotiation as soon as the Commission's formal proposals are available.

  Aside from Agenda 2000, the Council had a detailed report from the Agriculture Commissioner on BSE, in the light of the European Parliament's recent report; and on the need to amend the July decision on specified risk materials in order to provide derogations for the imports of necessary pharmaceutical products. A proposal to this effect is to be made very shortly. I joined my Dutch and German colleagues in putting pressure on the Commission to bring forward proposals as rapidly as possible on battery cages for laying hens.

  Cattle Passport Scheme
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he received from the National Cattle Database Working Party on the annual running costs of the cattle passport scheme;[17005]

  (2) what recommendations he received from the National Cattle Database Working Party on the charge for a cattle passport; and if he will make a statement. [17008]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The National Cattle Database Working Party, which is a livestock industry body, submitted a report to MAFF in August 1996 on establishing a cattle tracing database. However, this report did not contain any estimates of costs of the database or the cattle passports scheme, or of the charge for a cattle passport.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the annual cost of the cattle passport scheme.[ 17003]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The latest estimate for Great Britain for 1997–98 is in the region of £7.2 million. This is an estimate of the cost of the current cattle passport scheme, and not of the new computerised cattle tracing system including cattle passports, which will be introduced in 1998.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what calculations were involved in determining the charge level for cattle passports; and if the charge includes a contribution to the scheme's annual running costs.[17007]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  There will be a charge for cattle passports once a computerised cattle tracing system has been introduced in Great Britain. The charge level has not yet been determined, but is expected to be in the range £5 to £10 per animal.
  278
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost to public funds of producing each cattle identification document; and how many were issued in the last year for which figures are available.[17004]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Cattle Identification Documents (CIDs) are issued only in respect of male cattle; cattle passports have been a requirement for all cattle born after 1 July 1996. As they form an integral part of the Beef Special Premium Scheme, it is not an easy matter to identify separately the costs relating to CIDs. However, taking account of relevant development, capital, maintenance and staff expenditure, our best estimate is that each one issued to date by the Department has cost in the region of £1.88. A total of 1,034,552 were issued in England in 1996.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings and what area of agricultural land in hectares came within the arable area payments scheme in each county in England in 1996.[16717]

  Mr. Morley
  The table gives the county breakdown of claims under the arable area payments scheme in 1996. A single claim may cover more than one holding where the holdings form part of one business.

  1996

  Number of claims

  Area paid hectares

  Avon

  400

  16,924

  Bedfordshire

  586

  65,541

  Berkshire

  265

  38,622

  Buckinghamshire

  643

  57,781

  Cambridgeshire

  2,125

  201,178

  Cheshire

  929

  27,190

  Cleveland

  213

  15,821

  Cornwall

  1,728

  42,256

  Cumbria

  931

  16,904

  Derbyshire

  786

  33,717

  Devonshire

  2,662

  69,725

  Dorset

  704

  61,439

  Durham

  657

  43,695

  Essex

  1,500

  189,560

  Gloucestershire

  979

  86,881

  Greater London

  65

  4,498

  Greater Manchester

  141

  5,375

  Hampshire

  785

  115,480

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,984

  99,882

  Hertfordshire

  479

  71,112

  Humberside

  2,065

  203,542

  Isle of Wight

  131

  9,679

  Kent

  1,051

  116,613

  Lancashire

  458

  18,565

  Leicestershire

  1,091

  99,453

  Lincolnshire

  3,352

  347,816

  Mersey side

  173

  9,570

  Norfolk

  2,866

  232,675

  Northamptonshire

  896

  115,632

  Northumberland

  816

  91,279

  Nottinghamshire

  1,000

  93,470

  Oxfordshire

  922

  124,250

  Shropshire

  1,579

  86,578

  Somerset

  1,230

  50,876

  Staffordshire

  827

  49,507

  Suffolk

  2,082

  194,348

  Surrey

  205

  14,968

  East Sussex

  447

  31,691

  West Sussex

  493

  48,396

  279

  1996

  Number of claims

  Area paid hectares

  Tyne and Wear

  110

  9,192

  Warwickshire

  879

  82,000

  West Midlands

  94

  5,812

  Wiltshire

  1,012

  122,665

  North Yorkshire

  3,132

  214,249

  South Yorkshire

  526

  43,344

  West Yorkshire

  384

  23,990

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the impact on United Kingdom fishermen of the proposals contained in the Amsterdam Summit.[16948]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18 June 1997,Official Report, columns 331–44.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the impact of the implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty on the live export of cattle from the United Kingdom to the European continent.[16949]

  Mr. Morley
  In general the European Union does not recognise animal movements from one Member State to another as in any way distinct from the generality of animal movements on EU territory, although, because of BSE, there is currently a ban on exports of live cattle to the continent. The Treaty protocol agreed at Amsterdam will not change this. However, it will mean that the EU will have to pay full regard to animal welfare in further developing the controls which it applies to the transportation of animals.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) her Department's policies and initiatives designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and (b) the departmental policies and initiatives designed to reduce other greenhouse gases; if she will estimate for each the annual reduction in tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions achieved in the most recent year for which figures are available compared to those for 1990; and what estimate she has made of further reductions, or increases, predicted for 2000 and 2010, assuming continuation of current policies.[15538]

  Mr. Foulkes
  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 to 2020 what the current programme is expected to achieve.
  280
  As regards developing country issues, our policy is to limit the growth of greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries through the conventions energy efficiency programme which encourages these countries to play an effective role in controlling emissions while continuing their economic development. Through this we have committed over £311 million since 1992 on projects which improve the efficient use of energy resources, encourage the use of renewable sources of energy and conduct research into climate-friendly technologies. We have also committed over £130 million to the Global Environment Facility which is the financial mechanism of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. We are prepared to make a substantial further contribution to the GEF at its current replenishment negotiations. Some 40 per cent. of these resources are allocated to climate change projects in developing countries and economies in transition. Data that quantify the effect of the above in terms of tonnes of greenhouse gases are unavailable.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to change the 1997–98 External Financing Limit for the Commonwealth Development Corporation.[17521]

  Clare Short
  The External Financing Limit for CDC for 1997–98 will be increased by £2,300,000 from minus £40,000,000 to minus £37,700,000. The change allows for the take-up of an entitlement under end year flexibility arrangements. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Competitiveness
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has for enhancing the competitiveness of British business.[15406]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is pushing forward her Competitiveness UK initiative. On 11 November, she published "A Benchmark for Business", an examination of our competitiveness at both national and sectoral level.

  The President also announced the creation of six industry-based Working Parties to advise her on how business and Government can improve UK performance. The work of these groups and of the President's Advisory Group on Competitiveness will lead to a Competitiveness White Paper next year.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she last met representatives of small and medium British businesses to discuss competitiveness.[15427]

  Mrs. Roche
  DTI policies for all companies are being developed in close dialogue and consultation with business. Within this, there is a particular focus on the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises. SMEs are therefore represented on the president's Advisory
  281
  Group on Competitiveness and will be an important component in the Competitiveness Working Parties now being established. More specifically, Ministers and officials in this department regularly meet a variety of small firms' representatives to discuss a wide range of issues of concern to this important sector.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the work of the Low Pay Commission; and if she will make a statement.[15407]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley).

  Agricultural Development Councils
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role she is playing in the examination of agricultural development councils.[15409]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is reviewing its administration of section 508 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, under which the Secretary of State may approve "research Associations" (a term which has been taken in the past to include certain Agricultural Development Councils) for tax exemption purposes.

  Scientific Research
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government are taking to increase research and development investment in independent scientific research organisations.[15410]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is prepared to consider projects from any source provided it is driven by an industry demand. We are well aware of the important role that research organisations can and do play in developing and transferring technology to improve the competitiveness of UK industry, particularly SMEs. Our support for the exciting new TWI/BT concept, JOIN-IT, to deliver technical advice to SMEs via the Internet is an example of how we are prepared to support these organisations to develop novel technology which will benefit UK industry.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the provisions of the concordat between Departments on inward investment.[15411]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Both the Scotland and Wales White Papers on Devolution indicated that there would be a concordat on financial assistance. We are currently preparing a concordat between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that financial assistance to industry remains within common UK guidelines and consultation arrangements. It will address the concern that public money should not be used to finance competition between different parts of the country.
  282
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to win fresh inward investment into the United Kingdom.[15417]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau will continue to promote the attractions of the UK for mobile international investment to consolidate our position as the number one location in Europe for inward investment. We have an enviable record and the Government are determined to maintain this in the face of increased competition from our European partners. We will pay particular attention to developing our skills base as well as consolidating the other attractions of the UK as an investment location.

  Business Support Services
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what actions she is taking to improve her Department's business support services.[15413]

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to improve business support services.[15420]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Since the election, we have taken a number of initiatives to improve the Department's business support services—including, for example, the Export Forum and the announcement of a new Vision for the development of Business Links. We have also just launched the Enterprise Zone on the Internet, to help SMEs find their way to sound sources of business information.

  Business support is a key function of this Department, and so forms a major focus of DTI's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Minors (Illegal Sales)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to increase the powers of Trading Standards Officers to prevent illegal sales to minors.[15415]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The only specific requirements governing sales to minors for which my Department is responsible relate to fireworks and to consumer credit agreements. In addition, Trading Standards Officers have powers under the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 to deal with consumer products which fail to take proper account of the safety needs of their intended users, in particular products intended for use by children.

  I am confident that TSOs have the powers necessary to enforce these provisions.

  Duty Free Purchases
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has held with the Scotch Whisky Association about the impact on the industry of the abolition of EU duty free purchases in 1999. [15416]

  Mrs. Roche
  The abolition of EU duty free purchases is primarily a matter for the Chancellor. However, DTI officials meet regularly with the Association to discuss a wide range of matters.
  283

  Scotland (Departmental Responsibilities)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the responsibilities of her Department within Scotland.[15418]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department is responsible for promoting competitiveness in the UK as a whole. This is complemented by The Scottish Office which directly and through sponsored bodies has responsibility for promotion and support of a strong Scottish economy within the UK framework.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives she plans to introduce to promote British research and development.[15419]

  Mr. Battle
  We attach the greatest importance to the health and vigour of the national research and development effort, in both the public and private sectors, as an essential component of an innovative modern economy. We are reviewing the totality of our policies and expenditure plans as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review but we have already introduced the following measures to strengthen UK research and development—a Ministerial Foresight Group to co-ordinate Foresight activities across Whitehall; Foresight LINK Awards to support collaborative projects in Foresight priority areas; the Foresight Vehicle LINK programme to develop the technologies and components for the car of the future; and the President's Partnership Prize, to be awarded each year to the academic department which has made the most contribution to help sustain a healthy economy.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent initiatives she has taken to promote the aerospace industry.[15421]

  Mr. Battle
  My ministerial colleagues and I, and my officials, maintain a close dialogue with the UK aerospace industry. This involves domestic and overseas activity in both civil aerospace, such as work on the future of the Airbus Consortium, and the military field, where we are involved in the Ministry of Defence's Strategic Defence Review and in considering the industrial implications of major defence procurements. We promote export sales of Airbus aircraft, UK aircraft and engines throughout the world. On 13 November, I announced a long-term investment of Rolls-Royce's new range of Trent engines.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the role of her Department in respect of the British presidency of the European Union in 1998 in relation to the aerospace industry.[15425]

  Mr. Battle
  As with other industries, my Department will continue to work with aerospace companies and colleagues elsewhere in Government to encourage the improvement of European competitiveness. Working towards this end, in partnership with business, offers the best prospect of developing industry and raising employment levels in the EU.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear after his summit meeting with President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin two weeks ago that he regards
  284
  restructuring of the aerospace and defence industry as a matter of importance. My ministerial colleagues and I will be taking forward work on this as a high priority over the coming months.

  Scottish Powercards
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received about the withdrawal of Scottish Powercards from post offices.[15422]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry have received nine representations, of which six were from Members of Parliament, about the decision of Scottish Power not to renew its contract with Post Office Counters Ltd. for the sale of powercards through post offices.

  Amsterdam Treaty (Social Provisions)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received about the effects on trade and industry of the social provisions contained in the Amsterdam treaty.[15423]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My colleagues and I have received a number of representations expressing a range of views about the social provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam. We have made it clear that the Government will use their influence to ensure that the social provisions of the Treaty are used to promote employability, flexibility and competitiveness.

  Competition
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures her Department is taking to promote competition.[15424]

  Mr. Battle
  This Government's commitment to competition is demonstrated by the introduction of the Competition Bill, a long overdue reform of competition law. The new Competition Bill will introduce two prohibitions which will prove a highly effective deterrent against cartels and abuses of dominance.

  Economic and Monetary Unity
  Mr. Bradsahw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the progress of the committee set up to prepare for British entry into EMU.[15426]

  Mrs. Roche
  In his statement on 27 October,Official Report, columns 583–88, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the establishment of a Standing Committee to oversee and co-ordinate preparations for EMU. Preparation is vital given the implications for the UK of the participation of other Member States in the single currency and for the option of joining in the next Parliament. The Committee's tasks over the next few months will include organising a series of conferences to inform businesses of the need to prepare, assessing the steps needed to help firms trade in euro in 1999, and starting longer-term planning for the option of joining.
  285

  Information Technology
  Mr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to encourage small businesses to increase their use of information technology facilities.[15428]

  Mrs. Roche
  Many recent studies have emphasised the crucial importance of new technologies to the competitiveness of smaller firms. Within Government, we have a comprehensive package of programmes to encourage greater awareness and use of information technology, electronics and communication (ITEC) products and services among both business and individuals in the UK. We are pressing ahead with our support for the Information Society Initiative Programme for Business, which places particular emphasis on offering access and awareness opportunities for SMEs at locations throughout the UK, and this month we have launched the Internet Enterprise Zone to give SMEs one-stop access to authoritative business information using the latest technology.

  Electrical Retailers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the meetings she has had and the representations she has received on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on electrical retailers.[15393]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have received a number of representations regarding the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on domestic electrical goods.

  While Ministers have not met those making representations, DTI officials have met industry bodies and representatives of smaller electrical retailers. Therefore, my right hon. Friend and I have a clear picture of the concerns of suppliers and retailers.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made on policy regarding the future designation of assisted area status.[15408]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are still considering whether a Review of the Assisted Areas Map is necessary. I will not be in a position to announce the outcome of this assessment for several months.

  Prostitution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of schemes proposing a bar on outgoing calls from telephone boxes to numbers displayed on advertisements for prostitute services; and if she will make a statement.[14040]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are very concerned about the problem of prostitutes' advertising cards and support BT in its action unilaterally to bar incoming calls to the BT customers who repeatedly advertise in BT Call boxes. Since February 1997, BT has issued a total of 733 warning letters and has barred incoming calls to 104 lines. In addition, 94 customers ceased renting a BT line during the process.
  286
  BT has requested a licence amendment which would allow BT to extend its barring rights to calls from BT's kiosks to any advertised number, regardless of whether it belongs to a BT or a non-BT customer. Oftel will consult on this licence amendment very shortly as part of a more general consultation on Public Call Boxes. Such an amendment should strengthen the impact of BT's present scheme.

  Small and Specialist Businesses
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government have sought to establish regular meetings with organisations representing small and specialist businesses; and if she will make a statement.[16495]

  Mrs. Roche
  Ministers and officials have frequent meetings with a variety of organisations representing small and specialist businesses to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Biotechnological Inventions
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the extent to which the proposed EU Directive on the Legal Protection or Biotechnological Inventions will enhance competitiveness within the Single European Market.[16527]

  Mr. Battle
  The purpose of the proposed Directive is to establish a clear legal framework for the protection of biotechnological inventions through national patent law. Although the texts of Members States' patent laws are currently closely aligned with that of the European Patent Convention (an inter-governmental agreement dating from 1978), there have been differences in interpretation between Member states. Although no assessment has been made as to the direct effect this proposed Directive may have on enhancing competitiveness, the clarification arising from it will reduce current uncertainty in this area of law and harmonise EU law.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria the Government used in selecting participants for its public consultation on the proposed EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions.[16528]

  Mr. Battle
  Information concerning the Commission's proposal was circulated widely, including by use of the Internet. Those organisations which made their views known to me or my Department have been included in the consultation exercise and, for example, were invited to a meeting, on 17 October, of the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property, a body created to advise Ministers on all aspects of industrial property, and whose membership comprises organisations representing the professions, industry, small businesses, and consumer interests. In addition, other Government departments were invited to contribute further names of those with an interest in this proposal.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she has taken to ensure that all Government Departments are aware of the implications of the EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions.[16754]
  287
  Mr. Battle
  Contact and discussions between Department of Trade and Industry officials and those of other Government departments has been maintained ever since the Commission's proposal for a Directive emerged. I have recently written to Ministerial colleagues to explain the contents and consequences of the Commission's proposal and to seek views.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of its consultation on the proposed EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions.[16734]

  Mr. Battle
  The European Commission's proposal for a Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions is substantially consistent with current United Kingdom legislation (the Patents Act 1977). In particular, the proposal does not afford patent rights to anything which is not patentable under current law. It is therefore within the regime envisaged in the proposal that biotechnology has developed during the last 20 years in the United Kingdom. The European Commission has sought to harmonise patent laws in this area since 1988 when an initial proposal for a Directive emerged. Since enactment of current legislation in the UK and publication of the Commission's initial proposal, interest has grown and to date some 150 organisations are taking part in a consultation exercise. Such organisations include those concerned with the environment, health and patient care, industry, the professions, consumer interests, animal welfare and religious groups.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria determined which participants were invited to a consultation on the proposed EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions.[16735]

  Mr. Battle
  Information concerning the Commission's proposal was circulated widely, including by use of the Internet. Those organisations which made their views known to me or my Department have been included in the consultation exercise and, for example, were invited to a meeting, on 17 October, of the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property, a body created to advise Ministers on all aspects of industrial property, and whose membership comprises organisations representing the professions, industry, small businesses, and consumer interests. In addition, other Government Departments were invited to contribute further names of those with an interest in this proposal.

  European Space Agency
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the progress on discussions with the United Kingdom space industries and users in preparation for the ESA Ministerial Meeting in July 1998.[16214]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The European Space Agency has just initiated preparations for its next Ministerial meeting, at present planned for 23–24 June 1998. BNSC is already discussing the issues with partner departments, industry and other users. We plan to develop the UK position on a basis of wide consultation.
  288
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish an update of the United Kingdom space plan before the ESA Ministerial Council in July 1998.[16215]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The British National Space Centre is preparing the draft of a new UK Space Plan. I expect to bring this forward for discussion in the New Year. We shall reflect the results of discussion in both the finalised Plan and in our preparations for the ESA Ministerial Council.

  Surveillance and Listening Equipment
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the annual turnover of British companies derived from the manufacture and supply of covert surveillance and listening equipment.[15680]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]The information is not available. It is not possible to extract information from official statistics on UK manufacturers' sales of covert surveillance and listening equipment, as the PRODCOM system of collecting sales data does not include separate headings for these products. A number of Trade Associations represent firms which manufacture, install and service security products. However, although the Department has commissioned the collection of data on manufacturers of security products, which included closed circuit television equipment, a similar study has never been undertaken in respect of manufacturers of covert surveillance and listening equipment. To approach all the firms involved would incur considerable cost.

  Ferry Services (Merger)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to make an announcement on the proposed merger of Stena and P&O.[16451]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]I published the report yesterday, and copies have been laid before Parliament. As is usual in such cases, I have also issued a press notice announcing my decision, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to strengthen manufacturing industry in the English regions.[15395]

  Mr. Battle
  Last week the Government published a benchmark of British business performance against overseas competitors. This showed that we have some excellent manufacturing firms, among the very best in the world. But our overall performance on several counts, especially innovation, skills and productivity, remains behind that of other developed countries. We shall now be looking at these areas and identifying ways of raising the performance of manufacturing industry. The Government have, however, done much already to strengthen manufacturing industry in the English regions and address these weaknesses. For example:We have refocused and relaunched Business Links, to ensure that new and expanding firms receive the support they need.
  We have just launched the Enterprise Zone, an internet information service for SMEs.

  289
  We have given fresh impetus and direction to the Foresight programme, helping companies to innovate and work in partnership with the science base.
  We support a wide range of sectoral programmes to strengthen manufacturing industries.
  We are also supporting best practice programmes, delivered through Business Links.
  We have strengthened the Teaching Company Scheme, which encourages technology transfer.
  We are encouraging new manufacturing industry by promoting the UK as a site for inward investors.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce legislation to ensure that political parties which find it necessary to return donations pay an appropriate rate of interest for the period the donation has been outstanding.[16577]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The whole question of party funding will be considered by Sir Patrick Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life in its review of the funding of political parties.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the operation of the Child Support Agency with particular reference to(a) the recording of telephone conversations by agency staff, (b) the requirement for face-to-face interviews and (c) the ways in which the income the parent without care is determined; and if she will make a statement.[14755]

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

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

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 19 November 1997 I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about telephone conversations, interviews and the income of parents without care (normally known as absent parents) dealt with by the Child Support Agency.
  It may be helpful to outline the current situation with regard to telephone conversations and face to face interviews. When contact is made via the telephone, Agency staff are instructed to make a note of the relevant parts of the discussion. This can be done in one of two ways, either by recording details on the Child Support Computer System or by making a clerical note. Feedback from customers has made it clear that the majority of our customers prefer to be contacted by telephone. The Agency is currently piloting a scheme called Positive Customer Contact which maximises the use of the telephone to obtain information and to establish closer links with customers. Staff are instructed to maintain a brief but accurate record of the important elements of the conversation, namely the
  290
  information which enables a case to be progressed. Details of telephone conversations are not recorded by the Agency in any other way.
  The second point you raised concerns face-to-face interviews. Although most contact between the Agency and its customers is by means of written correspondence or via the telephone there is sometimes a need to carry out face-to-face interviews. A customer can also repeat an interview, and where this is the best way to progress a case an interview will be arranged. Such interviews normally take place in DSS local offices.
  The third point you raised concerned the calculation of income of the parent who does not have primary care. The income of the absent parent consists of the total income from all sources available to that parent as defined in the Child Support Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases Regulations 1992. This includes earnings from employment or self-employment (less tax, national insurance contributions and 50% of contributions made to an occupation or personal pension scheme); some social security benefits; income from capital; income from boarders or tenants; income from occupational or personal pension schemes; training allowances and student grants (providing the student has some other form of income in addition to the grant). Certain types of income are subject to a partial disregard, for example £10 per week of a War Disablement or War Widows Pension is disregarded.
  For an employed parent the average income derived from earnings can be calculated or estimated. The Agency will look at earnings received in a period beginning up to eight weeks before the Agency receives a maintenance application form or issues a maintenance enquiry form and ending with the date the assessment is made. If evidence is incomplete or considered to be unrepresentative of the normal earnings, the Agency will estimate the amount of earnings. Any payments of bonus, commission, or profit related pay are averaged over the year. Payments for expenses are ignored, provided they are necessarily incurred in carrying out the employment.
  The calculation of earnings for the self-employed is intended to reflect the flow of cash through the business and the money available to the parent for the payment of child maintenance. The calculation reflects the difference between earnings from the gross receipts and expenses incurred in the running of the business. The assessment period is either a year, the period of self employment if less than a year, or a period that provides a more reliable calculation. However, the parent may provide the latest profit and loss account for a period between 6 and 15 months. Provided that period ends within 24 months of the date the maintenance enquiry form is sent, then earnings will be averaged over the period of the accounts.
  A partner's income is calculated in the same way as a parent's. An absent parent's partner has no liability to maintain children from the absent parent's previous relationship, but her income is included in the calculation of disposable income (this is the total income of the household) which is required for consideration of the protected income provisions (this is an amount to ensure that the absent parent's household is left with sufficient disposable income, after paying maintenance, to meet their day to day needs and that of any new family.
  We are currently examining all aspects of the work of the Child Support Agency with a view to ensuring that the Agency provides a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its customers.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Montserratian Evacuees
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps she has taken to ensure that all staff at Arcola Street and Sylvester Road Department of Social Security are aware of(a) the current situation in Montserrat and (b) her Department's regulations in relation to evacuees from Montserrat, and that evacuees from Montserrat are not experiencing undue delay in the processing of their claims; and if she will make a statement.[15759]
  291
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The operational responsibility of dealing with benefit claims from evacuees is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Diane Abbott, dated 19 November 1997 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning staff awareness, at Arcola Street and Sylvester Road, of the regulations in relation to evacuees from Montserrat.
  All Benefits Agency (BA) staff, including those at the BA Hackney&Islington District (which includes the offices at Arcola Street and Sylvester Road) have been and continue to be fully informed of the situation in Montserrat. A series of the procedural benefit bulletins have been issued since May 1996 and copies placed in the Library. The bulletins clarify the situation in Montserrat and explain the procedures and legislation to be followed should claims to benefit be received from Montserratians. The Hackney&Islington District staff training sessions are held on a fortnightly basis and all procedural bulletins are discussed and copied to relevant staff.
  The District have confirmed that whilst there are no specific statistics relating to clearance times for claims from Montserratians, there is nothing to suggest that there is any undue delay in dealing with these claims. If any of your constituents have experienced problems or delays with their claims, they should contact their local benefits manager who will address their concerns.
  I hope you find this reply is helpful.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the visit by the Under-Secretary of State to Bonn on 8 October. [17018]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The purpose of the visit to Bonn was to exchange views on a range of Social Security matters, including those likely to be considered by the Council of Ministers during the United Kingdom (UK) Presidency. The visit demonstrated the UK's commitment to work constructively with European Union partners.

  The visit included meetings with the Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Labour and Social Affairs Ministry, the Official State Secretary at the Federal Health Ministry, and members of the Bundestag Committee for Labour and Social Affairs.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the provision of interest-free loans for the disabled.[16655]

  Mr. Denham
  Interest-free loans are available within the Social Security programme through the Social Fund. Budgeting loans help people, including disabled people, on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, to meet intermittent expenses for which it may be difficult to budget. Crisis Loans help people, including disabled people, meet expenses in an emergency or as the consequence of a disaster where such help is the only means of avoiding serious damage or serious risk to the health or safety of the applicant or a member of his family. The percentage of budgeting loan expenditure going to disabled people has doubled since 1988–89.
  292
  The Government are determined to modernise the Social Security system. The Social Security Bill currently before Parliament will help to achieve that,. It includes measures to modernise the application and decision processes for Social Fund budgeting loans by making the budgeting loan system simpler and easier for customers to understand and more cost-effective for staff to administer. Those changes will benefit all customers, including the disabled.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of draft replies to hon. Members, prepared by her Department's Correspondence Unit, are initially rejected by her as being inadequate to be sent out to hon. Members.[17019]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Over 8,000 letters have been received from hon. Members since May. A proportion of the draft replies prepared by officials are amended by Ministers to ensure that they provide the best possible response to points raised by hon. Members.

  Minister for Women
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what submissions the Minister for Women has had made to her concerning women since her appointment;[16888]

  2 on how many days the Minister for Women has been present in the Department since her appointment; [16890]

  3 how many officials with responsibility for (a)women's issues and (b)sex equality have transferred from the Department for Education and Employment to her Department since 1 May;[16892]

  4 what engagements were fulfilled by the Minister for Women on 17 November;[16885]

  5 what are the departmental responsibilities of the Minister for Women;[16886]

  6 what are the estimated annual costs of (a)the private office and (b)the ministerial car for the Minister for Women;[16887]

  7 what severance pay the Minister for Women will receive on leaving;[16889]

  8 what official engagements the Minister for Women has carried out since her appointment;[16891]

  9 what responsibilities for women she retains. [16893]

  Ms Ruddock
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is Minister for Women and I support her in that role. We are committed to building stronger links between women and Government, and delivering policy commitments for women.

  We are creating a new bond of trust between women and Government by opening up a new dialogue with women.
  293
  The new dialogue comprises two main initiatives—improving and extending the way in which Government communicates with women's organisations; and looking at ways to conduct a dialogue with women who are not in organisations.

  The traditional mechanism by which Government consult with women's organisations is the Women's National Commission, which was established in 1969. We are currently conducting a review of the Commission. We are also looking at ways to establish a wider dialogue with women throughout the country.

  We are taking steps to ensure that women's interests are placed at the very heart of Government. This means integrating women's concerns and interests into the policy-making process—often called "mainstreaming".

  We believe that it is essential that women are properly represented in public life. My Women's Unit is working closely with the Public Appointments Unit at the Cabinet Office on developing a joint strategy to increase the number of women on public bodies.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I work closely together on the priority areas we have identified as Ministers for Women. The three priorities we have set are child care; promoting family-friendly employment policies and practices; and tackling violence against women.

  Since my appointment, I have focused my work on taking forward each of our priority areas. On Monday 17 November I was engaged on such official business.

  In addition, I have been fulfilling the UK Government's international obligations on women; and travelling within Britain talking to women and listening to their views and concerns. I have met representatives of all the major women's NGOs as well as meeting and talking to a large number of women from a variety of personal, professional and ethnic backgrounds.

  We are working closely with colleagues across Government to deliver on these and all our commitments to women.

  Shortly after taking issue, the Government established a powerful Cabinet sub-committee on women's issues to ensure an effective cross-Departmental approach to issues of concern to women.

  The current staff profile of our Women's Unit, the civil servants who support us, is in full-time equivalents as follows:

  1 Grade 5 (Head of the Women's Unit)

  3 Grade 7s

  2.7 SEOs

  1 HEO(D)

  5.3 HEOs

  6 EOs

  2 AOs

  2AAs

  1 Personal Secretary

  Four of these 24 staff with responsibility for women's issues transferred from the Department for Education and Employment.
  294
  I am supported by a Private Office consisting of one HEO, one EO and one AO. The estimated annual staffing costs of my Private Office are £73,000. Other overheads are not identified separately. The estimated annual costs of my Ministerial car and driver are £46,000.

  Under the terms of my employment I am not entitled to severance pay.

  National Insurance (Actors)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the National Insurance Contributions system as it affects actors. [16992]

  Mr. Denham
  We are considering the status of actors for National Insurance purposes and an announcement will be made in due course.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Offshore Safety
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in replacing the Certificate of Fitness regime for offshore safety with verification schemes; and what requirement there is in such schemes for physical testing of materials used. [15957]

  Angela Eagle
  The legal requirement for offshore installations to have a Certificate of Fitness was replaced by legislation which came into effect on 30 June 1996. There are transitional provisions which allow the continued use of the Certificate of Fitness arrangements under certain circumstances until 30 June 1998; by that date every offshore installation operating on the UK Continental Shelf must be covered by a verification scheme. This involves scrutiny by an independent and competent person of the suitability of all safety-critical elements on the installation. Physical testing of materials is not specified in the legislation, but where the materials contribute to the suitability of a safety-critical element they would be expected to be subject to verification by appropriate means.

  Climate Change Convention
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions in Tokyo under his chairmanship on 8 November on climate change. [15915]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 122.

  Drivers (Eyesight)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages of requiring an official certificate of eyesight standard for driving licence renewals past retirement age. [15978]
  295
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All drivers, when renewing their licences (normally at the age of 70 and every three years thereafter), are required to declare whether they can meet the prescribed eyesight standard. They also have a statutory obligation, whatever their age, to meet the standard whenever they drive and, if they cannot do so, to cease driving and notify the DVLA. In particular, drivers should notify conditions affecting both eyes, such as glaucoma, cataracts or progressive retinal disease. A requirement for compulsory eye tests for all drivers over a certain age would place extra costs on elderly drivers and involve major additional administration. The Government are not persuaded that it would bring significant road safety benefits.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Darfis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contribution towards the Government's target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 he estimates will be made by(a) increases in petrol prices, (b) improvements in the fuel efficiency of vehicles and (c) reduction in the volume of road traffic. [16406]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The UK is leading the world in its efforts to combat the threat of climate change. Tackling emissions from transport will be a key element of the balanced climate change programme which we will be developing after the Kyoto conference. We are currently undertaking a fundamental review of transport policy as part of our commitment to develop an integrated transport policy. A number of transport measures are being considered carefully.

  In the last Budget, the Chancellor made a commitment to increase road fuel duty by an average of 6 per cent. a year in real terms. If continued for the lifetime of this Parliament, it would produce additional savings in emissions of 2.5 million tonnes of carbon per year in 2010.

  The Cleaner Vehicle Task Force, announced by the Prime Minister on Friday 14 November, will set up a new partnership between Government and industry to promote the production and sales of cleaner vehicles. Encouraging the uptake of more fuel-efficient and greener cars, will be an important contribution to reducing CO2 emissions from transport.

  Lost Shipping (The Gaul)
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports have been received by his Department from(a) crew of the fishing protection frigate Mohawk, (b) trawler skippers and (c) others concerning the location of The Gaul since The Gaul disappeared. [16684]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Existing Departmental records contain one report from HMS Mohawk dealing with her involvement with the search and rescue operation conducted following the disappearance of The Gaul. Seven reports on possible locations of the wreck were received from fishing vessel skippers and six from other sources. The positions given varied widely.
  296
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates were made of the cost of searching for The Gaul, following its disappearance; and for what reasons no search was made. [16685]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following the loss of The Gaul, the Department of Trade, which was then responsible for marine safety, considered a number of proposals for searching for the wreck. Proposals from the Royal Navy and commercial sources were discussed, but were not pursued as it was decided then that the considerable cost of each proposal could not be justified.

  Departmental records show that the lack of a positively identified search area was an important factor in these decisions. It is important to consider that mid-1970s technology was less able than the technology available today to make positive identifications of underwater objects from the surface.

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what arrangements are being made to survey The Gaul following discovery of the wreck; [16686]

  (2) if he plans to reopen the formal investigation into the circumstances of the loss of The Gaul. [16687]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) has obtained from Channel 4 copies of the material obtained during its photographic survey of the ship. This material has to be considered by the MAIB before any recommendation to the Secretary of State can be made on whether further action is appropriate.

  Under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the Secretary of State shall reopen the formal investigation into the causes of this tragic loss if the material contains new and important evidence. We await the MAIB' s recommendations on the new material before any decision can be made on whether or not the formal investigation into the case should be reopened.

  Airspace (London)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what are the air traffic arrangements for aircraft having to hold as a result of missed approaches at London airports; and to what extent these arrangements impinge on the airspace capacity of provincial airports around London; [16514]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the airspace capacity over the approaches to London; how full they are currently; what arrangements are in place to prevent overcrowding; and if he will make a statement. [16515]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for the management of UK airspace, seeks to maximise airspace capacity over the approaches to London airports to the greatest extent possible, commensurate with safety. The management of the flow of air traffic and the scheduling of incoming and outgoing flights should ensure that there is no overcrowding. The separation distance between aircraft conforms to internationally agreed standards. Under current procedures, aircraft do not have to hold as a result of missed approaches at London airports as they are integrated into the approach patterns, without impacting
  297
  materially on aircraft on final approach for landing. Any adjustment to arrival procedures, caused by aircraft carrying out missed approaches at London airports, does not impinge on the airspace capacity of provincial airports around London.

