Sitting of 24 November 1997

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

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Wilkinson: If he will discuss with the Commission of the European Union the processing of applications for asylum status of refugees within member states. [15751]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Government regularly discuss the handling of claims for asylum at a number of European Union forums on which the Commission is represented. In addition, United Kingdom and Commission officials have had preliminary discussions about the United Kingdom's presidency's planned work programme on immigration and asylum.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does the Minister believe that the present position is satisfactory, given that a coachload of gypsies can be taken, at their request, from Dover to seek asylum status in London, whose boroughs are already overburdened with such applications? Is it not time to re-examine the whole procedure at European level? Is article 11 of the Dublin convention—whereby a country to which a refugee first applies for asylum status can pass the applicant on to another country, like the United Kingdom, which is already under enough pressure in that regard—appropriate?
    Mr. O'Brien: The position is far from satisfactory, but we inherited it from the Conservative party. A number of local authorities have had an enormous burden placed on them as a result of the withdrawal of benefits, without much thought, by the previous Home Secretary. We have said that we wish completely to re-examine that problem. We also need to look at the operation of the Dublin convention, which we also inherited. It is proving complex and difficult to make progress on that. There are now provisions that the state concerned must accept responsibility for a case before the refugee can be returned, which makes matters enormously difficult. Article 11 is complicated by other articles in the convention. Basically, the situation that we inherited from the previous Government is a bit of a mess.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend hold urgent talks with his colleagues on the continent about the absurd
    616
    situation that has arisen in relation to ferries, whereby staff are being threatened if they do not urgently take on board people who do not have permission to land in the United Kingdom? That is bizarre and should be remedied as quickly as possible.
    Mr. O'Brien: They are not being threatened by us. Some ferry companies have expressed concerns about instructions that they are receiving at Calais from the local French authorities. I understand that Stena, P and O, and other ferry companies are negotiating with the local authorities in France on that point.
    Mr. Fallon: Why should not Kent county council be fully reimbursed for the cost of looking after bogus asylum seekers and their families? Rather than council tax payers in my constituency having to fork out, why should not ferry companies have to bear the burden of asylum seekers who are subsequently sent home?
    Mr. O'Brien: I have sympathy for Kent, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would admit that the previous Government created the problem. We have been placed in the position of having to pay £140 a week to Kent county council for each adult asylum seeker because benefits were withdrawn. We are reviewing the whole problem, which was created by the previous Government. Although the hon. Gentleman did not serve in that Government, the problem is the responsibility of many of his colleagues on the Conservative Benches.

    Electoral Registration System
    Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the electoral registration system. [15752]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): The House will be aware that my hon. Friend has a distinguished record in the House on raising electoral register issues— [Interruption.].
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is replying to Mr. Barnes, who is right behind him.
    Mr. Howarth: The 1997 electoral register for the United Kingdom had the highest ever number of parliamentary electors registered to vote—44.2 million. We shall examine options for improving the effectiveness of the registration system still further in the coming months and shall consult the other parties in the House on that process.
    Mr. Barnes: Is not this stakeholder idea a good notion, because there could be equal stakeholding in electoral registers for everyone? Millions of people are missing from the electoral registers, disabled people find it difficult to get to polling stations and the homeless face legal impediments to being on the register. Could we have an up-to-date, modern register? That is another good idea—modernisation. We could have it for electoral stakeholders.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is known as one of the great modernisers in the House. He raises some interesting

    617
    ideas, several of which I intend to pursue and one or two of which I do not. If he waits with some patience, he will find out in due course which falls into which category.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I share the view of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), but would the Minister also look at the converse of that point? It seems that, all too often, names are left on registers when people have moved from an area, even years ago. Will he look at the possibility of ensuring that electoral registration officers act together in dealing with that matter, which ought to be solved with the introduction of information technology?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Given the modern databases and computer technology that are available to electoral registration officers, the sort of phenomena that he has described should not happen. Certainly, such considerations will be taken into account during the review that we shall undertake. Hopefully, the practices that are involved in electoral registration can be improved as a result of some of the suggestions that we shall examine.

    Sentencing (Consistency)
    Ms Shipley: What plans he has to ensure greater consistency in sentencing. [15753]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government are committed to implementing an effective sentencing system and consistency in sentencing. I therefore intend to include provisions in the crime and disorder Bill to require the Court of Appeal to consider producing sentencing guidelines when appropriate cases come before it and to review existing guidelines. The provisions will establish a sentencing advisory panel which will offer advice to the Court of Appeal. There will be a statutory duty on the panel to consult those who represent interested bodies, such as victims and the police. Further details of those provisions are set out in a note which I am placing in the Library.
    Ms Shipley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of my early-day motion calling for the reform of rape law? In the context of that and on behalf of the many victims of rape, their families and the support services, I should like to know whether reform of sentencing will include rape sentences. Has my right hon. Friend any plans to reform the Crown Prosecution Service, which is causing many problems for victims and the police force? Can there be a prohibition on the circulation in prisons of the sexual history of victims, because that is causing distress to all concerned and is a completely disgusting practice?
    Mr. Straw: There are already sentencing guidelines. It is one area in which they already exist, following a decision by the Court of Appeal in the Billam case. The problem in rape cases is not so much the sentencing practice of the courts but of securing effective convictions. We are greatly concerned about the way in which women victims and other witnesses in rape cases can sometimes be subjected to the most appalling cross-examination by defendants. For that reason, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the
    618
    Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has announced that we have established a full review of those practices and of whether laws of evidence ought to be changed. We hope to announce the results of that review very quickly. That will deal with the issue of whether a victim's previous sexual history should be adducible in evidence to the extent to which it is today.
    My hon. Friend asked also about the reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General announced in May our determination to press ahead with major reforms of the CPS with the appointment of chief crown prosecutors for each of the police force areas in England and Wales— there are 42—and by establishing a full inquiry into other aspects of the CPS under Sir Iain Glidewell.
    Mr. Ruffley: Is the Home Secretary aware that mandatory minimum sentences of three years for third-time burglars are popular with the public? May I therefore ask him when and how he proposes to implement that sentencing change?
    Mr. Straw: Our position is exactly that of the previous Government. They willed the end, but failed to will the means. It was made absolutely clear in chapter 13 of the White Paper on sentencing, as it was on Royal Assent at the end of March this year, that decisions on implementing that part of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 depended on resources for which the previous Government had not made provision.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that sentences should reflect not only the nature of the crime, but the means and conditions of the offender? For example, in any two motoring cases, one offender might be rich and the other poor and to give them exactly the same sentence would be unfair. Should not the Home Secretary and the courts take into account not only, as I have said, the offender and the crime, but the particular social and economic conditions in that region?
    Mr. Straw: Courts have to take into account a range of factors in coming to a decision on sentence, but the most important factor is the gravity of the crime and the degree of harm or damage caused to the victim. I understand what my hon. Friend says, but sentencing should be capable of greater categorisation and greater use of science. The means of offenders should, of course, be taken into account, but I remain concerned that, when living standards have risen in the past 10 years and unemployment has fallen, the use of the fine has dramatically fallen—half as many fines are issued today as were issued 10 years ago. There is no good reason for that.
    Mr. Beith: While I welcome the Secretary of State's announcements about sentencing, does he recognise that sentencing policy is only as effective as the prison and probation system to which it directs people, and that an overpressed Prison Service cannot work miracles or provide effective rehabilitation? In sentencing, should we not bear in mind what is faced by prison officers in their daily work, not least Friday's 19-hour ordeal involving a prison officer in my constituency at Castington? Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the courage of those involved in bringing that to an end?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of what happened at Castington,

    619
    where a prison officer was taken hostage. I know a good deal about that circumstance. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the great courage of that prison officer in enduring that hostage situation, and to the skill and professionalism of the other prison officers in bringing the hostage situation to a satisfactory and peaceful conclusion, without making any. concessions to the prisoners concerned.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's wider question about prison and probation, of course we have to ensure that all punishment systems work effectively. That is one of many reasons why we are conducting a review of whether the Prison Service and the probation service could and should work much more closely.

    Drug-related Crime
    Mr. Eric Clarke: What estimates he has made concerning the amount of drug-related crime. [15771]
    Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend may be aware that research by the Home Office shows that there is a strong relationship between drugs and crime—indeed, the figures show a much higher relationship than we expected. However, the results of that research are not yet complete. We hope to publish them early in the new year.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate the Government on the appointment of Mr. Hellawell as the anti-drugs co-ordinator—I do not like to call him a tsar because he is no royal; he is certainly not of that ilk. He is to visit Scotland, where drug-related crime is to the fore—police reckon that 70 per cent. of all thefts are drug related. Will the Minister guarantee that Mr. Hellawell will be given full authority to cross all the borders and break down all the barriers to ensure that crime does not pay and that we eradicate the crime of drug taking?
    Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware that the Scotland figures also apply in England and in some parts of Wales. I join him in congratulating Keith Hellawell and his deputy Mike Trace and assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator's writ runs throughout Government. Every year, £500 million of Government money is spent on dealing with the problem. We want to be sure that every pound of that £500 million is spent in the right place, either in treatment or in criminal justice interventions, to ensure that every part of Government works towards eradicating the evil of drugs.
    Mr. Malins: May I help the Minister by telling him that, on best estimates, 40 per cent. of all burglaries are committed by drug addicts, who steal to get money to fund their drug habits? Does he agree that the way that the trend is going means that that statistic can only get worse? Does he further agree that it is important to make our streets an area of zero tolerance on drugs and ensure that our prisons are drugs free? Too many prisoners go into prison as drug addicts, stay as drug addicts and then come out as drug addicts. It is a vicious circle which must be broken.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raised three points. First, the most recent British crime survey showed that
    620
    the incidence of drug taking is not rising, but has levelled off. However, we do not want to be complacent about it. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's figure of 40 per cent. possibly underestimates the relationship between various sorts of acquisitive crime and drug taking; it may be even higher than he suggested.
    Finally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government take very seriously the problem of drugs in prisons. At this very moment, officials at the Prison Service are reviewing all the statistics on drug abuse because we are not sure that they are sufficiently accurate to enable us to take proper action to eradicate the problem in prisons. Let it not be misunderstood—we are very serious about the problem, whether in prisons, on the streets, in clubs or elsewhere. The Government will not tolerate drug abuse and those who fuel it.
    Ms Keeble: What work will be done looking at the problems of young people, especially very young people, and drugs-related crime? Will the drugs tsar be looking at that? Is my hon. Friend aware of the problems on the Blackthorn estate in my constituency where there is a large drugs problem; indeed, there was rioting there earlier this year? Will he or one of his hon. Friends visit the area to talk to people about the problems they face and the real loss in quality of life on that estate?
    Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already visited the area, but I am sure that one of us will be willing to come again if there is a particular problem. My hon. Friend will be aware that we shall shortly introduce measures in the crime and disorder Bill relating to drugs testing and treatment. She may also be aware that the drugs prevention initiative, which is funded by the Home Office, is implementing a number of different and interesting measures, which we are currently assessing. We are keen that community-based initiatives to eradicate drugs on estates and in the wider community should be assessed and evaluated and the best practice possible introduced to deal with the problems.
    Mr. Clappison: The link between drugs and crime is indeed a serious matter, and those who fuel drug abuse are committing serious offences. Will those convicted of offences involving the supply of drugs, who are serving sentences of between three months and four years, be eligible for early release under the Government's tagging scheme?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will already be aware that we have introduced section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which covers the point he raised. He should be under no illusion that we shall deal just as seriously with such problems as the previous Government did. Quite frankly, the problems escalated during the previous Government's period in office, so we shall not take any lessons from Conservative Members. However, we are prepared to work with the Opposition on those issues. If the hon. Gentleman has any serious points to make, we shall listen to them. It is a serious problem, and we take it seriously.

    Mr. Lakhinder Reel
    Mr. McDonnell: If he will review the investigation by the Metropolitan police of the case of the death of Mr. Lakhinder (Ricky) Reel. [15781]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. From what I have been told, however, it appears that the investigation conducted so far by the Metropolitan police service has been thorough and sensitive. The Metropolitan police have promised to follow up any further information that may arise. The Met are also awaiting receipt of the coroner's report. There are no grounds for me to act further at this time.
    Mr. McDonnell: I appreciate the nature of the reply, in view of the coroner's inquest. I am also grateful for the facilities that were provided last Friday for me to meet the investigating officer, with the family present. May I ask the Home Secretary, as the police authority for London, to examine with the Commissioner three policing procedural matters? The first matter is the liaison arrangements between investigating officers in cases in which the police station nearest the home of the missing person is different from the station that is nearest to the location where the person was last sighted; the second is the communication strategy between investigating officers and the family of a missing person; and the third is the impact of major investigations on outer London policing divisions, which have recently suffered personnel losses because of the funding formula for policing in London.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend raises three important issues, which are worthy of consideration, and I am sure that the Commissioner will examine each of them. We have to be careful, however, not to read general points into a specific investigation until we have full information. I reiterate that it is not appropriate to comment further on the detail of the case until the coroner's report has been received.

    Police Officers (Beat Patrol Duties)
    Mr. Hawkins: What proposals he has for increasing the number of police officers allocated to beat patrol duties. [15782]
    Mr. Michael: Ministers have no direct control over police numbers or their deployment. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for the individual chief constable or chief officer to determine the number of police officers in their force. However, we are working with police to reduce administrative burdens and to enable chief constables to put more officers on the beat and back into the community.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister agree with Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who was quoted in a recent article in the New Statesman as saying
    "I don't buy your notion that bobbies on the beat are anachronistic. If it reduces the fear of crime, I have to find ways to satisfy that"?
    622
    Does the Minister agree that—despite the answer that he has already given—it is the Government's responsibility to try to reassure the public that they will see police officers, and that police officers seen on the beat help to deter criminals and reassure the public, which is a crucial part of policing?
    Mr. Michael: What the public want is to see police officers in their community, getting involved in tackling the problems of crime and disorder that have been allowed to grow in recent years. The Metropolitan police, like other police forces across the country, are suffering from the disadvantage of reduced police numbers and the previous Government's failure to keep their promises.
    Mr. Mullin: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is required is not greater resources but more effective use of existing resources? May I draw his attention to the success of Northumbria police, for example, in shifting large numbers of police officers out of bureaucracy—there by also ending a few scams—and back on to the streets? May I draw his attention also to the safer cities programme—it was officially launched today in my constituency—which is reintroducing police officers into some of the most crime-ridden parts of Sunderland? In the 1980s, police effectively abandoned those areas.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend raises some important points. Northumbria has shown the way in some of its approaches to dealing with crime, one of which has been getting police officers back into direct police work. Another one is the way in which Northumbria has worked in partnership with local authorities to tackle and prevent crime. Great gains can be made, which is why we are including a requirement in the crime and disorder Bill for a partnership between police and local authorities in ensuring that we mobilise all the strengths of the community to tackle and prevent crime.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister agree that tackling crime is a matter of both management and resources? Does he agree that, when budgets are squeezed, patrol duties are the most vulnerable part of police activity? Does he agree that patrol cuts are a result of the previous Government's lamentable failure to match their promises with action by putting policemen back on to forces? Will he give an assurance that, after next year's police settlement, there will be more officers—not less— on the beat?
    Mr. Michael: My only quibble is that the hon. Gentleman should have said "fewer" police officers rather than "less". There was a failure by the previous Government, and it is a matter both of resources and deployment. We want police officers deployed to tackle the problems of crime and disorder experienced by the community. The Audit Commission did draw the conclusion to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention, but it also said that patrolling must be purposeful; it is not just a question of police officers standing at the end of the street or patrolling without purpose—there must be targeted activity aimed at the prevention of crime and disorder.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If this is an exercise in reassuring communities that they can feel safe, why is

    623
    there not a substantial increase in the number of special constables who have always been supported by the general public and who, I understand, are cheap and effective in comparison to full-time policemen? Is it not the case that they allow us to concentrate our resources during peak periods of the week when crime is rife?
    Mr. Michael: Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. We want not only to reassure communities but to tackle the crime and disorder that is causing them problems. It is a question of being effective, not only of providing reassurance.
    My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to say that we value the work of the special constabulary very highly. Early next year, we shall be actively promoting the recruitment of special constables in the special constables week. I hope that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will support that initiative and encourage people to join the specials.
    Mr. Greenway: In spite of what the Minister says, in a written answer to me only three weeks ago, he confirmed that there are now 2,322 more police constables in post than there were in May 1992. Is it not clear that, unless police budgets are protected from the 1 per cent. increase in inflation caused by the Government since May this year, there will be fewer, not more, police constables on the streets? Is not the Government's continuing silence on the question of police funding a clear sign that fighting crime is a low priority for new Labour, just as it was for old Labour?
    Mr. Michael: That was a pathetic attempt. There will be a statement on police finances next week, I believe, which follows the pattern established by the previous Government of when to inform the House of the intended finances for next year.
    I notice that the hon. Gentleman cites the number of constables rather than the number of police officers—he is very selective. The number of police officers in England and Wales fell from 127,627 in March 1992 to 127,158 at the end of March 1997. Let me do the arithmetic for the hon. Gentleman: that means a cut of 469 officers, or 1,469 fewer than were promised by the previous Government in the 1992 election—another broken promise.

    Crime Victims (Support)
    Mr. Salter: If he will make a statement on the Government's plans to give greater support for victims of crime. [15783]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We are firmly committed to helping victims of crime and to taking action to redress the balance of the criminal justice system in favour of the victim. We shall ensure that all criminal justice agencies give a high priority to treating victims with sensitivity and respect, that they listen to their views and that they continue to improve the services that they provide to victims. Within six weeks of taking office, we increased Victim Support's grant by £1 million a year.
    Mr. Salter: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is she aware of the excellent restorative justice scheme operated
    624
    by Thames Valley police, whereby offenders are confronted with the victims of crime? It has had quite startling results in reducing reoffending. What proposals do the Government have for extending the scheme to other areas of the country?
    Ms Quin: I pay tribute to the work done in the Thames Valley area on restorative justice. That theme is also being taken up in other initiatives across the country. I have seen some good examples, such as the courses run by the Greater Manchester probation service, aimed at making offenders realise the effect on their victims of what they have done and at promoting reparation and restorative justice. We expect to highlight the approach in our forthcoming White Paper on youth justice.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does the Minister agree that the most distressing experience for victims is when the police have to tell them that they do not have the resources or the manpower to pursue the criminals? Will she give the commitment that my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister gave, that there will be more bobbies on the beat, or are the Government going back on that?
    Ms Quin: A commitment was given, but the promise was broken, as has just been pointed out. My hon. Friends have spoken of initiatives that are being taken in particular police forces. We need to build on those initiatives so that communities can feel safer than they did under the previous Government.
    Helen Jackson: My hon. Friend will be aware that one in four victims of violent crime are likely to have been victims of domestic violence. Many more such victims are too scared to report the fact to the police. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are not always treated as sympathetically as they could be, not so much by police officers as by some of the other statutory agencies? What plans does she have to develop inter-agency working, involving housing bodies, the Benefits Agency, the police and others, to ensure that victims get the support that they need?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend raises an important point, although I believe that a lot of progress has been made by the police and other authorities towards being more sensitive and aware of the issues. I am also glad that the Home Office and the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Women's Issues are addressing the problem of domestic violence with considerable urgency.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the hon. Lady accept that all hon. Members are pleased that the Government are continuing the record of the previous Government in increasing the grant to Victim Support? Does she agree that victims of burglary would greatly appreciate the knowledge that repeat burglars will be locked up for a considerable time? As the Home Secretary always mis-states the previous Government's position and then hides behind it, may I ask the hon. Lady a different question? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes the resources available, would she be in favour in principle of mandatory minimum sentences for repeat burglars?
    Ms Quin: We made it clear in opposition that we were in favour in principle. The right hon. Gentleman is

    625
    mis-stating the situation under the previous Government, because resources were not made available. That was clear from the Home Office press release at the time.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, rather than supporting Victim Support, as he suggests, the previous Government froze the grant.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of supporting victims is through the criminal injuries compensation scheme? Does she also agree that the previous Government made a terrible mess of that, having their first attempt thrown out by the courts? Does she further agree that various aspects of the scheme need to be looked at? The eligibility rules for victims of domestic violence have not been reviewed for nearly 30 years. Some 200 families of victims of murder or manslaughter slipped through the net because of the hiatus caused by the previous Government's mess-up when they tried to review the scheme.
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government made a tremendous mess of the scheme. We soundly criticised them at the time.

    Travellers
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the present laws relating to the occupying of land by groups of travellers. [15784]
    Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives two sets of powers—one to the police and one to local authorities—to deal with problems as and when they arise. The police can remove trespassers in justified circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is looking at the powers given to local authorities and is conducting a review. He hopes to publish guidelines in the spring which will make it easier for local authorities to deal with the situation.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply; I am encouraged by what he said. Is he aware that at least 100 people descended on my constituency of Tewkesbury this summer? It took a full two weeks to clear them from the land, during which time there was great mayhem in the town, which is trying to regenerate itself. Will the Minister assure my constituents and the House that he will carefully monitor the situation?
    Mr. Howarth: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I understand that the problem to which he refers occurred as a result of a wedding among some travelling people; there was a similar incident a few years ago in my constituency. Such incidents cause difficulties and the hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. We are keeping the matter under review and, as I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will publish helpful guidelines in the spring.
    Dr. Tony Wright: The present law is not working, so the need for the review is extremely urgent. Areas such as mine suffer not from new age travellers but from old age travellers, who give rise to considerable cost and
    626
    considerable nuisance. The previous Government removed the obligation to provide sites and, in doing so, made the problem a lot worse. Will my hon. Friend ensure that we reimpose and strengthen the obligation to provide sites, preferably on a regional basis? We can link that to tougher enforcement powers.
    Mr. Skinner: Are there any new Labour travellers?
    Mr. Howarth: I hope that, in referring to old age travellers, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    This is, however, a serious subject. If my hon. Friend needs reassurance, he can have it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions recognises the problem, and that is why he is conducting a review. He will consult local authorities and we hope that the end of that process will be very helpful.
    Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister urge local authorities, at both district and county level, police forces, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to co-operate in the exchange of intelligence so that local areas know when a group of new age travellers are about to descend? The provision of sites, such as happened under the old law, will not assist, because new age travellers are not interested in static sites; they want to go where they please.
    New age travellers are a nuisance. In my constituency, there have been two large encampments and a huge number of sheep were killed as a result of their activities. They even had the nerve to say, during the court case to decide whether the local authority could remove them, that their dogs did not kill the sheep because their dogs were vegetarian. Will the Minister ensure that local authorities take a grip of the law? The law is there; it just needs using.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman may or may not be right; we need to wait for the outcome of the review. Clearly, the dogs were new age dogs. It is important that, when intelligence can be shared between local authorities, the police and any other agencies concerned, it should be. I suspect that the difficulty is that the intelligence the hon. and learned Gentleman describes may not exist in a form in which it can be easily shared. Where it does, we would encourage those concerned to share it.

    Human Rights
    Ms Jenny Jones: What measures he intends to introduce to safeguard the rights of British citizens under the European convention on human rights. [15785]
    Mr. Straw: We introduced the Human Rights Bill in another place last month and published a White Paper at the same time. The Bill gives further effect in domestic law to the rights and freedoms set out in the convention and will significantly improve the ability of people in the United Kingdom to have access to their convention rights before our own courts.
    Ms Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome reply. May I clarify with him the position of

    627
    British citizens who are already bringing cases to the Strasbourg Court and are thereby locking themselves into a lengthy and expensive procedure? Will British citizens be able to transfer their cases into the British legal system when the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our law is complete?
    Mr. Straw: We thought about that issue carefully in preparing the Bill. However, we decided that it would not be practicable to allow for cases to be brought retrospectively in the British courts. For that reason, the Bill provides for a right of action in the British courts that will come into force at the same time as the Bill.
    Mr. Green: Does the Home Secretary accept that one effect of incorporating the European convention on human rights into our law will be the politicisation of the judiciary? If he does not, will he explain his position to the Lord Chancellor who, in 1996, wrote an article expressing those very dangers?
    Mr. Straw: I do not accept that for a moment. I am interested to learn that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the shadow Lord Chancellor. It was Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, who said on the radio on the day we published the Bill:
    "One thing you could say in favour of the Bill is that it domesticates the powers of the institutions of the Convention with the result that our own judges are now making these decisions instead of the judges in Strasbourg."
    The Conservative party needs to get its act together on this, as on so many other issues. Of course we are not remotely politicising the British judiciary; indeed, we have constructed the Bill carefully to ensure that there remains a clear separation between the role of the judiciary and the role of Parliament.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Do prisoners have any rights under the European convention? In particular, does Myra Hindley have any way of challenging my right hon. Friend's decision to keep her in prison until she dies, while other people convicted of heinous, revolting and repulsive crimes may be released early?
    Mr. Straw: Any individual, whether or not he or she is a British citizen, who is resident or in Britain has a right under the European convention at the moment and subsequently upon incorporation. Myra Hindley has such rights. Indeed, she is seeking to exercise her rights under British law by bringing an action for judicial review of my predecessor's and now my decision in respect of the whole life tariff which he set and which I confirmed last week.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: What the Lord Chancellor actually said about the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law was that it offers
    "immense scope for political and philosophical disagreement"
    between the House and the courts. I have a simple question for the Home Secretary: does he agree?
    Mr. Straw: The Lord Chancellor made it absolutely clear that he accepts—and, indeed, he was one of the architects of the scheme—the arrangements which we
    628
    have laid down in the Human Rights Bill to separate the role of the judiciary from the role of the House. One of the important parts of the scheme of incorporation that we have adopted—views have moved on since the Lord Chancellor made that point—was to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament was absolutely protected. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there will be no provision in the Human Rights Bill by which the courts will be able to override and render void a Bill or an Act of Parliament.

    Criminal Justice System
    Mr. Burstow: What plans his Department has to ensure equal treatment for people with communication or learning difficulties under the criminal justice system. [15786]
    Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, on 13 June we announced an urgent, wide-ranging examination of the way in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, including those with communication or learning difficulties, are treated by the criminal justice system, with the aim of assisting them to give their best evidence in court.
    There is existing protection for suspects in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the accompanying codes of practice which provide safeguards for people in police detention, including suspects who may be considered vulnerable and in need of additional protection.
    Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of the campaign being run by Community Care magazine to highlight the failings in the criminal justice system in respect of disabled people? Will she ensure that the interdepartmental working group that is looking into these matters takes a close look at the guidance and training that are available for judges and others involved in the criminal justice system to ensure that ignorance does not represent a barrier to people with learning and communication difficulties obtaining their right to justice?
    Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The interdepartmental working group is aware of the campaign to which the hon. Gentleman referred and will look into the issues that he raised.
    Mr. Olner: This is a very important point. All levels of the criminal justice system should be brought into the review. I would welcome an early end to the review so that people from all levels can get the justice and respect that they deserve but on occasions are missing.
    Ms Quin: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I have come across examples in my constituency which very much reinforce that point of view. The group is aiming to report to us by the end of the year. We certainly intend wherever possible to improve the situation.

    Crime (Young People)
    Mr. Linton: What plans he has to tackle crime among young people. [15787]
    Mr. Straw: The Government's plans to tackle youth crime were set out in three consultative documents which

    629
    were issued this autumn. The main features include proposals to speed up the youth courts, replace cautions with a new final warning scheme, introduce new community-based sentences, strengthen arrangements for custodial punishment for young people and establish a youth justice board for England and Wales with local youth offending teams. Many of those features will be contained in the forthcoming crime and disorder Bill. I intend shortly to publish a White Paper which will reinforce the proposals and look to future reforms of the youth court system.
    Mr. Linton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already widespread agreement that one of the most effective proposals in his consultation documents is the reparation order, which will force young people to face the consequences—and, indeed, the victims—of their actions and give victims the chance to come face to face with the perpetrators of the crimes from which they have suffered? Does he think that the principle of reparation can be allowed further to permeate the youth justice system, as it is far more likely to be effective than traditional forms of punishment? Does he believe that child mentoring will also play an important part in preventing youth crime?
    Mr. Straw: I disagree with my hon. Friend in one respect only: in suggesting that reparation is not a traditional form of punishment. Reparation is the most effective and traditional form of punishment, by which one forces the offender to say sorry and repair the damage which he or she has caused. One of the problems with the youth justice system is that it effectively ignores the interests of both the victim and the wider public, and detaches the system to some high level of abstraction, where even the offender is simply a spectator in an endless and often useless process. We are determined to tackle that.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that prison institutions for young people are rather like an old school tie: a costly way of confirming a young person's identity for life? Although those who have committed the most grievous offences will need to be imprisoned, will he build—[Interruption.] New Labour is so hard-hearted. I am urging the Home Secretary to assume more enlightened colours rather than subscribe to the harsh face of new Labour.
    Rather than shunting on troubled and troublesome young people, will the right hon. Gentleman urge education, social services and health departments to work with his agencies to reduce the number of young people in prison institutions?
    Mr. Straw: No one wants to see young people gratuitously put in prison, but they are there because they have committed a series of crimes and have to be put away. The major problem that we face of the large number of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds who are sent to prison or young offenders institutions arises as a result of the wholesale failure of the youth justice system to deal effectively with those young offenders at an earlier age. The system is so soft for so long before, to compensate, it becomes over-harsh.
    A major part of my reforms is designed to cut delays in dealing with young offenders, especially very young offenders. It is designed to ensure that the system is
    630
    consistent, and that, when it gives a final warning, it really is a final warning. Where the courts come to the view that 12 to 14-year-olds have offended so badly that the need for protection of the public and their own protection requires them to be locked up, not in prison but in secure accommodation, the provision exists to enable that to happen.
    Ms Abbott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reconviction rate for young people who enter young offender institutions under the age of 17 is 88 percent? Does he therefore agree that putting more and more young people inside for longer and longer is not necessarily the answer to rising levels of juvenile crime?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right, but the depressing fact is that the reconviction rate for such offenders after any kind of punishment—custodial or non-custodial—is far too high. It is also true, and it has emerged from a number of inspectors' reports, that that average—which she quoted correctly—disguises large variations in performance between different young offenders institutions. With the same resources, some are remarkably successful in ensuring that young offenders lead more successful lives when they get out and some are less successful. As with the effective schools programme, the challenge today is to ensure that the resources available to those institutions are used more effectively, to establish more constructive regimes and to ensure that there is a path back into work for young offenders. That is why it is important to link work with young offenders with the welfare-to-work programme.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will young people—16 to 18-year-olds—be covered by the tagging proposals that he announced to the House last week? Perhaps the Home Secretary might also care to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) about whether tagging will cover those guilty of drug offences, because his frantic briefing did not quite make it to the Under-Secretary, his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). [Interruption.] Indeed, it seems to be continuing.
    Mr. Straw: The answer to the first question, as I made clear last week, is that the tagging arrangements will be rolled out first to individuals in prison establishments. On the second question, I made it clear in the statement on Thursday that risk assessments will be made of any offender with a nominal sentence of between three months and four years. Such offenders will not be released under the tagging arrangements unless the governor of the prison judges that it will be safe to do so.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the introduction of CCTV cameras into smaller towns and public places; and if he will make a statement. [15788]
    Mr. Michael: I strongly support the use of closed circuit television—CCTV. I can announce today that the Government will support CCTV in the next financial year with a further CCTV challenge competition. In total, £9 million will be spent on CCTV in 1998–99.