  Newcastle upon Tyne (Population)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the mid-year estimates of population in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne in(a) 1988 and (b) 1996; what assessment he has made of the factors which have contributed to the change; and what population figure in Newcastle upon Tyne he proposes to use for the 1998–99 rate support grant settlement. [16642]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Registrar-General's mid-year estimates of population in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne for 1988 was 276,653. The corresponding figure for 1996 was 282,338. The need for an assessment of the factors which have contributed to the change has not arisen. Our proposals for Revenue Support Grant for 1998–99 will be announced in due course.

  EU Institutions (Regional Representation)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on direct regional representation to European Union institutions. [16982]

  Mr. Caborn
  The only European Union institution with a regional character with which my Department is involved is the Committee of the Regions. Members of the Committee are appointed by the Council of Ministers following nominations by member states. The question of direct regional representation does not therefore arise.

  Housing (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate how many new homes are to be built in each of the next 10 years in(a) Staffordshire, (b) Lichfield District and (c) Tamworth Borough. [16701]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands (RPG 11) currently state that Staffordshire should provide for an annual average of 3,300 houses during the years 1991 to 2011. (This figure includes housing provided by conversions and that needed to replace existing housing that is demolished). It is up to the structure plan authority to put forward proposals for distributing this requirement across the districts, including Lichfield and Tamworth.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has set targets for the proportion of(a) social housing and (b) affordable housing to be built on brown-field sites in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) the West Midlands. [16702]
  298
  Mr. Raynsford
  No. The scope for meeting housing requirements on brown-field sites is one of the live issues being considered in response to the consultation on accommodating household growth.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are currently on waiting lists for social housing in(a) Staffordshire, (b) the West Midlands and (c) England. [16872]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing waiting lists at 1 April each year on their annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns. The latest available figures relate to the position on 1 April 1996 and are given in the 1996 "HIP 1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library. Local authorities have different practices in compiling and managing their waiting lists with the effect that simple comparisons between authorities can be misleading.

  Corresponding data are not collected centrally for housing associations, some of which do not operate waiting lists.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve public information on air quality. [16850]

  Mr. Meacher
  The new national Air Pollution Public Information System was launched on Wednesday 19 November.

  The existing system has been revised and extended, by:

  adopting a system based on health effects with four pollutant bands;

  describing pollutant levels in the four bands as "low", "moderate", "high", or "very high";

  using the National Air Quality Strategy standards as the first breakpoint between the low and moderate band;

  assignment of the breakpoints between the moderate, high and very high bands according to advice from the Department of Health's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants;

  providing hourly information and daily forecasts on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone, and extending the system to include hourly information and forecasts for carbon monoxide and airborne particles (as PM10); and

  providing hourly information on the carcinogens benzene and 1,3 butadiene, describing the levels as above or below the national standard (but not including them in the banding system).

  When air pollution levels are presented to the public, an overall summary is provided followed by pollutant-specific information. When the overall summary is presented for each region, levels of air pollution will be described as those occurring in the highest band for any individual pollutant. For example, if levels of all pollutants in a region were low, with the exception of one pollutant which was high, then in the overall summary the air pollution for that region would be described as high.
  299
  The bands were chosen on the basis of effects on health. The "low" band for each pollutant covers levels up to the air quality standard set in the National Air Quality Strategy. These standards are based on the best available consensual view of medical and scientific experts on the UK Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards.

  The breakpoints between the "moderate", "high" and "very high" bands were recommended by the

  Description "airpollution"

  "Standard"

  "Information"

  "Alert"

  "Low"

  "Moderate"

  "High"

  "Very high"

  Sulphur Dioxide (parts per billion, 15 minute averages)

  Less than 100

  100–199

  200–399

  400 or more

  Ozone (parts per billion)

  Less than 50 ppb (8 hour running average)

  50–89 (hourly average)

  90–179 (hourly average) 180 or more(hourly average)

  Carbon Monoxide (parts per million, 8 hour running average)

  Less than 10

  10–14

  15–19

  20 or more

  Nitrogen Dioxide (parts per billion, hourly average)

  Less than 150

  150–299

  300–399

  400 or more

  Fine Particles (micrograms per cubic metre, 24 hour running average)

  Less than 50

  50–74

  75–99

  100 or more

  Further details on the health effects have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the expenditure by his Department on the monitoring of air quality in the last year for which figures are available. [16994]

  Angela Eagle
  In the financial year 1996–97, my Department spent £4.6 million on ambient air quality monitoring.

  Single Regeneration Budget (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what bids into the Single Regeneration Budget from local authorities and other organisations within the West Midlands Region

  Annex 1: Government office for the West Midlands SRB Challenge Fund: final and approved bids, rounds 1–3

  Final bids

  Approved bids

  Local authority led bids

  Non-Local Authority led bids

  Total

  Local Authority accountable body

  Non-Local Authority accountable body

  Total

  Round 1

  8

  29

  37

  7

  6

  13

  Round 2

  10

  12

  32

  12

  9

  121

  Round 3

  17

  12

  29

  8

  1

  9

  1 Twenty one bids were approved in Round 2 of which 19 have contracts in 1997–98.

  There is no direct correlation between local authority led final bids and approved bids with local authority accountable bodies. Many bids are submitted by a Regeneration Partnership which agrees an accountable body from within its membership on receiving approval.

  Annex 2: Job creation outputs forecast over scheme lifetime and achieved at latest return date, in approved and contracted SRB Challenge Fund schemes

  Title

  Accountable body

  Lifetime forecast

  Achievement to 31 March 1997 Outputs over 2 years

  Round 1

  Regeneration Wolverhampton

  Wolverhampton MBC

  2,465

  703

  Foundation for the Future

  Dudley MBC

  901

  146

  Sandwell Regeneration Partnership Programme

  Sandwell MBC

  952

  332

  Creating a sustainable Black Country Urban Forest

  National Urban Forestry Unit

  6

  4

  300
  Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP). This Committee was established by the Chief Medical Officer in 1992 to assess and advise Government on the effects upon health of air pollutants.

  The details of the new system are presented in the following table, including the pollutant concentrations for the four bands.

  have been (a) submitted and (b) approved in each year since the SRB was established; and if he will indicate in each approved case the number of jobs created. [16896]

  Angela Eagle
  Over Rounds 1 to 3 of the SRB Challenge Fund the West Midlands has received 98 final bids of which 43 were approved and 41 have a funding agreement with the Secretary of State in the financial year 1997–98. Thirty-five of these bids were local authority led and 27 of the approved bids had local authority accountable bodies. A round-by-round breakdown is at annexe 1.

  Thirty-eight of the approved and contracted bids forecast job creation outputs totalling 48,527. To 31 March 1997 the Rounds 1 and 2 schemes had already created 8,334 jobs. Round 3 schemes will make their first return in November 1998. Scheme-by-scheme details of jobs created are at annexe 2.
  301

  Annex 2: Job creation outputs forecast over scheme lifetime and achieved at latest return date, in approved and contracted SRB Challenge Fund schemes

  Title

  Accountable body

  Lifetime forecast

  Achievement to 31 March 1997 Outputs over 2 years

  Connected Community for the 21st century

  KC3

  41

  19

  Cannock Gateway Project

  Cannock Chase DC

  2,134

  353

  Supporting start-ups and existing small businesses in Shropshire

  Shropshire TEC

  700

  545

  Support for new and young businesses in Staffordshire

  Staffordshire TEC

  4,560

  862

  Employment creation in the HAWTEC area

  HAWTEC

  2,165

  990

  Cobridge Community Renewal

  Stoke on Trent CC

  2,067

  459

  Birmingham 1995–2000

  Birmingham CC

  5,679

  2,260

  Spreading market confidence north

  CWP Ltd.

  2,301

  1,208

  Title

  Accountable body

  Lifetime forecast

  Achievement to 31 March 1997 Outputs over 1 year

  Round 2

  Birmingham 1996–2003

  Birmingham CC

  1,620

  32

  Burton: A better future

  East Staffordshire BC

  5,901

  232

  Trent Challenge

  Cannock Chase DC

  2,386

  6

  Meeting the Challenge of Change—North Warwickshire

  CWP Ltd.

  439

  24

  Wren's Nest comprehensive Area Regeneration

  Dudley MBC

  50

  34

  Aston SRB: Breaking the cycle

  Focus Housing Association

  75

  2

  Empowering Local Communities

  Walsall MBC

  759

  0

  Improving Labour Market Flexibility in the HAWTEC area

  HAWTEC

  180

  20

  Leek Regeneration

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  196

  12

  Cheston Community Programme

  Newcastle Under Lyme BC

  1,031

  16

  Redditch Community Works

  Redditch BC

  750

  7

  Capacity Building for Urban Regeneration

  Sandwell MBC

  124

  24

  North Solihull Change

  Solihull MBC

  130

  10

  Villages Initiative

  Stoke on Trent CC

  1,090

  10

  Impact on Employment

  Stourbridge College

  0

  1

  Empowering Enterprise in Local Communities

  HAWTEC

  120

  11

  Substance misuse initiative

  Warwickshire Probation Service

  6

  5

  Engineering in Education

  EEF West Midlands

  8

  7

  Title

  Accountable body

  Lifetime forecast

  Achievement to 31 March 1997 1st return due November 1997

  Round 3

  Black Voluntary Sector Regional Regeneration Network

  SIA

  10

  n/a

  Burntwood Chase Community Partnership

  Lichfield DC

  769

  n/a

  Foleshill Regeneration

  Coventry CC

  450

  n/a

  Leominster—Back from the Brink

  Leominster DC

  343

  n/a

  Malvern Hills Science Park

  Malvern Hills DC

  81

  n/a

  Newcastle Western Urban Villages Community Programme

  Newcastle under Lyme BC

  1,811

  n/a

  Regeneration Wolverhampton—Round 3

  Wolverhampton MBC

  5,700

  n/a

  Young People in Focus—Sandwell

  Sandwell MBC

  527

  n/a

  Sources:
  Lifetime Forecasts—1997–98 Delivery Plans.

  Actuals to 31 March 1997–1995–96 and 1996–97 outputs returns.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, by region, the percentage of land in the United Kingdom which is classified as contaminated land. [16882]
  302
  Angela Eagle
  This information is not held by this Department. Various estimates have been made by different bodies of the total amount of land affected by contamination in the UK. However, each of these takes a different approach to the definition of what might constitute contaminated land.
  303

  Euroregions
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which English county councils are involved in discussions with EU institutions on the issue of the creation of Euroregions; and if he will make a statement. [16996]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am not aware of any discussions, although I know that Kent County Council is working with neighbouring areas of continental Europe to create an informal "Euroregion", for co-operation on issues of common interest, comprising Kent, Nord-Pas de Calais in France, and Belgium. Also, two English county councils, Kent and East Sussex, are involved with other local partners in the Interreg 2 programme, a Community Initiative which aims to increase transfrontier co-operation. Through these programmes the county councils are linked with their neighbouring French departments, Nord-Pas de Calais and Seine-Maritime/Somme, respectively.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make the water companies statutory consultees in respect of planning applications. [16993]

  Angela Eagle
  Under Planning Policy Guidance note 12, "Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance", local planning authorities should consult all infrastructure providers, including water companies, when preparing their development plans. This process seeks to ensure that development does not exceed the capacity of existing or planned water supply systems. We will give further consideration to the need to consult on the impact of proposed development on water demand in our forthcoming revisions of PPG12 and the system of regional planning guidance. In the light of these arrangements, we see no need to make water companies statutory consultees in relation to individual planning applications.

  Pentland Coastguard Station
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what factors led to Pentland Coastguard Station being included in the list of stations to be closed by 2002; [16880]

  (2) if he will publish the Coastguard Agency's strategy document relating to the closure of Pentland Coastguard Station; [16879]

  (3) what arrangements he intends to make for the radioing-in of vessels going through the Pentland Firth, after the proposed closure of the Pentland Coastguard Station. [16881]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Five-year Strategy which I announced on Monday is based on the introduction of new digital communications technology to replace outdated equipment. This will enable greater organisational flexibility without compromising safety. Indeed, the changes will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Coastguard Search And Rescue (SAR) co-ordination services. A document outlining the strategy will be published shortly. I will arrange for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to receive the document and will place a copy in the Library.
  304
  The proposed closure of a number of Coastguard stations, including Pentland, means that Coastguard officers will be co-ordinating search and rescue from fewer centres. Concentrating resources in this way will enhance the potential for watch keeping staff to become involved in vital accident prevention work during quieter periods. The number of coastal rescue teams will not be affected by these changes, but the number of sector managers will be increased through additional posts at the locations where centres are to be closed.

  The current level of Coastguard radio coverage around the UK will remain unchanged. Vessels using the Pentland Firth will be able to contact the Coastguard on radio as now. Pentland's aerials will be monitored by Aberdeen and Shetland. Staff complements at these adjacent centres will be increased to appropriate levels.

  Government Homes
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how his Department, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence performed against last year's targets for reducing empty government homes; and what new targets have been set for 1997–98. [17291]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The overall number of empty homes held by my Department, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office fell by 754 between 1 April 1996 and 1 April 1997. This welcome reduction reflects a 5.7 per cent. fall in the number of empty Ministry of Defence properties. Against this there was a small increase in the number of empty homes held by both the Home Office and the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), reflecting an unexpectedly high number of new vacancies coming on stream. The number of empty homes is still too high and this Government are determined to improve on these figures in the future. We simply cannot afford to have substantial numbers of Government-owned homes lying empty.

  I have considered with other Departments and interested parties such as the Empty Homes Agency how we might make better use of these properties and have investigated every opportunity for setting new, more challenging targets for this year as well as improving arrangements for the disposal process.

  The Home Office target for this year is more stringent than last year's. The high figure of empty DETR (Highways Agency) properties is due, mainly, to the rundown of the road programme, with properties which had been bought and were being let until needed, being vacated so that they could be sold. This year's targets for my Department reflect this fact and the failure to meet the April 1997 target. However, they represent a significant improvement over last year's achievements. The Ministry of Defence's target has been set at a level which will continue the disposal of surplus properties while retaining the flexibility to react to any changes to the demand for service housing which may emerge from the findings of the Strategic Defence Review, due to report next year.

  Details of achievement against targets for 1996–97, and new targets for 1997–98 are below. Details of the Welsh

  305
  Office and Scottish Office performance are not shown in the table as they are reporting their figures separately. My hon. Friends the Ministers responsible for housing in

  Total stock at 1.4.97

  Total empty stock at 1.4.96

  Total empty stock at 1.4.97

  Target for percentage empty at 1.4.97

  Achievement against target

  Target for percentage empty at 1.4.98

  Target for percentage habitable homes empty more than 6 months at 1.4.97

  Achievement against target

  Target for percentage habitable homes empty for more than 6 months at 1.4.98

  Action being taken to dispose of homes empty more than 6 months

  Home Office

  3,41

  242

  268

  <6 per cent.

  7.9 per cent.

  <5 per cent.

  1 per cent.

  10.9 per cent. (32)

  <1 per cent.

  3—

  Department of Transport5

  3,120

  669

  690

  <17 per cent.

  22 per cent.

  <18 per cent.

  <7 per cent.

  11.2 per cent. (350)

  <9 per cent.

  4—

  Ministry of Defence

  65,800

  13,943

  213,142

  To dispose of 4,000 empty homes

  4,987

  To dispose of 1,000 empty homes

  Notes:

  1. Properties that are "habitable" include all properties except:

  (a) derelict properties that await demolition (e.g. to make way for road schemes),

  (b) those that are expected to be demolished in the near future where the expenditure required to make them habitable would be disproportionate to their expected life (e.g. where substantial investment would be required to connect essential services such as water, sewage or electricity),

  (c) those that cannot be made accessible (e.g. due to adjacent construction works).

  1The Home Office has identified an under-reporting of this figure, because the Prison Service had previously understood that only homes surplus to operational requirements were to be included in the empty homes more than six months category. Consequently no central record has been kept of how long the non-surplus homes have been empty. The estimate is that up to 100 homes may have been missed from the previous reports, but that the current figure is considerably less than this as a result of a rigorous challenging of the non-surplus status. These homes will be included in future figures and are subject to 1997–98 targets.

  2Of the 13,142 properties empty: 1,755 have already been identified for disposal; 3,364 were allocated to incoming families; 2,533 were empty pending major upgrade work; 633 had been identified as temporarily surplus with action in hand to lease out to local authorities or housing associations and; 1,117 were not available to dispose of or lease out as they were on military bases and subject to security constraints. If these properties are excluded from the total number of empty properties it leaves 3,740 properties, which represents 5.86 per cent. of MOD stock.

  3 19 properties are in the process of being sold. Four being refurbished for reoccupation. Four under review for disposal. Five are in blocks of police quarters with police tenants being targeted.

  4All properties currently vacant are in the process of being sold or let through managing agents.

  5 (Now the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.)

  <less than.

  Road Safety (Mobile Phones)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the research evidence relating to the dangers of using a mobile phone while driving. [17292]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There has been much concern both in this country and elsewhere in the world about the road safety implications of using mobile phones while driving. My noble friend, the Minister for Roads therefore asked the Transport Research Laboratory to review the evidence currently available and the report it has prepared is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report concludes that the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving is widely regarded as unsafe. Most safety researchers regard this as so self-evident that there have been few specific studies. Hands-free phones have received the greatest attention and the debate in the research community centres on the extent to which hands-free conversations impact on driving performance. Studies suggest that the distraction effect of phones reduces as they are made easier to use. However, the distraction caused by the mental effort of telephone conversation is present, even with advanced devices.

  Manual dialling and intense telephone conversations have been shown to cause considerable distraction and it is thought that this may impact on safety. Although the evidence is largely circumstantial, it all points in the same direction—there is an association between telephone
  306
  Scotland and Wales will, however, continue to report and remain committed to further reductions in the number of empty properties they own.

  use and increased accident risk. Furthermore, there is evidence that phone conversations are more stressful than equivalent conversations with passengers.

  The results of this research are reflected in the revised draft of the Highway Code on which public comment was invited last week and which we hope to put before Parliament next year. It is also reflected in the draft Code of Practice on the use of mobile phones in vehicles, which is currently being discussed with the mobile phone companies and motoring interests.

  House Building
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has set a target for the amount of new housing to be built on previously developed land. [17520]

  Mr. Prescott
  No, the Government have not yet taken a final decision on what target might be appropriate. In the meantime, the previous Government's target of 50 per cent. still applies. We are considering our policy on planning for household growth, taking into account the public consultation earlier this year, and will announce our decisions in due course. We remain committed both to protecting the countryside and to regenerating our towns and cities, by encouraging local authorities to make the best possible use of previously developed land. The presumption against inappropriate development within Green Belts remains in place.
  307

  HEALTH

    Myelograms
    Mr. Collins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the adequacy of the keeping of medical records concerning myelograms int he health service.[14609]

    Ms Jowell
    The preservation, retention and destruction of medical records is addressed in Health Circular HC(89)20, copies of which are available in the Library. This guidance satisfies the requirements of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. While HC(89)20 recommends minimum retention periods, implementation of the guidance is for local interpretation. It is a matter for local management and professionals to determine which elements of the record may be retained, and which may be discarded before the end of the recommended retention period.

    The radiologist's report on an x-ray procedure, including those for myelograms, is kept with the patient's medical record. Following a meeting with the Department of Health, the Royal College of Radiologists issued guidance in May 1991 advising that there was greater value in retention of the radiologist's report rather than the film. This was because the x-ray report was considered to be the permanent constituent of the record and the x-ray film was considered to be of transitory nature. Therefore the report should be kept for a period consistent with guidance. In most cases this is for a minimum of eight years after the latest treatment. Where a new episode of treatment begins during that eight-year period the retention period will be extended for a further eight years from that date. Therefore, where treatment continues indefinitely the record will be retained indefinitely.

  Ill Health Retirement
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of NHS pension applicants each year have been successful in gaining ill health retirement(a) on initial application to the Pensions Agency and its medical consultants, (b) on appeal to the Pensions Agency and its medical consultants, (c) on appeal to the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service, (d) on appeal to the Pensions Ombudsman and (e) on appeal to the Secretary of State for Health; [14802]

  (2) what percentage of NHS pension applicants each year have been successful in gaining ill health retirement on (a) initial application to the Pensions Agency and their medical consultants, (b) appeal to the Pensions Agency and their medical consultants, (c) appeal to the Pensions Ombudsman and (d) an appeal to the Secretary of State.[15592]

  Mr. Milburn
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alec Cowan to Mr. Colin Breed, dated 20 November 1997 The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  We cannot answer your question precisely in the format asked because until I April 1997 the Agency operated open ended procedures for ill health applications. An unsuccessful applicant
  308
  could submit fresh medical evidence at any time for reconsideration by the Agency's medical advisers. The table below therefore shows only the proportion of applications accepted in the financial years 1992–93 to 1996–97:

  Percentage of accepted NHS ill health pension applications

  Number

  1992–93

  98

  1993–94

  96

  1994–95

  91

  1995–96

  75

  1996–97

  84

  During 1995–97 there was a special review exercise relating to cases involving Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, because of the particular difficulties of prognosis in that condition. 245 cases were independently reviewed by an Expert Group established by the Medical Adviser to the DSS. Of these 154 (63%) were accepted on appeal by the Secretary of State for Health.

  Since 1 April 1997, when formal appeal mechanisms were introduced the position is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Accepted on initial application or remitted for review to await outcome of treatment

  72

  Accepted on appeal by NHSPA and their advisers

  6

  Accepted by OPAS

  0

  Accepted by Pensions Ombudsman

  0

  Accepted by Secretary of State

  2

  There were no successful applications on appeal to OPAS and the Pensions Ombudsman.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS pension applications for early retirement on the grounds of ill health there were in each year from 1992 to 1996 and in 1997 to date; and what percentage of the applicants in each year quoted stress as a contributory factor in causing their ill health.[14801]

  Mr. Milburn
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alec Cowan to Mr. Colin Breed, dated 20 November 1997 The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  The number of pensions applications for early retirement on the grounds of ill-health from 1992 to 1996 and in 1997 to date was:

  Year

  Number of applications

  1991–92

  7,725

  1992–93

  8,497

  1993–94

  9,918

  1994–95

  10,355

  1995–96

  10,704

  1996–97

  8,005

  1997–981

  3,807

  1 Estimated to 31 October 1997. We do not hold data that would indicate for each application the extent to which stress was a contributory factor in causing their ill-health.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times since 1992 the NHS Pensions Agency has changed the medical consultants it uses regarding decisions on ill-health retirement; what factors underlie the changes; and if he will make a statement.[15939]
  309
  Mr. Milburn
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alec Cowan to Mr. Colin Breed, dated 20 November 1997 The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  Since 1992 the Agency has changed the source of its expert medical advice once. Between 1992 and 1997 the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS) of the Department of Social Security advised on all ill-health retirement applications under the NHS Pension Scheme. BAMS withdrew from this service with effect from 31 March 1997 and following an open competitive tendering exercise were replaced by Medical Insurance Services Ltd.

  Renal Dialysis (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the likely additional future demand for renal dialysis in East Lancaster; and if he will make a statement.[15196]

  Mr. Boateng
  East Lancashire Health Authority, in conjunction with the three other health authorities in Lancashire and South Cumbria, has commissioned a statistical modelling exercise to predict the numbers of residents likely to require renal dialysis up to the year 2005. The modelling exercise is complex and is able to take into account special factors such as the age structure of the population and the proportion of residents from an ethnic minority background.

  The model predicts a very substantial increase in the total number of residents requiring dialysis, from 120 in 1996 to 220 in 2005. In order to meet the predicted demand for dialysis places over the next 10 years, East Lancashire Health Authority is about to consider the best way of increasing local provision.

  Tobacco-related Illnesses
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to local authority social services departments of assisting people suffering from disabilities resulting from tobacco-related illnesses in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.[15037]

  Ms Jowell
  Smokers generally suffer from a number of disabilities arising out of their having smoked. It is only possible to identify, from the current statistics, the cost of the type of social service provision being made to each client group and not the original cause which gave rise to it.

  National Blood Authority
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expiry date for the contracts under which the chairman and chief executive of the National Blood Authority are employed.[15562]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chairman was appointed for a two-year period beginning 1 April 1997, and the Chief Executive's contract with the National Blood Authority expires on 31 March 2000.
  310

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review his Department's objections to making the Ambulance Service (Emergency) Long Service and Good Conduct Medal available to all ambulance personnel who served with the service from its national inception, and if he will make a statement.[15342]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. There is a long-standing precedent that civilian medals are not awarded retrospectively.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the ambulance trusts which(a) have introduced and (b) are considering introducing a priority dispatch system for dealing with emergency 999 calls; and if he will make a statement.[15976]

  Mr. Boateng
  Nine ambulance services have introduced priority dispatch systems: Berkshire, Derbyshire, Essex and West Midlands from April 1997 and Cleveland, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Northumbria and Warwickshire from October 1997. Others plan to do so shortly.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment of the health effects of the CS gas solvent, methyl isobutyl ketone, has been made by the medical officers of the Department of Health since 1990; how many(a) published and (b) internal reports have been written by the Department of Health's medical officers since 1990; and how many of these reports are currently unclassified.[15504]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 3 July 1997 Official Report, column 231.

  No internal reports have been produced or published, but the toxicology of the CS gas solvent methyl isobutyl ketone was discussed between scientists in the Department and the Police Scientific Development Branch.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary for Health 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.[15536]

  Ms Jowell
  The United Kingdom's Second Report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which was published in February 1997 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 by 2020.
  311

  Lariam
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports of suspected adverse reactions associated with Lariam were reported to the Medicines Control Agency in each year from 1990 to 1997. [15456]

  Ms. Jowell
  The numbers of suspected adverse reactions reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1997 for mefloquine (brand name, Lariam) as the suspect drug in the United Kingdom are given in the table:

  Year

  Total number of suspected adverse reactions

  Number of reports

  1990

  54

  19

  1991

  58

  27

  1992

  52

  22

  1993

  183

  73

  1994

  597

  227

  1995

  1,233

  447

  1996

  1,361

  455

  1997 (up to 11 November 1997)

  445

  159

  A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug. Each report relates to one patient. Patients may have more than one suspected reaction and the number of reactions given exceeds the number of patients affected as seen above.

  Donated Blood Products
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the nature, value and destination of sales abroad of English and Welsh voluntarily donated blood products during(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) the first half-year period of 1997–98. [15561]

  Mr. Boateng
  Blood products surplus to domestic requirements, mainly albumin together with small quantities of other products such as clotting factors VIII and IX, are sold to many countries worldwide. The value of sales, which raise money for the blood service, is given in the list.

  1994–95: £5.7 million

  1995–96: £6.7 million

  1996–97: £9.4 million

  1997–98: (April to end September) £5 million.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the salary and benefits of the special advisers in his Department; and how many candidates were considered for each post.[16034]

  Ms Jowell
  We have not received any such representations. One candidate was considered for each post.
  312

  Diabetes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated on the relationship between the incidence of diabetes mellitus and diet; and if he will make a statement.[16337]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government are currently supporting a range of research into the incidence of diabetes and diet. The Medical Research Council, the main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research, is funding a major epidemiological study of the effect of diet on a number of health outcomes including diabetes. This work is taking place at the University of Cambridge under Professor K. Khaw. The value of the award is £1,109,000 over five years, with £210,000 spent in 1996–97.

  Other current grants by the Medical Research Council for work on diabetes incidence and diet have a total value of £586,000, with £71,000 spent in 1996–97. This includes research into the influence of foetal growth on diabetes in later life, an important element of which is being carried out at the MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit by Professor D. Barker and his team.

  The Department of Health's Policy Research Programme has recently funded a study entitled "Development and validation of a weight-losing dietary intervention to reduce the risk of diabetes and coronary heart disease in South Asians". This study was undertaken at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at a cost of £173,836.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives his Department plans to take to combat incidences of coronary heart disease; and if he will make a statement.[16335]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government are committed to a series of initiatives to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease.

  Coronary heart disease is the biggest killer of men and women in this country. It accounts for about 124,000 deaths a year. We are committed to countering this by tackling the main risk factors associated with coronary heart disease, such as smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity. Smoking is the greatest single cause of preventable illness and premature death and kills more than 13 people an hour. The prevention of smoking is therefore a high priority for this Government. Details of the Government's strategy to reduce smoking will be set out in a White Paper, which will be published next year.

  The significance of physical inactivity as a major risk factor in coronary heart disease is as high as that for smoking because of the prevalence of inactivity. We are, therefore, pressing ahead with plans within the "Active for Life" physical activity campaign to promote the significant health benefits of moderate-intensity physical activity, and to focus not only on people aged 50 and over, but also young women aged 16 to 24 and disabled people in the coming year. In a special exercise, we have also asked the Health Education Authority to investigate and report on the levels of physical activity appropriate for children and young people aged up to 16. The consultation work is currently under way. We are also

  313
  liaising with colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to play a key role in promoting active and health modes of transport through the national cycling and walking forums.

  In addition to this, last month we published a review of effective interventions in the prevention and treatment of obesity, and work is in hand to establish a directory of weight management services available across the National Health Service in England which have been evaluated for their effectiveness.

  Furthermore, the Government's Healthy Living Centres initiative aims to promote health, both physical and mental, and some activities within the initiative are likely to contribute to the prevention of coronary heart disease.

  Contraception
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what family planning and other reproductive health facilities are currently available free within the NHS; and if he will list those which are available on prescription; [16325]

  (2) which types of contraception are available (a)free and anonymously at family planning centres, (b)free through a qualified doctor and (c)with a prescription; and what plans he has to change these arrangements. [16494]

  Ms Jowell
  The National Health Service provides a wide range of family planning services through general practitioner services and family planning clinics. This includes advice and counselling on family planning, as well as the provision of contraceptives. All methods of contraception available under the National Health Service are obtainable free of charge.

  Doctors are entitled to provide any of the contraceptive methods available under the National Health Service providing they have the necessary expertise. Certain drugs and appliances are available by prescription only. These are listed in the British National Formulary at chapter 7.3. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Confidentiality is an important feature of family planning service provision. Questions of anonymity are a matter for the professionals and individuals concerned taking account of particular circumstances as well as the type of contraception involved.

  A review of the existing arrangements for prescribing is currently being undertaken. The issue of charging for prescriptions is also being examined within a comprehensive review of all National Health Service spending. However, the Government remain committed to a policy of access to treatment based on need and not on ability to pay.

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the internal departmental guidance on the dissemination of information; and if he will make a statement. [16306]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. The guidance is kept under review, and is regularly amended.
  314

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [16305]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department makes press releases available by placing hard copies in the Library. Electronic versions are placed on the Parliamentary Online Information Service (POLIS) which can be accessed by all Members of Parliament and Peers and on the Internet.

  Appendicitis
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of appendicitis were recorded for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [16334]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information available is in the table:

  Diagnosis of appendicitis recorded in National Health Service hospitals in England

  Number

  1979

  60,020

  1980

  59,220

  1981

  54,060

  1982

  51,820

  1983

  47,480

  1984

  46,660

  1985

  45,990

  1989–90

  45,518

  1990–91

  42,225

  1991–92

  41,037

  1992–93

  41,386

  1993–94

  41,246

  1994–95

  39,285

  Notes:

  1979 to 1985: Discharges and Deaths (Ordinary admissions only) with a primary diagnosis Appendicitis (ICD code 540–543).

  Source:

  Hospital In-patient Enquiry (data grossed by a factor of 10).

  Information for the year 1986 to 1988–89 is not available.

  1989–90 to 1994–95: Completed Finished Consultant Episodes with a primary diagnosis of Appendicitis (ICD9 code 540–543). (Ordinary admissions and day cases).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Data in this table is grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Utting Report
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the Utting Report. [16339]

  Mr. Boateng
  Sir William Utting's report "People Like Us" was published yesterday. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Trusts (Mergers)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts in the area covered by the NHS Yorkshire and Northern Region he estimates are currently considering mergers; and if he will estimate the anticipated financial savings and assess the potential benefits to patients if the mergers go ahead. [16165]
  315
  Mr. Milburn
  We understand that 16 National Health Service trusts in Northern and Yorkshire Region are currently considering mergers. If all these mergers were to be approved, then the 16 existing trusts would be consolidated into eight new NHS trusts.

  All new trusts will be expected to achieve savings of around £500,000 from management costs alone from merger. In some cases there is further potential for greater savings from rationalising non-clinical support services and making better use of clinical capacity.

  The potential benefits to patients from merger will depend on the type of merger being proposed, but may include:
  better integration of acute and community services;
  pooling of resources and expertise to offer patients more effective, integrated specialist services; and
  creating specialist trusts than can offer patients more responsive services more focused on their needs.

  Ministers will only approve mergers if they are able to demonstrate improvements in patient care.

  Obesity
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent actions he has taken to reduce the national incidence of obesity; and if he will make a statement. [16333]

  Ms Jowell
  Diet and physical inactivity are major risk factors for obesity and coronary heart disease. Details of the Government's proposed public health strategy, which will include proposals to combat these, will be issued for consultation in a green paper later this winter.

  Meanwhile, we want to maintain the momentum of the excellent national and local work which is currently being done in the areas of increasing physical activity and reducing the level of obesity. We are, therefore, pressing ahead with plans within the "Active for Life" physical activity campaign to focus not only on people aged 50 and over but also young women aged 16 to 24 and disabled people in the coming year. In a special exercise, we have also asked the Health Education Authority to investigate and report on the levels of physical activity appropriate for children and young people aged up to 16. The consultation work is currently under way. In addition, we are liaising with colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to play a key role in promoting active and healthy modes of transport through the national cycling and walking forums.

  In addition to this, last month we published a review of effective interventions in the prevention and treatment of obesity and work is in hand to establish a directory of weight management services available across the National Health Service in England, and to evaluate a sample of these for their effectiveness.

  Also, the Health Education Authority continues to promote the healthy eating message, which is that a varied and balanced diet, in particular one which is low in fat and rich in fruit and vegetables, should have a longer-term impact on combatting obesity.
  316

  Infertility
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's estimate of the extent of(a) female and (b) male infertility in the United Kingdom. [16327]

  Ms Jowell
  A number of studies have suggested that about one in six couples seek specialist help at some time because of difficulty in conceiving.