    631
    Although a large proportion of that expenditure was already committed by the previous Administration, I expect to be able to spend at least £1 million on new schemes. Full details will be issued in bidding guidance soon, but I intend to give priority to imaginative and innovative schemes that expand the boundaries of CCTV use.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that CCTV helps police and local authority strategies to combat crime? Does he accept that, under the former Government, the small, former urban authorities, of which there are four in my constituency—Ossett, Horbury, Normanton and Stanley—were left out and let down? Can he assure me those smaller authorities will now be considered by a Labour Government?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the success of CCTV, especially when linked to other approaches to reducing and preventing crime. In the bidding process, we will look for innovative schemes, not necessarily those in major town and city centres. In places where there is a critical mass of CCTV, it is possible to link smaller towns or out-of-town areas to the same monitoring system and that is often extremely valuable.
    Mr. Gray: I welcome the Minister's announcement that he will follow our support for CCTV. Does he agree that the £1 million that he intends to add to the spending that the previous Government announced is pitiable? If CCTV is to be useful, it must be a national scheme, in Conservative as well as in Labour areas, and £1 million will go nowhere.
    Mr. Michael: It is interesting that Opposition Members wish to spend money now that they are in opposition and not in government. Immediately before the election, the previous Government spent money that they did not have. Some £8 million of next year's finances was allocated by the Ministers who left office in May and that has left us with limited flexibility, but we will do the best with what we have.

    Racially Motivated Crime
    Mr. McNulty: What proposals he has to curb the incidence of racially motivated violence. [15790]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The lives of far too many people have been damaged or destroyed by racial violence and harassment. Labour promised in its manifesto to crack down on mindless racist thuggery, and we will do so. The crime and disorder Bill will create new offences of racial violence and harassment; it will send out a clear message that racist crime is unacceptable.
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The figures published this morning were extremely disturbing, especially as they included only reported crimes of racial violence, and the problem is in fact much bigger. Will my hon. Friend welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) in the policing for London debate about continuing with a bipartisan approach to racially motivated violence, but agree that the right hon. Gentleman will be judged by his actions in the way in which he votes on the provisions concerning racial violence in the crime and disorder Bill, rather than by his words, because words are easy?
    Mr. O'Brien: I agree. I hope that the new offences will have broad support in the House. I noted that the new Leader of the Opposition dissociated himself from comments about multiculturalism by the noble Lord Tebbit some weeks ago. I hope that that is a sign of a new attitude in the Tory party.
    Britain is a multicultural society, and in many ways a successful one, but we still have problems of racist violence to resolve, and I invite the Conservatives to join the Liberal Democrats and the Government in backing a multicultural Britain to be proud of and in sending a clear message to all racists that if they have not yet learnt the lesson that this is a multicultural society in which we will crack down on racism, some of them will learn it from behind bars.

Jobs Summit
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the special European Council on employment in Luxembourg on 21 November, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Council conclusions have been placed in the Library.
Unemployment in Europe represents not only personal tragedy on a huge scale but a tremendous waste of economic talent and potential. At the Amsterdam European Council in June, jobs were given the top priority that they should always have had. We agreed a new treaty framework for action on employment: the employment chapter.
The aim was a co-ordinated strategy to promote a skilled, trained and adaptable work force and flexible labour markets responsive to economic change. At Luxembourg, the first time that the European Council has met just to discuss jobs, we decided how to put that Amsterdam aim into effect.
Let me make it clear at the outset that we are not creating new European Union competences or, indeed, new European Union spending programmes, although we have agreed some useful redeployment of existing resources. We can agree at European level the broad lines of a practical approach to job creation. We can commit ourselves to finding and following best practice wherever appropriate. We therefore sought and agreed a set of common, practical objectives to be enshrined in non-binding guidelines for national employment policies.
At the heart of Europe's new approach is the need to create the right macro-economic framework and to move more rapidly on the structural reform of labour markets. Removing barriers to the completion of the single market remains crucial, but the role of small firms in creating jobs is now recognised as central, as is the need to create a simpler regulatory and administrative environment for business. Those are all ideas which we have promoted and to which we can subscribe whole-heartedly.
There were three points at the heart of our discussions. First, we need an adaptable and skilled work force responsive to economic change. The emphasis must be on education, skills, technology, and an active employment service. We need flexibility, in the sense not of hire and fire management, but of businesses and employees being able to respond to new and changing economic conditions.
Secondly, we need entrepreneurship, especially in small businesses. That is where many of the new jobs that we need must come from, and we must nurture the sector.
Thirdly, we must tackle structural unemployment. That cannot be lowered simply by demand management. We want neither laissez-faire nor old-style state intervention, but targeted measures specifically directed at the long-term and young unemployed.
Under adaptability, the Council endorsed the idea of modernising work organisation, including flexible working arrangements to help companies to be both productive and competitive. In an important step forward, it also agreed to examine any new regulations, to make sure that they reduce barriers to employment and help labour markets adapt to structural economic changes. That was a particular initiative of ours.
634
Under entrepreneurship, the focus was the vital role of small and medium-sized enterprises. It was agreed that member states should make starting and running businesses easier by reducing the overhead costs and administrative burdens, in particular those of taking on extra staff. More widely, it was agreed that taxation and benefit systems should be made more employment-friendly; for example, by reducing the tax burden on both labour and other non-wage labour costs, where they are at levels that hinder job creation. Some countries are keen to consider the reduction of VAT on labour-intensive services not exposed to cross-border competition.
To tackle structural unemployment, the Council agreed an approach based on employability. There should be specific commitments to improve the ability of individuals to get and retain jobs, with special emphasis on youth and long-term unemployment. In particular, all member states undertook to offer a fresh start, in terms of training or similar measures, to all young people unemployed for six months, and to all adults unemployed for 12 months. A specific target of 20 per cent. was set for the number of unemployed in total benefiting from active measures to improve their employability. There was also extra emphasis on ensuring that young people do not leave the school system too early and inadequately equipped for the jobs market.
The Council also emphasised the importance of equal opportunities. In particular, there should be commitments aimed at tackling gender inequality, making it easier for parents to reconcile work and family life, and addressing the problems of the disabled in the workplace.
The guidelines setting out those practical objectives and commitments in more detail will be adopted by the end of the year. It will then be for member states to prepare national action plans on how they intend converting them into action. The plans will be subject to scrutiny by other partners. Each member state will be able to apply them in accordance with national circumstances but will be expected to address all the objectives in one way or another. We will review progress first at the Cardiff European Council in June.
The Luxembourg Council also welcomed extra mobilisation of the resources of the European investment bank to improve economic performance. One billion ecu from the bank's reserves will be used over three years to finance new initiatives to help high-tech small and medium-sized businesses: 125 million ecu of that has already been earmarked for a new European technology facility. The EIB is also starting to lend in the health, education and environment sectors, and is stepping up its support for trans-European network projects.
In addition, the European Council agreed in principle to redeploy 450 million ecu from the existing European budget over three years to help job creation, again particularly supporting innovative and job-creating small and medium-sized enterprises.
Those financial measures will be helpful, but, of course, they play only a supporting role: reform of labour and product markets is the real key to improving Europe's employment performance.
The jobs summit marks Europe's commitment to a new approach to create jobs and security for the future—not the old-fashioned free-for-all resulting in widespread social exclusion, nor loading more costs and regulations

635
onto business, but a third way: investing in people, in their skills, in small businesses, and setting a stable long-term framework for business and industry to plan for the future and create jobs. Education and training are the keys. The so-called European social model is being refocused, based on a modern approach of reform, flexibility and investment in people. We aim to involve both sides of industry fully in that approach.
We will use the UK presidency next year to ensure that this is carried through in order to make a real difference to employment, employability and social inclusion. Luxembourg agreed an approach for the long term. Effective follow-up is vital and will happen.
At Amsterdam, we showed how a united British Government with a clear direction in Europe could make Britain's voice heard. At Luxembourg, we showed how a constructive British approach could result in a new direction on tackling unemployment; an approach based on competitiveness, employability and reform, combining job creation with a fair and cohesive society.
We recognised at a European level the terrible personal damage which occurs each time an individual who is willing and anxious to find work is still unable to do so through no fault of his or her own. That is why this Labour Government are working for a Europe that is working for jobs. This approach is right for Britain, right for Europe and right for the people of Europe.
Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The Opposition welcome the concept of a European summit focused wholly on jobs, and we welcome the recognition that Europe should aim for flexible labour markets responsive to economic change.
Did the Prime Minister describe the achievements of the British people over the past 18 years, which have led to an unemployment rate way below the European average? Does he agree that there is a huge amount to be learned from the UK experience over the past 18 years, and that those who opposed the measures that we took must now be regretting it?
We agree with the sentiments expressed at the summit and with many of the objectives. However, does the Prime Minister understand that we are entitled to be a little suspicious of a summit which both the British and French Governments claim as a triumph, when they arrived with completely different agendas? Can he give more evidence that other countries will adopt more flexible labour market policies? What specific measures does he expect them to adopt? Can he give any evidence that he is committed to flexible labour market policies, given the contrast between the guidelines to which he signed up and the policies that he is pursuing at home?
The Prime Minister talked about reducing barriers to employment, and we all agree with that. How can we square that with what the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said last week, when advocating the minimum wage at its most onerous? Only last Thursday, the Minister said
"There will be no sectoral, regional or company derogations and it will be available from day one of employment."—[Official Report, 20 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 441.]
Which will the Prime Minister choose—Government policy or the European guidelines?
636
The Prime Minister talked about entrepreneurship, and we all agree with that. How does he square that with signing up to the social chapter, making him unable to stop new burdens being imposed on small businesses by extending works councils to them? Which will he choose—the policy or the guidelines? The summit guidelines talked about
"making the taxation system more employment friendly"
and we all agree with that. Does the Prime Minister realise that companies now have to pay higher contributions because of the new tax on their pension funds imposed by the Chancellor? Which will he choose—the policy or the guidelines?
The summit guidelines finished with a call to
"promote the integration of people with disabilities into working life"
and I particularly welcome that sentiment. However, are not the Government trying to cut benefits for disabled people, which often give them the help that they need to be independent and to go to work? Which will the Prime Minister choose—his policy or the European guidelines?
How convinced is the Prime Minister that other countries will follow the spirit of the guidelines when there is precious little evidence that he himself will do so?
The presidency conclusions call for clear objectives for each country. Can the Prime Minister tell us what the objectives for Britain will be? Will he endorse the target set by the Minister for employment that the current trend rate of decline in unemployment should improve further?
Can the Prime Minister explain some of the language used in the presidency conclusions? What has he agreed to in signing up to the idea of bringing an end to unfair tax competition? What does this mean for British companies? What has he agreed to in signing up to the creation of an expert working party to guard against the economic effects of industrial change? What has he agreed to in signing up to a six-monthly meeting of social partners and Heads of Government before European Council meetings? Does he expect that to lift burdens on business?
The Prime Minister says that new regulations will be examined to make sure they help labour markets adapt. What about looking at all the old regulations across the continent which have kept millions out of work?
The Prime Minister talks of national plans being subject to scrutiny by other partners. Does that mean that other countries will be able to interfere in our employment policies, or does he optimistically assume that it will only be us interfering in theirs?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the idea of this summit originated with the French Government's worries that economic and monetary union could make their serious jobs problems even worse? Can he confirm that there is a widespread fear in Europe that a single currency could bring more unemployment in the next few years? Does he believe that all the advocates of a single currency in the near future are also committed to the essential corollary of making labour markets more flexible?
In summary, we agree with the objective of ending the old ways of state intervention, corporatism and over-burdensome regulation for companies, but does the Prime Minister realise that many people will find it hard to understand how that fits with signing the social chapter,

637
compulsory union recognition, adopting the employment chapter and bringing in the minimum wage, all of which are more likely to destroy jobs than to create them?
The Prime Minister: All I can say is, thank goodness the right hon. Gentleman was not negotiating for us at the employment summit. He and his colleagues still have absolutely no idea why they lost the general election. They have no idea why one of their former hon. Friends is now sitting on the Government side. They have totally lost touch with mainstream, one-nation values, which people believe now reside in the Labour party, not the Conservative party.
I shall deal with the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. First, he said that he supported the summit. Before the election, the Conservatives opposed the new employment chapter under which the summit was held. They opposed the very idea of this summit, which was not a French idea: actually, it was a British idea which came from the Government.
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman examines the figures, he will see that we have problems with long-term and youth unemployment. They are being addressed by the new deal for the young and long-term unemployed, which was also opposed by the Conservative party. We inherited a situation in which 20 per cent. of non-pensioner households with people of working age were without work. That it is precisely why it is important that we are not complacent about this problem from Britain's perspective, but realise that we still have a lot to do.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that no specific proposals were made. There are specific proposals, not just in the guidelines for the long-term and youth unemployed, but in the 1 billion ecu programme for small and medium-sized enterprises and the 400 million ecu programme for specific job and skills programmes for the unemployed.
Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman gave us the usual litany about the social chapter and asked how it can be squared with the guidelines. It can be squared very easily. Most people in Europe—indeed, most sensible people in the world—do not believe that there is anything inconsistent in having a highly effective, efficient work force and treating people with minimum standards of fairness. Unlike the Conservative party, they do not have a problem with that. The social chapter has two parts so far: the first allows companies that operate Europewide to consult their work force, and the second gives unpaid, parental leave to people who have just had a birth in the family. Why it is thought those measures are so terrible and will hamper British industry, I do not know. As far as I am aware, business is perfectly happy with them.
As for disability benefit cuts, it was the former Government who undermined disability benefit provision, not us.
On unfair tax competition, the right hon. Gentleman has again got it wrong. Discussion has been going on for a long time—under the previous Administration as well as ours—to try to prevent specific benefits from being given to non-resident companies in the tax treatment of those companies in particular countries. British companies are victims of that problem, rather than perpetrators, so it is
638
in our interest to be part of those discussions. All that is being suggested is that a Europewide code of conduct should be drawn up: it is not a proposal for legislation.
Mr. Nick Gibb: It is the same thing.
The Prime Minister: It is not the same thing—it is different.
Finally, on the national action plans that each country is supposed to draw up, we have been at the forefront because the whole purpose of what we are trying to achieve is to refocus attention in Europe away from some of the older methods of assisting job creation and on to the things that will make people more employable in today's labour markets, in particular education in skills and technology and help for small businesses. That is precisely the agenda of the Government here at home. It helps us if that is the agenda abroad as well. I must point out to the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends that there is a tremendous opportunity for Britain to get that agenda accepted at the moment, but it will be accepted only if it is advanced constructively and sensibly.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: One of the omissions from the jobs summit was the job-creation significance of north American and far eastern investment in Europe's regional development areas. Therefore, was there a special study at the summit of the Irish Republic's tremendous success in 1996, when it won more new green-field, inward investment projects than all the United Kingdom's assisted areas put together, by an emphasis on the quality of its labour force and environment and not on low wages and deregulated labour markets?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that we have received a lot of inward investment here and we continue to do so. However, he is entirely right in that we do not want people to come here for reasons of low wages and, by and large, that is not why they are coming. They want to come here. If we can show that we have an educated and skilled work force that is adaptable to the forces of economic change and if we can make the improvements in our education and welfare systems that the Government are undertaking, we can attract more inward investment to this country and not less.
Mr. A. J. Beith: While welcoming the involvement of the European investment bank in new lending and the emphasis on small business, labour market flexibility and a genuine internal market, may I ask when we will get the comparable statistics of which the statement speaks, so that we can compare properly unemployment figures in our and neighbouring countries, bearing in mind what the previous Government did to the employment figures?
Does the Prime Minister recognise that regional funds will continue to be vital to the older industrial areas, such as the coal mining and textile areas in Britain, if we are to create jobs there and that the amount of increased investment that we will need in education and training is beyond anything that has been committed so far?

639
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman fully support the wording in the presidential statement, for which 1 presume he is also responsible, that proceeding to the third stage of economic and monetary union will indeed be conducive to stability, growth and employment?
The Prime Minister: In relation to the figures given and to comparable figures, the national action plans should provide some basis for proper comparison, although I agree that there is a longer-term problem in that statistics are compiled in different ways in the individual countries. There is a separate European initiative to bring those statistics into line with one another, which is on-going, as they say. In due course, we should get a better series of comparable statistics than those we have.
On industrial restructuring, there is a very different approach here, which is to accept that there will be restructuring in Europe. Obviously there can be a debate about how far monetary union will be conducive to economic stability, but the one thing that people are sure about is that with a single currency in Europe there will undoubtedly be enormous transparency of costs. That will of itself force an enormous amount of restructuring. The approach set out here is not to try to ward off that restructuring, but instead to cope with it by bringing new investment into the areas where it is taking place and ensuring that we have the measures in place for the long-term unemployed in particular, who will require retraining in the longer term.
As for education and investment, I do not want to go over what we say at every Question Time on Wednesday, but we are putting a substantial additional sum of money into our schools next year with the school repairs programme of £1.3 billion. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pointing it out once again, that is more money than the Liberal Democrats asked for before the election.
Mr. TamDalyell: Did any of the Prime Minister's European colleagues offer so much as a scintilla of regret that we were not joining the single currency in 1999?
The Prime Minister: I have to say that it was not a subject discussed by us at the meeting.
Mr. James Paice: To what does the Prime Minister attribute the fall in British unemployment?
Hon. Members: A Labour Government.
The Prime Minister: Yes. It is correct that British unemployment has come down, though I have to say that there are still other countries in Europe that are committed to the social chapter. Indeed, they have a minimum wage and have lower unemployment rates than in Britain. We have always said that we must focus on those households with people of non-pensioner age which have nobody working. That is why I say that we still have a long way to go in this country, which is why we have introduced the new deal for the unemployed.
Ms Diane Abbott: If the Prime Minister supports one of the
640
aims of the jobs summit, which is to encourage previously excluded groups to go back to work, why are the Government introducing cuts in child benefit to single mothers, proposed by the Conservatives when they were in government? Because they affect single mothers who are out of work, as well as those who are in work, they will tend to act as a disincentive to their returning to work.
Hon. Members: Answer.
The Prime Minister: I do not think that Conservative Members are in a position to put those questions to us, as they were the ones who introduced the benefit cuts. If my hon. Friend looks at the Budget proposals put forward by the Chancellor in July, she will see that single parents are given specific additional help with child care to help them find work. Measures are being put in place to take people off benefit and into work. However, it is extremely important that we keep within the tough spending guidelines that we have set, because they are right. Whatever irresponsibility may have occurred on the part of the previous Government, it does not occur here.
Mrs. Angela Browning: If the Prime Minister thinks that the minimum wage has nothing to do with unemployment figures, to what does he attribute the high youth unemployment in France and particularly in Spain, where it is nearly 40 per cent? Does he think that the minimum wage has nothing whatever to do with unemployment?
The Prime Minister: If one looks at France, for example, a criticism that we have made is that if the minimum wage is applied in full, even to young people in training, it can cause problems for young people. That is why we have said that that will not happen here. There are many countries with lower unemployment rates than Britain that have minimum wages. Austria, the Netherlands and the United States of America all have minimum wages but lower unemployment rates than Britain. It is important to introduce a minimum wage sensibly and make it part of a general system of reform, so that this country does not end up, as we did under the previous Government, spending £3 billion a year through family credit subsidising low pay. That is not a sensible use of public resources. It is far better to introduce a proper minimum wage and ensure that people are paid at the proper rate for the job.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of what has been happening in the Asian economies in the past few months and particularly the past few days, we want to hear no lectures of the kind that we heard constantly from the last Government about using undiluted market forces to resolve the problems of the economy and particularly jobs? Many areas of Britain—some 20 or 30 in total— used to have old smokestack industries that were closed by the Tory Government, who are still downsizing the Tory party. Even if there were an economic upturn over and above what is happening today, there is a legacy in each of those areas: the last five or six years of pit closures meant that hardly a single miner had another job to go to, and the social fabric is in decay. We need to deal with those issues, not by means of a European job summit but through old-fashioned intervention from this Labour

641
Government to make sure that those areas and pit villages, where as many as 40 per cent. of people are unemployed, have a chance to work again.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Inevitably, no matter how well the economy is doing in general terms, some areas will be left behind by industrial restructuring and change. That is why the jobs summit focused specifically, as a separate item almost, on those who will be long-term unemployed and who cannot get back into work simply because of the general upturn in economic circumstances. Of course, that is why we have the welfare to work new deal programme here. It is precisely to help to tackle some of those pockets of structural long-term and youth unemployment. It is precisely by investing in their skills and through additional resources to improve the education system that we shall give those people a better chance and a better opportunity.
That is what I would call the third way. It is not old-style intervention, but it is intervention and a recognition that markets fail. We should live in a market economy and we want a dynamic market economy, but in some areas the market will fail. One of the things that mark out the Government from their predecessor is that we recognise that, and are prepared to intervene where that is necessary.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Was there any consideration at the summit of the issue of structural funds? They have been extremely important in areas such as mine, which benefits from objective 1 and objective 5b in the creation of employment. What is the Government's attitude to the continuation of structural funds and will the Prime Minister guarantee that this matter will at least be discussed in Cardiff in June?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Paragraph 34 of the European Council's conclusions deals with structural funds. In essence, it says that it is important that we reform those structural funds; that will be necessary as part of the process of enlargement and to make sure that the money goes to the areas in which it is really needed. It is also important to recognise that it made a clear commitment in principle to continuing the basis of structural funds for the future.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: In welcoming the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask whether he agrees that, both in philosophy and in specific direction, the summit is tied in very much in accord with the Government's policies? Will he ask his Ministers at European level and specifically at Government level to take into account the question of flexibility of seasonal employment, which is a major issue in my constituency and in many others?
The Prime Minister: I think that people recognise that seasonal employment, particularly in areas such as the one that my hon. Friend represents, is a particular subject which needs care and attention. Of course he is right to say that the measures that we have outlined at the European summit chime in very much with the Government's priorities both in terms of the new deal for
642
the long-term and young unemployed, and in the treatment of small businesses. This Government have cut corporation tax and taxation on small businesses to their lowest ever level. That is precisely the right direction for Europe to go as well.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Prime Minister has rightly emphasised the importance of reducing the cost burden on business, and particularly on small and medium-sized businesses. Will he remind the House how he thinks that that objective will be served by, for example, the Chancellor's recent measures on pensions, which are bound to increase the cost burden on businesses? The minimum wage, if it is to have the effect that the Prime Minister and the Government want to claim in social terms, must surely also have the effect of increasing business costs.
The Prime Minister: As I have just said, it was this Government who cut corporation tax for business and particularly for small businesses. In July, we took the measures that were necessary to bring the structural budget deficit under control. We did that because the worst thing that could happen for business and in particular for small businesses is to go through an economic cycle of boom and bust as has happened many times in the past. I know from the conversations that I had with small businesses at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s, that the worst thing that happened to them was that they were plunged from a boom into a deeper recession than they had ever known. Many of them went out of business. Stability for them and prudence in public finances—prudent monetary policy—are absolutely essential.
As for the minimum wage, I think that many small businesses will welcome the fact that they will compete on the basis of some minimum standards of fairness. Of course it must be set at a proper and sensible level, but if it is set at that level we shall find, as people in the United States and elsewhere find, that it is of assistance to businesses, not a burden on them.
Mr. John Hutton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the sensible measures that were agreed at the jobs summit in Luxembourg, but does he agree that it is a matter of regret that the Opposition have expressed their continuing opposition to improvements in the social dialogue between employers and employees in the European Union?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with that entirely. Raucous scorn greets any mention of discussing things with the social partners—with employers and unions. I should have thought that it was perfectly sensible that, before a European summit on jobs, we discuss with both sides of industry how this programme should be carried through. Why that is going to be detrimental to the interests of the European economy, I do not know. What is surely important is that, if we are making structural change in Europe, we try to take both sides of industry with us, that we listen to their concerns about some of the costs and burdens that they face, and that we consider

643
how we might remove them. Our meeting with employers and unions before the summit was constructive and we will meet them again before our summit in Cardiff.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the minimum wage rate is in the United States and the reasons why the Clinton Administration have kept it so low that it is almost irrelevant?
The Prime Minister: No, I do not believe that that is true at all. Indeed, before the last presidential election, there was agreement even between the republicans and the democrats to raise the minimum wage. If the hon. Gentleman considers the recent work that has come out of the United States, he will find that most people believe that having some form of minimum wage assists the way in which the labour market functions. I am sorry to say to Conservative Members that they will be left behind on this issue as they have been on many others.
Mr. Barry Jones: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the jobs summit discussed the renewed challenge by the Boeing corporation to the European Airbus consortium? Is it possible for him to say when the Government will decide on the application by British Aerospace for launch aid on a new version of the A340? May I tell him that 2,800 of my constituents make the wings for Airbus aircraft, and hope that the application might go forward and that jobs are not exported abroad?
The Prime Minister: Of course the application for launch aid must be considered in the normal way and I would not want to comment on that at this stage. But our support for the Airbus project is well known and total. We believe that Britain has an important role to play in that, but, of course, all applications for launch aid must go through the normal business of determining whether they meet the criteria. We welcome those skilled jobs and the work by the British work force in relation to Airbus and of course we will do everything that we can to keep them.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the process of artificial convergence to achieve the criteria for establishing a single currency within certain core countries in the European Union has benefited employment? Is it not true that, on the evidence, the opposite seems to be the case? This winter, the federal German republic will have unemployment of probably 5 million and Spain's unemployment rate is at 20 per cent. In this country, is it not true that an independent central bank has masterminded four out of the five interest rate increases that have taken place under this Administration?
The Prime Minister: No, I cannot agree with that. Interest rates have had to go up since the election. They should have gone up before the election. That was the clear and obvious advice because an incipient inflation problem was back in the system again. The last thing that we should do is repeat the mistakes at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s, when, under Tory boom-and-bust policies, interest rates went to 15 per cent. and stayed there for almost a year. We have to avoid that. The best way of doing so and the best way for this country's future
644
is to ensure that interest rate decisions are taken not on a political, short-term basis, but on a genuine assessment of the right monetary policy for this country.
In relation to convergence in the rest of Europe, of course other countries would dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said. All I can say is that, at present, their interest rate and inflation rate performance is low. Britain is in a different stage of the economic cycle and in a different position. That is one of the reasons for our position on monetary union, but each country has to decide what is in its best interest.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Did the jobs summit deal with the paradox of investment: it is required to create new jobs, but it can, on occasions, get rid of old jobs? It is needed for competitive purposes, but, unless it takes place within a framework of intervention, there will be problems about whether the investment delivers more jobs in the long run. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend has said is sensible, contrary to what Conservative Members think. It is important that we recognise that we need high levels of investment, which is precisely why we want a stable long-term economic strategy, both for this country and for Europe. Obviously, some of that investment—if it is in new technology, for example—can displace jobs. The answer is not to fail to put in the new technology; it is to focus, as the employment summit did, precisely on what is needed: reskilling, better education, lifelong learning and ensuring that when people do become unemployed they have the chance to get a fresh job. I should have thought that that was a sensible approach.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Can the Prime Minister say whether non-wage labour costs will increase under his Government?
The Prime Minister: We have made a specific commitment here to try to keep them as low as possible, and that is precisely what we will do.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend share my feeling of dismay that when he comes to the House to make a statement about what this Government and other Governments in Europe are doing to create job opportunities for young unemployed people, the Opposition resort to howls of derision and jeers? Does he agree that every time an hon. Member crosses the Floor of the House from the Opposition side to our Benches, he leaves behind a Tory rump both leaner and meaner?
Does my right hon. Friend further agree that an economy the size of Europe has the potential to be as successful an engine for creating jobs as the economy of the United States of America, which, under President Clinton and with a minimum wage, has created so very many more jobs than have been created in Europe, with Europe not pulling together? Now that we are pulling together, will we see the benefits in Europe?
The Prime Minister:My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description of what happens with the Opposition. I find it extraordinary that they should disparage the idea of a European jobs summit that focuses on some of the issues of long-term youth unemployment. If they look at the figures, they will realise that it is not

645
true that Britain is miles ahead of everyone else. There are countries with lower rates of long-term unemployment, with lower rates of youth unemployment and with lower overall rates of unemployment. It is true that the measures that we take will improve that position enormously, but it is also true that there is a long way that we need to go.
It is tremendously important that we are in Europe, able to play a constructive role and able to provide leadership and direction, not just for our own country, but for Europe. The single market is tremendously important for British business and British jobs. It is in our interests to be able to complete that single market and to be able to play a leading role and influence the rest of Europe in our own direction—but we cannot do that if the country is represented by people who simply continue shrilly and irrelevantly to shout against Europe rather than get in and make it work.
Mr. Michael Fallon: How can the Prime Minister boast in Luxembourg about ending burdensome regulation when he is sentencing British companies to compulsory new laws under the social chapter? Does his earlier answer suggest that neither of the existing directives nor any of the four proposed directives under the social chapter will impose any cost on British business?
The Prime Minister: What the directives do is allow a perfectly fair framework of employment regulations in this country.
Mr. Fallon: They impose costs.
The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the unpaid parental leave directive, which gives people a bit of unpaid parental leave, will destroy British industry? The hon. Gentleman also refers to a directive that allows consultation with people in companies with 1,000 or more employees operating on a Europewide basis. Before the election, when the Conservative Government had opted out of the social chapter, British companies were joining it because they found it sensible to do so. I remember that, during the election campaign, the hon. Member and other Conservative Members said that if we signed the social chapter 500,000 jobs would leave Britain. That was nonsense. However, he and his hon. Friends continue to say that with all the certainty and conviction of mediaeval school men, which is precisely what they are becoming.
Dr. Howard Stoate: Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that the new Labour Government's attitude towards training and education will help to inspire employers to create the 50,000 new jobs expected in Kent's Thamesside, which includes my constituency?
The Prime Minister: Yes, that is absolutely right. By focusing on raising education standards, we raise the value of human capital, thereby raising the performance of the overall economy.
Mr. David Prior: Does the Prime Minister accept that joining a European single currency will inevitably lead to high levels of regional unemployment? Was that discussed at the summit?
The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. It will depend on whether a single currency is successful. If it is successful, I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman describes will occur.
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Prime Minister. We will bring the statement to an end now.