  For those couples who seek specialist help, an estimated 20 per cent. of cases are attributable to conditions affecting the male partner and 40 per cent. to the woman. The remainder involves either a combination of difficulties affecting both partners or unexplained causes.

  Metered Dose Inhalers
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assist patients and general practitioners to change from chlorofluorocarbons to non-chlorofluorocarbon metered dose inhalers. [16641]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are considering what action we need to take to provide information to patients and to general practitioners and other health professionals, to assist in the change from chlorofluorocarbon to non-chlorofluorocarbon metered dose inhalers. The Government will consult with the relevant professional groups.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the National Health Service of changing from chlorofluorocarbons to non-chlorofluorocarbon metered dose inhalers. [16640]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is estimated that the direct cost of switching to chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) free products will be up to £10 million per annum. This cost will be incurred because there will not be a generic version of one of the major "reliever" inhalers containing salbutamol so patients currently using these will have to be moved on to another product. However other costs may arise if doctors respond to the transition by prescribing patients more expensive products than before. Such indirect costs depend on how the behaviour of individual doctors and patients might change and are difficult to quantify.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of people who have discontinued private health insurance since May. [16534]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected by the Department.

  Patient Care
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding the relationship and responsibilities for patient care between(a) community hospitals and general practitioners, (b) community hospitals and acute district hospitals and (c) Kelling Hospital in North Norfolk and the Norfolk and Norwich General Hospital. [16532]
  317
  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 174.

  The relationship between Kelling Hospital and Norfolk and Norwich Hospital is currently being considered as part of the review of intermediate services being carried out by East Norfolk Health Authority.

  Engagements
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his official engagements together with those of the Minister for Public Health for 16 October. [16731]

  Ms Jowell
  On 16 October, in addition to internal meetings, I met the National Consumer Council, the Meat Training Council, and had lunch with members of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, met the hon. Member for Southwark North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), spoke at a lunch of the Health and Medical Public Relations Association, and fulfilled a speaking engagement at the National Housing Association in addition to attending internal meetings.

  Minister for Public Health
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the Minister for Public Health did not attend the anti-smoking awards ceremony on 14 November. [16745]

  Ms Jowell
  On this day I attended the funeral of my former constituency secretary and visited her bereaved relatives.

  Junior Doctors (Hours)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the future operation of the Regional Task Force on junior doctors' hours; and if he will make a statement. [15838]

  Mr. Milburn
  Regional task forces will continue to advise National Health Service trusts on reducing junior doctors' hours and to monitor progress. They will also promote action to improve junior doctors on-call accommodation and out-of-hours catering facilities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 29 October 1997 that £1.233 million had been allocated in 1998–99 to support both regional task forces and local medical workforce advisory groups (LMWAGs). Copies of the 1998–99 Health Authority Cash Limits Exposition Book, which contains this information, have been placed in the Library.

  The precise allocation between task forces and LMWAGs will be decided in December.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of posts in each NHS trust comply with the recent agreement on junior doctor's hours, indicating the compliance figure issued by the trusts concerned prior to its revision following the involvement of the Regional Task Force. [15839]
  318
  Mr. Milburn
  The set of returns from regional task forces for 30 September 1997 show overall compliance with limits on junior doctors' hours at 80.5 per cent. This represents 23,808 juniors out of a total of 29,572 in England. This information is derived from monitoring data collated by the 10 English task forces based on validated returns from the National Health Service trusts in their area.

  Part of the monitoring process conducted by task forces is to check and verify returns from individual trusts. Task forces may challenge returns and agree amendments with trusts if necessary. We do not keep separate returns to show the unchecked position before task forces have completed their monitoring function. We shall place a list of all NHS trusts and their agreed compliance rate in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department gives to individual trusts concerning methods of monitoring the hours worked by junior doctors. [15840]

  Mr. Milburn
  We monitor junior doctors' hours every six months and detailed guidance notes on the completion of monitoring forms is made available to National Health Service trusts via our regional task forces at the same time.

  It would not be appropriate to prescribe centrally one single method of monitoring hours. Task forces will advise individual trusts on the most suitable local method. Trusts are required to have their progress reports validated by a junior doctor representative locally to ensure that accurate monitoring has taken place. Also, before a trust can be accredited as complying in full with junior doctors' hours' limits the task force must be satisfied that robust internal monitoring is in place.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the criteria which his Department will use to measure the number of patients removed from waiting lists. [16656]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the numbers of patients treated from waiting lists is published annually in "Hospital Episode Statistics". The latest is for 1995–96 and copies are available in the Library. Removals are patients removed from the waiting list for in-patient treatment, in accordance with clearly defined guidelines set out in "The NHS Data Manual", for any reason other than admission for treatment from that list. This can be because they have already received treatment at another hospital or because the treatment is no longer necessary. Trusts are encouraged to validate their waiting lists on a regular basis to ensure they do not include any patients that should not be on them.

  Health Care (Geographical Discrepancies)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his planned White Paper on the future of the NHS will address geographical discrepancies in eligibility for health care services. [16657]
  319
  Mr. Milburn
  The Government consider that fair access to services on the basis of need is a fundamental principle of the National Health Service. It is central to our plans to replace the internal market.

  Health Authorities and Trusts (Expenditure)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instruction he has given to the chairs of health authorities and trusts in England on the use of extra money made available from(a) central Government, (b) efficiency savings and (c) other sources for patient care only. [16658]

  Mr. Milburn
  Details of the purposes to which the extra funds for the National Health Service announced in October 1997 are to be put are contained in Executive Letter (97)64, copies of which are available in the Library. This made it clear that the additional resources made available from central Government should be used to: help hospitals cope with medical emergencies during the winter months; reduce delays in discharging patients; reduce the need for people to be admitted to hospital in the first place by strengthening primary, community and social services; and begin to restrain the growth in waiting lists.

  Emergency Admissions and Elective Surgery
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what criteria his Department plans to measure the effectiveness of provisions made for(a) treating emergency accident and emergency admissions and (b) elective surgery in the period 1 October 1997 to 1 April 1998. [16659]

  Mr. Boateng
  During the coming winter we expect health authorities and trusts to ensure that their first priority is to make adequate provision for emergency care. We expect health authorities to share the risks faced by National Health Service trusts in meeting unpredictable demand and for all concerned to work closely with other NHS agencies and with social services departments. In particular hospitals should not close unilaterally to hospital admissions.
  320
  We have allocated additional funds which will be used both to ease the pressures on the health and social care system during the winter period and to restrain the growth in waiting times and waiting lists, starting by clearing all patients waiting over 18 months.

  The NHS Executive will measure the effectiveness of provision through its normal management procedures.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on official hospitality for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997. [15218]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]Information on hospitality expenditure for the Department, its agencies and the non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) is not available prior to 1990–91 which is when the Department of Health was established as a separate Department. Prior to April 1995 additional elements of expenditure (working lunches and refreshments at meetings) were included under the heading of hospitality.

  Figures for the years are 1991–92 to 1996–97 and the period 1 May 1997 to 30 September 1997 are given in the table:

  Year

  Departmental expenditure

  Agencies expenditure

  NDPB expenditure

  1990–91

  158,000

  0

  17,505

  1991–92

  168,151

  10,318

  16,416

  1992–93

  246,374

  15,612

  20,366

  1993–94

  218,995

  28,864

  21,208

  1994–95

  229,779

  32,451

  21,152

  1995–96

  73,516

  37,182

  23,646

  1996–97

  105,192

  23,589

  21,335

  1997–98 (1 May to 30 September)

  41,803

  7,159

  7,004

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

Great Lakes Region, Africa
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the downfall of President Mobutu in Zaire, what arrangements they are making for an integrated policy towards the Great Lakes region of Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we recognise that the humanitarian problems in the Great Lakes are regional in nature, and therefore require a regional approach wherever possible. However, resolutions ultimately depend on political action in the countries concerned.
We are working closely with the EU and UN to promote conflict resolution, progress towards democratisation, the rule of law, respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. We fully support the work of the UN as the one organisation which straddles all the complex issues of economic and political development, human rights and refugees.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does my noble friend agree that perhaps the most testing challenge is how to balance a convincing stand on human rights and condemnation of ethnic killing with the need not to punish the innocent and to speed meaningful reconstruction based on accountable political systems? Can my noble friend assure the House that the Government will use their forthcoming presidency of the European Union to work with fellow member states in overcoming fragmentation, which has been present in policy in Europe in the past, and to achieve a co-ordinated approach not only in Europe but in the international institutions, not least on debt, arms control and issues of that kind? What will be the Government's position at the forthcoming meeting organised by the World Bank on 3rd December in Brussels?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of the balance to which my noble friend referred. My noble friend raised two specific points on the presidency and the World Bank. We shall of course seek to use the presidency to ensure co-ordinated EU action in support of stability and economic development in the region that takes account of humanitarian concerns, human rights issues and the need for improved and more accountable government.
646
As regards the World Bank, the meeting is planned, although as yet not confirmed, for 3rd and 4th December. We shall reiterate our desire to work with the new Government in Kinshasa to bring about a better future for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and for its people. But to enable the international community to have real confidence that it is right to do so, we need to see progress in addressing the issues of concern; namely, those of human rights to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, having returned overnight from a conference in southern Africa which was attended by four heads of Government, is the Minister aware—I was not—that the heads of Government in that region are greatly concerned that the new Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been left high and dry by the international community? Following what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, is it not a question not only of pursuing the human rights abuses of the past but also of assisting in the reconstruction of civic society in that tragic country after the mess left behind by President Mobutu?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific concerns to which the noble Lord refers. However, I hope that those who voiced those concerns will be to some extent reassured by the news of the welcome arrival in Kinshasa on the 11th of this month of the team leaders of the United Nations commission of inquiry into human rights. I understand that the team leaders have already had a meeting with two of the Cabinet Ministers in Kinshasa and have plans to meet Kabila later this week.
I think the feeling that the Government have been left high and dry may not be entirely right in the context of the UN's recent activity.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her honourable friend Mr. Lloyd will visit the region in the not-too-distant future? As my noble friend Lord Judd said, Zaire needs to be thought about in a regional context. Will my noble friend therefore ask the Minister to endeavour to meet all representatives of different political parties, including those not currently represented in the parliament? I am thinking in particular of UNITA, which is not presently represented in the Zambian parliament but is represented among the populace.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of my honourable friend's forthcoming trip to the area. I am happy to convey my noble friend's message to him. It is worth noting that the UN has an inter-agency consolidated appeal operating in Tanzania, Uganda, DRC and Burundi, so there is a co-ordinated approach through the international agencies. However, I am happy to relate the specific point to my honourable friend.
Viscount Waverley:My Lords, in the spirit of the Minister's initial response, is there any suggestion that

647
the East African Association would be prepared to accept Rwanda and Burundi into its midst and, if so, under what conditions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have details on that point, but I am very happy to take delivery of it and will write to the noble Viscount.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, given the Government's human rights-centred approach to foreign policy, what weight do the Government attach to the recently published report of Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Human Rights, which provides evidence of the mass slaughter of Hutu refugees in eastern Zaire? Was the issue raised when the Secretary of State for International Development visited Rwanda last month? What lead do the Government intend to take to ensure that President Kabila addresses international concerns about human rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the DfID is never found wanting in raising these important humanitarian issues. It is a matter that has been put to the forefront of the agenda in DfID as well as in the FCO.
Alleged human rights abuses are extraordinarily worrying to the Government. But much of the evidence is second hand, because the UN Special Rapporteur was prevented from examining on the ground some of the alleged serious abuses. It is therefore all the more important that the UN inquiry team to which I referred is able to establish the truth behind the serious allegations of human rights violations in DRC since 1993.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, is the noble Baroness prepared to say more than she said just now about the Government's attitude to debt relief in the context of the UK presidency of the EU and of the work with member states and others next year? In particular, will she say whether the Government are prepared to seek alternative mechanisms, over and above the HIPC initiative, to bring debt relief to Rwanda in particular, which I believe will not qualify for many years for debt relief under the HIPC initiative? Will the Government clearly link additional debt relief to action for poverty reduction and education and health support programmes?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government's attitude to debt relief was dealt with to some extent in the recently published White Paper. That White Paper makes it clear that debt relief will be looked at most sympathetically in those parts of the world where there is a demonstration of a clear commitment to human rights and democratisation. The criteria for debt relief will not be any different in the
648
Great Lakes region to any other part of the world. But it will of course be focused on where there is greatest poverty, as the White Paper makes clear.

Prescription Charges
3.16 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwichasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the present level of prescription charges.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced in June that prescription charges were to be one element of the Department of Health's comprehensive spending review. We aim to complete the review by next spring. I reaffirm to the noble Lord and the House that that spending review is taking place in the context of our manifesto commitment on the health service that the NHS will be there to help if you are ill or injured and access to it will be based on need and need alone, not on ability to pay.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does she agree that what Prime Minister Attlee had in mind in introducing the concept of prescription charges was that they should act as a deterrent in an effort to reduce excessive and unnecessary use of the NHS? That being so, does the Minister further agree that it has been quite reasonable that the prescription charge, expressed as a fraction of the total expenditure of the NHS, has remained constant over the past 40 years?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am tempted to ask why, in that case, it did not—particularly under the previous government's 18 years of administration. The NHS drugs budget is currently about £4 billion; that is, 13 per cent. of the total spend of the NHS. But it is rising faster than other areas of expenditure. There are anomalies within the prescription charge with which we have dealt many times in this House. That is the reason why it is appropriate that it should be examined under the comprehensive spending review.
Earl Howe: My Lords, bearing in mind that over 80 per cent. of items on prescription are currently dispensed free, compared to 60 per cent. in 1979, do the Government propose to re-examine the current structure of exemptions?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not wish to appear discourteous, but I believe that 80 per cent. of prescription items are—I am sorry, I misunderstood the noble Earl—about 50 per cent. of prescriptions are exempt. As the noble Earl will know, we are concerned about the number of exemptions,

649
which may reveal something of an exploitation of that system. The matter is being examined under the comprehensive spending review.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that part of the reason for the increase in the percentage of exempted prescriptions is the massive increase in poverty that took place during the past 18 years of the previous administration?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that may well be an element in the numbers of exemptions. However, as I said in answer to the previous question, there are definite anomalies in the ways in which exemptions are currently registered. That is being examined closely.

EU Member States and the European Commission
3.19 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the President of the European Commission or any European commissioner is permitted publicly or privately to instruct member states of the European Union, either individually or collectively, as to the actions they should take, or should not take, in regard to any proposals made by the Commission, or other matters which are of significant political controversy within those states.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, neither the President of the European Commission nor any European commissioner has the right to instruct member states as to the actions they should take in regard to a proposal made by the Commission or anyone else. In respect of existing Community law, of course the Commission has the right to take action to ensure enforcement, ultimately including referral to the European Court of Justice, if a member state is not in compliance with its obligations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply and I would not for a moment query the Commission's right to enforce Community law. Moreover, the Minister will probably agree with me when I say that the Commission has the right and a duty to explain its own proposals and advance the arguments in favour of them. However, I trust that the Minister will also agree that, under the terms of their appointment as commissioners under Article 157 of the Treaty of Rome, they have a duty of impartiality. Will the Minister agree that, over the past few years, notably during the prime ministership of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and ever since Maastricht, there has been a tendency on the part of the Commission to differentiate between the views of one state and those of another and very often by name?
Will the Minister agree, for example, that it was grossly improper the week before last for the Commission to denounce the policy of my right
650
honourable friend the Prime Minister towards tobacco advertising and for the commissioner to describe his explanation as a "disaster", a complete U-turn? Furthermore, would it not be far better for the Commission to look once again at Article 157? Is it not time that the Commission was told, quietly but firmly, that it is not the boss of Europe but its servant?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure which questions the noble Lord expects me to answer. The general point is that the Commission is appointed by the elected governments of Europe. It acts to reflect the views of the Council of Ministers. In some cases, this country and others are occasionally in the minority. It is the job of the Commission to explain the view of the Council of Ministers as a whole. That probably explains the bulk of the instances to which the noble Lord has referred. There are other matters which he has mentioned and which I shall definitely not get drawn into.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether it is correct that the Commission is subscribing £5 million to making propaganda in favour of British membership of the EMU? Since that expenditure would otherwise fall on the Labour Party, is that not a form of foreign subsidy for a political party to which one understood the Minister's right honourable friend the Prime Minister was very much opposed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have never been in favour of costs falling on the Labour Party and I do not believe the noble Lord is right in that respect. The Commission is spending a certain amount of money to explain the Council of Ministers' policies in relation to Europe. Any money that is expended within this country will be on information provided by Her Majesty's Treasury and other government departments. It will therefore be the responsibility of the British Government and not of the Commission.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister accept that those of us who have been nominated to this House by a remarkably secretive process are not always best placed to criticise the questionable democratic credentials of nominated members of the European Commission?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. I find it bizarre that in this House of all places there is an inability on the part of certain noble Lords to grasp the concept of an appointed politician. We are all appointed politicians and the Commission is appointed by 15 governments.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am not an appointed politician? No one would appoint me! It is as simple as that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that I probably have to agree with the noble Earl. At some stage in our ancestries we were all appointed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Lord on one of the supplementary

651
questions put to him by his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington to which I did not detect an answer. Can he tell the House clearly whether the Labour Government, the Government of this country, regard the Commission as the servant of the Council of Ministers or its master?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Commission is the servant of the Council of Ministers. It can propose to the Council of Ministers, but it is the Council of Ministers which decides in certain treaty-obliged instances but also with the concurrence of the European Parliament. That is the position and the Commission is often blamed for matters which are decisions of the Council of Ministers.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, will the Minister check the answer that he has just given? The Commission is an institution of the Community specifically under the terms of the Treaty of Rome, as subsequently amended. It is not and never has been the servant of the Council of Ministers.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord has some considerable experience of these matters, as do other noble Lords in the House. However, that was not the point. It is indeed an institution of the Community and commissioners are required by treaty and by obligation to act independently as an institution. However, the decisions under which they act are the decisions of the Council of Ministers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, further to the reply which the Minister has just given, if the interpretation of my noble friend Lord Cockfield is correct, can the Minister tell the House of any clauses in the Treaty of Rome which permit the Commission to act in the manner envisaged by the Question?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I indicated in my first reply that the Commission cannot act in the way described in the general terms of the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Therefore, there is no clause in the Treaty of Rome which would apply.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in regard to my noble friend's statement that the Commission always speaks with the authority of the Council, may I apply that to the announcement of the Commission that the attitude of the British Prime Minister towards the tobacco regime was a criticism by the Council of the United Kingdom rather than a criticism by the Commission? Perhaps my noble friend will clarify the point.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of his original Question. It was whether the Commission could instruct the Government to act on a proposal. The Commission is always in a position to try to persuade governments, and as I understand it that is probably what was said in this context. However,
652
I repeat that the Commission has no powers to instruct the Government, unless and until a Council decision and due process turn that into Community law.

Museums and Galleries: Entry Charges
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of Clancartyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they consider it appropriate to decide their policy on access to public museums and galleries in advance of the publication in full of their research into the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is carrying out a review of access to national museums and galleries in England and the Secretary of State will announce his conclusions within the next few weeks.
This should not be confused with the research which has been separately and independently commissioned by the Museums and Galleries Commission and whose main conclusions were presented at a seminar organised by the commission last week. This research has been only one element of the wider picture which the department has been considering.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he acknowledge that, after seven months of the Government doing absolutely nothing to support museums, the bottom line is that if they do not give a firm financial commitment, then in two weeks' time the British Museum will certainly introduce admission charges?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept that the Government have done absolutely nothing in the past seven months. Within the budgets available—which have not yet been reviewed—the department has continued its substantial support for the national museums in the country. The review which the Secretary of State for Culture is carrying out is evidence of our determination to continue and improve the provision by museums in this country.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to confirm that, should entrance charges be introduced, if a gallery such as the National Gallery does not wish to charge and does not need to do so, it will not be obliged to introduce charges?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, admission charges, which are only part of the issue of access, are a matter for the trustees of the individual museums. The Government have no power to influence trustees in either imposing or not imposing charges.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how reluctant the trustees of the British Museum would be—I must declare an interest—to impose admission charges? However, that decision seems to be inescapable, as the noble Earl pointed out,

653
unless the cuts suffered by the annual budget of the museum are restored. Is the noble Lord aware, further, that unless there is some initiative from his right honourable friend, the trustees of the British Museum, by force majeure, may well find themselves obliged to impose admission charges very soon?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware—not only from the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—that the trustees of the British Museum are reluctant to impose admission charges. Of course, the details of their finances are better known to him than to me.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the wish of the British Museum not to charge is well based? The experience of charging was utterly disastrous in the case of several other museums. The idea that the Government have no influence in the matter is entirely untrue. The Government can release the museums from their obligations to charge or they can make clear that they require them to charge. It is my hope that this Government will make absolutely clear that museum charges are out and, if necessary, they will make it financially possible for any museum to avoid charging if it does not wish to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I stick by what I said earlier: the Government do not have the power to command museums either to charge or not to charge. Any influence the Government have may be applied in a number of ways; in particular, if unlimited financing was available for museums it would be possible for governments to help museums avoid charging.
In relation to my noble friend's first question and what he called the "disastrous" experience of charging, the evidence is nothing like as clear cut as he indicated. We do not know that museums lose a lot of customers through introducing charges. For example, there is evidence in Merseyside that customers have not been deterred by the charges that were introduced in July.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, following on from what the Minister said, is he aware that certain museums are forced to close some of their galleries because they cannot afford to pay for guards to supervise them? Does he not agree that it is better to introduce reasonable charges so that the general public may see all of a museum rather than just part of it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those are difficult decisions which the trustees of museums have to take. As I said, given unlimited resources, it would be possible for access to be improved not only by having low or no charges but also by opening for longer hours. There are various other ways of attracting visitors to museums. I know that some museums have succeeded, by the way in which they deploy their guards—I believe the correct term is "custodians"—in maintaining opening hours with a smaller staff.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure me that the Government will not support
654
the idea in future of voluntary charges, which surely has been the most unfruitful path to be followed in recent years? If people are asked to give a voluntary sum, it is inhibiting on those who visit and difficult for the staff, who are inevitably encouraged to stop people and urge them to give a contribution.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is one of the considerations which will be taken into account in the review that is taking place. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Viscount. If one visits the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, one is encouraged to give a fixed sum. In return one receives a small metal tag to show that one has donated.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as a trustee of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on our experience. Will he be kind enough to confirm or clarify the timetable for the publication of the Government's review and for the research commissioned by the National Museums and Galleries Commission? There have been so many changes that there is now some confusion in that regard.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in my original Answer I said that the review would be published in the next few weeks. I understand that the full tabulation of the results from the two research projects which were the subject of the original Question will be released in the new year. The projects are those of the Central Office of Information and Glasgow Caledonian University. The main conclusions of both projects were presented at the Museums and Galleries Commission's seminar last week, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, knows.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, is it not against the principles of New Labour to charge VAT on museums that do not charge for entrance? Only last week the Secretary of State said that quality should be for all and not just for the few.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have already said, access charges are only part of the review which is taking place. The law under which VAT is recoverable by those museums which become businesses by dint of their charging for entrance is laid down by the sixth VAT directive of the European Union. It is not within our power to change that. I suspect that, if it were within our power, we would be inclined to seek to do so.

Business of the House: Question Time
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to refer to one matter which has been exercising me a little since yesterday; namely, Question Time. This House is very rightly jealous of the fact that it is self-regulating, and long may it continue to be so. For it to be self-regulating

655
means that on occasion, in extremis, either the Leader of the House or, if he is not present, the Chief Whip may have to intervene. For that system to work depends on two things. The first is that the Leader of the House intervenes with reticence and only when it clearly becomes necessary that he should; the second is the acceptance by the aggrieved party who is being interrupted of the fact that it is necessary to move on.
I make no reference to what happened yesterday afternoon; I was not in the Chamber at the time. I was contemplating the virtues of cross-party co-operation with the Liberal Party in advance of the debate opened by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. However, having read Hansard it seems not inappropriate for me to mention to the House that, if our practices are to continue, they require a little acceptance on both sides. When the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was Leader of the House, he did what I try to do with skill and with tact. I attempt to do the same.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has done the House a great service by his intervention this afternoon. I concur entirely with the sentiments that he has expressed, particularly his polite comments about me when I occupied his position.
To reciprocate what he said, the noble Lord—if I may say so without appearing patronising—fulfils the very criteria he enunciated. He can be assured that, just as he always gave me and indeed my noble friend Lord Strathclyde when he was in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, complete support in matters of this kind, both my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and I will support him in the way he suggests.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on home detention curfew.

Electronic Monitoring of Offenders
3.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the electronic monitoring—or tagging—of offenders which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"On 30th July, I announced to the House a number of measures, building on our manifesto commitments, to protect the public and to establish a criminal justice system which is fair, swift and effective in tackling crime and disorder. Many of the measures—including new community punishments—will be provided by the Crime and Disorder Bill which will come before Parliament shortly. Others, such as automatic life
656
sentences for second time serious sexual and violent offenders and mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers, were brought into force on 1st October. Work is also in hand to bring the Prison and Probation Services closer together.
"This Government pledged to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Ex-prisoners are plainly much less likely to re-offend if they have settled into work or if they are actively looking for a job and with a clear prospect of a job. The Welfare to Work Programme will guarantee every young person who has been out of work for more than six months the opportunity to work or train. I have ensured that ex-offenders are targeted as a special group within the Welfare to Work Programme.
"Protecting the public and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system has been uppermost in my mind since May. Prison has to be used for serious and persistent offenders. That is why I discharged our manifesto commitment to audit the resources of the Prison Service. As a result I have provided an extra £43 million to help with the additional population pressures which we inherited and which were not adequately funded. Since May the prison population has risen by over 3,400 to 63,000, an increase more than double the April predictions of my predecessor. To cope with this increase I have also authorised the building of four new prisons, to provide 2,400 places. But we must also give the courts a wider range of options on tough community punishments in which they—and the public—have confidence. These can now involve greater deprivation of liberty by using new technology. I am therefore setting out today to the House and to the public new action that I am proposing in the use of tagging.
"Over the past 10 years there has been much interest in the use of electronic tagging to provide 24-hour supervision of offenders who have been curfewed. The first trials, in 1989, of curfews imposed as a condition of bail, were not a success. The equipment simply did not work as it was intended.
"The 1991 Criminal Justice Act provided for a new penalty of a curfew order enforced by electronic monitoring. The previous Government themselves delayed the implementation of these provisions until 1995, and then only introduced them in three trial areas in Norfolk, Greater Manchester and Berkshire.
"On Tuesday, I published the report of the second year of the trials. At first, sentencers were very cautious about using their new powers, with only 83 orders made in the first year. But as it became clear that this equipment really did work, and that the orders were effective, more and more use was made of them. In the second year, 375 orders were made. In the last four and a half months a further 269 orders have been made.
"There are three reasons for this increase in sentencers' confidence in tagging. First, the equipment has proved absolutely reliable. When an offender is tagged, it really is possible to tell, second

657
by second, whether he or she is complying with the curfew. Not only are absences instantly noted, any attempt to tamper with the equipment is detected immediately. Secondly, the two contractors have performed well. Every violation of the curfew conditions is followed up by properly trained and managed staff. Thirdly, sentencers are using tagging as a high level penalty, in many cases for offenders who might otherwise have been sent to custody. It is therefore clear that this technology can offer substantial benefits both for victims and the public.
"The trial areas for curfew orders made under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are now being extended into four new areas: West Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and the Middlesex probation area, which covers the London boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow. In addition, from January 1998, in the pilot areas of Greater Manchester and Norfolk, the courts will be able to impose a curfew order enforced by electronic monitoring as a community punishment on 10 to 15 year-olds, on fine defaulters who would otherwise be sent to prison, and on persistent petty offenders.
"Let me now turn to how I propose to use electronic tagging in respect of those who have been in prison and who are very near to the end of their sentences. Those who are sentenced to prison often have typically lived very disordered, irresponsible lives. They are poor at making sensible decisions about their own futures or those of their families. In prison, they do not have to. But the moment prisoners come out of prison, they have to make critical decisions about what they do with every moment of the day; whether they drift back into crime, and into the company of their criminal associates, or whether they try to bring order into their lives.
"Tagging has a key role to play here. If prisoners who are serving short-term sentences are tagged towards the end of the custodial period of their nominal sentence, they can be given the opportunity to structure their lives more effectively, and swiftly brought back to prison if they breach the tagging conditions.
"The research into the first year of the trials showed that offenders see curfews enforced by tagging as a severe restriction of liberty—just as magistrates and judges do. Some offenders have said they found the self-discipline required to complete such a curfew order made it harder than prison. It also provided opportunities for them to take proper responsibility for working or looking for work, for keeping their families together, and for maintaining self-control.
"The case for introducing an element of tagging into the last part of a short-term prison sentence is therefore very strong in any event. But it has been reinforced by the recent rise in the prison population. No one wants to see an unnecessarily overcrowded prison system. It would be the height of irresponsibility not to take advantage of modern technology to help prevent that. The alternatives are
658
bound to be at the expense of constructive prison regimes, and at the expense of improving the prisoners' prospects for resettlement: in other words at the expense of the law-abiding public.
"I have therefore decided to seek Parliament's approval to impose electronic monitoring on selected short-term prisoners in the last two months of their sentence. These orders will be called home detention curfews. The relevant powers will be sought in the forthcoming Crime and Disorder Bill.
"Home detention curfews will be available for prisoners who have received sentences of more than three-months but less than four years' imprisonment. They will be tagged for between two weeks and two months, according to the length of their original sentence. Currently, under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, such prisoners are automatically released at the half-way point of their sentence. They will therefore in any event shortly be back in the community.
"There will be no automatic entitlement to tagging. The Prison Service will in each case conduct a risk assessment. If the prisoner fails this risk assessment he or she will continue to serve the sentence in prison until its half-way point, as now. The prison governor will set the place and times of curfew, in consultation. where needed, with the Probation Service. This will usually be 12 hours a day and could be more, but in no cases will be less than nine hours a day. This will enable the prisoner to have a specified period of time each day in which he or she can adjust to living in the community, while still facing a restriction on liberty for a major part of each day. The curfew conditions will be in addition to the supervision requirements with which anyone with a nominal sentence of 12 months or more must comply.
"If a prisoner breaches the conditions of the home detention curfew he or she can immediately be returned to custody. As with the present trials of curfew orders enforced by tagging, the monitoring will be provided by private sector contractors, and there will be an invitation to tender in due course. Our aim is for the scheme to be operational in 1999.
"Madam Speaker, at the heart of all my policies as Home Secretary is my commitment to provide better protection for the public and for the victims of crime. I am ready to use every measure at my disposal to deliver that commitment. We now have a real opportunity to use modern technology to provide a much better transition for carefully selected prisoners from prison into the community. With the support of Parliament, I intend to take it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the House will be grateful for that Statement about the extended use of electronic tagging. I was the Minister who introduced electronic tagging in the latest experiment, which has been incredibly successful. Every survey, even from the earliest days of the pilot scheme, has proved beyond

659
doubt that the system works. I am therefore enthusiastic about this. Indeed, the previous government had plans to extend the use of tagging.
However, it is an extraordinary Statement. I suffered mercilessly at the hands of noble Lords opposite over the introduction of tagging in the first place. They fought tooth and nail against its proposed use. Nevertheless, this U-turn is welcome.
I have a number of questions. First, may we have the figures relating to Berkshire? Of the three piloted areas, it is common knowledge that from the start Berkshire courts have been extremely reluctant to use the tagging option. As recently as my last day in office, the figures were pathetically low and it would be helpful to know whether there has been a dramatic turnaround in the use of the tagging option in the Berkshire area.
I believe that this proposal is, sadly, Exchequer-led. It is all about money; it is not about the proper use of sentencing. Introducing tagging as an extra disposal for the courts makes a great deal of sense. I believe that the courts would benefit from having such extended options at their disposal.
What percentage of the prison population is serving a sentence of more than three months but less than four years? I understand that it is a very high percentage, so we are talking about releasing early potentially a very large proportion of our prison population.
It is true that against a background of a crisis in prison numbers a former Secretary of State, now my noble friend Lord Hurd, introduced a five-point plan to Parliament. He received the support of Parliament, including that of the Opposition of the day from the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. Those five points included creating a temporary secure camp for 360 people; expanding and accelerating the prison building programme; encouraging the private sector (against enormous opposition) to become involved in the prison building programme; considering using powers of executive release but emphatically rejecting them and instead increasing the amount of remission dependent upon good behaviour by those serving sentences of up to and including only 12 months (which meant the less serious offenders) from one-third to one-half of the sentence; and at the same time initiating a wide-ranging review of parole and remission arrangements. That was an interim measure only and, as I said, applied to much less serious offenders. It also addressed an anomaly that was recognised by the courts at the time: that those serving sentences which were too short to qualify them for parole were serving a higher proportion of their sentence than those more serious offenders who qualified for parole.
When we discussed the Crime (Sentences) Bill, noble Lords opposite were absolutely and emphatically opposed to any notion that the Prison Service should assess good behaviour for the purposes of early release. Their view was that the only people qualified to do that work and the only people who should be involved in such work were members of the Parole Board. This is, therefore, a remarkable turnaround by the present Government.
660
My next questions are these: is the policy of releasing for the last two months of their sentence those offenders with sentences of over three months but less than four years to become nationwide? If so, by when? What are the costs of extending the tagging policy, not simply to the four areas which include my own area of Cambridgeshire but for the new policy mentioned at the end of the Statement? Where is the money coming from? We are within the two years which have been identified as those during which the Government want to stay within the spending totals of the previous government, so it would be interesting to know whether the money will come from within the Prison Service.
Why not simply extend the tagging curfew option for the courts as an additional disposal both for community sentences, (instead of custody) where appropriate, and for supervision purposes, where I believe that it has a role to play? How many prisoners is it envisaged will be released early by the new policy?
I now have some very important questions which the Minister really must answer. Will any category of prisoner be released? Is it intended that this policy shall operate across the board for those serving sentences of up to four years? Will burglars and sex offenders be included? Will the Probation Service be involved in this period of release? If so, what will the costs be and will the Probation Service be funded to meet the additional supervision period?
At present, anybody breaching a curfew order has to be returned to the courts in order to be returned to prison. Is it now intended that there should be differential treatment of those people on curfew orders? Those sentenced by the courts to curfew orders will have to be returned to the courts to be returned to prison, but somebody who is curfewed in the community on the say-so of a prison officer under the new home detention curfew will be returned to court without any appeal or any reference to the courts. Is it intended that there shall be differential treatment?
On that point, is the extension of curfew by tagging order for up to 12 hours a day, which will clearly be broken by the new policy, to extend beyond 12 hours a day, for those already the subject of curfew orders? Is it envisaged that that will apply only to those who fall into this category under the new home detention curfew and not to those who are sentenced by the courts? Is it intended that that 12-hour period shall be extended?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches welcome the Statement, although it is still tinged with some of the macho rhetoric which has been used to address the subject for the past few years. The opportunity is not lost, for example, to refer to the introduction of automatic life sentences and mandatory minimum sentences which we on these Benches consider not worthy of a government who project themselves as a reforming government.
The prevention of crime in the first place is the priority of the criminal justice system, but who commits the crime? Very often, crime is committed by those who have committed it previously. If prisoners have been