British Board of Film Classification
4.15 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
the conduct of the British Board of Film Classification.
I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, and for the support of the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and of some Conservative Members.
Since 1984, the BBFC has had absolute power to determine which videos are or are not legal to watch in the United Kingdom, yet it is accountable to no one, other than furnishing the occasional opaque and bland report. Lately, its director, James Ferman, has passed a series of extremely violent and unpleasant videos, including one depicting people gaining sexual gratification from serious motor accidents. Certification for that film was given against the advice of the child psychologist whom the board itself had consulted.
It has been widely leaked that, as a consequence of the passing of such films, the Home Secretary is contemplating sensible measures to appoint a stronger chairman to replace Lord Harewood and to take action to make the organisation more accountable.
I ask for a debate today because it appears that Mr. Ferman and his cronies are using what may be their last few weeks of freedom to rush through certification of a series of films that a Customs official has described as "hard-core pornography", undermining Government action to prevent pornography.
This is not simply a matter of taste. Such films are widely used by paedophiles not only to cultivate their own tastes but to corrupt children. As I have one of the United Kingdom's best special investigation units in my local police force, I am very conscious of that fact. Once a video has been classified as acceptable, we have removed the statutory power to prevent it from being shown.
The British Board of Film Classification exists to protect vulnerable people, particularly children, from becoming victims of those who swallow a diet of mindless violence and filth. The board is manifestly failing in its duty. The Government need quickly to appoint a new chairman, and Parliament needs an urgent debate on the matter.
Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what has been said, and I have to give my decision without stating a reason. I do not consider that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Orders of the Day

  Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today is the second day of the Bill's Committee stage, as you—
  Madam Speaker: Order. If this is a point of order on the Committee stage, it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Mr. Hughes: It deals with the Bill's Report stage and Third Reading.
  Today is the Bill's Committee stage. At last Thursday's business questions, the Leader of the House, in the conventional way, announced this week's business. She said that, this Wednesday, the Bill would have its Third Reading. No provision has been made for a Report stage. No one can know—not even the Government, in their arrogance, can presume—that no amendments will be agreed in Committee.
  I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, to make it absolutely clear that the House is entirely free to amend the Bill in Committee; that, if it is amended, there will be a Report stage; that time will have to be found for the Report stage; and that time will have be found to table amendments between the end of the Committee stage and the Report stage.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Hon. Members must be given ample opportunity to table further amendments on Report, if we have a Report stage. That is the normal way to proceed, and it will be the way that we deal with this Bill.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 19 November.]
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

  REFERENDUM
  Amendment moved [19 November]: No. 15, page 1, line 9, leave out 'an elected assembly' and insert
  'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendmenty: No. 16, page 1, line 10, leave out 'separately' and insert 'directly'.
  No. 17, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'an' and insert 'a directly'.
  No. 28, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'a separately elected assembly' and insert
  'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.
  Mr. Ottaway: Conservative Members wish to associate themselves with the comments by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  648
  The amendment would ensure that, in the referendum, we were voting for an assembly of borough leaders rather than for the directly elected assembly proposed by the Government. Our objections to the directly elected assembly are many, the first being that there would be no formal links between the boroughs and the authority. The Minister for London and Construction has several times said that there would be no such links. Those of us who remember the old Greater London council know that an anti-borough culture persisted throughout the life of that organisation, but it worked both ways—the boroughs were hostile to the GLC, too. None of us felt that that was conducive to the effective operation of local government.
  Our second objection to a directly elected assembly is the resentment that the idea is currently creating among the boroughs. It is clear from the briefest scrutiny of the Green Paper that there will be an erosion of the boroughs' powers.
  Having read the Green Paper, I calculate that there are no fewer than 15 points where the boroughs' powers will be eroded, despite the denials made before the election— and, indeed, since. There are, in fact, four main areas where those powers will be eroded—planning, transport, waste management and finance. Individually, they may be small items, but collectively, they add up to significant dangers for the boroughs, and represent an opportunity for two large secretariats to be established—one for the mayor and one for the assembly.
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Minister shakes his head, but if we have the sort of intrusion into the boroughs' powers outlined in the Green Paper, either we shall have a highly intelligent load of assemblymen who are capable of doing everything on their own without any secretarial back-up— if that is the case, we shall see pigs flying down Whitehall—or there will have to be a large secretariat.
  Our third objection is that the proposals will result in rather oddball jobs for the assemblymen. These assemblymen will have no borough links, and that will mean nothing but trouble. Their only job will be to hang around city hall and veto the mayor. The only way that they can get into the headlines will be to cause trouble. After a while, they will realise that if they go on saying yes to the mayor, their insignificant lives will continue to be insignificant; but if they say no, on will go the television lights, out will come the notepaper and pads, and pencils will grind away. If the assemblymen have no borough links, the assembly will be nothing more than a talking shop, and it will lead to conflict, deadlock and indecision.
  Let there be no doubt; the Conservatives want an assembly. It is wrong to suggest that our proposed assembly of borough leaders is not an assembly. We accept that if there is to be a mayor, it is essential to hold him to account. We believe that that will be best done through an assembly of borough leaders. We do not want a Greater London council mark II, or a slimmed-down version. We want an assembly of people with local knowledge at the heart of decision making—people who understand local issues and can represent them in London's authority. They work with their chief executive every day, solve borough problems, and deal with matters that affect people at a local level.

  649
  The great advantage is that an assembly of borough leaders would form a bridge between the mayor and the boroughs. A directly elected assembly would be a barrier between the mayor and the boroughs. That is at the heart of our objection.
  An assembly of borough leaders would be more skilled, would have more talent, would be cheaper, would avoid the bureaucratic costs and secretariats that I have described, and, above all, would avoid the anti-borough culture that concerns us. It would strengthen links with the local community.
  The Minister has given us a clue that he does not agree with our proposals. The leader in The Times on 30 July said
  "Political power must be placed with the Mayor. The functions of the Greater London Authority should be two-fold: an open forum for the proper accountability of the chief executive and a facilitator of co-operation between the Mayor and the boroughs. That would be best achieved through an indirectly elected entity consisting of the 32 borough council leaders and the Corporation of London. This arrangement would ensure the unique mandate of the mayor and provide a direct link"—
  a direct link—
  "between the two most significant aspects of London's administration."
  I could not put it better myself.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said on an earlier amendment that we have had one or two lines from the Minister and his colleagues, but there has been no explanation why our proposal is not right. The majority of London councils are controlled by the Labour party. The Minister may not trust them to do a good job, but that situation will not continue for ever. Come the local elections next May, there will probably be a significant change in the composition of our proposed assembly. The Minister must convince the House why our proposal is not better than his.
  Not surprisingly, the Minister could not resist responding to the editor of The Times. He said:
  "In these circumstances we are absolutely convinced that the mayor must be held to account. This can be best done by an elected body with specific powers to scrutinise what the mayor proposes and does."
  There again are the words "can be best done", without any explanation. Explaining why he does not think that our proposals will work and why the editor of The Times— and the editor of The Daily Telegraph, for that matter— is wrong, the Minister goes on
  "Each leader would, quite rightly, see his or her first loyalty as fighting for his or her own patch rather than the wider interests of London as a whole."
  That sums it up. The Minister cannot stand the thought of someone fighting for his or her own patch. It also confirms our long-held suspicion. Although the Minister said on Second Reading that he had an open mind on the electoral system to be used, he has already decided on one. First past the post would allow people to fight for their own patch.
  The Minister is, in effect, saying that he wants to sever the constituency links so that people think strategically. He has, however, created a hurdle for himself, because no one will be able to fight for his or her own patch. Labour is not going that far, even in Scotland or Wales.
  650
  4.30 pm
  What message does the Government's proposal send to voters? The Green Paper makes it clear that the proposed London transport authority will have a hands-on role with regard to roads. I come back to an example I gave the Minister on Second Reading. I believe that the Coulsdon bypass is important. I have written to the Minister for Transport in London, and she has replied. She told me, through her noble Friend the Minister for Roads, that I was one of about 150 people who had written in a similar vein. In fact, so many people have written that we are having a job lot meeting in a few days' time, when we can make our points together. I am fighting for that bypass on behalf of my constituents. In future, that job will be handed to the LTA. Who will fight for that road?
  I shall not be able to fight for the road, because I shall not be a member of the LTA. Local councillors will not be able to fight for it because they will have no link with the LTA. The assemblymen on the LTA will not be able to fight for the road, because they will not be allowed to fight for their own patch. The lobbying will be done by public relations firms, which means that it is the people with the most money who will win.
  Mr. Raynsford: We shall see about that.
  Mr. Ottaway: In that case, there will be no lobbying for the Coulsdon bypass. What is the point of an authority such as that proposed in the Bill? The Minister is saying to prospective assembly members, "Once you have been voted in, we do not want to hear from you, because there will be no fighting for your own patch and local views will not be welcome."
  There is no doubt that our proposals for an assembly have considerable merit. They also have some support inside the London Labour party. One of the joys of being in opposition is the brown envelope that suddenly turns up. I have here an extract from a report of a meeting of the Greater London Labour party executive, which says:
  "For the London executive, the discussion has been going on for a couple of years, for others, less. But we keep coming up with the wrong answer: No to a directly elected mayor. It appears that Londoners are a little dim. Ask them two separate questions ('Do you want an elected assembly?' and 'Do you want a directly elected mayor?') and they come over all faint. According to our leaders"—
  I can only assume that that means Ministers—
  "if we ask two questions we are likely to end up with a mayor but no assembly."
  That is no surprise, but this is the first news we have had that it is the view of the Greater London Labour party executive.
  Mr. Raynsford: It is not.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Minister may say that it is not. The report continues
  "The Chair Jim Fitzpatrick MP manipulated the meeting shamelessly to avoid even indicative votes."
  That is the way in which the Labour party has been considering the proposals. We know that there is deep-rooted support for a London assembly, and I urge the Committee to support the amendments.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I want to stick to the detail of amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

  651
  I believe that they have merit, in that they will clarify to the electorate and make certain in statute a phraseology that will be appropriate for the purpose of establishing a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly in separate elections. The manner of election could not then be altered by the White Paper, or by the Government changing their mind after the passage of the Bill.
  We have heard from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) his strong desire for an indirectly elected mayor drawn from the ranks of the assemblymen. If, as amendment No. 16 seeks, a directly elected mayor were written into the phraseology of the Bill, that could not happen.
  There is a strong body of opinion within the Labour movement in London, particularly in municipal circles, for the mayoralty to be indirectly elected and drawn from the ranks of the assemblymen. In that way, the assembly would have much more control over who would be appointed to the job. He or she would be in essence one of them, sharing the same culture and the same roots in local government within the Labour movement in London.
  It is also exceedingly important that the electorate should know that the assemblymen would be directly elected. In that respect, I take a slightly different view from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), but not as regards objectives.
  Like my hon. Friend and others on the Opposition Front Bench, I believe passionately in the importance of ensuring that borough opinion is represented on the assembly in the most effective manner possible. After all, Londoners identify with their boroughs. Traditionally, they draw most of their services from and elect their councillors for their boroughs, and, to a greater or lesser extent, there is a geographical, social and economic identity within a borough boundary.
  In promoting the Bill, the Labour party seeks to move away from the traditional roots that are of the essence of our local democracy in London. We are led to believe that there may not even be constituencies, or, if there are, that they will be very large and not in any sense conterminous with the boroughs. They will be based on the prospective European Parliament constituencies within London, which encompass much greater areas.
  I would argue that the assemblymen will require different personal qualities from those necessary for a borough leader. Assemblymen will be scrutineers. They will not need the talent, aptitude and background of executive action—the qualities necessary for an effective borough leader. The better they do their job on the assembly at the Middlesex Guildhall or wherever, the more time they will spend scrutinising the mayor's budget and challenging and testing his programmes, his policies and his projects for London.
  It would be better if the assemblymen were directly responsible to the electors in their boroughs in exercising that scrutineering function. Furthermore, it would be much more appropriate if their term of office exactly coincided with that of the mayor—which could not happen if they were indirectly elected. In fact, halfway through the term of a particular borough representative on the London assembly, a borough leader could find himself out of office by virtue of a local borough election.
  In respect of continuity and from a practical perspective, borough leaders are exceedingly busy people. Their primary duty is managing a very complicated
  652
  municipal operation on behalf of their electors. Most of them also have other careers. They are not full-time, paid politicians, as are many right hon. and hon. Members, and certainly Members of the European Parliament. The additional burden of travelling large distances across London to attend assembly meetings will not always be either easy or possible to fit in with the borough leaders' primary responsibility to their borough councils and electors.
  If borough leaders fulfil poorly their responsibilities as scrutineers of and checks on the executive power of the mayor, their borough electors should be able to replace them or place some sanction on them. If they are merely indirectly representative of their boroughs—borough leaders seconded from their primary purpose of fulfilling a role on the assembly—and fulfil the role badly, it will be much harder for their electors to exercise any sanction on them, especially if they fulfil their primary responsibility of running their own borough well.
  I whole-heartedly support my hon. Friends' strong determination to make absolutely sure that the voice of the boroughs is heard because that is what matters to Londoners. The concerns of my electors in west London and people in Hillingdon are utterly different from those in the City or the east end.
  Under the electoral arrangements proposed by the Opposition, there is no way of ensuring that local interests are represented directly on the assembly and have an effect on the policies being promulgated and enacted by the mayor. There is much greater likelihood of ensuring that local interests are represented if there is a directly elected assembly—especially if the representatives on the assembly come from the borough. I would suggest one directly elected representative for each borough.
  That said, I support the aims of my hon. Friends' amendments. I also hope that the Government realise that specifically inserting the words "directly elected mayor" and "directly elected assembly" would ensure that there was no possibility of jiggery-pokery after the Bill is passed.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The Liberal Democrats will not be supporting amendment No. 15, for many of the reasons that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has just described. He made a very powerful set of arguments for not supporting the idea of London borough leaders attempting to hold to account a directly elected mayor, as the Conservative party favours. I shall expand on that slightly.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) argued strongly for a role for borough leaders, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches would not disagree. One of the concerns that we will have, especially in the detailed consideration of the Bill that will bring the authority into its final shape, will be the relationship between the boroughs and the new authority. The danger is that, if that relationship is not clear in the referendum, the credibility of the Government's advocacy of a mayor and an authority could be undermined.
  We want to ensure that we have a regional authority which gives strategic direction and a clear strategic lead in London. We want that authority to work full time on behalf of Londoners, dealing with matters that are not about hoovering up powers from local government but about taking powers away from the House and Whitehall.