661
warehoused for longer and longer periods with inadequate training and if they are then released into the community, they will return easily to the way of life that took them to prison in the first place.
The rhetoric of the past few years has had its effect. Judges instinctively responded by passing longer sentences and were pilloried in the popular press if they failed to do so. We had hoped that the new Home Secretary would not go in fear of the tabloid press in the way that sometimes appears. The pressures on the Prison Service as a result of longer sentences have caused it to fail in its vital function of rehabilitating those who are in its care.
However, we welcome this Statement because it recognises some important issues; for example, the problem of prisoners who come out of prison with very little money and support. It recognises the need to give prisoners an opportunity to structure their lives more effectively and rebuild the supportive relationships of family, home and job—all aspects that will discourage them from reoffending and, crucially, prevent further crime.
We do not consider it enough simply to put a tag upon a prisoner and leave him to his own devices. This should not be seen as a cheap alternative to probation work. Can the Minister inform us what community supervision is proposed to go along with the tagging? How much will it all cost? Equally important, if by this means the prison population is reduced will the resources thereby released be used constructively to provide fresh training and rehabilitation courses? We on these Benches hope that the Minister will be able to assist us.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been offered. I am a shade disappointed that the noble Baroness is not able to be more welcoming to an imaginative departure from our custodial regime. I can say without any fear of contradiction from any quarter that this is not Exchequer-driven. It is intended to manage what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly identified as a very difficult period of transition from prison to what should be a new rehabilitated life. It is impossible for those who have not had to make that transition to grasp its difficulties and dangers. The fact is that our prisons are full of inadequate, petty offenders who very often are a menace to the public. At present they are not sufficiently assisted in their return to what should be a fresh start with family and the community. We cannot ignore the inheritance of a vast increase in prison population which was not anticipated by the former Home Secretary under the previous government.
A number of questions have been asked. This is not a response to the tabloid press in any way. This is a considered scheme which we hope will assure the public that their legitimate interests are being looked after; first, in the short-term, which is no longer than two months and, secondly, on a longer-term basis; namely, if a person is managed in his or her return to the community the opportunity for rehabilitation over the long term is much greater.
662
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions which I attempted to note, but if I miss any of them I shall write to her. I make absolutely plain that this is not an amnesty, as has been considered by previous governments. As a scheme it applies only to those who are serving between three months and four years. The total number in that category is 26,000 out of the present total prison population of 63,000. I disappoint myself by returning every week to answer questions, for instance from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when the figures appear to rise inexorably. However, one needs to look at reality. This sentence band presently attracts automatic release at the half-way point, and that includes burglars. That was the regime conducted under the previous government. One wants to be measured and cautious in what one says on these occasions.
Some categories of prisoners will be excluded. Those categories will be set out in detail in the legislative scheme. They will include those prisoners who are unable to comply with the scheme, perhaps because they do not have access to a place that can be curfewed, and those who represent a clear risk of breach; for example, those who are in custody for a breach of a curfew order by electronic monitoring imposed by the courts.
To reply to the specific question relating to Berkshire put to me by the noble Baroness, between July 1996 and June 1997 the figure was 35.
Baroness Blatch: Pathetic!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness says "pathetic". On this occasion I am simply the messenger, not the message. I simply give the fact. The noble Baroness also asked whether the courts would decide on recall. The answer is no. As the noble Baroness implied, the technology is now sufficiently advanced. I readily agree with the noble Baroness that it has greatly improved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My question was not whether they would go back without recourse to the court. That was made absolutely clear in the Statement. The question was whether there would be differential treatment of people who were serving curfew orders by tagging imposed by the courts and those who received home detention orders. Would criminals from one category go back to court to be returned to prison and the others go back on the mere say-so of a prison officer?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was about to deal with that. Because the technology has improved Prison Service headquarters will decide recall on behalf of the Secretary of State and give any person who is adversely affected the opportunity to make representations. I remind your Lordships that a similar power already exists for those who are recalled from parole licences. This is not a new device.
Questions were put about the involvement of the probation service. There will be a risk assessment which involves the probation service where appropriate and assistance by way of supervision of appropriate

663
prisoners. One must bear in mind that these questions must be individualised. Not everyone will have the full two months. It will taper down to two weeks.
We cannot say how many prisoners will be released early. We do not know what the overall effect will be on the prison population, except that we trust and firmly believe realistically that it will have an ameliorating effect on the prison population. We cannot give the number because we do not know what the take-up or failure rate will be. As with any prudent government, we shall monitor the scheme in practice with very great care. It is intended that the policy should be nationwide, and it will not come into effect until 1999.
As the prison population changes and technology improves we believe that it is prudent to deal with these matters in this way. The scheme has been carefully thought out and is restricted to those who are serving between three months and four years. No one will be released without a risk assessment programme having been carried out. I suggest to your Lordships that prison governors will be extremely prudent and cautious in using this particular device. But one cannot see in reason any well founded argument against a determined effort by the Government with the assistance of the Prison Service to manage that chasm between incarceration—the total deprivation of liberty—and what one hopes is the result of any prison sentence; that is, a return to the community and a fruitful life.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government have decided upon this course. The principle is very good. I am glad that they have decided to carry further and improve what the previous government began.
As a parish priest one had visits from ex-prisoners; somehow they found their way to the vicarage or rectory. It was noticeable that, having been in prison for a short or a long time, they were so institutionalised and so used to having decisions made for them that they found it difficult and awkward to make their own decisions and did not know how to conduct themselves without help. As the Minister pointed out, it is important that when they come out they are given help to acclimatise themselves and become responsible individuals in society. I hope that the Government are successful in what they propose and I am glad of it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that support. I believe that everyone with his experience, or comparable experiences in dealing with discharged prisoners, would come to the view that he articulated. It is an exceptionally difficult period. I hope that we are imaginatively using what is now available to us, which was not formerly; that is, modern technology to restrict liberty in a way which many people find more burdensome because it involves individual choice. They will be deprived of their liberty in their own home. There will be a saving of cost, and we believe that there
664
will be a saving of misery to members of the general public who are not well served on every occasion by our present prison regime.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can I ask a question about the role of the private contractor? As I understand it, if a prisoner is released, his performance will then be monitored by the private contractor and if he is in breach of curfew I think the Minister said that he will be immediately returned to prison. Who would pick him up and take him there?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the monitoring is very simple. One has the monitoring device attached in the prisoner's home and a tagging device attached to the prisoner's body. If the private contractor comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach, then the prisoner is returned to custody on the basis of a warrant, in other words, by a police officer acting on a warrant and not by the private contractor's employee.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in that this is a dramatic U-turn. I do not agree with her that it is essentially Treasury led. I agree with the noble Lord the Minister that it represents a transition, but it represents a transition backed by the Government to the well-established principle that prison is a very expensive way of making bad people worse. That was the view expressed by previous Home Secretaries and adhered to until the advent of Mr. Howard as Home Secretary.
Ultimately, it has been realised that a grossly overcrowded prison system, coupled with the cutback in the finance available, means that there is no constructive time available in prison to provide even the hope of rehabilitation, let alone the probability of it being successful. That is the reason for what is proposed. It is a means whereby the Government get themselves off the hook upon which they have impaled themselves by accepting the minimum sentences and the automatic life sentences, despite the way in which both were criticised in this House prior to the change of government. I welcome the Statement as a step forward but I wish that the Government, in making a U-turn, would be a little more frank as to what motivated them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I never look a gift horse in the mouth if at all possible; therefore I welcome the general support that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has given. I venture gently to disagree with him. We are not getting off the hook on which we impaled ourselves. These are problems of long standing which do not derive from the automatic minimum sentences or the automatic life sentences. We are talking of a large number of persons who were sentenced under a regime which had no connection with those automatic sentences at all.
I well recognise the quotation which the noble and learned Lord provided to your Lordships. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, when he was Home Secretary, who uttered those words. We are not concerned with a U-turn, because I do not recall that a

665
previous government has ever suggested this scheme, or, therefore, that we ever resisted it. I suggest again that this is a good deal more important than the usual knock-about party point. We are trying to deal with returning into the community those who have demonstrated themselves not to be equipped, not fit, to live in that community for a certain period of time. It is in everyone's interests that that transition should be properly and imaginatively managed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us agree with him that this is a particularly inappropriate subject on which to have routine party knock-abouts? Whether the Government have or have not done a U-turn is irrelevant, given the gravity of the situation which the noble Lord indicated a few moments ago, with the prison population already at 63,000. Will the Minister recall that he recently wrote to my noble friend, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, indicating that if the present trends in sentencing continue the prison population is expected to reach 71,800 by September of 1999, a truly frightening figure? All this being said, we welcome what the noble Lord said about reducing the prison population in the way he described.
Can I put two questions? First, will the Minister recognise with me that a good quality risk assessment by the prison authorities for longer sentence prisoners is possible? It is extremely difficult, on the other hand, to have a risk assessment for a very short sentence prisoner. These people are being warehoused at the moment in very large numbers and some go in and out of prison without many prison officers recognising the fact that they are going through their particular establishment.
Secondly, the Minister referred to four new prisons. Were those four new prisons in the building programme of the previous government and, therefore, allowed for in the public expenditure plans of the previous government? Or is this a new commitment to public expenditure?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not regard this as an occasion for trivial tittering; it is much more important than that. My belief is, I think, shared by the overwhelming majority of your Lordships. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, expresses a reasoned public concern about the state of our prison system and, therefore, the state of the public good, and I happen to welcome that, I do not see that it is an occasion for merriment.
The noble Lord raises the question of the figures. I did indeed write to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, with those figures. No one with any sense or sensibility can close his eyes to them. Risk assessment, of course, will vary according to the period of time that a prisoner serves. The longer a prisoner is in prison, I suppose in the nature of things, the deeper the risk assessment is likely to be. Equally, one has to bear in mind—I make no apology for repeating it—that all of these prisoners in the band I described will be released automatically, as of right, after half the sentence has been served. It is true that many petty
666
inadequates are in and out of prison in a short period of time and that is something we constantly have to question. May I write to the noble Lord about his particular question, because in the moment or two available I have not been able to get specific information? I believe I know the answer, but I do not want to mislead him, even if inadvertently.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that prisons are universities of crime, especially when they are overcrowded, and that therefore many of us welcome every effort being made by the Government to reduce the prison population so long as it is consistent with public safety? Will he therefore give us some idea of the degree of efficiency of the present tagging system, bearing in mind that he was kind enough to say that the first experiment was not fully successful?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord who has significant experience of these matters having himself been a Home Office Minister. I agree entirely that if one keeps men in prison without education, training, or skill opportunities, one is likely to have a dismal outcome. Prison will then perform the important but limited function of merely keeping a man or woman out of circulation for a short period of time. I do not overlook the importance of that, but I agree with the noble Lord that the over-arch must be public protection. That is why we want public support; that is why we have built in careful provision; and that is why we have limited the scheme in the way I described. We are confident that the technology is now capable of working on every occasion. It is a rash layman who puts his faith in science to that extent, but that is the information we have. It is sufficiently sophisticated to be a foolproof scheme.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1997
4.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the order laid before the House on 27th October be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House for the fact that it was not possible to debate the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order before it came into force on Monday 10th November.
When the Government issued their consultation document in May it was expected that the upgraded CGO system would come on stream at the end of August. By July the Bank of England had decided to delay the launch but without giving a further date. The existing form of paragraph 16A which is being amended presented a number of difficulties in drafting. Given the technical computing context, and the experience of the financial services regulators in operating the existing provision, it was particularly important that the drafting was done in close consultation with the regulators and

667
the Bank of England. As with all legislation the paramount concern must be that the legislation should be workable. The Government were not ready to lay the order before the summer Recess but intended to do so when the House reassembled in October. It was only at the beginning of October, while the House was in Recess, that the bank announced that the system would go live on 10th November.
The order is made under a power within the Financial Services Act (Section 2) which allows a statutory instrument to be made with immediate effect but with the proviso that it shall cease to have effect if within 28 days it is not approved by Parliament. That is a particular procedure which is designed to allow regulatory protections to be applied immediately where circumstances require it in order to protect investors. Given that the upgraded CGO system was to be operational on 10th November, it was essential that the protection of the Act should commence on that day. The order was laid on 27th October and came into force two weeks later. The Bank of England and the regulators were, of course, aware of the timetable for the order. The bank agreed to alert anyone proposing to act as a sponsor of the requirements of the order of the need for authorisation. As it turned out, even by this stage, there are very few sponsored members and their sponsors are already authorised.
The order extends the definition of investment business in Schedule 1 to the Financial Services Act to cover the provision of sponsored membership services in the context of the upgraded Central Gilts Office settlement system. Its effect is to extend the protective mantle of the Act in terms of high standards and better security to people dealing in gilts.
The settlement system of the Central Gilts Office is already dematerialised; in other words, paperless. A number of firms have direct computer links to the system and their names appear on the central register.
The upgraded CGO system was, as I said, introduced on 10th November. It is designed to enhance the settlement of gilt repo transactions—which is the sale of gilts with a commitment to repurchase them at a later date at a particular price—and to introduce a facility to strip and reconstitute coupon-bearing gilts—which divides the repayment of the principal from the individual dividend payments and allows for each to be separately traded. It also provides a number of additional features, including a flexible membership structure.
As part of the more flexible membership structure, a new category of trader was introduced on 10th November, known as a sponsored member. The important feature is that the name of the sponsored member will appear on the central register even though the actual trading will be by someone else, a direct member or interface provider, who, for this purpose will be known as a sponsor.
The reasons for bringing "sponsors" within the definition of investment business in the Financial Services Act are twofold: first, sponsors will be interacting with the system on behalf of others, which creates the possibility of error, negligence or even fraud;
668
and, secondly, the system will be similar to that operating in CREST where sponsors are already required to be authorised. It is likely that, in due course, the CREST and CGO systems will merge. The order is thus designed to improve the protection provided for investors and to provide consistency of treatment with CREST within the regulatory environment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 27th October be approved—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
4.28 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard will be relieved to hear that this is not nearly as controversial a matter as admission charges for museums. He will find that the Opposition, by and large, agree with the Motion. I shall not complain about the Motion being made now regarding something that is already in force, because I suspect that I can recall situations in which I was forced to do something similar. I see the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, smiling at me and indicating that he probably harangued me on much the same issue. So I am being pretty careful about that.
I am in no doubt that it is important that the City moves into the new electronic age. Indeed, from the Government Dispatch Box I moved some of the affirmative orders that enabled CREST to start. This is but one more step on the road to ensuring that the City can compete in the modern world. That is extraordinarily important for our economy. I have no problems with the Motion.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, before speaking to the order, I should like to declare a recent past interest, having served for eight years as an independent member of the board of the Securities and Futures Authority, and, throughout that period, on its disciplinary committee.
Having read the account of the meeting of the Standing Committee in another place on this matter, and having read, in particular, the speech of the Economic Secretary, the substance of which has just been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I have no doubt that it is right for us to assent to the order. At the same time, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, I cannot help feeling some mild surprise that this situation was not foreseen. It is not a situation that we wish to see repeated—that we proceed by order to ratify something which has already been in place since 10th November.
It is also pertinent to observe that the Financial Services Act 1986, under whose authority the order is to be implemented, is to wither away shortly. It is nearing the end of its life, given the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in May, I believe—of his intention to terminate the system of regulation established by the 1986 Act and to create a wholly new supervisory authority to be called the financial services authority. It is a matter of some concern to me that although the FSA is in the process

669
of being set up—and many experienced staff are being transferred from the existing SFA—the new authority has no legal base whatever. I understand the Government's explanation that their legislative programme for the current Session does not permit the introduction of the necessary Bill until the next Session, but if discipline is to be maintained in the meantime, in effect under the auspices of the existing authority, there is surely a risk that some of those being disciplined when they have sufficient determination and resources to employ the requisite legal skills, may seek to have the disciplinary process overturned on judicial review on the ground that the new authority is acting ultra vires.
I urge the Government to obtain the necessary legislative cover for the new body to operate legally as soon as possible in order to avoid such a calamity. I would have supposed it possible that a single clause Bill might have been drafted, introduced and passed without controversy through both Houses of Parliament, but, from messages which reached the SFA from the Treasury, I understand that that was not possible. If nothing is done, I may find it necessary to return to the matter when we come to consider the Bank of England Bill, since it might be possible for such a clause to be inserted in that Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will understand that I am speaking entirely as a private individual and I do not bear any message for him from the Securities and Futures Authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to the order and for their welcome of it, with provisos. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is right: I made sure that I was briefed on the fact that he had introduced the extension of scope orders which were comparable to this order. If he had complained in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has complained I should have been able to quote them to him.
The principle that we should not be introducing orders to Parliament after they have come into effect is sound. I will convey to Treasury Ministers the message that it is undesirable and should be avoided if at all possible. The sensitivity in respect of ratification of an order which has already come into effect was the reason why I introduced my exposition of the order's provisions by an elaborate, perhaps even over elaborate, apology to the House. I extend that apology to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who made perfectly valid points about ratification of orders which have already come into effect.
I can reassure him about the legality of what happened in the establishment of the FSA on 28th October. The FSA is a change of name from the Securities and Investments Board and has the same status in law as the board. Provided that it does not go outside the functions of the SIB, it is not at risk of acting ultra vires and therefore there is no risk of the judicial review to which the noble Lord referred.
The powers of the FSA will be extended progressively. When the Bank of England Bill now before the House of Commons receives Royal Assent, those powers will he greatly extended with the transfer of powers from the Bank of England. But even as at
670
present constituted, it is a legal body. It is the same body in law as the Securities and Investment Board and we do not anticipate the risk to which the noble Lord has referred.
Having said that, and I hope having reassured the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I repeat my gratitude for the reception to the order and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Shops (Sunday Trading &c.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
4.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I bring to the House today an order which introduces provisions broadly in line with those now in operation in England and Wales following the enactment of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions.
The purpose of the draft Shops (Sunday Trading &c.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 is to provide an urgently needed reform of the Northern Ireland shops law. It provides a modern, clear and enforceable code, replacing the existing unsatisfactory Shops Act (Northern Ireland) 1946.
The order broadly repeals and replaces the Sunday trading provisions of the 1946 Act to remove its restrictions on the goods which may be sold in shops on Sunday and allows small shops (those with a relevant floor area of not more than 280 square metres) to trade at any time on Sunday.
It restricts most large shops (those with a relevant floor area of more than 280 square metres) to a maximum of five hours trading between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Sunday (other than Christmas Day or Easter Sunday). Similar shops in England and Wales may open on Sundays for a maximum continuous period of six hours between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The order allows certain large shops to trade without restrictions on Sunday.
District councils are responsible for enforcement of the existing shops law and continue to bear this responsibility in relation to the Sunday trading provisions of the order. It also gives district councils powers to prevent undue annoyance to local residents from deliveries to certain large shops early on Sunday mornings.
The order importantly provides employment protection measures for shop workers in relation to Sunday working which apply irrespective of age, length of service or hours of work and aim to ensure that shop workers are not compelled to work on Sundays if they do not wish to do so. Enforcement of the new employment rights will be by way of a complaint to an industrial tribunal.

671
The order also repeals the other provisions of the 1946 Act, such as weekday closing hours and conditions of employment now considered to be out of date.
The order departs from the law in England and Wales in relation to the provisions in the 1994 Act which allow a large shop, operated by a person of the Jewish religion and closed on the Jewish Sabbath, to open without restriction on a Sunday, subject to certain conditions. Similar provisions have not been included in the order because they would be contrary to Section 17 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Section 17 renders void any Northern Ireland legislative provision which discriminates against any person or class of persons on the ground of religious belief or political opinion.
The order goes further than the 1994 Act in allowing large shops in holiday resorts designated by district councils to trade at any time, on up to 18 Sundays (other than Easter Sunday), between 1st March and 30th September in any calendar year.
The order also goes further than the 1994 Act on two minor points in relation to the list in Article 4 of those types of shops to be exempt from the restrictions on Sunday opening of large shops. Shops in bus stations have been included and the exemption for airport shops has not been restricted to those with a substantial amount of international passenger traffic, as is the case in England and Wales.
The decision to reform the Northern Ireland shops law was taken following a public consultation exercise in 1995 which resulted in a majority in favour of the changes. There is, however, a body of opinion in Northern Ireland which is opposed to the changes. This was also apparent in the majority of respondents who opposed the proposal for a draft order when it was published for comment in March 1996.
In recognition, however, of the concerns of those for whom Sunday is a special day, the Sunday trading hours proposed for most large shops have been reduced from a maximum of six continuous hours between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. to a maximum of five hours between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m.
The Government have decided to proceed with the order because of the urgent need to reform the 1946 Act and the clearly demonstrated demand for Sunday shopping. In coming to this decision, the Government are aware that there are many people in Northern Ireland who have genuine concerns about the relaxation of the restrictions on Sunday trading. The order will, however, provide freedom of choice for those who wish to shop or work in shops on Sunday and for those who do not. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
4.40 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is not a matter of party politics but of individual decision. Indeed, it is a difficult decision. We all remember the problems which the issue of Sunday trading law caused
672
on a number of occasions while we were discussing the alterations to it in England and Wales, when the Conservative government tried to tackle the issue. It ended with the Sunday Trading Act 1994, to which the noble Lord referred. Indeed, some of us have the scars to remind us of those occasions, but I shall not dwell on that.
The starting point for this order, as indeed it was in England and Wales, is that the existing law is unsatisfactory. There is no doubt about that. But the reason for the longevity of the old law, which is repealed by this order, was the difficulty in agreeing to satisfactory change and the disagreements which existed about the way in which changes should be made. The existing law certainly has not lasted as long as it has because of its inherent merits or acceptability. The problem was the difficulty of finding an alternative.
Indeed, a prime reason for this order is said to be that the present law is disregarded and not enforced. That is probably the worst reason for proposing changes in the law, but it is a real one, nevertheless. In these post-Formula One days, we understand that practicability takes precedence over principle in government.
In practice, there is no doubt that the law needs changing and it is impossible to find a change which will please everyone. So far as I can judge, the Government have found a solution which has wide, although not universal, acceptance. I notice that the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in another place, while not entirely happy, certainly gave that impression and the Belfast Telegraph said that it was a sensible compromise. That sums up the situation.
It is a different and, in some respects, more restrictive law than in England and Wales but one would expect that, given that in Northern Ireland there is a much higher proportion of church-goers than there is on this side of the water. But I welcome the restrictions on large shops on Sunday mornings. I welcome the freedom from regulation of small shops. As a general point, I believe that we do not sufficiently exempt small shops from regulation. Their competitive position and weakened bargaining power means that the public needs less protection from them than from the great multiples.
I welcome also such control as there is on loading and, in particular, unloading on Sundays, although I should have preferred to see that control potentially last all day instead of only until 9 a.m. I have never been convinced that planning permission should be granted automatically, as it were, to shops just because they are no longer to be prohibited from trading on Sunday. It seems to me that future planning permissions may include restrictions for new or additional shops; for example, in relation to a shop near a church where there may be no permission to unload at all on a Sunday even if it were allowed to open.
In effect, this order, like the 1994 Sunday Trading Act in England and Wales, gives retrospective planning permission to all shops and prevents individual treatment which will be possible in future when planning applications are made. However, I must recognise that I could not convince my colleagues in

673
government in that regard at the time that we were discussing the England and Wales Act so I do not press the matter too much now.
An important section of this order attempts to provide protection for employees who do not wish to work on Sundays, and the Minister referred to that. The Minister in another place seems to have been reluctant to spell out the experience of that protection in England and Wales. I believe that it is widely thought not to have been very effective. That is a cause for concern. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could tell your Lordships how many cases in England and Wales have gone to tribunals and to what effect, because that is relevant to passing similar provisions for Northern Ireland, as we are doing in this order.
We know, of course, that cases which go to tribunals are the tip of the iceberg but they are at least the bit that we can measure. We can only guess at the size of the iceberg underneath which it is not possible to measure. More generally, are the Government sufficiently satisfied that the England and Wales protection is working to believe that the same protection will work in the case of Northern Ireland.
As I said, this whole order is a compromise. I have no doubt that it will give rise to anomalies in due course, although not so many as did the existing legislation; and it is an improvement in that respect. But it is also another signpost of the weakening of religious influence in our lives. It is no use increasing the freedoms and standard of living of our people if we depress the standard of conduct, and the Christian religion is our guide to that. That thought was expressed much more eloquently and effectively than I can manage in the passage of the writings of Lord Tonypandy that was read at his memorial service the other day. I believe it right to refer to that in the passing of this order. However, that is a deeper thought and I believe that we should let this order pass.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, although I do not have any direct interest in this issue now, there was a time in the 1980s when my union and I were campaigning quite strenuously against the proposed changes to the trading laws in this country. We were supportive of the 1950 Shops Act. Noble Lords will remember that in another place on 15th April 1986 a decision was taken to reject the government's proposals, with something like 70 Conservative Members of the government not voting in accordance with the Whips.
There was widespread collaboration from the Christian Church, those who wanted to save Sunday, and from my trade union which wanted to protect the interests of its members working in shops up and down the country. We failed to have the 1950 Shops Act retained and, as my noble friend said, in 1994 the legislation was changed. But that campaign produced protection for shopworkers so that they would not be discriminated against in terms of promotion and employment if they refused to work on a Sunday. I am very pleased that my noble friend has included that provision in this order.
674
I was interested to read recently that despite the fact that there have been increased trading hours and days in England and Wales, the fact has now been confirmed, as we were saying at that time, that the volume of trade has not increased as a result. However, costs have increased. There have been changes to family life and indeed, as the noble Lord said, to the Christian way of life, which we hope will not be damaged. But I rise primarily to congratulate my noble friend on including in the legislation protection for shopworkers in Northern Ireland.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for his detailed explanation of the provisions contained in the order. As he and other noble Lords will know, the observance of Sunday is still particularly important in Northern Ireland. Therefore, people will be looking with some attention at the provisions of the order.
There was a time when things were very different in Northern Ireland. I can recall my mother telling me that, in preparation for Sundays, all the shoes would be taken out and polished and the clothes laid out on Saturday evenings so that Sunday was, as much as possible, a day not only of religious observance but also one of rest.
Times have changed, not only in the fact that less observance of religious matters is to be found but also that those who do observe religious matters have changed their pattern. For many of those who are most involved it is less a day of rest and more a day of considerable—indeed, in some cases, almost frenetic—religious observance. Perhaps a return to a quieter observance of Sundays might be in the interests of many. I speak as a son of the manse who, in times past, found a considerable busyness at such times.
I mention that because the view is sometimes expressed that the only change there has been over the years has taken place among those who do not make so much religious observance on Sundays. That is not the case; indeed, there have also been other changes. It seems to me that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, regarding the importance of having at least one time which punctuates our weeks, which enables people to take a rest and spend some time with their families and friends, is an important consideration in the health and welfare of our community, our family life and of people in general. When that is combined with religious observance it is, to my mind, particularly valuable. But even for those for whom religious observance is less important I still believe it to be an important social contribution.
Therefore, I welcome the provisions included in the order to protect those workers who wish, whether for religious or other reasons, to observe a break and a punctuation in the week. That is extremely important. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I would welcome some comment from the Minister on how that has been observed and what the results have been under the 1994 legislation.
There are two matters that I wish briefly to raise with the Minister. One relates to the definition of larger shops. On the face of it, it seems a little as though the

675
particular floor area given was somewhat arbitrary. But perhaps that is not the case and perhaps the Minister may be able to indicate whether there was any specific reason for that floor area being adopted.
My second question is perhaps a more extensive one than the Minister is prepared to address on this occasion. However, given the degree of erosion of employee protection that has taken place, not only in regard to Sundays but also in other areas, perhaps the noble Lord can tell the House whether that has motivated the Government to look at the question of the incorporation of the European social chapter in order to give better protection. I appreciate that that is a wider issue and the Minister may not wish to deal with it today, but I would certainly find it helpful if he could at some point comment upon it.
In broad terms it is clear that our society has changed and, indeed, is still changing. It is important, therefore, for legislation to keep pace with those developments. It is also important for us to hold to those things which are not only tradition for the sake of tradition but which are good traditions that help to benefit our society and community. Indeed, the observance of a day of rest on Sunday is one of the more important of those traditions.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I am grateful for his reminder of the strictures on boot polishing for Sundays. I was never particularly aggrieved by that restriction because I was never terribly keen on shoe polishing, not even during my six-year service in the Royal Air Force. That got me into trouble on many occasions.
I have never been impressed by the explanation in England and Wales that the previous law on Sunday trading had to be changed because the law had been broken, and defiance of the law could not be tolerated. The unfortunate impression then given was that, if even a segment of the population broke the law, the law must be changed. I cannot help feeling that the increase in lawlessness generally in many fields since the changes in the 1994 Act—but not related to that Act—may be due in some measure to that concession to law breakers and those who benefited financially therefrom.
Another contradiction can be found in the criticism of the present Government for responding to representations from what is termed, "the Sunday observance lobby", which I know included our friends in the trade union movement. The same critics would pillory the present Government if they did not respond to pressure from what I term the "news industry", in this new and novel climate of mass hysteria and demands that something must be done, whether or not it be prudent or wise.
The reduction in Sunday shopping in respect of larger outlets to a period of five hours, starting specifically at 1 p.m. and finishing at 6 p.m., is much tidier and more readily understood than the earlier stipulation of six hours at any time of one's choosing between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. As one would have expected, it is claimed that the greater degree of freedom granted to small
676
shops will damage the giants and the multiples. I take the simple view that they are usually very well equipped to look after themselves. There is little evidence to support the assertion that they are in danger of being damaged, particularly in the light of the numerous mergers and takeovers in the recent past; and, indeed, even in the past week. That does not seem to me to display a lack of confidence in the future of those giants. In fact, a limited measure of support for small shops can, I feel, be justified by the drop in income caused by the development of giant shopping centres which has led to a complete distortion of trading patterns and practices.
Perhaps I may urge that the enforcement of loading and unloading regulations contained in Article 7 be more thoroughly and vigorously implemented than such provisions are in England. I should add that I have a vested interest of sorts, especially when I have to spend the weekend in London. I am sure that the 26 district councils will discharge these new responsibilities with their renowned efficiency. But they will need the support of the law and, most of all, of the Northern Ireland Office and its departments to a much greater extent than the support given to decisions of councils in regard to planning matters and roads, and various other services, for which the councils have been given added responsibility.
Finally, I welcome the clarification which will protect the rights of those who have a conscience about working on Sundays. However, I must say that I am greatly concerned by reports that some employers have already, in anticipation of this order becoming law, sacked people who have had, and still have, reservations about working on Sundays. This has happened despite the fact that those employees had received assurances that their conscience would be respected. The very thin excuse has been given that those assurances were given only verbally and not in writing.
I am aware that the unions have been consulted at all stages of drafting, but I should like to be assured that the Government will ensure that there is no wriggling out of commitments and undertakings given over the whole range of employment, including all of the shopping and ancillary occupations.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as someone who was very much involved in our deliberations on what ultimately became the Sunday Trading Act 1994, covering England and Wales, I am particularly interested in the order now before the House. It is, yet again, only an order: an unamendable order. That would not matter much if it only replicated a hypothetical Sunday trading statute covering England, Wales and Scotland, thereby harmonising Sunday trading more throughout the United Kingdom. However, it does not do that.
The Scottish law on Sunday Trading differs from that in England and Wales and the law in Northern Ireland will, in turn, differ from the two others. Yes, indeed, it does follow the wording of the 1994 Act very closely in many respects. One notices that, unlike that Act, it exempts shops at bus stations as well as railway stations, which is a welcome extension of consumer choice, as is the extension to airports handling domestic as well as

677
international flights. Unlike the 1994 Act, it makes no provision "for persons observing the Jewish sabbath", and the noble Minister has explained why that provision is unnecessary.
The main difference with this order, as the Minister explained, is that large shops will open only for five rather than six hours on Sundays. The incidence of churchgoing in Northern Ireland, as has been mentioned, is much higher than it is in England and Wales nowadays, and therefore one can have little objection to the earliest permitted opening time being set rather later than it is on the mainland. However, the stipulated opening hours of 1 p.m. to 6 p.m., as opposed, for example, from 12.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., may make it uneconomic for many large shops to open at all.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Molyneaux, but, of course, many garden centres, of necessity, have to be classified as large shops in terms of floor area, although in no way could they be described as multiples and they are also therefore caught. Garden centres posed a particular problem when we were debating the law in England and Wales. The Minister said there had been widespread consultation and justified the five-hour limit on the grounds that there was a considerable body of opposition to the order being introduced at all. I wonder if the noble Lord can tell us roughly how many people—businesses, consumers and employees—were consulted and whether they were numbered in hundreds or in thousands. Can he tell us roughly what percentage were in favour of liberalisation of the law and what percentage were in favour of the status quo. Perhaps he can also tell us how those figures compare with the percentage in England and Wales who were consulted by means of opinion polls or by other means, let us say five years ago.
One notices also that the holiday resort exemptions terminate on the last Sunday of September, which can be as early as 24th September, despite the fact that in the first fortnight of October the weather can often be beautiful—the Indian summer phenomenon. There may be a valid reason for the limitation to the last Sunday in September, but because we are dealing with an order and not a Bill no one can move even a probing amendment on the matter. Considering how many long and passionate hours we spent debating the Sunday trading law in England and Wales—and I dare say the other place did as well—it is strange that we have no Bill so far as the law relating to Northern Ireland is concerned. I look forward to the Minister's replies to this point and the others I have raised.
5 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the very positive and supportive comments that have been made about the order and I shall do my best to deal with the points that have been raised. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his supportive comments and also for taking us through some of the tortured history of previous legislative attempts to reform Sunday trading. I very much share some of his memories as to how that happened. He
678
did ask, as did the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, how many cases had been taken to industrial tribunals in England and Wales. My information is that only about 30 such cases have arisen since the 1994 legislation came into force. Nevertheless it is our judgment that there are not many concerns about the effectiveness of the legislation. We think it is working pretty well. We do not believe, as a government, that there are many people working in this area who have a sense of grievance which has not been expressed to an industrial tribunal. In other words, we are reasonably satisfied that we are providing effective protection for shop workers and therefore we are, as it were, using the England and Wales experience as a basis for this order in respect of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to planning considerations. As I understand the position in Northern Ireland, it is this: Article 25 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 allows the Department of the Environment to impose conditions on planning consents. Planning consents can restrict opening hours even when they are otherwise lawful, provided there are relevant land-use reasons, for example, noise disturbance. From that I conclude—and here I must be careful because I have to deal with individual planning permissions on occasion—that where there is a particular local situation where noise disturbance would have a particularly damaging effect on people living locally, I argue that that would be a relevant consideration to be taken into consideration before planning permission were given under the Northern Ireland planning order. That also deals with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux.
My noble friend Lord Davies, who speaks from a great deal of experience of protecting the rights of shopworkers, referred to the Government's defeat in April 1986 in another place. I say to my noble friend: I was there, I remember it well. But on that occasion we were dealing with a plan to achieve total deregulation of shopping hours. There were many objections to that, based not on a wish to tame the law as it then was but on a wish to see partial deregulation, which in fact resulted in legislation for England and Wales, and indeed in this legislation. However, I thank him for his support for the measures which both he and I believe will protect shopworkers.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred to the tradition in Northern Ireland that Sundays are better observed, or observed by more people, than in England and Wales. He also referred to the need to protect shopworkers, to which I have already referred. He asked about the definition of large shops and whether the 280 square metre definition is an arbitrary one or not. I am not sure whether these things are done totally by science and I know that he, as a scientist, will understand that a totally scientific approach does not always work. However, I think he would agree with me that it is necessary to have a limit which is clearly understandable and easily enforced in order to maintain a level playing field throughout Northern Ireland. In setting the limit of 280 square metres, we followed the law in England and Wales in respect of the 1994 Sunday Trading

679
Act. The noble Lord may well ask: how did that legislation get there? I have to say that I am not aware of the limit causing any difficulty in England and Wales and I have therefore no reason for wishing to see it departed from in Northern Ireland. It is perhaps worth commenting that two of the campaigning organisations concerned in trying to influence parliamentary opinion in recent years—the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Retailers for Shop Act Reform—were both supportive of the 280 square metre definition. That is not a scientific answer to the question but that is how definitions are made, and I believe it has some logic.
The noble Lord also asked about the social chapter. I am grateful to him for having given me warning that he would raise this matter. It has enabled me to give him an answer now which he may not have expected, judging by the comments he made when speaking earlier. The Government did agree at the Amsterdam conference to opt into the social chapter. There are two directives which will apply to the United Kingdom: the parental leave directive and the works council directive. It is hoped that these will be incorporated into domestic legislation within the next two years. I trust that this meets the noble Lord's wish to see the social chapter incorporated. That is the method by which it is to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also made some comments about the importance of Sundays in Northern Ireland, and I welcome his support for the hours of 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. rather than the more open-ended commitment contained in the England and Wales legislation. He asked about the power to enforce protection for shopworkers. Let me try to deal with that. First, a shopworker with two years' service is in any case protected from unfair dismissal by virtue of provisions in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order, and such persons may take a claim to an industrial tribunal. In addition, if a shopworker feels that he or she has been discriminated against, whether or not they have been working there for two years, he or she may take a claim to the fair employment tribunal under the fair employment legislation. I believe that there is a fair measure of protection for shopworkers. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that those measures are adequate.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My main concern was as regards those employers who, having read in advance the drafts of the order, concluded that Parliament might well approve the order, and took the precaution of dismissing those employees whom they knew had a conscience clause. I understand that a recent tribunal held that the employer had a perfect right to dismiss the employee because the assurance was given verbally and not in writing.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not familiar with the details of that instance. I shall be happy to look into the matter and write to the noble Lord. My understanding is that before the order comes into
680
effect, a two year period should provide protection. I assume that the noble Lord is talking about employees who have not been working for two years. However, I shall look into the matter and get in touch with the noble Lord.
I also welcome and agree with the noble Lord's comments about whether large shops would be adversely affected by the more liberal opening hours for small shops. I agree with him that large shops are unlikely to be so adversely affected that their operations would be uneconomic. I receive occasionally applications for planning permission. Indeed, the number of large supermarkets seeking rapidly to open in Northern Ireland—suggests to me that they believe that the Northern Ireland market is a promising one for them and are not deterred by the proposed legislation which will have the 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. limitation.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, regretted that the procedure for these orders in Northern Ireland is by unamendable orders. I have some sympathy with that proposition. But we therefore consult more than would be the case in England and Wales. Therefore the orders are the result of information and opinions from many people and organisations in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the supermarkets coming into Northern Ireland would surely have been fully aware of our proposals through consultation. I think that I have met representatives from all the supermarkets in recent months. I am not aware that they regard that as a problem as regards their commercial operations.
The noble Lord also asked about the results of statistics after consultation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to write to him. It will be complicated to go through all the figures. I am not sure that I have them at my fingertips.
He also asked about the exemption for large shops in holiday resorts: ending the summer holiday period on 30th September. We have to make a cut-off point somewhere. With the climatic changes that seem to be under way, if we continue to have warm autumns we would be under pressure almost to allow a holiday exemption throughout the year on climatic grounds. We need to arrive at a balance between those people who legitimately want Sunday to be a particular kind of day, and the wish to have some shops open on Sunday. If we are to extend the period, we should be undermining the balance. I believe that from March to the end of September is a reasonably long period as a definition of holidays. It is intended to give shops in holiday areas a sufficient economic basis for their operations, since they are particularly dependent on the summer trade. I think that we have the balance right; that is the reason for it.
In conclusion, I am grateful for the supportive comments made in the House today. I believe that when the order comes into effect in Northern Ireland it will be widely supported. I think that we have got the balance right. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dubsrose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 28th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to discuss both the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. I hope that I am in order in linking the two. It will save time if we deal with the orders together.
The main purpose of the draft Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and the draft Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 is to introduce in Northern Ireland provisions on industrial pollution control and waste management in line with those already in force in Great Britain under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, Parts I and II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environment Act 1995. The orders will also bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with European requirements.
I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I say a few words about the detailed provisions of each order. The draft Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order creates a three tier system for the control of pollution from industrial processes to be administered by two enforcing authorities. It is fair to say that the tiers reflect the degree of potential pollution that might result from particular processes. The first tier deals with major industrial processes with the potential for serious pollution. They will be subject to a system of integrated pollution control. There will be about 20 such processes in Northern Ireland including power generation, chemical manufacture and cement manufacture. This means that harmful emissions to air, land and water will be regulated by a chief inspector appointed by the Department of the Environment.
As regards the second tier, the chief inspector will also administer a system of air pollution control in respect of processes with a significant capacity to cause air pollution. Such processes will include mineral, glass, galvanising and roadstone coating processes. Many of these processes have a long history of air pollution regulation under the Alkali Act dating from the 19th century.
However, as regards the third tier, the order also gives a new responsibility to district councils for dealing with a range of processes which have less potential to cause significant air pollution but which are more likely to impact directly on the local environment. Such processes will include cement blockyards, timber processes and paint spraying. This represents an important extension of the environmental responsibilities of councils and underlines further the vital role which they have to play in local environmental issues.
682
In addition to conferring stronger powers on enforcing authorities to control pollution from industrial processes, the order also contains provisions to enable polluters who fail to comply with its requirements to be prosecuted. It creates a number of offences and penalties including a fine of up to £20,000, or up to three months' imprisonment, for the most serious infringements. There are also rights of appeal against the decisions of enforcing authorities.
Information about the effect of new developments on the environment will be made more accessible by the introduction of a requirement to advertise applications for authorisations in the press. Enforcing authorities will also be required to maintain registers of information about such applications. These registers will be open to public scrutiny.
A key element of the new controls is the requirement for industrial concerns to employ the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs, or BATNEEC, in order to minimise pollution and comply with the tighter controls on emissions.
Process operators will be required to pay fees and charges to cover the cost of assessing applications for authorisations. However, effective regulation means much more than just setting conditions in an authorisation. Regular inspection of processes will be required to assess operators' performance against authorisation conditions. In certain cases, enforcement action may also be necessary. A separate annual fee will be charged for these activities.
These charging schemes will also reflect the well-established principle that the polluter should pay for the damage which his activities may cause to the environment.
Noble Lords will be interested to know that during the consultation period comments were received from 54 individuals and organisations. The proposals were generally welcomed although I have made three specific amendments to take account of points raised by consultees. These cover procedures for dealing with appeals, the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings and clarification of the powers of district councils to bring proceedings under the order.
I now turn to the draft waste and contaminated land order. As I have already said, the purpose of this order is to introduce provisions on waste management and contaminated land broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain and to meet European requirements. The order is also a response to increasing demands from public and political pressure groups for tougher action on the waste problem.
The order will be a key element in the Government's overall policies for the protection of the environment in Northern Ireland. It will impose a new duty of care on all persons concerned with the keeping, control or transfer of controlled waste.
New powers will be introduced requiring any person who transports controlled waste in the course of business, or otherwise for profit, to register with the Department of the Environment. It will be illegal for any person not registered to carry or transport such waste.

683
The present licensing system will be strengthened by introducing the concept of "fit and proper person". Entitlement to a waste management licence will depend on the ability of the applicant to demonstrate a degree of technical competence commensurate with the nature of operations undertaken and adequate financial provision to discharge the obligations arising from the licence.
Provision is also made for the separation of regulatory and operational responsibilities for waste, currently carried out by district councils, by the transfer of the regulatory controls to the department. These controls will be exercised by the department's Environment and Heritage Service, which was established as a Next Steps agency on 1st April 1996.
The order also emphasises the increasing importance of finding alternatives to waste disposal. The department will be required, as soon as possible, to prepare a waste strategy which will be a key measure for change in how we in Northern Ireland deal with waste in the future. In particular, it will set objectives to reduce the amount of waste generated and provide a framework to enable a significant new emphasis on materials recovery. The strategy will also build public confidence by providing members of the public with the opportunity actively to participate in sustainable waste management practices.
We hope to publish the draft form of the waste strategy next year. It will establish waste policy on a hierarchy: first, to reduce the overall amount of waste; secondly, to recover as much as possible; thirdly, to recycle waste; and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, to use landfill as a measure for disposing of waste.
District councils will also be required to draw up waste management plans for their areas. In addition to showing arrangements for the safe disposal of waste, the plans will also describe arrangements for local recycling and materials recovery schemes. There will also be scope for councils to undertake recycling initiatives and to make payments for recycling initiatives undertaken by others.
There will also be important new powers for the department and district councils to deal with contaminated land. In line with the well-established "polluter pays" principle, responsibility for remediation costs will, in the first instance, fall to the person or persons who caused the initial contamination.
Noble Lords will be interested to know that during the consultation period responses were received from 47 individuals and organisations, including 17 district councils. The proposals were broadly welcomed, although consultees did draw attention to a number of issues. In response to those, I have made seven amendments to the draft order. In the main, they deal with operational points raised by district councils.
Of particular concern to councils was the imposition on them of a mandatory duty to deal with the problem of fly-tipping. Following consideration of the arguments put forward, I have agreed that the power should remain discretionary and have amended the draft order accordingly.
684
However, while I understand the difficulties which councils would have experienced in the exercise of a mandatory power, the problem of fly-tipping remains one which must be dealt with if we are really serious about protecting our local environment. I have therefore asked my officials to prepare, in consultation with district councils, a code of practice which will ensure that the problem is dealt with in an effective and uniform way across all council areas.
One of Northern Ireland's great strengths is the quality of the environment which it can offer to those who live there or come as visitors. These draft orders will provide improved systems of industrial pollution and waste management control which will help to ensure that the environment continues to be protected not only for ourselves but also for future generations. I am also confident that they will do so in a way which maintains the right balance between the need to protect the environment and the need to ensure that industry can continue to operate in a competitive way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 28th October be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
5.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, clearly we are all in favour of environmental protection, which both orders deal with in their different ways. But, as the Minister said, we also want to see the Northern Ireland economy flourish. It is therefore important that the restrictions should not be so onerous as to deter or divert investment, and hence jobs.
In the case of Northern Ireland it is important that the controls are not out of line with those in force and being operated in the Republic of Ireland. It is, after all, the only land border in the United Kingdom and is therefore a very important point in this part of the kingdom.
The existence of agreed European Union directives provides some reassurance. However, we also know of the phenomenon known as "gold plating", the habit of over-egging the directives when turning them into United Kingdom legislation; and also of over-zealous application of the orders in this country by comparison with some overseas jurisdictions. Perhaps the Minister, in replying, will say a little about what the position is in the republic. In particular, will he assure the House that businesses in Northern Ireland will not find that as a result of the two orders, they acquire a regime which is more bureaucratic, expensive or onerous than that which applies in the republic?
The industrial pollution control order splits responsibility, as the Minister said, between the department and the 26 local authorities under the three-tier system. He gave some examples of the sort of processes that would fall on one side and the other of the various border lines. It is most important that the distinction between the different jurisdictions is clear, and that the border lines are as clear as possible. They are not comprised in the order in itself; they have to be settled separately and laid down. If not, there will be scope for all sorts of difficulties between the local authorities and the central authorities in Northern Ireland in enforcing the controls. Even from the brief

685
list read out by the Minister it seems that there will be difficulty in making a precise definition of the edges, as to who is responsible.
As the local authorities are to do part of the job, it is also important that they do their best to act in a similar way to one another. If we have 26 totally different regimes in effect operating across the Province, then it will be extremely difficult for large companies which have to deal with a number of local authorities, each with their own interpretation and their own approach to a similar process. It will also be difficult for those who advise small businesses if the local authorities make different decisions in similar circumstances in different parts of Ulster.
My next point concerns the timing of the implementation of both orders, and in particular the one on industrial pollution. Industry needs time to adjust to new controls. Some of those will require expensive adjustments. It is much easier, as well as being much better, to build environmental protection into the construction of a plant rather than to try and "bolt it on" afterwards, and try to deal with the environmental protection at a late stage in the life of a particular process. A lot of process plant has a life of 10 years at least, and inevitably there will be a certain amount of bolting on. But the longer the timeframe, particularly for big and complicated processes, the better will be the environmental protection, even if it is a bit later, and the easier it will be for industry.
It is also important in some cases for industry to be able to get prompt decisions out of the machinery. Sometimes investment is necessary to fulfil a particular order which may be on offer. A tender has to be put in to try to obtain a job. If it will take a long time to discover from the authorities what environmental protection will be required to make the necessary investment to fulfil the order it will be difficult for industry to send in a tender promptly enough to secure the order. The provisions in the order are that there is six months before there need be a definitive reply to a request for permission.
I am also concerned about the level of fees in the waste and contaminated land order. Provision for fees is on page 31 but it does not indicate the kind of basis on which the fees and charges for licences will be made. Is it the intention that the fees should recover the costs of administering the controls that are provided for in the order, or is it intended to be a tax which will raise money from those who generate waste or are otherwise affected by the order?
Part of the reason for raising that point is that I notice that the provisions are different in the two orders in relation to fees. In the industrial pollution control order fees are referred to in Article 8, on page 15. Sub-paragraph (6) requires the department, in framing a scheme for the fees, to ensure that,
"the fees … are sufficient, taking one financial year with another, to cover the expenditure incurred by … the enforcing authorities".
A limit is provided to the fees that will be charged. But there is no equivalent provision in the waste and contaminated land order which can give rise to the
686
suspicion that it might be a tax as well as merely the polluter paying. That is the phrase used by the Minister and it is a principle that we all support.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is present, so I am encouraged to raise some drafting points which occur on the orders. They are not the responsibility of the Minister but of the draftsmen who prepared the orders. It seems to me that they are some of the worst examples of the draftsman's art that have come before Parliament that I have had to deal with. We must remember, in reading such orders, that the restrictions must he used by businessmen, including small businessmen. Ideally they ought to be able to go to the order, look up the point and understand what it says. I do not believe that you can do so from looking at the orders, for two reasons: first, the complicated language used and, secondly, because much of it is done by reference to other orders in the past and, for that matter, orders and regulations in the future which have not yet been made.
Discussing the two orders together was a sensible move by the Minister. It gives us the opportunity to compare the different drafting styles that seem to have been used in the two orders. Page 4 of the industrial pollution order defines mobile plant as:
"plant which is designed to move or to be moved whether on roads or otherwise".
I am not sure why we need "on roads or otherwise". However, the waste order draftsman clearly thinks that that is a risky formulation which may not cover the situation. So he adds another sub-paragraph into the waste order. Page 10 states:
"Regulations may prescribe descriptions of plant which are to be treated as being or as not being mobile plant".
I do not believe that we need another set of regulations to introduce a different definition of mobile plant for the waste order. That is what makes it impossible for a businessman to look up the law, unless he has an encyclopaedic law library to begin with and plenty of time.
I could give many other examples. I should draw your Lordships' attention to the convoluted definitions of waste which occur in the waste and contaminated land order, but first I refer to the industrial pollution control order which on page 40 states:
"No condition shall … regulate the final disposal … on land of controlled waste (within the meaning of Part II of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978)".
I have not been able to find out whether that is one of the parts of the 1978 order that is being replaced by the other order. If so, it adds to the complications.
In the waste order, the first definition of waste refers us straight to Schedule 1 where a whole page sets out the different types of waste that are to be regarded as waste to be covered in the order. That is only the start of it. All the definitions or additional definitions are included in Article 2 of the order. For example, having already said that waste is the residues of various processes, it goes on to say that:
"'controlled waste' … means household, industrial and commercial waste or any such waste".

687
Household waste is then defined in a whole section with five different sub-headings and industrial waste is similarly defined. The order then states:
"'commercial waste' means, subject to paragraph (3), waste from premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade … excluding … household waste; … industrial waste; … waste from any mine or quarry … agriculture … [or] waste of any other description prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph".
Sub-paragraph (3) to which that refers states that:
"Regulations may provide that waste of a prescribed description shall be treated for the purposes of prescribed provisions of this Order as being or not being household waste or industrial waste or commercial waste",
and so on. The provisions go on and on, backwards and forwards from sub-paragraph to sub-paragraph. It is extremely difficult in some cases to work out what is meant by "waste". That is why I do not believe that this is one of the finest examples of the parliamentary draftsman's art that I have seen.
That leads me to the general question of whether the new Government have any plans to improve the quality of parliamentary draftsmanship, particularly to absorb some rules such as those suggested to us a long time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. They related to improving the quality of drafting and making all such documents easier to read, particularly for the businessmen to whom it has to apply.
Despite all those criticisms, I think we should burden the statute book with the two orders. It is in the interests of the environment of Northern Ireland.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explication of these two somewhat technical orders, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, described them. I remark that the Minister, long before he came to his present office, had a great interest in matters of the environment. Since he has taken departmental responsibility in Northern Ireland he has exercised his interest in a way that has shown his commitment to and interest in these matters. We therefore welcome the orders. It is good to see environmental concerns being the basis for legislation. I do not believe I see much that would be unnecessarily hampering to industry, properly carried through.
There are two matters to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. First, I am glad to see the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order coming forward. I hope that it will help us in dealing with a number of matters not just of large industrial concerns but smaller matters, particularly the local businessman who is doing a bit of paint spraying in the street and thoroughly polluting the atmosphere of his neighbours. Those are the sort of simple and small matters which are nevertheless extraordinarily difficult to deal with.
I hope that the regulations will be so laid out that such minor but profoundly irritating matters will not only be dealt with, but will also be policed properly. Often such activities take place outside the normal nine to five working hours of those officers who set out to patrol and police them. That is a cause of considerable frustration for those who suffer from them and for those local elected representatives who try to take the matters
688
up. Therefore I hope that when it comes to regulations, regard will be had to those practical matters of implementation.
I hesitate, in following the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to raise the question of definition of language. But there is one matter of definition to which I can perhaps draw the Minister's attention. It is contained in Article 29 of the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order, where reference is made to a "trade secret". It is clear that when it comes to matters of national security the Secretary of State should decide what is a matter of national security. But it is not clear to me who decides what is or is not a "trade secret". I am sure that there are some in Northern Ireland who would make the terminology "trade secret" apply to all sorts of matters which the normal, reasonable individual would not think appropriate. Perhaps we can have guidance on who will make such a decision.
I welcome the encouragement in the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order in regard to recycling and a number of other matters to which reference was made. Perhaps I can take up the question of fees and licences raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I am not clear whether the fees will be simply to cover administration or whether they will refer to the principle, now widely and properly accepted, that the polluter should pay—not a tax, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, but something that nevertheless covers the cost of making good any damage that is done by the waste matters to which the order refers.
Apart from those minor requests for information, clarification and definition, we warmly welcome the two orders and the considerable protection that they will afford the environment and the people of Northern Ireland.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in regard to the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order, I am sure that the Government were correct in rejecting suggestions for an independent environmental agency for Northern Ireland. I appreciate the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that co-operation is needed so that a large company straddling council boundaries is not put in the position of having to deal with three of four separate authorities at the same time. Even if such a body was given co-ordinating powers, it would simply create yet another layer of authority and would not be right. We must bear in mind what has been said in regard to the difficulties which may arise when various people, given authority for the first time, in their zeal create problems for an undertaking or a new company investing in Northern Ireland when there is urgency about their becoming established without too much red tape.
I suppose it makes sense to allocate to councils some influence in regard to dealing with fly tipping. It would be manifestly unfair to burden councils with full responsibility, given that the practice of fly tipping has vastly increased since the Treasury imposition of the landfill tax. In common justice, the main costs of enforcement should be borne by the department, which

689
is much more likely to be reimbursed by the Treasury than is a humble district council. The Treasury, whose landfill tax caused the vast increase in fly tipping, should bear responsibility.
In response to consultations the department agreed to. reimburse some of the costs of the order and sums of money in that regard have already been set aside, as indicated in the order and explanatory papers. I hope that those moneys, earmarked and set aside by courtesy of the Treasury, will not be eliminated by any subsequent Budget.
Not unexpectedly, costs and charging are the main issues in the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order. Concern in that regard has also been shown by noble Lords who have contributed thus far. I accept that the principle of "polluter pays" is reasonable. But while the polluter may pay, will such reimbursement be complete and total, particularly in relation to the district councils? The council will have incurred costs, particularly in the southern grouping of councils where problems may arise due to the land frontier being involved. Also, will there be prompt reimbursement? Delays are not uncommon, particularly in regard to legal costs and charges.
Perhaps I may express support for the guidance given for the avoidance of double charges, double penalty or double taxation in the case of two processes being carried out on the same site or in the same location. I also welcome the assurance that the department will issue comprehensive guidance which will be updated frequently. That is extremely important in view of the rapid changes in technology which have the effect of making regulations obsolete. Perhaps that request could be embodied within the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for an English translation of the regulations.
I warmly welcome the Government's sympathetic response to requests that various appeals should lie to an independent body rather than to the department. I am sure it is right that the department accepts the principle that the appeal system should be seen to be absolutely independent. I am reassured by the fact that such acceptance of principle has been embodied in the order.
Finally, your Lordships may have noticed that the orders confer additional powers on the 26 councils in Northern Ireland. They, along with the Parliament of the United Kingdom, are the governing mechanisms and bodies of the United Kingdom. It is no coincidence that the same applies to England, Scotland and Wales. We are therefore on all fours in that regard. Therefore, if the present Stormont high wire act fails, we would simply have to use constructively and perhaps to an even greater extent those two institutions which are tried and tested.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to the debate. In general I thank them for their supportive comments. I appreciate that these orders concern technical matters. I feel as though I have been subjected to a Select Committee type inquisition rather than a debate. However, without taking up too much of the House's time, I shall do my best to answer specific points.
690
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, concluded with a criticism of the drafting of the orders. In making those criticisms he echoed comments that I made in the other place in relation to the drafting standards of his own government. We have had 18 years of this sort of drafting and if parliamentary draftsmen are indulging in bad habits it is because his government allowed them to adopt those bad habits and did not challenge them. Therefore I say that if he had put the matter in order, we would now be doing quite well.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I entirely agree with him. The reason I specifically exonerated the Minister from responsibility for the drafting was because I struggled, as a Minister, on a number of occasions with drafting that I considered unsatisfactory, and almost invariably lost. The defence mechanisms of the draftsmen for their specific formulations are extremely well worked out and difficult to challenge. I therefore appreciate the difficulty from the Minister's point of view. Nevertheless I believe now, as I believed in government, that the rules set out in an excellent report many years ago by my noble friend Lord Renton are valuable and would be best put into practice.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says. I know he exempted me from the criticism when he started making his comments. I am sensitive to the need for government to produce things in comprehensible English. I find there is a difficulty when legislation refers to previous legislation, which is a feature of so many Acts of Parliament and Northern Ireland orders. It is quite difficult to unscramble that problem and find a way of not having to make cross-references. However, as a general proposition, I very much agree with what the noble Lord said. I shall do my best. But he has asked me to commit the Government to improving the drafting of English. I am sure that the Government want to do that, but it is a difficult task.
I turn to the specific points raised in relation to the orders. The noble Lord said that there should be a level playing field between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The republic has an Environmental Protection Act which mirrors the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in Britain. That Act represents the principal body of controls on which these orders are based. We will not be prejudicing the performance of Northern Ireland industry. Indeed, I would hope that, by improving the environment, we may well be helping Northern Ireland industry. But I certainly would not want Northern Ireland industry to be unfairly impeded in its task of being as competitive as possible.
I was asked about the timing of implementation. Once the draft order comes into operation, new industrial processes will automatically be subject to its provisions. However, in the case of existing processes, it is proposed to have a five-year phasing-in period, during which time different sectors of industry will be called in for authorisation in accordance with regulations which will be made under the draft order. We want to be sensitive to the difficulties that industries may face and

691
give them a decently long phasing-in period. But we are drawing a distinction between existing processes and new processes which will be set up in the future and which will have to be subject to the new provisions.
I was asked whether the draft order will be applied by all district councils responsible for its application; in other words, whether we will take action to ensure evenness of application. We place considerable emphasis on the role which will be played by district councils in controlling air pollution in their areas. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and other noble Lords made this point. My department will have general oversight of district council functions and will seek to ensure that they enforce the provisions of the draft order on a consistent basis to avoid variations in standards between one district council and another. It would clearly be unfair to enterprises and businesses that operated in more than one district council area to have to conform to different standards. We shall seek to achieve as much as possible uniform standards from one district council to another in order to make that fair to businesses.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked how one would define which process falls into which category. The draft order seeks to introduce new controls in a way which will take account of local circumstances and impose the minimum additional burden on industry. For this reason the chief inspector will assume responsibility for processes subject to the new integrated pollution control arrangements and also for processes which are currently subject to air pollution control by him. District councils will assume responsibility for other processes subject to air pollution controls. The prescribed processes and substance regulations to be made under the draft order will clearly designate processes to each of the categories. We shall make that clear in the regulations in such a way that I hope there will be no misunderstanding or confusion about how we wish the arrangements to work.
I was also asked whether instances of pollution control will be dealt with quickly. The system of control proposed would require prior authorisation of processes. This will allow environmental protection measures to be considered at an early stage and to be, as it were, designed into the process. Any business setting up would be able to plan its process in the light of the legislative requirements. I hope that will be helpful to businesses.
The noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Alderdice, asked about fees and charging methods. In line with the well-established "polluter pays" principle, to which reference has already been made, fees and charges will be set at a level which will enable enforcing authorities to recover the full costs in administering the new controls. The detail of the charging schemes will be the subject of wide-ranging consultation with interested parties so that there will be proper understanding of how these fees will work.
I was asked about the definition of "waste". That replicates the legislation in Britain and is designed to ensure that in all respects it meets European requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made some
692
play of the different types of definition under the heading "Is this good and clear English?" I repeat that I sympathise with the points he made. But we believe that the definition must provide a degree of flexibility in order to anticipate future developments and movement in what constitutes waste. Perhaps we had to be less precise than he would have wished; perhaps we had to have complicated definitions; because we wanted to allow for future industrial processes as well as existing ones.
I was asked about overzealous application of the controls. Operators can appeal against any condition of an authorisation if it is believed that the enforcing authority has placed an unreasonable requirement on the operator.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked about disclosure of information that would be seen to be commercially confidential. The question of whether information for disclosure under Article 29 relates to a trade secret or is commercially confidential will have to be determined by the enforcing authorities. The department will publish guidance to assist enforcing authorities in making such determinations and enforcing authorities will be encouraged to give careful consideration before disclosing information under this article.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also asked about regulations dealing with small operators or operations. The regulations are comprehensive in specifying the processes to be covered by the order. Enforcing authorities will be proactive in enforcement of the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about waste management licences. The draft order is based on the polluter pays principle. Therefore, the charges imposed for waste management licences will reflect all the necessary costs associated with the department's enforcement activities, including auditing operations and enforcement of licensing conditions. I take the point made by the noble Lord about the need to reflect the true costs of different waste management options, but I feel that the answer lies in the development of more sustainable waste management practices. The landfill tax has been very effective in doing just that, by reflecting the true cost of disposal to landfill, thereby persuading consumers and industry actively to minimise waste production and promote more sustainable practices. Consumers and industry are still taking time to develop strategies to reduce the amount of waste going into landfill. So I would expect the landfill tax to go on having an impact on the people who produce material for landfill.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about fly tipping. District councils are best placed to identify and deal with fly tipping in their areas. It is right that the costs involved in such activities should be borne by ratepayers. I appreciate that the noble Lord will say, "People who fly tip may move from one district council area to another". There is a problem there, but I think that at a local level district councils are probably in the best position to deal with the problem. I concede that it is a problem. There are cowboys who fly-tip by night

693
and cause many problems. I am sensitive to the difficulties, but I believe that district councils are in a good position to deal with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also asked for fast-track applications for authorisations involving new investment. I think that I have already dealt with that. The draft order required applications for authorisation to be determined within a maximum of six months of being submitted to an enforcing authority. However, in the case of applications involving new investment, enforcing authorities will be encouraged to accord them a higher priority than other applications and to determine them in a shorter time.
We do not want to place bureaucratic controls on businesses. We want businesses to be able to operate well. We want to ensure that the system and the department are sensitive to the need for quick decisions; otherwise businesses will be delayed and that would not be right.
I was also asked about charging schemes. The cost to district councils of administering the new controls will be met by the charging schemes provided by the draft order. The charging schemes will be designed to facilitate full cost recovery. It is expected that charges will be set at a level that will enable district councils to recover the costs involved in authorisation, inspection and enforcement activities.
The orders are technical and I apologise to the House for the technical nature of my answers. I believe that these two orders will further protect the environment of Northern Ireland. I believe that the methods by which we are seeking to achieve that are sensitive to the needs of business and will not be excessively bureaucratic. I hope that in future we can achieve that by better language than has been used in the past.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill [H.L.]
6.2 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 5 [Legal officers]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 1:
page 3, line 45, leave out from ("for") to end of line 2 on page 4 and insert ("the words "provide that" onwards substitute "provide—

(a) that any act which is required or authorised by the regulations to be done by an employment tribunal and is of a description specified by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph may be done by the person mentioned in subsection (1)(a) alone, and

(b) that any act which is required or authorised by the regulations to be done by an employment tribunal and is of a description specified by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph may be done").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be convenient to your Lordships if we discuss also Amendments Nos. 2 and 11. In Committee a number of noble Lords expressed concern about the extent of the powers which were to be entrusted to legal officers. I indicated my understanding,
694
and my noble friend Lord Haskel confirmed, that the intention of the Government was to confer on legal officers a limited range of functions in order to relieve chairmen for other work. They would not conduct full tribunal hearings. They would not conduct pre-hearing reviews nor determinations under Clause 2. As I understand it, the kind of tasks which the Government had, and have, in mind, are disposing of cases which are settled or withdrawn; considering applications for postponements; extending time limits; making orders for further and better particulars and dealing with discovery of documents.
As my noble friend explained, the intention is to conduct a pilot scheme and to abstain from concocting a hard and fast list until it is possible to study the outcome of that scheme. However, the Government's intention is not made clear in this Bill and there were those of your Lordships who felt that, if the power was not intended to be widely exercised, it should not be widely taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has tabled an amendment to confine the jurisdiction to interlocutory orders or decisions on an interlocutory matter. I understand and sympathise with the noble Lord's wish to indicate in the Bill that the powers of legal officers are not intended to be coterminous with those of chairmen. The noble Lord will, of course, speak to his amendment in due course, but it may assist if I explain now what I understand to be the Government's difficulty with it. My noble friend Lord Haskel will correct me if I have misunderstood. I hope, however, that I have understood it correctly because I share the difficulty.
Amendment No. 2 would simply be too restrictive. It is not wholly clear what is "an interlocutory matter", but it is not self-evident that issuing an order to dismiss proceedings where the application has been withdrawn is an interlocutory matter. Similarly, issuing a decision where a settlement has been reached is probably not an interlocutory matter although as far as I am aware it has not been decided. I cannot believe that anyone would wish to exclude those functions. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that there should be some indication in the Bill that the power to confer functions on legal officers is not intended to be coterminous with the jurisdiction of the chairmen.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Haskel and his officials because they have advised me on this matter, which is not an easy one. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I now spend a few moments on the technicalities.
Section 4 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 draws a distinction between a chairman being a tribunal for certain purposes or part of a tribunal, and a chairman acting for a tribunal. Perhaps I may paraphrase. Subsection (1) provides that normally a chairman and two other members, or in certain circumstances one other member, constitute a tribunal. The chairman is a tribunal (even when sitting alone) in the circumstances set out in Section 4(2) and, exercising that jurisdiction, he may conduct a full hearing in the circumstances set out. Under subsection (6) he may be authorised by regulations to act for a tribunal for certain purposes.
By Rule 6 made pursuant to the power conferred by that subsection, he can make orders for discovery and conduct pre-hearing reviews and he can make witness orders. He does that not as the tribunal, but for the tribunal.
The Bill does not seek in any way to amend the provisions of subsections (1) and (2). It is only a chairman who can form part of a tribunal under subsection (1) or who can constitute a tribunal under subsection (2). The Bill will not alter that position. As presently drafted, the Bill states that the person who may be authorised to act for a tribunal under subsection (6)—that is, a person who may deal with certain matters falling short of a full hearing—may be either a chairman or a legal officer. As my noble friend Lord Haskel explained, it was never the intention that the jurisdiction conferred on them under that subsection should be the same for chairmen and legal officers. However, that intention does not appear on the face of the Bill.
My amendment seeks to make it clear that there are intended to be two lists of functions authorised under subsection (6)—one for chairmen and a different one for legal officers. My amendment does not seek to specify what those respective lists should comprise. That is the whole purpose of providing for regulations. However, the amendment seeks to make the position clear.
I take further comfort from what I believe to be the Government's intention—I hope that my noble friend, Lord Haskel, will confirm this—that, before any regulations are drafted, the Government will consult fully with the respective tribunal presidents for England and for Scotland and with the Council on Tribunals and, accordingly, I declare an interest. I should add that the amendment has been discussed with the respective tribunal presidents for England and for Scotland and that my understanding is that they are content. In those circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may feel able not to press his amendment, but I await his reaction with interest. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for his very useful explanation and his sympathy for the object of my amendment. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 11 and at the same time to Amendment No. 2 which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. When the Bill was in Committee I was one of those who expressed concern about the breadth of the delegated powers conferred by Clause 5 to empower the Department of Trade and Industry to use subordinate legislation to authorise legal officers to exercise any of the judicial powers, so it seemed, conferred on the chairmen of industrial tribunals. This appears to be one issue that escaped the very careful scrutiny of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which in its report did not comment upon the breadth of the powers contained in the Bill.
As an object lesson it is perhaps worth spending a moment or two on the history of the matter. The Notes on Clauses on Clause 5, as pointed out in Committee, were expressed much more narrowly than Clause 5 itself, being confined to interlocutory matters. Since the
696
Committee stage a number of important letters have been sent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, myself and no doubt the Government. In one of them, from a Mr. Webster, the secretary to the Association of Industrial Tribunal Chairmen (Scotland), it is explained that nothing in the Green Paper of the previous government or the consultation document indicated that legal officers were intended to have the very broad powers conferred by Clause 5. Similar concern was expressed by the new president of the Industrial Tribunal of England and Wales, Mr. John Prophet, and by the President of the Industrial Tribunals (Scotland), Mrs. Doris Littlejohn. That is the background.
Your Lordships will remember that during Committee stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the former Lord President, made an important intervention which led me to be content with Clause 5 as it stood. Since then he has very kindly approached me. He asks me to apologise for the fact that owing to a prior engagement in Edinburgh he cannot be present during the debate this evening. But he has asked me to refer to two particular points that he would himself have made this evening had he been able to have been present. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I quote his letter rather than paraphrase it. He writes:
"The first is that there is, in my experience, a critical distinction between orders which relate to interlocutory matters—to matters of incidental procedure—and matters which involve questions of law or questions where the facts may be in dispute. The range of issues which may fall within the description of incidental procedure is very wide and probably incapable of precise definition in primary legislation. That is why I said that it would be unwise to try to define this too precisely in the clause. But if there is the slightest risk that the power which is given by this clause will be used to enable legal officers to decide matters which involve questions of law or questions where the facts may be in dispute, it should be met by a qualification in the clause to prevent the power from being exercised in this way.
"The second point is that the experience to which I referred at the Committee stage was that when I was a senior judge in charge of a rule-making function which had been delegated to the court itself. It was possible for me in that capacity to exercise a close judicial scrutiny over the detail of the rules which enabled the clerks of court to deal with matters of incidental procedure, in order to ensure that the issues which required a judge's decision were not dealt with in this way. In practice therefore it was left to the judges themselves to decide what matters could safely be delegated. In such a system, with careful handling, the system of delegation had advantages in the saving of time and money. So I was able to support the idea in principle, and—with careful attention to the detail—to achieve results which were acceptable.
"As I understand the proposal in this clause, however, the matter will be in the hands of the Minister and his department, as the delegation to legal officers is to be dealt with by means of employment tribunal procedure regulations made under Section 4(6) of the 1996 Act and not by the tribunals themselves or by the President. This aspect of the matter increases my concern that, in the interests of justice and to prevent misuse of it, the clause should be suitably qualified".
I do not apologise for reading out that letter because it comes from the highest possible authority with great experience. The question before the House in regard to Amendment No. 1 is whether it deals with the position satisfactorily. I accept that the amendment is a great improvement in that it will ensure that the subordinate legislation will describe the functions to be given respectively to the chairmen and to legal officers.