  653
  One of the lessons that we should be drawing from the experiences of the Greater London council is that, all too often, there were turf wars between the GLC and London borough councils about who had responsibility for taking matters forward. The hon. Member for Croydon, South highlighted some areas where that tension could recur under the proposed arrangements.
  The solution is not simply borough leaders holding an elected mayor to account. It is the Liberal Democrats' view that that is a recipe for blurred accountability. A question mark would hang over such an indirectly elected assembly about its mandate from the people of London to stand up to a directly elected mayor. Such a directly elected mayor could legitimately question the authority of such an indirectly elected body.
  We have seen how inadequate the joint boards of representatives from each London borough—which were set up in 1986 when the GLC was abolished—have been as a means of holding services across London to account. Creating a larger joint board of London borough leaders as a way of holding an elected mayor to account is inappropriate.
  For those reasons, we do not support the amendments. However, we believe very strongly that they represent a view which needs to be reflected in debate on the referendum. I hope that Ministers will reflect on the points that have been made. Those made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South have some support in London, although we would argue that they do not have adequate support.
  Let the people decide, and be able to express their view. The Minister should explain in more detail his reasons for advocating his position. Let us have a chance to campaign and advocate our position. It should not be for this place to decide the structure of government in London: it should be for the people of London to decide.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I support amendment No. 15, for two reasons.
  The Government are setting some precedents about the way in which they are proposing to establish regional government. The Minister was rightly rebuked by the Liberal Democrats on Second Reading for construing the Bill as a strengthening of local democracy. It is in practice no such thing, but the establishment of a regional tier of bureaucracy.
  If that regional tier is established in the way the Government propose, with no direct relationship with the boroughs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) eloquently explained, emphasis on the supposed strategic overview will simply lend distance to the body, as distinct from the day-to-day concerns of boroughs, which are often the most important aspect of the scrutiny, and must be applied to the directly elected mayor.
  It is clear that many aspects need to be applied to the scrutiny of the executive actions of the directly elected mayor in appointments, and so on. At the heart of that scrutiny is that done on behalf of the boroughs and the interests of many London communities. If such interests are not—by means of the amendment—represented
  654
  directly on the authority, there will be tension between the authority and the boroughs, most likely represented by the borough leaders.
  It is far preferable that we legislate now for a constitution that puts those principal tensions, interests and concerns together in an authority, where they can be properly resolved, than leave them to be determined in a non-constitutional manner, perhaps through disputes such as those between the GLC and London boroughs, to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) referred. It is better to bring such tensions inside the authority and ensure that the boroughs' interests will be positively represented.
  Mr. Raynsford: Last week, the Opposition argued that the people of London should be given an opportunity to vote on whether they wanted a directly elected assembly. That was the proposition that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) put to the House. The amendments before us reveal that argument as humbug, because they would rule out the possibility of a directly elected assembly. Opposition Members should think more carefully about their intentions, instead of tabling amendments that show that they can only oppose, and have no coherent view of their own.
  The amendments would give Londoners the opportunity to vote not whether they are in favour of a mayor plus a directly elected assembly, but whether they want a mayor plus an assembly made up of the leaders of the 32 London boroughs. We have made it clear that that is not an option for the Greater London authority. We promised an elected assembly in our manifesto, and that is what we shall deliver.
  The leaders of the London boroughs do an excellent job in representing the interests of their areas. That is their rightful role and one which we expect them to play in relation to the GLA. An effective borough leader will be in regular contact with the GLA, and an effective mayor will be in regular contact with London borough leaders.
  However, the GLA should not be governed by local interests. It must be able to take a strategic overview, for the benefit of London as a whole. That will not mean riding roughshod over borough interests, but it will mean weighing up different positions and reaching conclusions to the benefit of the whole of London. Only a mayor, working with a directly elected assembly, can do that job.
  The assembly will have a vital role to play in the new GLA. It will monitor the activities of the mayor and work with the mayor to devise strategies for London's development. We propose that the assembly should be able to choose Londonwide issues and investigate them, producing reports and recommendations. Those are significant jobs.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that certain issues are of especial importance to particular boroughs? For example, my local borough, Hillingdon, has the greatest expanse of green belt and open space in the whole of London. I believe that it is therefore necessary that someone who is directly elected, or who represents Hillingdon—as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) would argue—should be on the assembly to ensure that the important local

  655
  perspective is brought to bear on the mayor's policies. A regional government might have quite different interests.
  Mr. Raynsford: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that individual London boroughs have different interests, and it is right and proper that they should present those interests. As I have said, I expect that borough leaders will be active in meeting the mayor and putting their case. I also expect the mayor to be in regular contact with the borough leaders.
  However, the hon. Gentleman himself made the forceful point that borough leaders have a job to do already. They are part-timers, many with other jobs, and have much to do looking after their boroughs' interests. It is not realistic to suggest that they can perform in addition all the functions that will be required of the assembly, including monitoring mayoral activities, participating in the decision-making process, and sitting on investigative and scrutiny committees. It beggars belief that the borough leaders would be able to do justice to those jobs. The hon. Gentleman himself made that point, as did the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).
  We have made the case for a package involving a Greater London authority made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, composed of members elected to do a specific job. The amendments would create a lopsided authority, which would be unable to deliver what the people of London expect. I invite the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw them. If he does not, I invite my hon. Friends and the Liberal Democrats to vote against the amendments.
  Mr. Ottaway: It is not beyond the realms of possibility that, after we have the elections currently planned for May 2000, we could end up with an independent mayor, a Conservative assembly and a Labour Government. If the Minister honestly believes that, in that situation, regular contact with the boroughs will take the place of monitoring, working with and making recommendations to the mayor, he has a naive view of how politics works. That will be a recipe for conflict and disaster.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Minister shakes his head, but he only has to look at the conflict and disaster between a Labour Government and a Labour Greater London council, let alone ones of different complexions. He made the point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), that the borough leaders would be too busy. My hon. Friend expressed genuine views—
  Mr. Raynsford: He is right.
  Mr. Ottaway: In that case, both the Minister and my hon. Friend have to explain why the borough leaders want
  656
  to be on the assembly. I challenge the Minister to show me a borough leader who does not want to be on the assembly, and then I will believe him.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman may go and ask the leader of the borough in the area that I represent. Councillor Len Duvall has no aspirations to be a member of the assembly by virtue of being the leader of a borough.
  Mr. Ottaway: I am sure that we could find someone on Greenwich council who would like to do the job.
  Mr. Wilkinson: That is because councillors have little confidence that local interests of their borough will be safeguarded by a regional government for London. They believe that the members of the assembly will be remote from the concerns that are uppermost in the minds of the people of their boroughs.
  Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is right. Borough leaders are very interested in our proposals. If the Minister thinks that borough leaders are not interested, he is in for a busy year.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has challenged me, and I can tell him that the Association of London Government, which represents the views of the London borough leaders, has actively supported the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Ottaway: Can the Minister then explain why the majority of London boroughs want two questions? We have the support of at least half, probably more, of the London boroughs.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ottaway: I shall read him the list. We have the support of Barnet, Brent, Bromley, Hackney, Harrow, Havering, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Bexley and Westminster. That is not yet a complete list, because more London boroughs have yet to be counted. For the Minister to say that the ALG supports the Government's view is inaccurate, and I have the evidence that it does not.
  The London boroughs are deeply concerned by the proposals, and they want more involvement than the Government propose. I invite the House to support the amendments.
  Question put, That the amendment be made—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 116, Noes 297.

  Division No. 92]

  [4.57 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bums, Simon

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Clappison, James

  Brady, Graham

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Brazier, Julian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  657

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maples, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan, Alan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paterson, Owen

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Fraser, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Ruffley, David

  Gray, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Green, Damian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Greenway, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hammond, Philip

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Johnson Smith,Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Key, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Willetts, David

  Lidington, David

  Wilshire, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Loughton, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  MacKay, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mr. James Cran and

  Madel, Sir David

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boateng, Paul

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brake, Tom

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Burgon, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burstow, Paul

  Austin, John

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Byers, Stephen

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beard, Nigel

  Cann, Jamie

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Casale, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benton, Joe

  Chaytor, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clapham, Michael

  658

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hoey, Kate

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Darvill, Keith

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Denham, John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Doran, Frank

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dowd, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Drew, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lepper, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Efford, Clive

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lock, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McAllion, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McCabe, Steve

  Flint, Caroline

  McFall, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  McNulty, Tony

  Gardiner, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWalter, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marek, Dr John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Maxton, John

  Hanson, David

  Meale, Alan

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Merron, Gillian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Healey, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Milbum, Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mountford, Kali

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mullin, Chris

  Hill, Keith

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  659

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Soley, Clive

  Norris, Dan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pendry, Tom

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stringer, Graham

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pike, Peter L

  Stunell, Andrew

  Plaskitt, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pond, Chris

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Todd, Mark

  Purchase, Ken

  Touhig, Don

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Trickett, Jon

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Truswell, Paul

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rendel, David

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Tyler, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rogers, Allan

  Wallace, James

  Rooker, Jeff

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rooney, Terry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roy, Frank

  Watts, David

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Webb, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  White, Brian

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Salter, Martin

  (Swansea W)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Willis, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wood, Mike

  Singh, Marsha

  Wray, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The debate so far has been unsatisfactory because the Government have refused to move on any of their propositions and, in particular, on allowing two questions in the referendum. Outside the Government, there are very few people who support having only one question.
  The Minister often accuses me of never quoting the London Evening Standard. I am happy to break that record by quoting this evening's edition, which contains an article with the unpromising—for the Minister— headline:
  "Blair faces revolt over London mayor".
  660
  The article states
  "Tony Blair today faced a grassroots revolt from his party activists over the Government's plans for a 'Voice of London' directly-elected mayor and assembly to run the capital.
  Mr. Blair was hit by criticism of his one-question referendum next May. Many Labour branches and trade unions urge a rethink to allow at least two questions to establish if Londoners want both an assembly and a figurehead mayor brought in from outside its ranks … The submissions made to the Government about its plans also include a demand—from Mr. Raynsford's own Greenwich constituency local government committee—for the new assembly to be given tax-raising powers. Another from Ms Jackson's Hampstead and Highgate expresses 'considerable unease about the … role of the mayor' and calls for separate questions."
  There is a consensus that there are two issues. [Interruption.] I can establish it in even greater detail if the House wishes. Should we have a directly elected mayor and should we have a directly elected assembly? The Conservative party's view is clear. We support a directly elected mayor, but we do not favour a directly elected assembly, and therefore want two questions in the referendum. In that, we are supported by a host of newspapers which, for some reason, the Minister never wishes me to quote against him, such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
  The Liberal Democrats take a different view on the policy but we are at one in wanting more than one question. Some Labour Back Benchers also take a different view on the policy. It is significant that in this debate we have heard only one Back-Bench speech from a Labour Member. Even with the Minister's renowned optimism in claiming support, he could not claim that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was exactly coming out in support of his line.
  In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Brent, East told us that he
  "went to what was called a consultation meeting of the Greater London Labour party"
  at which
  "Nine out of the 10 speeches opposed the principle of a separately elected mayor".
  The hon. Gentleman continued:
  "If we are prepared to trust Londoners, we would have a debate in which Ministers could marshall their arguments and we could challenge them. If Ministers could persuade Londoners, Ministers would get their way, but they do not trust Londoners, which is why they will not be given a choice. Londoners will be told, 'Take it or leave it.'"
  He added
  "we should not deny Londoners the chance to decide what system of government they want. I am deeply ashamed of the way my party has proceeded tonight, because it is an offence to Londoners and an insult to their intelligence."—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 403.]
  Even with the Minister's sunny disposition, he may find it a wee bit difficult to claim that that was a declaration of undying support for his cause.
  5.15 pm
  Even more significantly, there are others who support the Government's proposals—though not many, to judge from tonight's speeches. The Guardian came out in favour of them. However, in a now famous—or should it be infamous—omission, the Minister did not quote its statement that while it certainly was in favour of what he

  661
  was saying he should make the argument in a campaign. The point is that not only opponents but supporters of the Government's position want two questions.
  The matter reveals an amazing lack of confidence. In its manifesto, the Labour party said that the purpose of its referendum was to confirm public demand. How can public demand be confirmed if the public are not allowed to express their view? The Government hope that support for a mayor will pull through the more unpopular idea of an elected assembly. Whether I am right or wrong, I believe that that proposition should be put to the test. It is the Government who have decided to hold the referendum, so they should follow the logic of their decision and allow two questions. Let London and Londoners decide, because that is the way that they wish to do it. As it stands, clause 1 is unsatisfactory and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: First, Sir Alan, I apologise for not using your new title when I spoke last Wednesday. Your elevation had temporarily escaped me.
  Like the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), we believe that clause 1 should be deleted. That would allow the Bill to proceed, but we could perfectly properly go back to the matter on Report to get a first clause in proper form. We hope that the House will shortly vote to delete the clause, but I wish to amplify the reasons that I gave last week and expand on the references made by the Conservative spokesman.
  Last Wednesday, under some pressure from the Opposition, the Minister conceded—for which we were grateful—that the responses to the consultation should be made available. Diligent as ever, my team went and knocked on the door of the library in Marsham street at the appointed hour of 1 pm on Friday afternoon. They were admitted and, in the four hours available to them before the library closed, they went through the responses. As a result, the world now knows the weight of the Labour party opposition to the Government's submission. I have photocopies of the relevant documents which gave rise to today's story in the Evening Standard.
  It is clear from the first published analysis of the replies to the Government's consultative Green Paper on London Government that the Government's views and those of many London Labour Members of Parliament are poles apart. There is now clear evidence of widespread Labour opposition to a directly elected mayor, as well as support for a referendum with more than one question.
  As we heard last Wednesday, the Government have not listened to the views of their Back Benchers, the Opposition or people outside. Perhaps the extent to which those views are in the public domain will mean that they will be taken seriously into account. I hope that they will, because if Labour Back Benchers are unhappy, they should be in a position to influence the Government.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hughes: The Minister is suggesting either that Labour Back Benchers are not unhappy or that they are in no position to influence the Government. I would put money on the latter.
  662
  I wish to cite the evidence which, to me, is unambiguous. I will start with the Minister's own constituency. The Greenwich Labour party local government committee wrote on 18 October 1997:
  "Our Committee discussed the consultation paper … Votes were taken on a number of issues which arose during the discussion, and I was asked to pass to you our views on these issues."
  Interestingly, the letter was not addressed to the Minister, but to "The London Debate"—a cover-all title. It may have been embarrassing for the committee to write to its constituency Member of Parliament on this issue.
  The third item on the agenda of the Greenwich committee was:
  "The assembly should have tax-raising powers".
  The first item was
  "The principle of 'equal opportunities' should be paramount in the new structure, and this should in particular apply to candidates for mayor and for the assembly."
  No one is arguing about that. The second item was
  "There should be a limit on the time any one person should hold the office of mayor."
  There is no great dispute about that.
  The Greenwich local government committee argued specifically for tax-varying powers and suggested that the authority should have some responsibility for health in London—a suggestion which the Government have studiously ignored. My party would wish to go further than the Greenwich committee.
  The Islington, South and Finsbury constituency Labour party—the constituency of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—asked for:
  "Strategic overview of health provision, and community care and long-term care"—
  something for which my party has long argued. It added:
  "The Mayor/Chair/Leader should be elected from amongst its membership."
  It cannot be clearer than that. The constituency party also
  felt that the GLA
  "should have the power to precept."
  I shall return to that matter.
  The London Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform produced a well-argued letter, saying:
  "Strong feelings of disquiet were expressed that Londoners have not been consulted at all about whether they want a directly, and separately, elected Mayor for London.
  A directly elected Mayor, and separately from the assembly that s/he will represent, makes it highly likely that there will differences in the policy that they want to enact … We should be very wary of introducing such a system here."
  The letter argues that Londoners have not had an opportunity to indicate how they want the devolved powers to be implemented:
  "Even with a longer consultation period the Green Paper does not ask for input regarding the mayor and whether a separate election is desirable".
  The Belsize and Adelaide branch of the Hampstead and Highgate Labour party—the constituency of the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—produced a relatively long submission, which said:
  "We appreciate that a referendum on whether to have a London Authority with a directly elected mayor was promised in the election manifesto. It would therefore be wrong to go back on this.

  663
  However, our own discussions have shown that many of those who support a Greater London Authority do not wish to go so far outside the British tradition as to support the idea of a directly elected mayor—which does have some dangers of landing us—
  this is reminiscent of the speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) the other day—
  "with inexperienced and unsuitable mayors promoted by skilled advertising campaigns."
  What a surprise. The submission continued:
  "This outcome is not exactly unknown in America!"
  It went on to make the case for a two-question referendum.
  The Brent Labour party—which covers not only the constituency of the hon. Member for Brent, East, but that of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—said:
  "We further believe that if the implementation of the government's proposals is to ensure democracy, accountability and probity then the Mayor should be part of the Assembly and must carry a majority in the Assembly on the same principle as the Leader of a local council or indeed the Prime Minister in Parliament."
  The submission which followed the famous meeting of the Greater London Labour party regional council—about which we heard the other day—confirmed the report given to us by the hon. Member for Brent, East.
  "The discussion was wide-ranging and not directed systematically to the questions in the Green Paper. The indicative votes taken at the end rejected the concept of a directly elected mayor."
  It omits to state that the majority was nine to one against.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: That is not correct. I was there all day and there were no votes.
  Mr. Hughes: The submission deals with the consultation conference on 12 October 1997, and refers to
  "Workshop 1—The Mayor and Assembly."
  The submission says that there were "indicative votes."[Interruption.] I was not at the conference, Sir Alan, but a conference without a vote seems a bit funny. If a vote was taken, I believe that the majority was nine to one. The Labour party can sort out whether there was a vote, but the conclusion was that there was overwhelming support for a full-time post. However, it says clearly that the
  "indicative votes taken at the end rejected the concept of a directly elected Mayor."
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) will no doubt say that this is fiction. If so, that gives even more cause for concern, as it would seem that the Labour party cannot even record its own meetings accurately. Incidentally, the London regional conference is a rare event these days—the previous conference was held in 1995.
  The London Labour Mayors' Association, founded in 1920, is an august body, and there are a lot of London Labour mayors these days. The association was explicit:
  "The Government's proposal for an elected Mayor with executive powers is not considered acceptable because
  It would lead to the setting-up of two bureaucracies—one to serve the Mayor and one to serve the GLA. It would lead to public clashes on policies between the Mayor and the GLA and its Leader. It could lead to the installation of a too-powerful political figure. It would create an ambiguity with the present Lord Mayor of London".
  664
  Lesser bodies have also contributed. The Cambridge and Coombe Labour party is a branch of the Richmond Park constituency Labour party—not the strongest Labour party in London. It said:
  "We have reservations about the idea of a directly elected Mayor, as this is not in keeping with British political traditions. However, we note that a Mayor elected by the Assembly, or by the boroughs, is not given as an option."
  Well, what a surprise.
  The Kingston and Surbiton constituency Labour party—again, not the biggest Labour party, but it is none-the-less relevant—asked, first, for a vote on tax-raising powers and, secondly, for a
  "strong executive but answerable to and controlled ultimately by the assembly."
  The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is in the Chamber, always clearly expresses the views of his local members and voters. His constituency Labour party said:
  "Most members present thought that the assembly and the mayor should not be separately elected. One member thought the mayor should be elected from those elected to the assembly."
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) argued strongly the other day for a directly elected mayor. That is not what the Shaftesbury branch of Battersea Labour party believes. It is the only branch that submitted a response: no other branch bothered.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: Tacit consent.
  Mr. Hughes: It may be tacit consent, or there may not be much interest in the proposals. If we go by the silent majority, we are all in trouble. The Shaftesbury branch's submission is explicit. It says:
  "We are against a directly-elected Mayor. Instead, the Major should be an elected member of the elected assembly and should be chosen by that assembly."
  5.30 pm
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham), who is a new representative, addressed the constituency party meeting, but I do not know what views she expressed. Someone was tasked—to use the new word—with giving the constituency party's comments and views in writing. The letter said:
  "The mayor should not be elected separately. The mayor should not be separate from the Assembly. This would avoid conflict between the mayor and the Assembly. The mayor should be a member of the assembly, elected as a member of the assembly and elected as mayor by the assembly. The power should be vested in the Assembly not in the mayor."
  It is all pretty clear.
  I will make one last local party contribution and then throw a few wind-up bonus balls into the equation. I have saved a good one till last. It is a submission from my own borough—the Alleyn ward Labour party in the new Dulwich and West Norwood constituency, which is the seat of the now famous Minister for Public Health. The letter says:
  "We have some doubts about the proposal for a separately elected mayor"—
  not many doubts, but some doubts—
  "It is not clear that the process of candidate selection by political parties, and election campaign, is suitable to produce one person with the right range of executive and strategic skills. It may be preferable to give powers to the Assembly to appoint a Leader and Chief Executive."

  665
  If I had begun the debate having not already been persuaded of the demerits of this proposal, the evidence would be weighing up against me, and I would feel under some pressure.
  Mr. Ottaway: I can clarify the position of the Greater London Labour party executive, because we have the minutes of the meeting. The House will be interested to know that the chair of the Greater London Labour party, Jim Fitzpatrick
  "bowed to pressure from delegates and agreed that workshops could submit resolutions to the closing plenary if they had strong views."
  The minutes go on to say that
  "when the workshop chair allowed an indicative vote on the question of a separately elected mayor",
  they voted eight to one in favour.
  "Some delegates passed resolutions to the chair but she declined to put them to the vote and when we got to the final plenary, Jim Fitzpatrick refused to put the views of the workshops to the vote on the grounds that they were not in the form of resolutions."
  Mr. Hughes: Well, well, well. I do not imagine that Nye Bevan or Herbert Morrison would have been pleased: they would not have been happy people. I knew that there was a danger in taking minutes, and an even greater danger in leaving them on the photocopier. They show that people are not happy.
  There is an important point. Political parties in London work the constituencies. The evidence is now clear that all three political parties in London, and their members who have expressed views, are united.
  Mr. Raynsford: No, they are not.
  Mr. Hughes: By their deeds ye shall know them, by their words ye shall judge them.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be hearing about them.
  Mr. Hughes: I look forward to hearing about them. There is a strong ground-floor view in local and regional Labour parties, that we should not have the system that the Government propose, and it is shared by a Member of the European Parliament. Even if the Government do not believe that is the overwhelming view, they should at least accept that there may be another argument and that another question could be included. The Government could campaign against it: they could go into battle. The Labour party could be a pluralist party and allow the Tooting, Battersea, Hampstead and Highgate, Greenwich and Dulwich and West Norwood branches to argue their case, and the mass ranks of the Government could argue theirs. Let there be a debate; let there be an argument. Let pluralism survive. At the moment, the Government seem to be practising top-down politics 10 Downing street knows best; the non-democratic tendency.
  I do not mind terribly which decision the voters make, as long as they have a choice. I would happily and warmly endorse the result. We will argue our case, and as democrats we will abide by the result. But please let us
  666
  have a debate not just in the House. The Government obtained a majority of seats, although they were not supported by a majority of the electorate.
  Mr. Raynsford: In London we were.
  Mr. Hughes: They got a majority in London by 0.5 per cent., but it is not only London Members who vote on these matters, as we shall see when we have a Division. If the Government relied only on hon. Members from relevant parts of the country, they would often have been in trouble in the past. All hon. Members vote. The Government did not obtain a majority of the popular vote at the last election they did not get a majority of those who voted, let alone those who did not vote. Let us not artificially distort the result.
  The Member of the European Parliament for Central London is Stan Newens, a long-standing and experienced voice of the Labour party. He fully supports the need for a strategic authority, but says:
  "I am fully in favour of an elected authority which chooses its own Mayor, but I do not agree with a directly elected Mayor which may well lead to division between the Mayor's office and the majority of Members of the Authority."
  His views are significant, because he is elected by more votes than any hon. Member here as Members of the European Parliament represent larger electorates.
  Wider and further away from grass roots activists are the submissions of the Southern and Eastern Regional Council of the Trades Union Congress, which makes the same point. It says in its letter:
  "We have argued that, for reasons of democracy, accountability and effective government, the Mayor should be the leader of the majority group in the Assembly and therefore, he/she should not be separately elected."
  Clause 1 will, in effect, confirm the Government's objective of a separately elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. We shall debate later what should be on the ballot paper. Before the Government steamroller their view through, they should take account of the views of non-political organisations, such as the London Voluntary Service Council, and of their political friends and allies.
  If we want the Greater London authority to have authority, and if we want the form of London government that most Londoners want, we should listen to the submissions from both sides. I accept that the Minister will cite submissions that put another view from those that I have cited, but we should allow both cases to be put. I hope that either the House will vote to delete the clause so that it can be rewritten or, if Labour Members are not brave enough to do that, they will abstain.
  Mr. Keith Hill: I do not want to do that.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman cannot abstain, because he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, so he is tied by the apron strings. As his electorate know, he is unable to do anything without losing office. Other Labour Members—I call them Labour friends and colleagues— have democratic roots. I hope that they will be really brave and that if they do not vote that the clause should not stand part they will at least sit on their backsides and abstain. That way the Government and the House will

  667
  realise that the Bill before us has not yet got the question and the proposal right for the Londonwide government that we all want and hope will happen soon.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I shall try to be brief, but since the House of Commons has had to face the constitutional monstrosity of a pre-legislative referendum Bill of this type and since clause 1 is at the heart of that proposed legislation, I urge hon. Members to think carefully about whether, because of Labour Members' mute behaviour, we may have no Report stage and no chance to reconsider what is at the heart of this legislation—as I have said many times, the House of Commons is being asked to approve the biggest municipal blank cheque in history.
  As the Minister confirmed, the electors of London will have only six weeks in which to consider the final draft proposals—the White Paper. They will not have a debate on the Bill before they are called to vote in the referendum on 7 May. At best, they will have about six weeks, which will anyway be taken up with campaigns for the borough elections, which will consume most of the attention and the energies of the party activists—those are the elections which are of primary interest to the people of London.
  That we should be laying down a format for a referendum before we have seen the White Paper or even debated it, and before we know the contents of the Bill, is wholly inappropriate. We do not know the voting system. We do not know whether it will be first past the post, although I think we can confidently say that it is excluded because the Government are hellbent on adopting alien and strange electoral systems that our electors comprehend very little. We do not know what the constituency basis will be, but we are pretty certain that it will not be a borough basis. That was made absolutely plain by our last debate on the subject. It will probably be a regional or Euro-constituency basis and there may even be Londonwide lists.
  Our electors will have little control over the candidates that emerge from the top of those lists with a chance of election. Our electors will have no idea about the tax-raising powers. Some generalised outlines will probably be vouchsafed in the White Paper, but, without adequate scrutiny in this place and the chance of a proper debate on the legislation to enact those revenue-raising powers, the people of London will have no chance properly to make up their minds. I am sure that they will do it on the basis of folk memory—quite rightly so. Their folk memory is that the Greater London council arrogated to itself more and more powers and responsibilities and an increasingly large burden fell on the ratepayers of London as a consequence. Fortunately, I am certain that mat is the precedent that they will recall—once bitten, twice shy. Nevertheless, they should have more than six weeks of rushed consideration in the middle of a borough election campaign to consider the implications of the funding of this Greater London authority before they are called on to cast their vote on it in a referendum.
  I doubt whether the electors will have any chance significantly to assess the system for the selection of the mayoral candidates. Will they be selected by Londonwide primaries or by party caucuses? Will particularly charismatic or rich individuals be in prime place? How will the funding be organised? Will they be able to bankroll their own campaigns? How will the television time be allocated? All those questions are germane. Will there be cash limits for the parties if there are party labels on the candidates, as we presume?
  668
  All those things needed to be spelled out in greater detail in the debate on clause 1. They should have been challenged, candidly, and examined more critically by Labour Members. We heard why they were not from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has more experience of Londonwide government than probably any other Labour Member. He is subject to the gagging order, although he does not take any notice of it. He is subject to the order relating to voting to which I referred late in the debate last Wednesday and that order has significant implications for the independence of hon. Members.
  To be candid, this is a disreputable legislative exercise to which Labour Members are knowingly party. They are doing Londoners as a whole the greatest disservice. Before such a monumental change in the governance of London is instituted, before giving legislative powers to put such a referendum in place, we should know exactly what Londoners will be likely to have to vote for. Furthermore, they are entitled to two questions because they are a discriminating electorate. They may want the mayor and not the assembly, or vice versa. This is a virtually fraudulent exercise in so-called constitutional democracy and it has been exposed as such. It needs to be further exposed in debate on Report and, if we cannot do so, I hope that down the corridor their lordships can
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be brief. The chronology which we are pursuing in these affairs relating to London is a debate last June, consultation which ended on 24 October, the referendum Bill which we are discussing, the White Paper which the Minister promised us for the week of 23 March, the referendum itself in May and, if the vote is in the affirmative, the Greater London Authority Bill thereafter and the elections in 2000. That chronology makes matters difficult for the Opposition and for Londoners, but it also makes matters a little difficult for the Government.
  In our debate on 19 November, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) dissected the Second Reading speeches on the referendum questions in support of the Minister by Back Benchers. In particular, he examined their speeches on behalf of the principle of the Bill. I think that I could neutrally claim that he did not think much of them. No Labour Member other than the hon. Member for Brent, East spoke when we discussed the referendum questions last Wednesday night, so we, let alone the hon. Gentleman, are in no position to dissect them. Perhaps, given their performance on Second Reading, they were prudent to maintain their silence.
  The Minister was a little cheeky, given their silence, to argue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was using selective quotations, since by definition he was unable to quote them at all. Consequently, we are left only with the Minister as the voice for why the combined Greater London authority proposal is the right solution. Last Wednesday, he said:
  "We shall make sure that the package that we put to Londoners is one that works".—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 416.]
  Given the immense leap in the dark that we are making, I admired his confidence, but it is reasonable for us to ask him to be a little more forthcoming on why he has that confidence. His principal rationale to date has been the

  669
  manifesto and the election result, but no manifesto and no election result can by themselves protect a Government— and thus Londoners—from folly. His justification that the Government are carrying out their manifesto pledges is itself not proof against the Government deciding, as they follow the curious reverse chronology that I outlined, that they made a mistake and were wrong in their original thinking.
  The Minister owes the Committee a rather fuller account of why the Government have such particular confidence that this formulation is the right one.
  Mr. Raynsford: This has been a curious exercise in fantasy politics. Opposition Members have devoted the major part of their speeches to fantasising about what the Labour party might believe. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spent most of his speech speculating on the Labour party's views. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) spent some time in textual analysis and speculation about what might have happened at meetings of the London Labour party. All that leads me to the view that perhaps it is expected that other Conservative Members will not resist the temptation to cross to this side of the Chamber to find out more about how the Labour party organises its affairs. I assure them that, when they come, they will receive a warm welcome and be given a full explanation on how we operate.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield also has a certain fantasy about the press. Concerned that in its editorial, the Evening Standard had given the Government full support for our proposals and the question that we intend to put to the people of London in a referendum, he had to have recourse to a news article today under the headline "Blair faces revolt over London mayor". Unfortunately, he mentioned that immediately after his amendment had been put to the vote and defeated by a majority of 187, with no Labour Members voting against. So much for the revolt that he expects. 1 assure him that there is no revolt.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, in an interesting speech, managed to dredge through a large number of submissions in response to the consultation—some 1,200—and I congratulate him and his researchers on their great industry. He managed to find a handful expressing a degree of difference from the Government's point of view. I put it to him in the most charitable way that, if one involves oneself in a consultation exercise and asks 61 questions, as the Government have, giving people an opportunity to comment on all those questions, it is hardly surprising if some come back with a view that differs from that of the Government. We welcome that and expect differences of opinion. That is what consultation is about. I do not find it in the least strange.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Minister's pluralistic attitude. In a spirit of pluralism, will he give an undertaking to the Committee that, for all the remaining votes on the Bill, there will be no sanctions against any Labour Member who votes against his or her Front Benchers? Will he confirm that the majority of Labour submissions were against a directly elected mayor?
  Mr. Raynsford: I assure the hon. Gentleman that disciplinary matters are the responsibility of the Whip,
  670
  but there is no question of taking measures against any Labour Members, because they are solid in support of the Government's view. If the hon. Gentleman consults Hansard, he will see that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), Labour Members voted solidly with the Government in Committee last week and all Labour Members supported the Government on Second Reading. That is a measure of the support for the Government from Labour Back Benchers.
  Mr. Hughes: I would not dare say who it was, but I can tell the Minister, and the Committee for its amusement, and for the sake of truth, that at least one Labour Member, having voted in the Government Lobby, asked me what they had just voted for and said, "Oh, my God, I haven't voted for that, have I?"
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should try a little harder. I regard that comment in the same way as I regard his earlier claim that the Labour party did not have the support of the majority of Londoners in the election. We secured a majority of electors in London at the last election and the hon. Gentleman was wrong to imply that we did not have that support.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Does the Minister remember the searing attack made on him by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who said specifically that the only reason he would not vote against the Government that night was that, if he did so, he was likely to be debarred from further candidature for the Labour party. Is that wrong?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East remains an active member of the Labour party, unlike the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), whose existence in the Conservative party appears to have been terminated by the leader of his party. We shall take no lessons from the Conservative party on the exercise of proper disciplinary procedures.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey had difficulty finding evidence to support his case.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I shall not give way for the moment. I am dealing with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who managed to find 10 submissions among the 1,867 from Labour party wards in London that expressed a different view from that of the Government. Ten out of 1,867 does not strike me as a problem. It may be significant in the hon. Gentleman's terms, but it is a small percentage. In Committee last week, we were discussing percentages of 0.01. That is the order of magnitude that we are discussing.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have not added up the number of Labour party wards, but I am happy to take the Minister's word. I put the same question to him: does he deny that, of those who submitted responses, a majority opposed the Government?
  Mr. Raynsford: The considerable majority of people who responded to the consultation supported the Government's proposals. I shall return to the issue of Labour branches in a moment.