697
Furthermore, if the Minister gives an assurance that there will be widespread consultation with the tribunal chairmen, the Council on Tribunals and users of the system, that is to say, advocates, employers and trade unions—representatives of the consumers—that will go a great deal towards meeting the concerns that a number of noble Lords have expressed.
The question then is whether one should seek to go further and fetter the powers by limiting them to the making of interlocutory orders and dealing with interlocutory matters. I have heard what the noble and learned Lord has said about the problem of definition. I am bound to say it is not my experience at the Bar that there is the slightest difficulty under the Rules of the Supreme Court in deciding what is or is not an interlocutory matter. But I appreciate that there may be something encrusted in the legislation which makes it peculiarly awkward for the draftsman to do the necessary surgery and to stitch up after the surgery.
I welcome the first amendment and support it, but I am anxious to hear what the Minister says about the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and how to avoid the mischief to which he refers before I make up my mind as to what to do with the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have a long-standing engagement some distance from your Lordships' House and I am afraid that I must leave in four minutes' time. I hope that I may be forgiven for making a very brief intervention. I appreciate the immense amount of trouble that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has taken in tabling Amendment No. 1. I believe that it does no harm but does not do quite enough good. There is an element of uncertainty about it which is something that often troubles Members of your Lordships' House.
This is a revising Chamber for primary legislation but it deprives itself of any authority with regard to making another place or the Government think about secondary legislation. The effectiveness of Amendment No. 1 depends upon the contents of regulations over which we have no influence. I have that doubt about Amendment No. 1.
I believe, however, that Amendment No. 2 is essential. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for drawing my attention to it beforehand so that I can add my name. I fully support the amendment because in a direct way it limits the powers to delegate to a legal officer, who may not be a person of great experience or standing, to interlocutory matters. I believe that is reasonable and necessary and I very much hope that, whether we get a full reply or not on these points tonight, the Government will, nevertheless, consider very carefully in the further stages of this Bill the desirability of accepting Amendment No. 2.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, not for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Renton, helps me when he says that he is more or less satisfied with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I hope the noble Lord,
698
Lord Lester, remains satisfied with his amendment because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has explained to me his amendment and if he has explained it, it must be clear, but I cannot follow it. I do not think, if I could follow it, that it would help very much because he says that there are going to be two lists. The noble and learned Lord says that they will only put the tasks of the legal officer on the first list, but he does not tell me what will be on the first list and he does not tell me what will be on the second list. He does not tell me whether subsequently he might transfer something from the second list to the first list. So what is the distinction? Therefore, everything could go.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am sorry if my explanation was not followed by my noble friend. We could probably differ as to where the responsibility for that lies. The whole point about giving power to make regulations is that the regulations can add to or take from a list.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, that is why we want something on the face of the Bill. That is precisely what it is all about. You are not helping us if you give us two lists and then say that you will fill them in later on and shift things about from one to another as it seems fit. That does not help. The reason why we are worried, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, is because of the Notes on Clauses. Ministers have said from time to time that they would be satisfied with the interlocutory duties, but first Notes on Clauses said that they wanted some interlocutory duties that are currently carried out and then they made a list of the interlocutory duties that would be included. If they had stopped there and told us that that was the list and that they were not going to add to that list, we might have been lulled into a state of satisfaction; but they then went on to say—and I would like the Minister to tell me whether they still say this—in paragraph 4 of the first Notes on Clauses,
"The amendment to Section 4(6) will enable the rules of procedure to give legal officers the same power as a chairman under the rules. However, the intention is initially to limit their role to the administrative or interlocutory duties which are currently performed by a chairman".
In other words, subsequently we may add to these lists. Later, they produced another set of Notes on Clauses and, strangely and subsequently, they took out the word "initially". If I were to read paragraph 4 of the second list one would see that the word "initially" has disappeared.
My question is, do the Government think, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, thinks, that they can pop things in and out, from one list to another and that they can add new things subsequently which are not there initially? If they think they can, I must say I am surprised.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for dealing with the technicalities because I hesitate to intervene in this debate with such learned people around me. Could I confirm that I too would wish to raise the whole issue of the breadth of the delegation, the issue about limiting

699
it to interlocutory and incidental procedural issues, and to express a concern about legal officers dealing with more substantive issues. I think that is a point of concern.
My noble friend Lord Renton, who has now left the Chamber, referred to having a preference for Amendment No. 2. I would wish to say the same. Whether Amendment No. 1 and/or Amendment No. 2 are accepted by the Government, I have no doubt that this is an issue which one would probably want to continue to think about and possibly return to at Third Reading.
When this issue was discussed at the previous stage of the Bill an analogy was made with the clerks of the court in Scotland, and I believe it was fallacious. It is true that clerks do carry out certain routine matters which judges previously carried out. However, they do so in terms of powers delegated to them by the court itself, rather than by virtue of powers vested in them by a Minister of the Crown. The powers delegated to them could be revoked at any time by the court, if there was any concern on the court's part as to the manner in which the powers were being exercised. That could not happen under the Bill, as I understand it, if the tribunal members were concerned about what was going on.
We will continue with this concern but I would like to offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on the understanding that I suspect we will need to continue to consider this issue as the Bill moves on to its next stage.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 11. The Government fully support my noble and learned friend Lord Archer's initiative in tabling Amendments Nos. 1 and 11.
It might help if I remind noble Lords of the Government's policy behind testing the concept of legal officers. If, as my noble and learned friend Lord Archer reminded us, I indicated at Committee that the aim of the legal officer pilot scheme is to test whether it is viable to provide useful support for chairmen, particularly those working in the overstretched major city centres, from a qualified legal officer. It might be possible to release chairmen from some of their interlocutory and preliminary work to leave them free to sit in tribunals hearing cases.
The kinds of tasks which we had in mind for them include disposing of settled or withdrawn cases, granting postponements and extending time limits, making orders for the provision of further and better particulars and making orders requiring the attendance of witnesses or discovery or inspection of documents. However, we shall discuss these with the presidents of the tribunals, who will be closely involved, both in drawing up the pilot experiment and in operating and evaluating it.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer has indicated, I can confirm that legal officers will not be empowered to conduct pre-hearing reviews, determinations under the new provisions introduced under Clause 2 of the Bill, or rule 6 determinations. I hope that this will help satisfy one of the points of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
700
Since the Committee stage we have given much thought to the issues which have been raised regarding legal officers, and DTI officials have been in consultation with the tribunal presidents on this matter. Given the concerns expressed, that the power taken by the Bill was too wide, we have looked into amending the drafting of the provision. At the request of the presidents of the tribunal we have considered whether it could be made clearer in the primary legislation that, under the regulations, legal officers need not be given the same powers which chairmen will have.
With my noble and learned friend Lord Archer's agreement, the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend will clarify that those Acts, which the regulations specify, to be exercised by legal officers, need not be the same as those to be exercised by chairmen. Legal officers will be able to exercise only those specific Acts designated in subsequent regulations.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer asked for assurances and I can confirm that his amendment meets the concerns of the tribunal presidents, and therefore I hope that it will also allay the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Renton, Amendment No. 2, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer has given a detailed explanation as to why the powers relating to legal officers have been so drafted. He has explained why the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would restrict the legal officers' powers too much. As he said, it is difficult satisfactorily to define "interlocutory". There are some acts which we consider would be suitably undertaken by a legal officer, which we think may not fall, strictly speaking, in the category of interlocutory.
I do not intend to repeat the points that the noble Lord has raised. However, I should like to stress to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the powers given to legal officers by the regulations will be drafted in full consultation with tribunal presidents. They will also be subject to consultation with the Council on Tribunals, and of course subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I turn now to another of the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, read out. I hope that the consultation with the presidents will ensure that the pilot exercises will work satisfactorily in that they will be able to work with the Government in deciding what duties will be appropriate to the legal officer. I hope that the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, and my further assurances on this matter, will meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and convince him not to pursue his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but before he sits down I wonder whether he could clarify just one matter. I think that I heard him say that my amendment would restrict the powers of the DTI too much. Will he explain, with one or two examples, what are the powers which the Government wish to delegate to legal officers, other

701
than in respect of interlocutory matters, that would be hobbled or fettered if the Bill limited delegated powers to interlocutory matters? Could we have one or two examples of the kind of thing that the DTI has in mind which mean that my amendment is too restrictive?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, will he say whether he agrees with the two examples that I gave; that is to say, dismissing proceedings where there has been an agreement and dismissing proceedings where there has been a withdrawal?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister does that, will he say whether there are any examples other than those obvious examples which might need to be catered for? Are there any examples other than ancillary matters of procedure of that kind?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I hesitate to interfere in the discussion between my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord. I agree with my noble and learned friend that his examples were relevant. I said that the kind of tasks that we had in mind included disposing of settled or withdrawn cases; granting postponements and extending time limits; making orders for the provision of further and better particulars; and making orders requiring the attendance of witnesses or discovery or inspection of documents.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill; My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but does he agree that all the matters, with the possible exception of the first, are what are known in the trade as interlocutory matters? Therefore my amendment would in no way restrict the DTI's power to authorise legal officers to deal with postponements, adjournments, further and better particulars, discovery, and all the other matters which are in the list in the Notes on Clauses?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister replies perhaps I may say in support of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that, without some amendment along the lines of the amendment tabled by him, it will be difficult for some of us to accept the Bill as it is, because there needs to be some definition of the framework within which the legal officers will work. We should not leave a gaping void on the face of the Bill which then allows secondary legislation merely to define. It is important to have on the face of the Bill a definition of the degree to which those powers will be used. That is something to which we must return at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree that it is important, but that is the whole purpose of the test that we have in mind. The purpose of the test is to find out, through experience, what those tasks will be.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the difficulty about giving examples in this type of debate is that if you can give examples you can of course frequently deal with them in the primary legislation. Problems arise when you have not thought
702
of the examples and they arise after the legislation is on the statute books. One is then confronted by a practical difficulty. That is why, for reasons with which I sympathise, the Government do not want to set this in concrete at this stage before the pilot schemes.
If I accept what the noble Lord said, that the Scrutiny Committee overlooked this point, then as a member of that committee I must share some of the blame, and I do so. Perhaps we may return to the letter of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. His intervention, if I remember, was in response to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who, unhappily, has had to leave us, in which he appeared to assume that the legal officers would exercise their functions by delegation from chairmen or presidents.
At the time, I must have been more than usually obtuse, because I had not grasped that that was what was in the noble Lord's mind. If I had I would have pointed out that this is a different situation; that legal officers will not exercise their functions by delegation from other members of the judiciary; they will exercise their function under regulations made by the Secretary of State. I am surprised that my noble friend Lord McCarthy thinks that it might be surprising that from time to time regulations are amended. Any power to make regulations will of course include a power to amend them as and when required. That is what it is for.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I was not surprised, I was suspicious.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I have tried in the past to allay some of my noble friend's suspicions. I do not propose to embark upon that venture tonight. I should have hoped that my noble friend would appreciate two things: first, the difficulty of framing an amendment of the kind which, understandably, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wishes to propound, without landing the Secretary of State in a situation where he says, "Ah, now we have seen the pilot scheme, we realise that we should do X and not Y. We should put in a couple of exceptions. We cannot do that, because that is not what the Bill now says". The noble Lord said that everyone knows what is meant by an interlocutory matter. We are dealing with a specialised jurisdiction. We have had examples tonight where some of us have had something in mind, and then, "Oh dear, that is not covered by an interlocutory matter". I hope that the noble Lord and my noble friend will accept that there is a problem here if we try to set this in stone.
The other thing I would have hoped that my noble friend would accept—the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has not said that he does not accept it—is the undertaking given by my noble friend the Minister: first, that there will be the fullest consultation with the presidents before regulations are made; secondly, that the presidents are now content with Amendment No. 1 in the form in

703
which I have propounded it; and, thirdly, they will consult the Council on Tribunals. My noble friend is muttering. I did not quite catch what he said.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I said I do not care what the presidents think. I have never met the presidents. I do not think this is good enough.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, of course we could take a national referendum if that is what my noble friend wants. There are limits as to what one can do before reaching a decision on this matter. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not ask us to go as far as that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, certainly not.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, in the light of those undertakings given by my noble friend the Minister, one cannot go very much further to ensure that nothing will be done which has not been disclosed to the House, and nothing will be done that anyone here would regard as improper. In those circumstances, I hope that there will be no opposition to Amendment No. 1. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will feel able to reconsider Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 3, at beginning insert ("in respect of interlocutory orders or any other decision on an interlocutory matter,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the support from all sides of the House as regards the concerns which underlie Amendment No. 2. I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for doing their best to justify that which I do not believe to be justifiable. The fact that there is to be a pilot study is admirable but it does not meet the point. The pilot study will ascertain whether legal officers of two or three years' call or legal experience are to be entrusted with judicial powers of an interlocutory kind. They will be tested on no more than that because we are told that the department does not contemplate that they will be doing more than exercising interlocutory functions, dealing with compromise cases and the dismissal of cases where there is no controversy. Therefore, the pilot study is completely irrelevant to the issue of what powers beyond the interlocutory and ancillary procedural powers should be given to legal officers.
The fact that there is to be consultation with the presidents and the Council on Tribunals is welcome, but the ultimate question, which is a question for Parliament, especially a question for this House with its weak powers over delegated legislation, is whether we want a safeguard on the face of the Bill to prevent young and inexperienced legal officers undertaking anything other than routine interlocutory and ancillary procedural functions. Since no example has been given either by the Minister or by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, of anything significant that the
704
department wishes to do, the only argument that we have heard is that it will be handy and convenient to keep the reserve power in place in case some further delegation should be necessary—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? Does he agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the kind of expressions we might want to use—for example, "incidental procedures"—are difficult to define?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I agree that they are difficult to define, but that is the job of government, parliamentary counsel and legal advisers within the department. I hope that after this debate they will bend every sinew to seek to produce adequate definitions which will satisfy the House. Perhaps I may remind the House that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, at the end of his letter, states:
"As I understand the proposal in this clause, however, the matter will be in the hands of the Minister and his Department, as the delegation to legal officers is to be dealt with by means of employment tribunal procedure regulations … and not by the tribunals themselves or by the President. This aspect of the matter increases my concern that, in the interests of justice and to prevent misuse of it, the clause should be suitably qualified".
I do not believe that it is suitably qualified merely by having two separate lists which, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, pointed out, can simply by amendment be transferred from one list to another. I continue to believe that the Bill must provide some appropriate limitation.
In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I would not dream of seeking to test the opinion of the House and I should be proud to stand with him as a Teller. However, I give the Government notice that when the matter comes back on Third Reading, unless we are given something on the face of the Bill it will be my intention to test the opinion of the House. In the meantime, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No.2 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Clause 7 [ACAS arbitration scheme]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 3:
page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Save as provided by an order made under this section, nothing in this section shall affect the competence of a court to entertain proceedings for judicial review or to refer a question to the European Court of Justice.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps contrary to the view that some of your Lordships have gathered, this is an important Bill which is coming to be seen as important by employers and trade unions. Our amendment is an attempt to face what is an inevitable problem if one creates two different procedures and avenues in law through which one can approach legal remedies for the same matter, as we saw in Committee. The important part of the Bill is that which sets up an ACAS scheme under an order and under the Act whereby those employees who opt for arbitration in agreement with the employer accept the arbitration award by the ACAS

705
arbitrator as binding in place of their rights in industrial tribunals—or employment tribunals, as I shall have to call them after the Bill is passed.
Our amendment puts into clear words the remedy which has sometimes sub silentio been present in debates about the employee who goes to the arbitrator and finds that there is something wrong with the arbitration. I include fundamental mistakes of law, the mistakes which go to a perverse view of the facts in the debate that has been going on for a long time.
Looking at our Committee stage, in so far as one can understand discussion of the amendments from the idiosyncratic groupings, it is clear that it is in line with the debate which has been going on since 1994, the year of the Green Paper of a previous government on the reform of aspects of industrial tribunals, including the parallel course through arbitration instead of opting for industrial tribunals.
I mention the debate because most of it has not been in this House or the other place but in circles such as academic groups which have what might be called an alternative dispute resolution movement in various areas of the law. Many interesting publications have emerged from them. But in this area the department had a particular exchange with two of the leaders in the field—Professors Clark and Lewis of Southampton University—who strongly supported the view taken by ACAS that there should be no appeal on points of law from the arbitrator's award. The rule that there should be no appeal on points of law in the arbitrator's award does not appear in the Bill. It is somewhat strange, because it appears only in an informal memorandum of ACAS. It may be said that the employee accepts that when he agrees to go to arbitration instead of a tribunal. However, it would be useful to have the precise juridical character of that rule spelt out which, reading through the Committee stage, I was surprised to find had not been done.
Professors Lewis and Clark, in the course of arguing with the department that there should be no appeal on points of law, made a most interesting general point. They were asked what they thought should be done with perverse decisions by arbitrators. Of course, we all know that that does not imply any wrongdoing. A perverse decision is one where the arbitrator has got it so wrong as to meet one of Lord Diplock's three areas, to which I shall turn in a moment. But something should be done about it.
It was said, of course, as regards perverse decisions that they could be challenged through the process of judicial review. My noble friend Lady Turner and I took the view that judicial review, in the normal way, was not what we recommended. In your Lordships' Committee, we recommended that the matter should go, on a parallel type of procedure, to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. As I understand the record, that was rejected. It was rejected both by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and by the Government. Obviously, we accept that. But once that was done the underlying text appeared to be that judicial review would apply subject, perhaps, to some modifications required by this particular subject matter.
706
Noble Lords will see that we have included in the amendment a power to make amendment by order under the section and we repeat those words. In our view, it is important to state on the face of the Bill the centrality of judicial review as a remedy, where the arbitrator gets it wrong to that degree.
I shall put on record the three areas which Lord Diplock defined in the Council of Civil Service Unions case in 1984, which he called the three areas where judicial review would lie: illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and give effect to it and if he does not, that is where the illegality may arise. I shall return to that point in a few moments.
The second point, the type of unreasonableness which is sometimes referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness in the light of the famous Court of Appeal decision of that name. In Committee we were fortunate enough to find that my noble and learned friend not only knows about Wednesbury but he comes from Wednesbury. We have deep authority for every word he said. I do not disagree with his account and I think that he was agreeing with us that those were the areas of judicial review in modern law.
At that point in this debate, which has gone on now for some three to four years, one must surely say that it would be really rather negligent to leave the record blank and to have the remedy inserted only impliedly. We want to say quite clearly that judicial review is the central remedy. We have included also in our amendment any problem relating to references to the European Court of Justice. Obviously, our law could not create obstacles to such references and so that is really a less interesting part of the amendment.
But what is it that ACAS wants to put into the law? We have heard very little about that. We know that ACAS wants a memorandum, semi-confidential I believe, saying that there should be no appeal on the law. Does that include all the areas of illegality referred to in Lord Diplock's speech in 1984?
A worker who talks to his employer or manager and they agree, "All right, we won't go to the tribunal as that process is rather slow in this area. We will go to an arbitrator and we agree that his decision be the end of the matter". The worker is therefore putting into the hands of the arbitrator a certain area of discretion; but he is not putting into the hands of the arbitrator an unlimited discretion. Any limitations upon the arbitrator's discretion which is narrower than the rules on judicial review would be a most extraordinary type of insertion into a Bill concerned with industrial relations.
There is absolutely no reason at all why working people should be subjected to narrow limits on their rights in this matter with regard to the arbitrators, narrower than the rights that they would have if they went to the tribunals. I am not sure what view my noble and learned friend will take but if the Government try to narrow the rights on "appeal"—and I use the word "appeal" in quotation marks because judicial review is not technically an appeal—on which a further view can be taken of the arbitrator's award, then the scheme is dead in the water before it starts. We shall hear from

707
my noble friends who have experience in that area but I am sure they will agree that no trade union official will agree to take his member to the arbitrator rather than to the tribunal, albeit I accept that in most parts of the country it may be that the arbitration procedure is quicker than taking the matter to a tribunal.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, has it occurred to my noble friend that working people and trade unions may actually welcome limiting rights of appeal because they see the advantage of finality?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend must take his evidence where he finds it. My evidence so far indicates that for a very long time most people have been used to having rights of appeal from the tribunals to the EAT and, perhaps he thinks unfortunately, to the Court of Appeal and even to the House of Lords. I am not in favour of appeals for appeals' sake. However, the character of our employment law has within it, and has had within it since 1971, the notion that if you think that the first-tier adjudicator has got it wrong at least you have a right to go somewhere to have it set right. As I understand it, my noble and learned friend is saying that however wrong the arbitrator may be, there is no appeal at all.
My noble and learned friend will have the opportunity to make his case and it may be that that is not what he is saying. But I repeat the central point which must not be lost. If by amendment or by order this system of parallel justice—tribunals and arbitrators—is to cut off appeal at the arbitrator level in such a way that it is in a major sense more limited than the tribunals, then the number of people who use it will be very small and, as word goes round, even fewer people will use it year by year.
That is why my noble friend and I have tabled the amendment. We do that not because we are against the arbitration system but because we believe that it is an important and useful helpmate, as it were, of the tribunals. I have said already that I accept that in some areas tribunals are slow and have a long waiting list; but there cannot be an arbitration system which cuts down rights when there is a parallel procedure which offers rights. People are not that silly. Employers are not that silly. Let us not forget that a very large number of appeals to the EAT is from employers. We shall see what view they take.
I conclude with an example which is extremely recent. The ACAS memorandum first says that because of the non-legalistic nature of many unfair dismissal disputes, legal experience is not considered necessary for an arbitrator. I found that odd because, when we come to the end of the memorandum, paragraph 11 says:
"Any compensation awarded would be subject to the same limits as tribunal awards. In awarding compensation the arbitrator would have regard to the amount of loss incurred, both actual and future and take into account any monies already paid. The award would be legally enforceable".
If the amounts are to be subject to the same limits as tribunal awards, it is very difficult to see how the arbitrator needs no legal experience. I refer noble Lords
708
to the decision of your Lordships' Judicial Committee only a month ago in the case of Tracey v. Crosville Wales [1997] 3 WLR 800 H.L. This has been a complex matter for some years of which the essence is as follows—and I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is some importance in the matter. When workers take industrial action, if they are dealt with by the employer differently in different groups, they may open the door which is usually shut to them for accession to the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal.
It was one of those cases where some strikers were re-engaged and some were not. The difficult question in case law has always been whether, in awarding compensation for those who have been, if you like, victimised, any reduction should be made by reason of the way that they conducted themselves in the industrial dispute. Reductions of compensation are of course a very difficult and important area. Any ACAS arbitrator would have to know his or her stuff on compensation and reductions. In this particular case, the House of Lords decided that no such reduction could be made.
It is difficult to give an impression of the complexity of the case, but I am sure that some noble Lords have some knowledge of it. Indeed, if noble Lords read the speeches, they will realise just what a difficult task an ACAS arbitrator would have to accomplish in order to get the sum precisely right. He or she would have to get the compensation right in global terms, and would then have to get it right according to the rules of law—because those are the rules of the tribunals—as to how much should be deducted, if anything at all. In this case it was not.
I am not suggesting that arbitrators are unable to face such cases; I am saying that the information that we have in front of us does not suggest that the arbitrators who might be appointed will always be able to deal with that kind of case and its legal complexities. I say "always" because this string of procedures, parallel one to the other, is there for the option of the employer and employee who can come to an agreement to take their dispute to the arbitrator.
We have tabled the amendment for that reason; namely, that judicial review is a well-known phenomenon. Small adjustments may be necessary as, for example, are included in the amendment. However, the amendment would not complicate matters. On the contrary, it would facilitate the remedy. The procedures of judicial review are now well-known and that makes it more likely that a system of arbitration would be more free from uncertainties and, indeed, might improve the machinery for remedying unfair dismissal. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to express my support for my noble friend's amendment to which I have attached my name. I believe that I am not alone in feeling a little concerned about a process which, at the end of it, appears to have no right of appeal. I can well understand why my noble and learned friend has sought to introduce a fast-track procedure for dealing

709
with straightforward unfair dismissal cases. The intention is wholly good and he deserves commendation for it.
However, we all know that dismissal is a traumatic experience. Unfortunately, it has happened to far too many people in recent years—people who at one time would have thought that they had "jobs for life"; indeed, people who thought, perhaps, that they would never have to face the trauma of unemployment and who are quite often unprepared to deal with it. Such a dismissed employee could be offered a choice of procedures in the following terms: he could either go down the arbitration route, which is fast track and he will probably not have long to wait to get his case heard. He will not be able to appeal, but he must remember that his employer will not be able to either. Alternatively, he could go to an employment tribunal where he will have the right of appeal right through the court system and even eventually to Europe. However, he will have to wait a long time because there is a backlog of cases and his employer could appeal even if he wins; and it might be quite a long time before he gets any money out of it.
Of course, trade unions may not give that kind of advice, but such advice might come the way of people who are not represented by unions. In such circumstances, the former employee could well choose arbitration. In most cases, that could well be the right decision. But, rarely, there may be a case that starts off looking as though it is simple but which becomes more complex along the way, perhaps introducing some element of gender discrimination or another problem which means that it would have been better dealt with through the ordinary court procedures.
The amendment that we have tabled would provide a fail-safe mechanism, should that happen. It is likely to be rare, but the employee would have the protection of a way out of arbitration and into the court system where that occurs. We have been referred to the Arbitration Act 1996 and specifically, I imagine, to Clauses 68 and 69. However, on reading the clauses, it seems to me that they are quite restrictive. Clause 68 allows for challenging the award where there has been a serious irregularity and that is spelt out in some detail. Clause 69 refers to an appeal on a point of law which could only be brought, as far as I can read, with the agreement of all the other parties to the proceedings, or with the leave of the court.
As I said, those provisions are really rather restrictive. In my view, they were probably meant to deal with commercial disputes and not employment law at all. Such provision is not necessarily suitable for the kind of cases that we are concerned about here, where people are facing the trauma of unemployment following dismissal. I hope that my noble friend, and perhaps the Government, will look with a degree of acceptance on what we are trying to do by way of the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, in putting my name to the amendment I wanted to make it clear, as indeed my noble friends have done, that we are trying to improve the Bill. We want to see speedy, informal alternative methods of dispute resolution. We are trying to assist with the Bill, but we also believe that, if we do not
710
modify it in some way, it could, without taking up an exaggerated position, conceivably end up in another Grunwick. Indeed, that could happen. I have come to a conclusion as to the reasons why the Government and ACAS seek to resist what we propose.
If noble Lords will allow me, I should like to speak tonight very much to ACAS. Indeed, some of my best friends are in ACAS. They have employed me since they began. I want to explore how ACAS has thought this out and outline why I believe that it is wrong. We do not want merely speedy, informal alternative systems. I suggest that we must have roughly similar justice. That is what the Government have not thought through.
Why do we have to have roughly similar justice? Why could we not have arbitration with no appeal to law in particular? The arbitration system could proceed in a completely different way, using different criteria, different levels of settlement with different levels of substantive evidence and different results under the law. Why could it not be like that? It seems to me that ACAS is rather hoping that it might be like that because it would be simpler.
I can think of five reasons why it cannot be like that. First, the parties would be watching the system. If, as a result of research or by comparing success rates—because they will get them—or if by bush telegraph or general impressions, it comes to be thought among employers that there is, overall, a significantly higher rate of success and better justice from the workers' point of view, they will not go to arbitration. Similarly, if trade unionists or if the lawyers who advise the non-unionists—they do it very often for nothing—come to the conclusion that you cannot get as much out of arbitrators or that there are certain circumstances and certain cases which do not work, they will not recommend that anybody goes. The system must work and so it must provide not just speed, not just informality, but roughly similar justice. The parties will be watching and comparing.
Secondly, I have been talking now to my friends who are arbitrators. The arbitrators will be watching. They will want to know, roughly speaking, whether they are in line with the law. I ask any of those who might get such a task for not much remuneration: why should you put yourself in the position morally, equably, and in terms of your functions, that you produce very different results from the law? If those people want to know how they can keep in with the law or if they can get roughly similar justice, then they will need a very great deal of information. I am not saying they have to be legally qualified but, by God! they have to know their way about. There are many, many examples of things they have to know about. For example, they have to know all about the different legal principles and applications of cases which tell you how you select people for redundancy. What is unfair selection for redundancy? It is very complicated as to how far you can go and get away with it as an employer. You have to do something about that, and if any question arises of sex discrimination you must detect it because the Government say you have got to take out sex discrimination. It is not simply a matter of knowing

711
about direct discrimination; you have to know how to test for indirect discrimination. That is extremely complicated and difficult.
The difficulty so often in cases of constructive dismissal is to know whether the employer has struck at the root of the contract—whether trust and confidence has been destroyed. That is extraordinarily difficult to detect. It is all right in a tribunal: you have two side members and a qualified chairman. But if arbitrators are afraid that they will not be broadly in line with the principles of the law they are going to have a difficult problem. Most difficult of all perhaps is what I call natural justice denied. Natural justice is not all that important in arbitration. In arbitration you have to decide what you think is the substance of the case. Whether the employer has gone through a reasonable range of responses, whether there has been proper investigation and whether there has been a right to appeal—these do not necessarily concern arbitrators. They want quick, sharp decisions which they think, on the whole, are fair. What is terribly important is that a large number of employers go to tribunals in circumstances where they could have dismissed fairly if they had not neglected one of what they regard as the arcane principles of natural justice. But the poor old arbitrators have to learn them. And there are simple tests. I do not believe that the parties will not be watching and that the arbitrators will not be watching. Therefore I do not think that ACAS cannot be watching. Somehow these poor devils have to be told how to keep in line with the substantive or procedural results of using industrial tribunals.
Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, they will have to know what is happening outside and they will have to know whether they are going to lay themselves open to any possibility of judicial review. I frankly do not know how they are going to manage it. There will have to be training. They will have to be kept up to date and that is going to be a difficult and hard task to follow through.
However, turning from the arbitrators and ACAS to the Government and this amendment, I say to the Government with all the force I can muster: we want this Bill; we like this Bill; but it is no good introducing it and thinking you can ignore the need for substantive equivalent justice. If you turn aside, if you think you are going to stop it by law you are going to stop the system itself, because people are watching, arbitrators are watching, ACAS are watching, workers are watching and the Government must watch as well.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it might be helpful if I explain the intention behind the Government's policy of offering arbitration as an alternative means for parties to resolve their disputes. Certainly, we take the view that it is better if employers and employees can settle their disputes voluntarily, either between themselves or with the assistance of a third party. But underpinning the system is the right of the individual to have recourse to an industrial tribunal. It is inevitable that there will be disputes which cannot be resolved in any other way. We
712
accept that. A complex and difficult case such as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn mentioned could go to a tribunal. It may be suitable for arbitration. We accept that, but we see it as our role to offer parties to a dispute a range of alternative methods by which they might resolve their dispute. As noble Lords know, we wish to encourage parties to use any internal procedures that might be available. A dispute swiftly resolved through an internal procedure can often be to the advantage of all the parties.
We are also committed to the role of conciliation officers in helping people resolve their disputes and, in previous debates, I and other noble Lords have paid tribute to the role that they play.—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to interrupt? I wonder if I have got it right. The most important thing he said was that cases of legal complexity of the kind that I cited in regard to compensation recently in the House of Lords—the case of Tracey v. Crosville Wales—may not be suitable for arbitration. However, who would stop the employer and the employee taking them to arbitration if they wished to do so?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in the Bill there are many safeguards to ensure that employees have full and free advice. We are coming to an amendment which deals with that later. As noble Lords are aware, this Bill adds to the duties of the conciliation officers. It also contains a provision which we are debating for ACAS to prepare and provide an arbitration scheme for claims of unfair dismissal. These are some of the alternatives we wish to make available, and it is important to bear in mind that these are options which the parties enter into voluntarily. No one can be compelled to agree to use them and, as I mentioned, the right to have recourse to a tribunal underpins the system of employment rights. Arbitration is a method of resolving a dispute to which both parties will have agreed, and although they may still disagree about the dismissal itself they will have to agree to submit it to an arbitrator and to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. This agreement is but one of the features which distinguishes arbitration from a tribunal hearing.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy listed some of the points which may not be suitable for arbitration, and there will be others. For example, the arbitration will be private but it will be final. Agreement to be bound by the arbitrator's decision is also one of the reasons why the Government, ACAS and many of those who support an arbitration alternative, both employers and employees, consider the finality of the arbitrator's decision to be an essential part of the scheme. However, the arbitrator's decision can only carry credibility with the parties if they consider that it has been reached impartially and fairly and that they have had a chance for their views to be heard. That is why the Government and ACAS regard the provision of a safety valve to be important.
However, we do not think that we can rely upon judicial review applying to provide this safety valve. Our view is that it is by no means certain that judicial

713
review will apply. Therefore in order to ensure that if there is something wrong, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn put it, a safety valve will be provided, we propose to apply the provisions of Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 which relates to serious irregularity, subject to discussion with ACAS, and with such modifications as are necessary to make them appropriate to a scheme for resolving an employment rights dispute.
My noble friend Lady Turner said that Section 68 may be more suitable for commercial disputes. The provisions will be modified to make them suitable for the kind of dispute that we are debating. Our difficulty in saying exactly what will apply now is that we do not yet have the scheme. It would be prudent to wait until we have a scheme proposed by ACAS before deciding whether and how the serious irregularity provision needs to be modified. I hope that this will satisfy my noble friend's concern.
My noble friend Lady Turner also spoke of referrals to the European Court of Justice. As I explained in Committee, while the Government wish to restrict the right of appeal on a point of law as much as possible to ensure maximum finality in the arbitration, we recognise that there might be circumstances in which a limited right of appeal on matters of European law may be required under European Community law principles. It may also be necessary to provide a procedure permitting the parties to refer to a court preliminary issues of law for determination.
Noble Lords will recall that the Government have put in observations on two cases before the European Court of Justice where the extent to which arbitral awards should be the subject of appeal on Community law is an issue that is being addressed currently. We are minded to wait until we have the European Court of Justice's decision on those cases before acting on this point.
However, I wish to confirm that once the European Court of Justice rules on the extent to which an appeal or reference needs to be provided in private arbitrations on a point of European Community law, we shall ensure that such arrangements as necessary apply to arbitration under the ACAS scheme. I hope that this will satisfy noble Lords.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn for confirming at the outset of the debate that this is an important Bill. At least he and I begin in full agreement. My noble friend's amendment reflects concerns which were expressed by a number of noble Lords in Committee. I am grateful to my noble friends for their courtesy in discussing the amendment with me between Committee stage and today.
Perhaps I may spend a moment on the historical background of the problem. When industrial tribunals were first established, it was envisaged that they would have a number of advantages over the more traditional courts. They would be informal, quick, cheap and with proceedings capable of being conducted by litigants in person. Their determinations would quickly be brought to finality. Compared with more traditional courts, that
714
is probably still the case to a substantial extent. But much of their jurisdiction now consists of areas of law where, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, the provisions are complicated and technical. That may not be anyone's fault. The world is becoming more complicated. It is not the fault of the tribunals. But it explains why there have been those—I emphasise to my noble friends—largely within the trade union movement who, in relation to certain sectors of their jurisdiction and in particular to claims for wrongful dismissal, have said, "Couldn't we find a method of resolving suitable disputes where the parties agree which seeks to recover those advantages of simplicity, speed and finality?"
Clause 7 of the Bill is an attempt to offer that option, with appropriate safeguards. As my noble friends said, those who wish to retain the full range of options for appeal may simply forget about arbitration and refer their disputes to the tribunal. That was the burden of much of what my noble friend Lord Haskel said. But there are two propositions on which we would all agree. First, for those who are attracted by the idea of speed and finality, it would be pointless to offer the option of going to arbitration and then to deprive that option of speed and finality.
Secondly, I believe we would all agree that there have to be some channels for redress. Those who refer their dispute to arbitration are entitled to complain if the arbitrator departs totally from his terms of reference or embarks on a procedure which is totally eccentric or unfair—the perverse decisions referred to by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn.
In her very fair survey of the options, if she will allow me to say so, my noble friend Lady Turner said that none of us wants to say that there shall be no appeal. I agree with my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy that a very good beginning is to make sure that we have good arbitrators. If we can get the decisions right at first instance, it removes many of the problems. But it cannot remove all the problems. There will be occasions where there needs to be redress. I believe that we are now largely agreed that there are two areas where some redress should be provided.
Perhaps we may turn first to issues of European law. As I understand it—my noble friend confirmed the position—the Government's approach is to seek to retain finality as in other issues of law so far as that can be done consistently with our obligations under Community law. At earlier stages in our debates we have tended to speak as though there is an absolute obligation on member states to provide a channel for reference to the European Court in any arbitration procedures. It is by no means certain that that obligation is so wide. European law recognises a right to agree to arbitration, as I understand it, and to restrict the range of appeals. There are at present before the European Court of Justice two cases—my noble friend referred to them—where the extent of the obligation, if any, is being considered. At Committee stage I was asked whether I could indicate those cases. They are Eco Swiss China Time Limited v. Bennetton International, and the Compagnie Maritime Belge case. I can give noble Lords the references if they wish to consult me afterwards.

715
As my noble friend Lord Haskel made clear in Committee, the United Kingdom Government have submitted observations in those cases. They would like to await the outcome before deciding definitely on the provisions relating to disputes about European law. But it is only honest of me to say that I understand that the Government would be minded to retain finality so far as that is consistent with our obligations as defined by the Court. The importance of finality in arbitration proceedings has been emphasised to the Government by representatives of employers and employees, and, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, very emphatically by ACAS. We know that there are two sides to the argument; but there are advantages in finality.
I turn to issues other than those of European law. There is a wide consensus that we should not admit appeals on every issue of law which arises. But we all agree that serious procedural matters should have a form of redress and that it should go rather wider. The question is how best to achieve it. My noble friends suggest judicial review. I know from many conversations I have had in the past with my noble friend Lord Wedderburn that judicial review is not his first choice. For myself, I should prefer not to leave redress to judicial review. If I have misrepresented my noble friend, I apologise.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will remember that the noble Baroness and myself moved amendments in Committee which did not rely on the normal judicial review, but on a special structure for the EAT. I am sure that he could not forget that.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Indeed, my Lords, quite the reverse. I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming precisely what I said: it was not his first choice. It would not be my first choice either. It is a very useful remedy which the courts have developed over the past few years, but it tends to be a remedy for situations where no other redress has been provided. It follows that it tends to be attended with uncertainty and unpredictability. It is better, when we foresee the need for redress, to provide it specifically. Then it can be tailor-made to the needs of the parties. In any event, for what it is worth, I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Haskel, that it is by no means certain how judicial review can be made to apply to what will be in effect a private agreement between the parties to the arbitration.
However that may be, the Government's view, as I understand it, is that it will be difficult to formulate appeal provisions until we have the scheme. For that reason, they are reluctant to incorporate specific appeal provisions in the Bill. As my noble friend said, my noble friend Lady Turner had foreseen the difficulty, and what they have in mind is using Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
I appreciate my noble friend's view that that Act is designed primarily to apply to commercial arbitrations, and not all of its provisions are suitable for industrial
716
disputes. Of course they are not; we are all in agreement about that. But it does not follow that the entire Act is totally unhelpful and unusable.
Section 68 states:
"A party to arbitral proceedings may … apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award".
That provision is fairly wide.
Subsection (2)—which I certainly do not intend to impose on your Lordships at this hour of the evening—sets out a list, (a) to (i), of possible examples of material irregularity. My noble friend Lady Turner says that that is too restrictive. All my noble friends are rather indicating that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend read the final paragraph of subsection (3)?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, if my noble friend wishes me to read it out, then of course I will. I think that there are those who are rather anxious about the time. Subsection (3) states:
"On an application under this section challenging an award of the arbitral tribunal as to its substantive jurisdiction",
and then states what the court may order. It may,
"confirm the award … vary the award, or … set aside the award".
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Over the page—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is all on the same page. I am trying to be helpful.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I: I am sorry to—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, while there is a private altercation going on between the two noble Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene. We have been debating the Bill for over an hour and a half and are only on the second grouping. I do not in any way wish to detract from the importance of the Bill or of the amendments under discussion. However, I wonder whether I might appeal to those present from the usual channels, given that people have travelled a very long way specifically to be here for the other debate, which was expected to take place much earlier this evening. At the end of this amendment, which I suspect still has a good half an hour or more to run, is it possible that the House might adjourn long enough for the other debate to take place, and then this Bill could continue? I suspect that, taking the first three amendments as a guide, we shall be here for a very long time on the remainder.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I fully take the noble Baroness's point. The next debate is one in which I personally have an interest, although I do not propose to participate. I have been mindful of the time factor. I do not think that it has been entirely within the control of any of us. I can set the noble Baroness's mind at rest. This is the last debate on the Bill which is likely to take up very much of the time of the House. The noble Lord,

717
Lord Meston, can assist us. He is the only other noble Lord who is likely to know how much time the rest of the Bill will take. I suspect that it will be very quick indeed.
Lord Meston: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord asks me, I am painfully conscious of the time and of the inconvenience caused to others who are waiting to take part in the next debate. For my part, I shall not move my amendment, even if it causes me some difficulty in bringing it back at Third Reading.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that that sets the noble Baroness's mind at rest. The other amendments are mine, and I propose to be extremely brief.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that that will come as an enormous relief to all those around the Chamber. I apologise for my intervention. However, given the concern that I see expressed on the faces of at least three noble Lords, this particular amendment will run for a good deal of time yet.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I do not believe that it will. However, may we see how matters go? I suspect that we are coming fairly close to the end of the debate.
The section that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn wishes me to read out is from subsection (4), not subsection (3)—
Lord Carter: My Lords, time might be saved if my noble friends realise that they cannot speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—except for the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who I hope will be brief so that we can get on with the Bill. I do not believe that we are able to adjourn the Bill and return to it afterwards. I am sure that my noble friends understand the situation. If we could now proceed in reasonable time, I am sure that that is the wish of the House.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We should be very insensitive had we not grasped the time factor.
My noble friend is asking me to read out, not subsection (3), but subsection (4):
"The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section".
He is absolutely right. That is precisely what it says. I am sure that he can put the matter right later.
Some of these provisions may need tailoring to the scheme that finally emerges, as my noble friend Lord Haskel said. We probably all agree that it would be unwise to apply the provision in toto, with no adjustments. That is why I hope that my noble friend will be content in the light of those assurances to leave the Bill unamended and to leave the Secretary of State to deal with the matter in the way I suggested.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I shall be very brief in replying to a somewhat complicated
718
debate. First, on the European Court of Justice, I thought I said in moving the amendment that we have no difficulty about delay on that matter and the noble Lord the Minister made it clear why there should be some delay.
However, to say that judicial review is not suited to these matters because they are private agreements, with great respect, misses the whole point. We are not setting out merely a scheme of private agreements. We are setting up a statute based system of consensual arbitration. Where there is a statutory base, the courts do intervene, and often have intervened by way of judicial review. With great respect to him, the Minister has to verge on being wrong, or indeed come closer than that. when he says that judicial review is not suitable. 1 can see that the provision may need some amendment; but it is much better to start with that than with the Arbitration Act 1996.
I have some knowledge of that statute. and of the three sets of discussions under the noble and learned Lords, Lords Saville, Steyn and Mustill, that preceded it. Anyone who thinks that Section 68, or indeed any other section, can be made into a suitable base for what my noble friend Lord McCarthy called parallel justice, is crying for the moon. There is one clear indication that that is so; namely, no one since 1994 has suggested anything of that sort to deal with the problem. It has arisen at the last minute in your Lordships' discussions. I hope that the Government will go away, re-examine the provision and see how judicial review could be a method—unless we are to go back, which I am not allowed to do, to the system we suggested, using the EAT as an appellate body; because then the two streams of jurisdiction would, as it were, merge in the EAT and the employment appeal tribunal could give judgments which brought the two streams together—those of the arbitrators and those of the tribunals. Nothing could be simpler than to draft regulations for that.
However, I can see that the Government are obdurate, and no doubt they will not come back on Third Reading with anything other than the Arbitration Act, modified as they want. We look forward to that and all I can do with this amendment is beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Internal appeal procedures and unfair dismissal awards]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Acts which are both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 5:
page 11, line 18, leave out ("Section 126 of the Employment Rights Act 1996") and insert ("In section 117(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (which provides for a higher additional award for an unfairly dismissed employee who is not reinstated or re-engaged as ordered in a case where the dismissal is sex or race discrimination), at the end insert "and
(c) a dismissal which is an act of discrimination within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which is unlawful by virtue of that Act."
( ) Section 126 of that Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be convenient to take Amendment No. 12. I can move it briefly. The purpose is to correct

719
an oversight in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and to place discrimination on grounds of disability in parallel with discrimination on sexual or racial grounds. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government fully support this technical amendment which will ensure that those employees who have been discriminated against on the grounds of their disability will be treated in the same way as those who are discriminated against on the grounds of sex or race.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Commencement]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 6:
page 12, line 14, leave out ("17") and insert ("17(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I believe that I can abbreviate what I was proposing to say in this way. There was an oversight following from an amendment moved in Committee in relation to the jurisdiction of the employment appeal tribunal. We also seized the opportunity to correct what was previously an oversight in legislation. The amendments are in order to tidy the jurisdiction of the employment appeal tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government fully support the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer in tabling these amendments. Although they are minor and technical, they will ensure that the complete jurisdiction of the EAT is accurately described in the legislation by including the original jurisdictions along with appeals. They will make it expressly clear that jurisdictions other than appeals can be conferred on the EAT by other legislation.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, both he and I, in our haste to conclude the proceedings, have overlooked one matter. The jurisdiction in Scotland is slightly different from the jurisdiction in England and we propose to rectify it by an amendment at Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
page 12, line 20, leave out ("17") and insert ("17(2)").
page 12, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) If an appeal of the sort which lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by virtue of the provision made by paragraph 17(2) of Schedule I has been brought before the High Court or the Court of Session not later than the day on which this Act is passed, the appeal may nevertheless be brought before the Employment Appeal Tribunal within the period of 42 days beginning with that day or such longer period as that Tribunal may by order specify.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
page 18, line 13, leave out ("In section 21(1) of that Act") and insert—
("(l) Section 21 of that Act (jurisdiction of the Employment Appeal Tribunal) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)").
page 18, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (3) insert—
"(4) The Appeal Tribunal also has any jurisdiction in respect of matters other than appeals which is conferred on it by or under—

(a) the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992,

(b) this Act, or

(c) any other Act."").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 11:
page 20, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, could now reverse my previous advice? We are trying to find the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who thought it would be a long time before he was called. If the noble and learned Lord would care to elaborate a little on Amendment No. 11, long enough for the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to appear in the Chamber, we should be grateful.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am always willing to assist in these matters and I am grateful to the noble Baroness. However, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is present and our problem is solved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 12:
page 20, line 22, column 3, leave out ("117(8)") and insert ("117, in subsection (6)(a), the word "and" and, in subsection (8),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Terminally Ill Patients
7.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the current state of the criminal law and medical practice in relation to the palliative treatment by doctors and nurses of terminally ill patients.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, because of my experience as counsel in a recent case I am concerned about the lack of clarity as to the criminal law and good medical practice in the palliative treatment of the terminally ill. This is despite the admirable work done

721
four years ago by the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.
Annie Lindsell is a remarkably courageous victim of the terrible motor neurone disease from which she has suffered for over five years. I am very sorry that she is too ill to be here this evening, as she had so much hoped.
MND is a degenerative neurological condition with no known cause or cure. It kills the nerves controlling movement so that sufferers, while retaining total brain function and being able to feel pain, find themselves gradually trapped inside a completely paralysed body.
Annie Lindsell has come to know and admire many other MND sufferers. Of those who have died, the last months of their lives have been too terrible for them to bear and for others to witness. She wishes, as is her right, to remain at home until she dies, cared for by her loving friends and companions, under the careful supervision of her doctor, her consultant and the district nurse. Along with many other MND patients she does not wish for invasive surgery, such as the insertion of a PEG tube that will only prolong a life the quality of which continues to deteriorate; nor does she want to have to live on in a doped haze.
When the quality of her life becomes unacceptable to her, as she begins to be unable to swallow and is at imminent risk of suffering severe distress, involving choking, she wants to be confident that her doctor will be able lawfully to treat her with palliative drugs to relieve her severe distress, even though the probable consequence will be to shorten her life. She wishes to know that, if the doctor agrees, she will be treated with drugs at that stage, so that she can die with dignity, fully aware of her circumstances.
The MND patients she has known were denied such treatment, despite some of them being under hospice supervision. Helplessly, they suffered appalling and unnecessary distress in the last months of what remained of their lives. Their wishes were known. They did not wish to endure the indignity of remaining helpless, unable to do anything for themselves, unable to eat normal food, at risk of choking, and in a drug-induced condition to make them less aware of their terrible condition. The only way they were able to avoid that inhuman fate was by refusing to have a PEG tube inserted. That meant that they began choking on their own mucus when unable to swallow, often while trying to eat. Their doctors terminated their distress only at a very late stage, after they had repeatedly begged to be allowed to die with dignity.
Annie Lindsell was terrified of having to endure a similar fate. She brought legal proceedings seeking the necessary assurance and peace of mind for herself and her doctor. Without the necessary reassurance that it was lawful, her doctor would not commit himself to treat her in accordance with what he and she consider will be in her best interests at the point when she becomes unable to swallow, and risks choking.
The uncertainty arose because of the early stage at which the treatment is intended to be given, and its probable effect in shortening Annie's life. Indeed,
722
initially, a hospice consultant gave evidence that he considered the proposed course of treatment to amount to euthanasia. But he later changed his mind, and all the doctors, the lawyers and the learned judge agreed that what was proposed was lawful. The doctor decided he could safely give appropriate treatment when Annie begins to be unable to swallow. And the case was withdrawn.
Reasonable legal certainty is especially important where a patient is suffering from a terminal illness and facing the prospect of experiencing severe suffering and indignity. Patients have the right to life. They also have the right to personal autonomy and to live and die with dignity. They and their doctors need to know what exception there is to the law of homicide enabling a doctor, acting in accordance with his patient's wishes, and the doctor's judgment as to the appropriate medical treatment, to administer that treatment, even though its probable effect will be to shorten the patient's life. Unless the criminal law and good medical practice are reasonably clear, conscientious doctors, seeking to act in the best interests of their patients, are left in a state of uncertainty and anxiety. They may be hesitant or unwilling to give appropriate treatment in accordance with their patients' wishes.
A person who kills, with that as his intention, is guilty of murder, even though he may have been motivated by a desire to end another's suffering or to give effect to the other person's clearly and honestly-held wishes. In deciding whether there is the mental element necessary for murder, foresight of the consequences is evidence of the existence of a criminal intent. The greater the probability of death as a consequence, the more likely it is that it was foreseen, and the greater the probability that it was also intended.
There is no culpable homicide where there was legal justification or excuse. The problem is to know the nature and extent of the legal justification or excuse for what would otherwise be homicide in relation to the medical treatment of the terminally ill.
Where a doctor acts in accordance with what he considers to be responsible medical practice, with the aim of relieving pain or severe distress but with the probable consequence of shortening the patient's life, the risk to the doctor is that the jury, as directed by the judge on currently declared principles, will impute the necessary specific intent to find him guilty of culpable homicide, and the judge will have to impose a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
The ancient theological doctrine of double effect, brought into English law by Mr. Justice Devlin in his summing up to the jury in the Bodkin Adams case, attempts to cover administering drugs necessary for the relief of a patient's pain or severe distress in the knowledge that a probable consequence is a shortening of the patient's life.
The Select Committee observed that, if the doctor's intention is the relief of severe pain or distress, and the treatment given is appropriate to that end, the double effect should be no obstacle. They considered that juries can readily assess whether there was any reason to suspect that the doctor's real intention was to kill the patient rather than to relieve pain and suffering.
But there are several problems. First, where the probable consequence is to shorten life the law will usually infer a criminal intent. Reference to double effect and primary intent do not explain the nature or scope of the exception of lawful justification or excuse. Secondly, the concept of what is meant by "severe distress" can be interpreted generously by some doctors (as in Annie's case) or narrowly (as in her friends' case). Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, observed during the debate on the Select Committee's report, the argument that the doctor's intention is to relieve pain and that the subsequent death is a side-effect sounds to many like a prevarication. The noble Baroness said:
"If you know, or are reasonably certain, that an undesirable consequence will follow from what you intend to do, then in normal circumstances you are held responsible both for what you do and for the undesirable consequences. So, for example, if you know that your cat will almost certainly die if you spread weed killer on his favourite haunts, then you can hardly be absolved from responsibility for his death by claiming that all you intended was to kill the dandelions".—[Official Report, 9/5/94; col. 1376.]
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that it would be better to recognise that the doctor is prepared to take a risk that the patient will die; that is, to admit that the doctor is making a value judgment. In her words:
"judging that the relief of pain in the particular case is of more important value than the preservation of life. In other words, he is judging that the quality of the patient's life of pain is so low as to justify the probability of its coming swiftly to an end".—[Col. 1377.]
The doctor must surely have a defence to a prima facie case of murder based on foresight of consequences where the patient's life is an intolerable burden to her, the patient is dying, and the only humane treatment left is one which has death as its consequence. There is surely a defence if the doctor satisfies the jury of three matters: first, the fact that he administered the treatment in good faith for the purpose of relieving his patient's pain, suffering and severe distress; secondly, the fact that the treatment was given with the patient's informed consent; and, thirdly, the fact that the treatment administered accorded with accepted medical practice. That was the gist of Annie's case.
This approach avoids any artificial distortion of the well-established legal concepts of intention and causation. It has the crucial advantage of providing much greater certainty than would an approach based on the vague and confusing standard of "primary" and "secondary" intentions. I hope that the Minister's reply will confirm that he accepts that that is a correct approach and, if not, why it is mistaken.
The present legal uncertainty is compounded by the absence of any published guidance as to the policy of the prosecuting authorities. It is surely not sufficient guidance to the medical profession dealing with terminally ill patients merely to say: "Do what you consider to be medically and ethically correct, even though what you do is likely to shorten life, and take the risk of criminal prosecution on the basis of the concept of 'double effect' or 'primary intent"'.
It is also unsatisfactory that there is no adequate guidance to doctors from the BMA, even though it is crucial to a doctor's defence to a charge of homicide that he acted in accordance with a responsible body of medical practice. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Government will encourage giving guidance both about prosecution policy and good medical practice.
The humane approach is surely that of the President of the Family Division, Sir Stephen Brown, in his judgment yesterday in baby C's tragic case. The President observed that,
"whilst the sanctity of life is vitally important, it is not the paramount consideration"
—in such a case. He gave leave to treat baby C, as advised by her doctor, including,
"palliative care to ease her suffering, and permit her life to end peacefully and with dignity".
The same compassionate approach should surely also apply to the treatment of terminally ill adult patients of sound mind.
7.56 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing the debate. The essence of his argument is that there is a lack of clarity over the management of people who are dying. There is no lack of clarity, however, among the thousands of palliative care doctors and nurses. I have been in practice for 40 years and have never come across lack of clarity. I am very much associated with a hospice in the East End for those dying of Aids and have never come across any lack of clarity there.
There are many aspects in the distress of a dying patient—physical, mental, spiritual; all great anxieties—but they can all be dealt with in different ways. If a drug is required, we can try to establish the appropriate medication to relieve the specific symptoms. Sometimes it takes a few days to adjust the dose of the drug. But when the correct dose is achieved, it usually remains at the same level; it is rarely necessary to go on increasing it. Once a patient is free of pain, he or she often lives longer than they would have done if they had not had an analgesic. Pain itself is a killer. On the other hand, occasionally the doses required are so great that it is possible that the patient's life would be shortened by a small amount in order to achieve their comfort—the so-called "double effect".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, sought the ruling of the court and the treatment available to Annie Lindsell. When the case came before the court, we were told that her doctor was seeking the permission of the court to administer drugs to relieve her mental and physical distress during the final stages of the disease. Why go to the High Court to ask permission for a procedure which is carried out numerous times every day in hospices throughout the land? Why not consult a specialist in palliative or motor neurone disease or, better still, both? Indeed, when the case ended, permission was granted for the doctor to administer 10mg of diamorphine every 12 hours. That is less than the doses which are regularly legally given by doctors throughout the land caring for their patients.

725
Then came the most puzzling part of the case. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, proudly told the media, "We won what we wanted." Far from winning what they wanted, I suggest that it was a failed attempt to legalise euthanasia in this country through case law. Annie Lindsell was seeking a judicial review legalising medically supervised voluntary euthanasia. I suggest that at the start of the proceedings the court was actually asked to permit such large doses of analgesics that they could only have resulted in the death of Miss Lindsell, thereby her becoming the first legal case of euthanasia in the United Kingdom. However, the court and its advisers saw through that. It rather looks as if those in favour of euthanasia are deliberately seeking to change our statute law by causing confusion and public anxiety and by discrediting the current legal framework; and they hope to do it through the courts. The general secretary of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society stated a short while ago that he felt Parliament would not have the courage to change the law and that change would have to come through the courts. That is exactly what happened in Holland. Those who advocate a change in the law would like to see something along Dutch lines. That is why they find our current law unacceptable. They want to keep intentional killing illegal in statute but allow it to be permitted in certain circumstances for those who want it.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, perhaps I may say that the custom of the House is that if a noble Lord stands up to intervene, like the noble Lord, Lord Lester has just done, he should be allowed to speak.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take that point. However, in fairness to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, he has only four minutes.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, such are the customs of the House that if I wish to ask a short question, it will not count against the noble Lord's four minutes. The noble Lord has, I think, impugned the integrity of those involved in the case. Is the noble Lord aware that at the conclusion of the case, when a costs order was sought against the doctor and the patient on the basis that the case should never have been brought, the president was so satisfied that it was properly founded that he did not even hear argument on the matter but rejected it? Was the noble Lord aware of that when he made those statements just now?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: No, my Lords, I was not aware of it. But I still think that there was no need at all to bring the case. And that is the view of a large number of people.
If one lesson has emerged from the Dutch experiment in recent years, it is that 1,022 patients were given euthanasia in one year without their specific permission. That is what will happen here. To change the law to allow intentional killing—to permit euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide, mercy killing, or whatever it is called—can only result in the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the doctor and the patient. The law needs no change here.
8.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House. It is one that needs to be revisited from time to time if only to remind us of the sanctity of life, given to us by God himself, and as such a gift to be revered and cherished. Furthermore, it provides the opportunity to reaffirm the position of the House of Bishops of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, who in their joint submission to the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Medical Ethics just four years ago stated:
"Both Churches are resolutely opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia even though it may be put forward as a means of relieving suffering, shortening the anguish of families or friends, or saving scarce resources".
That stance is unchanged.
The Churches went on to say, however, that there is a proper distinction to be made between deliberate killing and the shortening of life through the administration of painkilling drugs. Neither of the Churches holds that a dying or seriously ill person should be kept alive by all possible means for as long as possible. There is a correct and fundamental distinction between that which is intended and that which is foreseen and not intended. This is not just a matter of semantics. Doctors have long recognised that the use of drugs in certain cases to relieve pain in terminally ill people has hastened death and the important consideration has always been the intention behind the administration of drugs. The primary intention is the relief of pain and suffering; the secondary consequence is an earlier death. If there were drugs available which relieved pain but did not hasten death, then those would, of course, be used in preference.
This principle, clarified by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, was reiterated by Sir Stephen Brown, President of the Family Division, at the end of October in the distressing case of Miss Lindsell, suffering from motor neurone disease, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred. Although that was hailed as a victory for patients all over the country, it is surely clear that Sir Stephen's judgment was simply a restatement of the law as it already exists.
I submit that the current state of the criminal law and medical practice hold properly balanced a subject of deep medical and ethical significance. Those who become vulnerable through illness or disability deserve special care and protection, and adherence to this overriding principle provides a fundamental test as to what constitutes a civilised society and inevitably conflicts with those who believe in the right of individuals to exercise absolute personal autonomy.
I urge Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the necessary resources are available to all those who offer palliative care and also to the valued hospice movement which has enabled so many to die with dignity and brought real comfort to their families. As one Canadian report succinctly concluded:
"We owe it to the dying to support and care for them as they pass through the valley of the shadow of death, and not to kill them".
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I want to begin my maiden speech with my most sincere thanks to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their kind welcome and their warm offers of help to me. However, I also want to take this opportunity to thank the House for its help and support over a number of years, and not just since I have been a Member of it. I refer to my relationship with the House in my role as chief executive of the Carers National Association. I have sat many hours below the Bar or in the Gallery or in committee rooms listening to debates and questions relating to carers' issues. I am very grateful for the understanding and support which the House has always shown to caring issues, and especially for the cross-party nature of that support. As I stand here this evening, I remember, above all, the wonderful contribution made to this issue by the noble Baroness, Nancy Seear, so much missed, I am sure, by your Lordships, by me personally, and by the carers movement in general, for her wisdom and her commitment to the carers' cause.
Given the tradition of the House that maiden speeches should be uncontroversial, your Lordships will not be surprised to know that I do not intend to address some of the more difficult issues that we are debating tonight. But neither will your Lordships be surprised to know that I want to make my remarks on carers and remind your Lordships that for every terminally ill person there is very likely to be a family member who is involved, who is concerned with and about the legal and medical decisions which are under consideration. These families, too, have needs which go beyond their need for support in the distressing circumstances in which they find themselves. They need communication and they need involvement.
The issue of communicating with relatives is, I know, a difficult one, surrounded as it is with issues of confidentiality and loyalty to the patient who is terminally ill. However, too many relatives complain of lack of information—information given too late or given in a form which is incomprehensible. This is particularly the case where the patient is being cared for in an institution which is not especially sensitive to the needs of the terminally ill. The hospice movement, which started in this country and is so admired throughout the world, has a proud record of taking a holistic view of the family when someone is dying, but we should remember that 50 per cent. of deaths take place in hospitals which may not be specialists in palliative care.
I am not necessarily suggesting that information is deliberately withheld—often such decisions are made from the very best of motives—but the result is that the carers often feel bewildered by medical processes and confused by their surroundings. This bewilderment and confusion may be conveyed to their dying relative and can be avoided by a few minutes of a doctor's or nurse's time taken to offer simple explanations and acknowledgement of the family's concerns. "I'd been married to him for 35 years", said one carer, "and nursed him for the last six, but I just didn't feel involved in his dying at all. All the doctors and nurses somehow took over and made me feel like a spectator".
728
Families do not want to be spectators. They want guidance about how open they can be with their relative and they want guidance about the opportunities they should have to help patients talk through their own fears. Too often families feel that they have to be cheerful and pretend to be brave and strong and thus have no opportunity to share their sadness. People fear that death will be violent and traumatic since most of us have no experience of what death is like. As one widower said:
"I didn't want the medical jargon—I just wanted to know how long she had and, most of all, would she be in pain and would I be able to cope".
We should not ignore the real fears which relatives have about how they themselves will cope with bereavement. Those fears are not confined to the emotional aspects of bereavement; the practicalities are important too, but what we must take most account of are the feelings between the terminally ill and their relatives.
Caring arises from a relationship. If you were not already in a relationship with someone, you would never become their carer. We all know that family relationships are very varied in their quality and their history. I would never suggest that they are all sweetness and light, but they are certainly often characterised by love and strong concepts of duty.
I beg your Lordships not to believe those who tell you that families do not care any more. Almost 7 million people in this country willingly take on the difficult task of caring for a relative and the way in which the end of that relationship is managed during a terminal illness is of vital importance. Surveys have shown that one of the major concerns of dying people is not the legal and medical issues—problematic though they are—but the overwhelming feelings of guilt they feel about being a burden to their caring relatives.
In conclusion, I am asking for involvement of relatives; not necessarily involvement in the very difficult decisions with which the debate is concerned but involvement in the sense that their feelings, their anxieties and their ability to contribute to a peaceful end of their relationships are borne in mind. If this is done, they can be seen as a resource for the hard-pressed professionals, not as a nuisance or as another problem to be dealt with. Above all, they can be a resource for the dying patient, enabling them to die peacefully and in the knowledge that these family relationships—which are, after all, the source of most caring in our society—are acknowledged and valued.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on, as one would expect, a most well informed maiden speech. I congratulate her also on her compassion and excellent delivery. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we hope to hear much more from her in the future.
In four minutes, I shall have to put my argument quickly but, speaking as a philosopher, one of the essential points here is to distinguish things that differ. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is not raising any general questions about euthanasia; nor about

729
changing the law. He is simply seeking to clarify the specific way in which doctors and nurses may lawfully treat certain patients who are terminally ill and whose life in any case is certain to be short and is likely also to end in acute distress. I emphasise that word "distress" and the word "misery" because we are not speaking only about pain.
I emphasise the specific nature of the discussion because it is terribly easy to get carried away into suggestions that any possibly life-shortening procedure will start a descent down a slippery slope at the bottom of which lies the pit of putting to death those we think are not worth keeping alive. However, the slippery slope does not threaten us if what we are talking about is clarifying the right of the terminally ill to die peacefully.
My argument is that value judgments are involved here, on the part of the doctor, the patient and those who are caring for the patient. My hope is that the law should be so clarified that it will not seem to contradict or nullify such value judgments. The judgment involved is simply that to alleviate the patient's suffering is more important than to allow his life to continue for a few more days or weeks, whatever his suffering may be. What is at issue is not when, but how, the patient dies.
Part of the patient's suffering may well be the dread that he feels of dying by choking or by suffocation. As I know from personal and recent experience, a patient may be horrified by the thought of a particular manner of death even though he is stoical and realistic about the inevitability of death sooner rather than later. For such a patient, the reassurance from his doctor that that horrible death does not await him—that he, the doctor, will not allow it to happen—is an enormous relief and he can settle as calmly and as peacefully as his situation allows to face the short future.
It is important to recognise that the part of compassion here is to promise that the most horrible suffering will not occur. This entails that the doctor must claim to know both what the progress of the disease will bring if no extra steps are taken and that he is able to take such steps as will prevent what it is that the patient fears. I now believe that we ought to have it made clear for us that medical guidelines and prosecution policy will allow that such knowledge may be avowed by the doctor, and acted upon. I do not wish to see prolonged the use of the argument from double effect, but I do not have the time now to go into the details of that argument; nor do I want to go into the yet more shifty argument that the doctor does not actually know what will happen.
The point that I want to make crystal clear is that even if the doctor knows that the alleviating treatment will shorten the patient's life, if he judges that the alleviation of suffering is more important, he will not be liable to prosecution.
Finally, if that point can be clarified, I believe it to be of the utmost importance that the training of doctors should be a training in such compassion and that they should be taught that relieving suffering and fear are as important a part of their professional duty as prolonging life in the extreme situation of terminal illness. This would not be a licence for wholesale euthanasia; it
730
would be to provide the possibility of the explicit judgment that peace and the absence of fear may be of more value than a day, a week or a month of mental and physical torture.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am neither a lawyer nor a doctor. In this matter I am a complete layman. However, as I understand the law, there does not appear to be any need for a change. I understand that a doctor may give whatever medication he genuinely believes is needed to relieve a patient's pain or suffering, even to the extent of sedation to keep the patient asleep. Provided that treatment of the patient is the doctor's intention and that it is in the patient's best interest, even if that treatment may shorten life, it is legally right and proper for the treatment to be given. When my time comes, I hope that no one will strive officiously to keep me alive, but will endeavour to reduce any pain that there might be at the time.
We all suffer pain from time to time, sometimes for long periods, and we recognise that pain is very tiring and that that fatigue of itself may well shorten life. The relief of pain in many cases will, I expect, give the patient a slightly longer and more comfortable life. Certainly, there will be a more dignified death.
I understand that although advances in pain relief have been dramatic in recent years, hospices have been accused of being able to help only 95 per cent. of patients suffering from pain. According to Dr. Robert Twycross, Macmillan Clinical Reader in Palliative Medicine at the University of Oxford, that is an inaccurate statement. Speaking in July this year he stated:
"The bottom line is making the unbearable bearable, and this is readily achievable with skill, imagination and determination in approximately 95 per cent. of cases. In the remainder, approximately 5 per cent., it is much harder to achieve this goal, but that does not mean that the patient 'cannot be helped' or is not to be helped. In extreme situations, patients will receive sedation to keep them asleep, around the clock if necessary, in order to ease the intolerable physical and/or mental distress. No one need die in agony. It is not necessary to legalise mercy killing/euthanasia to make this claim [a] reality".
I have a feeling that those in favour of euthanasia tend to muddy the waters, and wish to muddy the waters, in order to obtain a change in the law. I hope that the Government will resist that and not make any change.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for initiating this debate. I have relied very heavily on the report of the Committee on Medical Ethics of 1994. I am not an expert or a lawyer. I must rely on the expertise of the House, and there is none better. The noble Lord who initiated the debate seems to be unclear about the position. Lawyers do not appear to understand what ordinary laymen like myself have understood since the production of that report. Certainly, doctors are well aware of the findings of that report and what happens in practice.
I have visited hospitals and seen the practical outcome of the recommendations of that report of 1994. I have spoken to doctors and Macmillan nurses who work in

731
hospitals. There is no lack of knowledge or understanding in the profession; nor is there any lack of knowledge in the hospice movement. Without doubt this country has the finest hospice movement in the world. In all of these cases I should like to see the Government provide greater support to spread this knowledge which is available to most people but apparently not to those in the legal profession where it is most necessary.
I agree with the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I do not know whether it is deliberate or whether it is part of a campaign, but there appears to be reliance on High Court cases to try to change the law, not through Parliament but through case law as has happened in the Netherlands. The results have been disastrous, not only for the law but for patients, their families and everyone concerned. I hope that we shall resist the temptation to go down that road.
I read this case from start to finish. The noble Lord who initiated the debate said that "we had won everything that we wanted". Those were his exact words. I did not understand it. What they had won was already there. The law is quite clear, and that court case proves it. The case collapsed because the Official Solicitor, the judge and everybody said that there was no need for a court ruling. They understood it. I do not know why the legal representatives of that poor, sad patient, for whom they had the greatest sympathy, did not understand it. Nor did the doctor understand it, if he is quoted correctly. Those of us who are interested in these matters understand it but we do not know why others cannot understand it. I hope that no positive move is made in the direction of building up case law to try to change the law on euthanasia rather than pursuing the parliamentary process. I hope that I am wrong but I have my suspicions that that is the case.
If there is lack of knowledge in this area I ask the Government to ensure that information is made available to everyone. That may well be done by improving the facilities available to the hospice movement, increasing the funding of GP services and the training of GPs to make them better informed than certainly one of them appears to be and improving the understanding of some in the legal profession. Have the Government any views on how those people can be made aware of what is already known to most others about help that can be given to many in dire circumstances at the moment? Patients, relatives and others who do not understand the position are being misled by others who should understand it. The Select Committee thoroughly examined all of these issues. I hope that the Government will reaffirm their confidence in the recommendations of that report and do what they can to publicise the results.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the House is indeed grateful to the noble Lord for giving it the opportunity to discuss this most crucial of issues—that of life and death—and to hear the views of the Government as they are now set out.
732
As I understand it, the current state of the criminal law is contained in the judgment of Lord Devlin in the Adams case in 1957:
"A doctor consents to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain"—
I stress the next words—
"even if the measures might incidentally shorten life by hours or perhaps longer".
Forty years later—about three weeks ago—Dr. David Oliver, medical director of a hospice, emphasised in a letter to The Times of 11th November concerning the court case involving Annie Lindsell—whose name, very understandably, has been raised by most speakers—that it was standard practice in hospices and specialist palliative services and should be made available to any person with advanced motor neurone disease, cancer or other terminal illness to use carefully adjusted doses of morphine, diamorphine or other medicines to relieve pain, breathlessness or other symptoms. He pointed out that the average duration of the use of morphine at home for patients with motor neurone disease was 240 days, about two thirds of a year. The average duration of the use of diamorphine by injection was two days. One recognises the difference.
The conclusion of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics published in 1994 was that,
"there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia, nor the creation of a new offence of mercy killing".
Many noble Lords have already concurred with that conclusion.
However, the need for a new judicial forum to handle cases concerning medical treatment of incompetent patients is to be supported. I do not believe that other noble Lords have touched on this matter but it is a big subject. I believe that the point should be made in this debate. It was clear from the evidence received that there was a need for the removal of the mandatory life sentence for murder, particularly in those rare cases where, say, a relation had felt compelled to assist a patient to die other than a natural death. For instance, that relative could receive a suspended sentence. I believe that special care must be given to those cases. One cannot just write it off and say that the law is satisfactory. The law may be satisfactory but one must recognise that there are elements on the fringes of this debate which must be considered and dealt with.
The medical treatment of terminally ill patients has undergone fundamental change in recent years, even since 1994. First, it is no longer left solely to a doctor but includes the healthcare team and the patient who can consider the suitable and available options. That is very important. Secondly, the increase in methods of palliative treatment in the past 25 years, including advances in the application of medical technology in the past few years, has shown that as at 1994 under 1 per cent. of cases had not received relief from pain in the course of dying. A great tribute is due to Dame Cicely Saunders, a continuing provider of care, interest and concern. The many improvements in palliative care are due so much to her initiative.

733
Proposals in the report, continued research, extension of the opportunity for palliative care from hospices to other hospitals throughout the land, and the possibility for doctors and healthcare staff to continue medical treatment needed for the relief of pain—all are proposals which have been encouraged and supported. I hope that the Government will be able to say some words in response. In conclusion, the task of the doctor is to cure and to care. That principle must remain paramount.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I would like to express, as many others have done, my thanks to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing this debate. In doing so he is reflecting a debate which is going on in the community at large. Some years ago, in an eminent book on medical ethics, a chapter was introduced with the comment that we are now in an age of anxiety so far as ethics are concerned. When it came to re-publication of the book some years later it was described not as an age of anxiety but as an age of ethical crisis. Whether one entirely subscribes to that or not, there can be little doubt that there has been a change in the situation.
I recall as a junior doctor finding myself on a number of occasions having to deal with these kinds of matters. After struggling with them and, often in collaboration with the patient, coming to a conclusion as to how we should act, I felt that I was doing the right thing. In most cases I believe that together we probably did do the right thing. In listening to the challenging and very distinguished maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, it seems to me that she has pointed out that there has been something of a change in development. For now, families, carers and the rest of the circle want to be involved in these matters, and there has been a development in the technology of the treatment such that we can extend life in a way in which it simply was not possible in the past.
It seems to me that in this context it is not sufficient to depend on legal and professional approaches of a previous generation. When I find many noble Lords saying that thus it has been and thus it should continue to be, it seems to me that what is being expressed is a deep sense of anxiety about the difficulties with which we must now necessarily struggle because of these new situations where patients and their relatives are no longer prepared merely to leave it in the hands of lawyers and the law or indeed in the hands of doctors and their art. They want to be involved and they want to struggle with the questions. I see this debate as part of our struggle as a society to deal with these new elements and developments, not elements to leave our principles behind but rather an opportunity to apply our fundamental principles in a new, changing and developing situation.
As we struggle to look at these things, it is not wise for us to polarise the debate into extreme positions, but rather to realise that it is rarely the more extreme positions that provide the difficulty. They are often the clearest. It is the more complex cases which often provide the greatest struggle and the greatest difficulty and problem in reaching a conclusion.
734
It seems to me that this uncertainty in dealing with things is also leading to a problem in the community. While the family circle and patients want to be involved in the whole matter, they are complex issues and we all find them so. For example, some are finding the question of the involvement of medication such as morphine confusing. Realising the possibility of double effect, some are now beginning to request that morphine not be used, even though it may get rid of pain, as there is a fear about some of its other effects. It seems to me that this is an expression of people wanting to struggle with the difficulties but fearful because the knowledge is not entirely there and we have not found our way through to dealing with the complexity of these issues.
I do not wish to go on at length because many other and much more distinguished noble Lords have contributions to make much above what I have to say. It seems important to me that as we struggle to deal with these things we should not allow ourselves, in the anxiety of the problems with which we have to deal, to depend on the answers we gave in previous times when the profession of medicine simply stood on its dignity and was able to say, "I am doing a great thing and I should not have to explain myself to anyone else who knows less." The medical profession is struggling with these issues, working with patients and working with the family circle. Medical training now involves a greater degree of training and exploration of medical ethics in collaboration with philosophers, theologians and others in our medical schools. This is good because it is struggling with the difficult questions, but it does not mean that an answer is easily forthcoming. It places on all of us a bounden moral duty to continue to struggle with the increasingly difficult questions.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, as many speeches have shown, this debate overlaps the debate on the Select Committee on Medical Ethics held on 9th May 1994. Just as the debate and the whole surrounds of that committee were subject to misinterpretation and misreporting in some areas, so I fear this debate may suffer in the same way. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, made the point that she made at the beginning of her contribution.
I wish to say a word about palliative care because that is referred to in the Question. The best definition I have seen of that was given by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services to the Select Committee which said,
"Palliative care:
—affirms life and regards dying as a normal process;
—neither hastens nor postpones death;
—provides relief from pain and other distressing symptoms;
—integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care;
—offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible until death;
—offers a support system to help the family cope during the patient's illness and in their own bereavement".
I reaffirm those wise words and I hope that nothing is said, either in or about this debate, to detract from them.

735
I am sorry that the sensible and responsible conclusions of that Select Committee, particularly its clear conclusion,
"that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia"
are not more widely accepted throughout the country. But, alas, the euthanasia lobby rolls on and I would not be at all surprised if our debate today is muddled or misrepresented by supporters of euthanasia.
Another wise conclusion of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics was:
"We strongly recommend the development and growth of palliative care services in hospices, in hospitals and in the community".
Let me declare an interest as a rather inactive president of Help the Hospices and immediately offer the warmest possible tribute to the Duchess of Norfolk who, by her efforts and example, has helped the hospice movement in our country become such a notable national achievement. We really do lead the world in this area. Perhaps my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk would tell his wife with what affection and admiration she is held by all of us who know of or have benefited from her work with Help the Hospices. Of course, none of us must ever forget the pioneering work of Dame Cicely Saunders, a truly wonderful lady, and all those who are participating in hospice work.
Euthanasia is the enemy of the hospice movement, as recent experience in Holland, referred to by my noble friend on the Front Bench, shows only too well. I am resolutely opposed to any change in the law to facilitate euthanasia. I would like to see a growing partnership, better training and closer co-operation between the voluntary hospice movement and the NHS, for in the long term that relationship will lead to steady improvements in palliative care, and as that improves so the demands for euthanasia will, I believe, reduce.
I hope that the noble Lord who introduced this Question tonight will endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said about this not being in any way a debate about euthanasia. It is on a fairly narrow legal point that he seemed to be raising these issues and I hope that it does not lead to any misunderstanding or muddle outside this House. Perhaps in his reply he could make that clear.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and although I have no final word, perhaps I may say that I agree with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, and have nothing to add.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, notwithstanding that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the fact remains, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, has told us, that there will of course be some confusion outside this House about the issues which are before us, not least because many will recall that hard cases make bad laws. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, there are some
736
undying principles, one of which is the sanctity of human life. Those principles are timeless. They do not need to be reviewed from generation to generation.
I was struck that in the previous Session your Lordships under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, produced such an excellent report on euthanasia. After 20 oral hearings and over 60 written submissions, unanimous agreement was reached. I am disappointed that there is such an orchestrated and calculated attempt to resurrect the issue and to try to legalise the killing of the infirm.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, instigated today's debate, because he claims that the law in relation to the palliative treatment by doctors and nurses of the terminally ill is unsatisfactory. He of course acted as amicus curiae (an impartial friend of the court) in the tragic case of Tony Bland. That Liverpool supporter, desperately injured at Hillsborough in 1989 was, as noble Lords will recall, starved to death. The noble Lord argued:
"the artificial prolongation of corporeal existence"
may degrade and demean humanity. He stated that life was only valuable as a vehicle for consciousness. That defines humanity and equates life with the ability to think. Insensibility becomes a fate worse than death itself and even becomes a disqualification for life.
In the Bland judgment in 1992 the noble Lord won the day, despite a number of Law Lords expressing serious reservations about the case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, stated:
"the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration was designed to bring about death. That was why it was done".
The noble and learned Lord continued:
"It was decided that it was time he died".
For the first time then the courts crossed the line and legally sanctioned the intentional killing of a patient; that is, euthanasia. The extension of the noble Lord's argument, logical enough if one accepts the basic premise, came in a recent edition of the Lancet. A leading physician, Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, suggested that patients in a persistent vegetative state should be given lethal injections and their organs taken for transplants.
So now we have it. If someone becomes insensible we can avoid the costs and inconvenience of hospices, about which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and others have talked, and rather than waste one's mortal remains by starving one to death, one will be used instead as a rich source of organs. The flaws in the argument revolve around questions of consent, the commissioning of doctors and nurses as killers, and the fundamental question of what constitutes life itself.
When Tony Bland was injured at Hillsborough, three people who were then my constituents were killed. One was a child. Another, Andrew Devine, like Tony Bland, went into a deep coma. In the Guardian newspaper of 26th March this year it was reported that after eight years Andrew Devine had become aware of his surroundings and was communicating with his family. The Guardian reported also on another case, of a man who had been thought to be in a state of PVS for some

737
seven years. Last March, Andrew Devine's family was able to talk publicly about the improvements that had taken place in his life. Imagine the appalling pressures which would have been placed on his family if the present presumptions in the law were overturned. There is a clear line between killing and letting die. The present law recognises that. "Care" and "kill" cannot be used as synonyms.
Last month, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, no longer an impartial adviser to the court, but now retained by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, went to the court. He tried, as we have heard, to obtain permission for the doctor of Annie Lindsell, who suffers from motor neurone disease, to administer drugs which would relieve her mental and physical distress during the final stages of the disease. The case collapsed because it was agreed that under the principle of double effect no court ruling was needed.
Collapsed court cases which uphold the existing law do not come cheap. In an appeal letter, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society says that the case could cost some £50,000. Out of the jaws of defeat, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said in a speech with which I agree entirely, the noble Lord said:
"We won what we wanted".
What is it that the VES wants?
Dr. Michael Irwin, chairman of the VES, was pictured in the summer holding a customised exit bag, and claimed to have helped 50 people die. He told the Daily Telegraph:
"I do not believe I can be convicted".
Ms. Lindsell herself says that she wants "medically supervised voluntary euthanasia".
As the BMA has trenchantly recognised, euthanasia is morally, legally and ethically unacceptable. In a civilised society it should stay that way.
8.45 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on her maiden speech. There is a happy tradition in this House that every maiden speaker is helped. The House stays silent. The doors are closed. Then Peers say how much the speaker has contributed, and how wonderful it is to have such a speaker with us. That may be a formality, but in the noble Baroness's case that is a meaningful sentiment. I thank her very much.
I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for bringing this subject to our notice. I do not agree with almost everything he has said. He was concerned with the court case of Annie Lindsell. The court held that there was double effect. The noble Lord then apparently said that he did not believe in double effect and that it was incoherent to talk about it.
That is not the case. The noble Lord criticised the judge's decision. The case was then withdrawn. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society backed Annie Lindsell's case. What is more important it supports the Law Commission's current proposals on mental incapacity. That would make advanced refusals of treatment
738
living wills—legally binding, so making euthanasia available to all. Such a concept amounts to assisting suicide.
The proposed Bill also accepts research procedures on patients without their consent. That may well be contrary to European and international law. I must pay tribute to Dame Cicely Saunders, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, has done. She has done such wonders in this field. She chairs St. Christopher's Hospice. She is a qualified doctor and qualified in many other medical ways. We should all realise that she is the queen of the modern hospice movement.
Dame Cicely Saunders says so simply that the hospice movement helps people to live until they die. That is a simple but wonderful sentiment. I am well acquainted, through my wife's charity—Help the Hospices, for which she raises over £1 million a year—with the fact that hospices assist the terminally ill to die through palliative care without pain. We have an amazing 270 hospices in the country now. We have become, as has been said, the envy of the world with that movement. People flock to England to study us to learn how we do it.
As a Catholic Christian I believe that doctors should continue to follow the ethics of the Hippocratic Oath, to help patients medically and, where possible, to preserve their life. Life is sacred. To change our present laws to allow voluntary or, worse still, involuntary euthanasia, would be a step down a slippery slope which could lead to the killing of the unwanted. That is a horrid thought.
I believe that if we allowed euthanasia to be legal we would be going in the same direction as Holland. The decision in Holland is leading to disastrous situations. I do not want to be dramatic, but if you do not treat life as sacred it leads to doing what Hitler did in the war. I have been to Belsen and Buchenwald and I believe that it is vital to stop sliding down that slope. Do not let us ever bring euthanasia into our laws.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on her maiden speech. I assure her that in the deliberations of the Select Committee, which I had the privilege of chairing, we were very conscious of the need to introduce the concept of the healthcare team, including not only doctors and nurses but also the carers and family members who are all concerned with the management of the patient. In our unanimous decision, we had no doubt whatever that we did not wish to see the legalisation of voluntary or non-voluntary euthanasia to be defined as the deliberate killing of a patient either at the patient's request or, in the incompetent individual, non-voluntary euthanasia for other reasons. We were strengthened in that resolve by what we observed during our visit to Holland.
While we rejected legalised euthanasia we were wholly supportive of double effect. Admittedly, that concept has been criticised by certain philosophers, but we took the view that the professional judgment of the healthcare team could be exercised to enable increasing doses of medication—whether analgesics, sedatives or

739
both—to be given in order to provide relief, even if that had the secondary consequence of shortening life. The essential question was that of distinguishing between motive and intention. If the motive is to relieve pain, distress and suffering with no intention to kill we believe that practice to be wholly acceptable both in medical practice and under the current common law.
I believe that the case which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, discussed tonight and in which he was involved did no more than to strengthen the acceptance of that concept in common law which arose as a result of Lord Devlin's judgment in the Bodkin Adams case many years ago. Like many others who have spoken tonight, I commend the work of the hospice movement, of the palliative care movement. It is not delivered only in hospices as buildings; it is a philosophy of medical care and management which extends widely throughout the country and out into the community.
I do not wish to elaborate on those points because the time is short. However, I disagree with the noble Duke on the issue of advance directives. They are not concerned at all with suicide. The advance directive will enable patients to express in advance their individual preferences and priorities in respect of treatment should they subsequently become incompetent. It is no more and no less than that. They are being increasingly accepted in common law. However, I do not wish—and the BMA agrees with me—to make them legally binding if only because developments in medical treatment may make their content no longer appropriate when the time comes to consider whether they should be relied upon in management.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the issue of the Bland case, where two notable Roman Catholic theologians writing in the Tablet said that the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration in such cases was to be seen as an omission which was not an intending of death but a refusal to continue with inappropriate means of life preservation. However, that issue gave my Select Committee considerable concern. There were those who believed that the withdrawal of hydration and food was the withdrawal of a basic human right. In the end, we decided to recommend that there was no obligation to continue with treatment which added nothing to the well being of an individual as a person.
We would wish the Government to comment upon the major recommendations which we made towards the end of our report to the effect that there was a need for a newly established judicial tribunal, perhaps established along the lines of an expanded court of protection, to examine issues in cases of, for example, the persistent vegetative state.
This has been a useful debate. There is a great deal of biased, ill-informed and misguided comment in the press to suggest that doctors are practising euthanasia. All the evidence that I have been able to obtain suggests that they have been practising double effect. That has been badly distorted in the public press. I believe that euthanasia, whether voluntary or non-voluntary, is abhorrent and I should never wish to see the law of this country changed to legalise it.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for initiating the debate. I have always taken a close interest in developments within the medical field, especially those developments which have a particular bearing on people with disabilities. As some of your Lordships may know, I have a handicapped son and I am concerned about the care of people with disabilities.
Since 1967, when Dame Cecily Saunders founded the modern hospice movement, about 800 specialist palliative care homes and units have been developed in this country. We are widely viewed as the leader in advancing all aspects of care for the terminally ill. The case was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. Indeed, many doctors and nurses from Europe, and other countries beyond, now travel to the United Kingdom to learn from our experience.
I appreciated the intervention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell in his balanced and authoritative speech. Furthermore, I enjoyed the admirable and well informed maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley.
The law relating to the treatment of the terminally ill has been in the news recently. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who introduced this Unstarred Question, played a leading role in a recent case. I do not wish to go into the detail of that particular case, but I would like to quote from a letter published in The Times of 10th November in the aftermath of that case in the High Court. The letter, written by David Oliver, Medical Director of the Wisdom Hospice in Rochester, states:
"A person with a terminal illness should not fear that the only choice is between enduring a distressing death or having their life ended. With good palliative care, addressing the physical and psycho-social issues, death for people with motor neurone disease does not need to be distressing. Symptoms can be controlled by the careful manipulation of medication, without necessarily shortening life".
I believe that it is the job of doctors and nurses to treat and to care and we as a society have no right whatever to call on them to kill. Our perceived inability to provide effective palliative care at the end of a patient's life is, I would say, an erroneous one, and being able to make a patient comfortable at the end of life should be the aim of a decent and caring society. It should not step beyond that and make it into an excuse for assisted suicide.
We should not now be calling into question the criminal law and medical practice in relation to palliative treatment. The law in this area is absolutely clear. We should instead concentrate on the great advances that have been made in palliative medicine and question instead the Government on their plans to help develop further this important area of medicine.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, with the arrival of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, once again carers have a voice in this House. We sadly lost that when we lost the late Lady Seear and Lady Faithful]. For that reason alone, the noble Baroness is very welcome.

741
I had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, which considered a wider range of questions than that posed by my noble friend, which focuses on the interaction of the existing criminal law and on medical practice by doctors and nurses. It is emphatically not a Question about legalising euthanasia or any other form of mercy killing. Certainly I do not understand my noble friend to be arguing for a change in the law, and indeed, I was saddened to hear it suggested, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that that was the case. I understood him to be arguing for a change in the law in so far as he did not accept the outcome of the Bland case in which, I would remind your Lordships, the judges at every level acceded to the application before the court.
Personally, I remain loyal to the conclusions of the committee so long as those conclusions are acceptable to the doctors who have to take those decisions and acceptable to others in the healthcare teams. The BMA is properly concerned about preserving the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors want to be seen as people who kill pain, not patients. My noble friend sought clarity for the medical profession and for those who insure it, who advise it and for prosecutors and coroners and patients and their families. They are all entitled to clarity in those difficult and borderline cases. I support my noble friend's call for guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, asked why it was necessary to go to court in the Lindsell case. I know as little about the facts as perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McColl, but I presume it was because the doctor and the hospice concerned felt unsure of their position and wanted the sanction of the court. It was not for any other motive.
The criminal law, inescapably, is concerned with concepts of intention and causation. The doctrine of double effect has been criticised as sophistry and dependent upon a narrow definition of intention. But it does at least allow a doctor to justify the giving of drugs to alleviate pain which he realises will or may hasten death provided that doctor has confined himself to the question: how much pain relief does this patient now require?
In the trial of Dr. Arthur, the judge directed the jury to think long and hard before concluding that what was standard medical practice was a criminal offence. But that of course begs the question of what is appropriate medical practice in a difficult and borderline case. In the vast majority of cases, doctors and carers can avoid criminal liability because of the doctrine of double effect and because in this country we have a strong and widespread hospice movement and a good system of palliative care, allowing most people to achieve a pain-free death.
My noble friend confronts the difficult minority of cases in which pain and distress are not easily avoided by palliative care; where doctors have to take greater risks and still wish not to be charged with having intended to cause an early death. I do not believe in slippery slope arguments. I understand my noble friend to be seeking a foothold on the slippery slope. The question for the Government must be whether there is
742
sufficient guidance available to doctors from professional bodies, even if that is a guidance which does not appease those who support voluntary active euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide. We do not want a compromise such as in the Netherlands which is based only on vague guidance and an ambiguous legal framework. I regret it may only be a matter of time before there is another case involving someone like Dr. Cox, who was fortunate in avoiding a charge of murder as distinct from attempted murder and, had he been convicted of murder, would have faced a mandatory life sentence.
A partial answer may be to give status to advance directives. A partial answer may be also to give some statutory effect to the doctrine of double effect such as happens in South Australia where statute allows doctors to give life-shortening treatment to the terminally ill with the intention of relieving pain and distress provided that the patient consents; that it is administered in good faith and without negligence; and that it is administered in accordance with proper professional standards of palliative care.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing this debate and, in particular, I offer my congratulations on a notable maiden speech.
I have enormous respect for everyone who has spoken this evening and for the views expressed. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is quite unambiguous. It is to ask the Government:
"whether they are satisfied with the current state of the criminal law and medical practice in relation to the palliative treatment by doctors and nurses of terminally ill patients".
I shall give the answer as directly as I can.
The Government are satisfied that the criminal law and medical practice are appropriate. We do not support the legalisation of euthanasia or mercy killing or any fancy label that may be attached to those practices. I go further with statements of principle which will necessarily be brief. They are not discourteous but my time is limited. This Government believe that matters of clinical judgment are for the professional judgment of the professional bodies and the clinicians involved and not for Government. It is foolish, and I believe it is wrong, for Government to attempt to intervene in those areas.
Questions have been asked about the stance of the Crown Prosecution Service. There is no difficulty whatever about its stance. It states:
"A doctor may not take steps positively to end a patient's life even where such a course of action is consented to by the patient".
I do not detect any difficulty there. The CPS is well aware of the Bland case where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, stated authoritatively that it is an established rule of our law that a doctor may, when caring for a patient who is, for example, dying of cancer, lawfully administer pain-killing drugs despite the fact that he knows that an incidental effect of that application will be to abbreviate the patient's life. I am not a doctor; my brother is. I should not have thought that he would

743
have the slightest difficulty in understanding either of those two plain, simple concepts. I am bound to say that I agree entirely with the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, said.
I do not believe that the doctrine of double effect is at all a sophistry. It is a recognition that in those areas, at those times of great distress, we are dealing with delicate matters. They are matters of fine judgment. They are matters which call for legitimate judgment for clinicians and carers.
The ruling in the Bland case was quite plain: that artificial hydration and treatment, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, reminded us, could be categorised as medical treatment which could lawfully and legitimately be withdrawn if it was not in the patient's best interests to continue to treat him in that way. These are not easy answers, but they are answers that can be arrived at conscientiously by doctors and others who care for the terminally ill.
Perhaps I may, without presumption, entirely endorse the tributes paid to those who deal in hospices and elsewhere with the palliative care of the terminally ill. In fact, it is a fortunate, happy coincidence that on Tuesday of this week my noble friend Lady Jay, the Minister who has responsibility for this area, paid specific tribute to the work of hospices. I respectfully endorse her words. She said:
"Successful partnerships in hospital and palliative care have produced the principles and the practice of palliative care in hospitals, at home, in nursing homes and, of course, within specialist palliative care units or hospices".
She said to those who work in the area:
"You have done this by working with other statutory and voluntary bodies across professional boundaries"—
and this endorses what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said in their remarks—
"always keeping the patient, the family and the carers as the focus. These principles are precisely those on which we wish to move forward towards our goal of high quality compassionate healthcare".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, indicated that the law was difficult or obscure; it is not. A question was raised as to whether a specific court needed to be set up to deal with such issues. I do not believe that a specific designated court is required. I personally pay tribute to the President of the Family Division, Sir Stephen Brown, because he has given judgments which he must recognise are bound to be criticised by one spectrum of the argument or another. He has to maintain the delicate balance. In a case to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, alluded, he said that no declaration was required. He made a declaration earlier this week, as the noble Lord pointed out, in the case of a very small infant.
The courts do approach these matters with scruple and with care, recognising, as I believe one must, that whatever answer a judge comes to is bound, in one
744
sense or another, to be partly wrong, as none of us is divine and, therefore, infallible. However, as a government, we believe that human life is entitled to the fullest, deepest respect. We do not believe that any doctor, upon his conscience and oath, ought to be entitled to administer treatment to any patient in his or her care with the intention of bringing about death. That is not sophistry; it is moral philosophy. Sometimes the consequences will be harsh for the dying patient and sometimes—and I say this with every care—it will be harsher for the relatives of the dying patient. But the fact that a human judgment upon a moral and professional basis brings about harsh consequences does not entitle us to divest ourselves of our responsibilities.
It is said that there is not enough guidance for clinicians. I respectfully disagree. I shall not weary your Lordships at this hour with details because many noble Lords will have the list more readily available than I. But the care of the dying is a central part of the training of doctors. The hospice movement has produced paper after paper dealing with such issues. The sort of debate that we are having this evening informs those—and I say this, again, carefully—who may wish to be informed. However, not everyone is in that happy state.
I do not believe it to be a complacent statement to say that, in the interrelationship between what is lawful—what is permitted—as prescribed by law and the question of clinical judgment, the law must respect the clinician and the clinician must respect the law: both, of course, must respect the dying. They are not easy resolutions to be brought together but they are not impossible. I believe that the examples given this evening, whatever the outcome of the judicial process, illustrate that fact.
We should also bear in mind—and I respectfully concur with what the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, said—that doctors, carers, and nurses, in conjunction with concerned relatives, are coming to these conclusions day in and day out. Occasionally, a headline case goes to court and some of those headline cases then get into newspaper reports. I believe that we have a proper, civilised regime in this country which is as close to being fully acceptable as any of which I know.
Therefore, I return again to the question, having been more economical than I might have been by about three minutes only. The law is perfectly plain. It has been reaffirmed recently in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, which I venture to cite.
"The position, I believe, is plain to the medical profession. The law knows its duties of protecting the vulnerable and I believe—I say this with infinite respect—that the medical profession knows its duties and responsibilities also."
The question of advanced declarations is in a sense a side-track here because no advanced declaration of wishes, at whatever stage it is given, is capable lawfully to suborn the clinician's true professional judgment.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Interest Rate Increases
  Interest Rate Increases
  National Museums: VAT Payments
  National Museums: VAT Payments
  Cold Weather Payments
  Cold Weather Payments
  Drugs Prevention Initiative: Annual Report
  Drugs Prevention Initiative: Annual Report
  War Crimes: Prosecutions in British Courts
  War Crimes: Prosecutions in British Courts
  Army Engineer Resources
  Army Engineer Resources
  Baltic Defence College
  Baltic Defence College
  Scotland: Religious Education in Non-denominational Schools
  Scotland: Religious Education in Non-denominational Schools
  Fish Catches: Discarding
  Fish Catches: Discarding
  Common Fisheries Policy: Reform
  Common Fisheries Policy: Reform
  Company Takeovers: Directive
  Company Takeovers: Directive
  Guinness plc: Costs of Inspectors' Report
  Guinness plc: Costs of Inspectors' Report
  Guinness plc: Inspectors' Brief
  Guinness plc: Inspectors' Brief
  Feral Pigeons and Meningitis
  Feral Pigeons and Meningitis
  Local Authority Secure Accommodation
  Local Authority Secure Accommodation
  Mobile Telephones: Use While Driving
  Mobile Telephones: Use While Driving
  Housing: Redevelopment of Previously Developed Land
  Housing: Redevelopment of Previously Developed Land
  Empty Government-owned Homes
  Empty Government-owned Homes