  671
  I want to deal specifically with two allegations by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about responses from my constituency Labour party in Greenwich and from the Belsize and Adelaide branch in the constituency of the Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). The impression that the hon. Gentleman gave was not accurate. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the Greenwich Labour party did not support the Government's proposals. That is wrong. The Greenwich Labour party made it clear that it did support the proposals. It made a series of detailed comments on matters to do with equal opportunities, the length of term of a mayor, the financial arrangements for the authority, the authority's remit, its role in relation to strategic open space in London and the number of assembly members. They were all detailed and useful comments. It was a consultation exercise.
  I have just referred to the paper that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has before him. He will confirm that it does not support his case for two questions in a referendum. Indeed, it makes no reference to that.
  The Belsize and Adelaide branch of the Hampstead and Highgate Labour party made it clear in its response that it did not wish to go back on a manifesto pledge. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate it on rightly attaching much importance to supporting manifesto pledges. He was extremely selective in his quotations. I remind him that the one notable omission from his quotations was the view of the borough that he represents. Let me quote from the response of the London borough of Southwark, as the hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to heed the views of local communities. It says:
  "The proposals for an elected Mayor for London and an elected assembly are supported."
  That is the view of the hon. Gentleman's authority and it would be good if he would fall in line with it.
  The Bill is not about providing for an expensive legislative opinion poll on a multitude of different questions. It is not about recklessly offering a range of alternatives in the clear knowledge that some of them would be completely unworkable. It is about letting the people of London have their say on whether they agree with what the Government propose. Our proposal is new—a directly elected mayor working with an elected assembly is a new concept. It will be exciting and innovative. Inevitably, there are constitutional conservatives from all parties who seek to argue against it, claiming that it is too radical or not how things used to be in the past. That is always the case when one tries to institute change, but I hope that, between now and next May, when the referendum is held, we can win many of those people over and convince them to vote yes on our proposal. I am sure that, when they see our final proposals in March, they will change their minds.
  Some—perhaps the type frightened by change or with an interest in the status quo—may continue to oppose, but it is absolutely clear that they do not speak for London. In a recent opinion poll, 82 per cent. of Londoners supported our plans and the business community gave them overwhelming support. Last week, the London chamber of commerce published findings showing that our proposals have the support of 86 per cent. of the capital's business leaders. Our proposals are right and they are popular, and the Government are proceeding with plans to put them into effect.
  672
  We are unconvinced by arguments for more than one question. The Government think that the referendum should present a clear, single, comprehensible proposition to the people of London. The referendum should be capable of delivering an unambiguous mandate. Despite the time that was available to proponents of multiple questions, additional questions that have so far been proposed have been numerous and contradictory. There has been no single, agreed second question that would allow people to represent their views and be satisfied that they would know the outcome of their vote. No one has been able to produce that. None of the proposals that have been advanced so far would provide a clear mandate, and all of them reflect nothing more than the political priorities of those who concocted them.
  6 pm
  A single question on a well-thought-out package is the only fair and honest option. Everyone's vote will count in exactly the way that people intend it to count. Voters will be able to study detailed proposals in the White Paper, make a considered judgment about the whole package on offer and cast their vote. They will know exactly what they are voting for and what they will get. If they do not like it, they can vote no. That is the Government's proposition. It is correct and fair and I urge the Committee to support the clause.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 291, Noes 154.

  Division No. 93]

  [6 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainger, Nick

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Casale, Roger

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cawsey, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ashton, Joe

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beard, Nigel

  Coleman, Iain

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cooper, Yvette

  Benton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cox, Tom

  Best, Harold

  Crausby, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Burden, Richard

  Darvill, Keith

  Burgon, Colin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davidson, Ian

  Byers, Stephen

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Denham, John

  673

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Doran, Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Drew, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lepper, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Efford, Clive

  Linton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lock, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McAllion, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McCabe, Steve

  Flint, Caroline

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McFall, John

  Galloway, George

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Gardiner, Barry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gerard, Neil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McNulty, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  MacShane, Denis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marek, Dr John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hanson, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Maxton, John

  Healey, John

  Meale, Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Alun

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milbum, Alan

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoey, Kate

  Mountford, Kali

  Home Robertson, John

  Mudie, George

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Norris, Dan

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Hurst, Alan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hutton, John

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Ingram, Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Jenkins, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Pond, Chris

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Raynsford, Nick

  674

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Timms, Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roy, Frank

  Todd, Mark

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Truswell, Paul

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Singh, Marsha

  Wareing, Robert N

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watts, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wills, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Winnick, David

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wise, Audrey

  Spellar, John

  Wood, Mike

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wray, James

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Amess, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Arbuthnot, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Faber, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Flight, Howard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Boswell, Tim

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brady, Graham

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brake, Tom

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gibb, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Burnett, John

  Gray, James

  Bums, Simon

  Green, Damian

  Burstow, Paul

  Greenway, John

  Butterfill, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Cash, William

  Hammond, Philip

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Chidgey, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  675

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Johnson Smith,

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sanders, Adrian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Key, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Soames, Nicholas

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lansley, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Letwin, Oliver

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lidington, David

  Syms, Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, lan (Esher & Walton)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Townend, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Tredinnick, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Trend, Michael

  Maples, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Wallace, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Walter, Robert

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moore, Michael

  Webb, Steve

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Willis, Phil

  Paterson, Owen

  Wilshire, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Randall, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rendel, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. James Cran.

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

  FORM OF BALLOT PAPER
  Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This is the last chance that the Committee will have to sort out what is on the ballot paper. We have had a debate in which the case has been put that there is an overwhelming view in favour of alternatives being generally available. The Government keep on resisting. They will be in more trouble when the Bill goes to the other place, but we now have a final opportunity to consider the ballot paper.
  As colleagues will be aware, we tried the other day to put to the Committee various alternatives. The Minister argued that, as yet, there was no commonly agreed formulation, other than the Government's. That is a bit rich in one respect: no one else agrees with the Government's formulation. Therefore, although civil servants and high-powered draftspeople have pored all over it, basically,
  676
  the question in the schedule is the same as the proposal in the manifesto:
  "Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?"
  6.15 pm
  The question does indeed have the merit of simplicity: all the issues of London and the future of London are to be determined through one question. The Scots had two questions. They managed perfectly well. They managed to produce a majority for Government policy even on both questions, so the Government cannot complain.
  The Government won an overwhelming majority for the question about which there had been much prior agreement; my Scottish colleagues will bear testimony to the fact that the efforts to reach an agreement resulted in so much unanimity. The great benefit—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend—or hon. and learned Friend as he is now—the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—is that, as a result, what was approved will be much more secure.
  We are trying to achieve for London a secure form of regional government. We do not want a "here today, gone tomorrow" form of regional government, so we want a question, or set of questions, that commands general agreement. We want to learn from the Scottish experience.
  The Welsh experience teaches us that we need such general agreement. In Wales, there was no attempt at an agreement and there were differences of opinion. There was no convention and, as we know, the result was that the proposal—a single question—sneaked through. We could learn some lessons from the fact that, in Scotland, where there were two questions, there was much greater support than in Wales.
  In the previous debate, the Minister implied that there could be no agreement between anyone else about what the alternative should be. I have told him that he must not count his chickens. We all started by tabling amendments that we believed were good starting points. Liberal Democrats tabled their amendments, and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who leads for the Conservative party, tabled an amendment that reflected the respectable and reasonable views of the Conservative party about what the way forward should be.
  I have said to the Minister—it is not a secret—that Liberal Democrats are entirely willing to seek to reach an agreement about the form of two questions, and I believe that we will do so. If we do and there can be a widely supported pair of questions, the Minister will not be able to argue that that would be a less democratic and less acceptable alternative. That is why we want the schedule to be deleted for now—so that, on Report, we can return to what the questions are. It means that we will finish the Committee today, I hope not too late. We can then go on to Report, at the earliest, on Wednesday.
  I remind the Committee that I had to raise a point of order earlier because the Government seemed to think that Report stages had been now done away with in this age of new Labour Governments. The Leader of the House did not provide for one in her statement on Thursday and, had I not raised it, I am not sure—unless some other colleague had raised it—whether there would have been provision for Report on Wednesday. This is a Committee on the Floor of the House, but the principle applies.

  677
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was diligent enough—perhaps remembering something at the back of his mind—to leave the Committee during the previous debate to check the figures about democratic mandates and democratic authority.
  The Minister was gleeful in his misinterpretation of what I said. In the clause 1 stand part debate, I said that the Government did not have majority support among the British electorate. In fact, they do not have majority support among the London electorate either. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon, South, who went to collect the Library research note detailing the results and analysis of the general election. Page 8 shows the share of the vote cast for major parties by standard region—Conservatives 31.2 per cent; Labour 49.5 per cent. I knew that it was close. I was almost deceived by the Minister's suggestion that it was close on the Government's side of the argument, but it was not.
  Of course, the Government get the majority of seats in the House because of our silly electoral system, but they do not have majority support among voters in the country, despite the fact that they think that they have a divine right—well, no, I do not really think that they think that. I was getting carried away with the argument, and I withdraw that remark. However, there is a danger that some people think that the Government have huge public support because of opinion poll ratings. In fact, they had the support of fewer than half the electors who voted throughout Britain and fewer than half the electors who voted in London. It would be even less than that as a percentage of the total electorate, given the number of people who did not vote.
  I hope that the Government will, possibly uncharacteristically, be modest about the mandate with which they come to the Committee. I hope that they will accept our argument that we could do better in relation to the referendum and better than the question on the ballot paper.
  I read out—I could see that it was to the delight of Labour Members—the submissions from Labour party members, branches, constituencies, regions and Members of the European Parliament, whose overwhelming view was not contradicted. I did not hear the Labour party rebutting that and saying what a wonderful set of proposals these were.
  While we were voting, I chatted to my assistants, who were diligent workers in Marsham street library on Friday afternoon. I asked them whether what the Minister had said about the overwhelming response being supportive of the Government's proposals was right. I concede that I have not looked at the responses, but three people went on my behalf to do so on Friday afternoon. They were keen to be there first when that library door was opened. In fact, they were the only people there and had the place to themselves. They told me that those submissions did not reveal overwhelming support for the Government's proposals; they revealed a number of different views, as I would have expected. This is the first proposal; it is the consultation.
  By Wednesday, when we come to Report, we may get further revelations about what is in the box now that we have found the key and been able to open it. All that I know is that I could—but I am considerate by nature—delight the House by regaling the Minister and his colleagues with the views of Labour party members not only on whether there
  678
  should be a directly elected mayor, but on what the ballot paper should say. Almost without exception, all the Labour party submissions from which I quoted in my speech on clause 1 stand part—I have them all with me—argue for more than one question. They argue that because they believe that the electors should decide.
  I pay tribute to members of the Labour party, the Conservative party and my party for saying, "Look, we will have a different party position on this and come to different views after our party deliberations, but there is a variety of views in London."
  I ask hon. Members to give us an opportunity to look again at the wording on the ballot paper; to look, above all, at the proposal that there should be only one question; and to look at what hon. Members from both sides, including the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), believe is the key question— whether to go for the constitutional innovation of a directly elected mayor. I am not saying that it should not happen; I am not saying that it is nonsense, but it is a constitutional innovation. For heavens sake, let Londoners vote on whether they want it, and the only way to do that is to allow more than one question.
  I hope that we shall vote to remove the question currently proposed, to delete the schedule and to allow us to reach agreement on two questions that will enable Londoners— not this place, certainly not the Government—to decide.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the schedule is unsatisfactory. We have debated the general point, but received only unsatisfactory replies. There are two separate questions on two issues. The proposed question rolls those two issues into one. It asks the public whether they are in favour of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. That cannot be satisfactory and no one other than Ministers thinks that it is. Nothing could be easier than to divide the question into two to cover an elected mayor and an elected assembly.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey slightly misjudges the Government's position. The Government will not agree to any amendment that is tabled. Whether we can or cannot agree on an amendment is not what the Government are about—they intend to stick absolutely to the formula in the Bill. It would be better if the Minister were entirely frank about that and did not try to base his defence on some technical argument that it is not good in this or that respect. We all know, and he knows above all, that there is no amendment that he, with Labour's majority, will accept.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I raised this point during Second Reading and everything that I have heard in Committee so far has not answered it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question, as posed in the schedule, is ambiguous? The way that it is written is that if there is a yes vote, there will be a separately elected assembly and an elected mayor. There is nothing to stop the assembly voting for the mayor, which is what I understand the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wants, but we do not want. If the Government are to be unambiguous beyond doubt, they must change the form of the question on the ballot paper by inserting, "a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly."
  Sir Norman Fowler: As I said on Second Reading, my hon. Friend makes a strong point. If it is to be one

  679
  question and if it is to be utterly and absolutely clear, it must say, "a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly." There is no doubt about that.
  The Minister will deceive the House if he suggests that there is some form of words that can be invented, agreed and proposed that will satisfy him. He knows as well as I do that he just wants one question. That is why it has been devised and why this schedule is so deeply unsatisfactory. We will vote against it.
  Mr. Brooke: We are again debating the single question. During the last Parliament, I participated in many debates with the two Ministers on the Treasury Bench. They have heard me say a lot of things and, I hasten to say, I have heard them say a lot of things. In consequence, I cannot remember whether they have heard me tell the story of another single question, when Professor Joad, as he then was not, sat the scholarship at Oxford and was asked to write for three hours on the question, "Can a good man be happy on the rack?", to which Professor Joad, as he then was not, wrote for a minute and a half the single sentence, "If he were a very good man and it were a very bad rack, yes; if not, no." The referendum question—when we come to the referendum, next May, as it is most likely we shall—is more readily answerable in a minute and a half.
  In the debate on clause 1 stand part, I asked the Minister another single question why he was so confident that the Government were right in their single formulation? Although I acknowledge that he may be a very good man, that also remains a very good rack. And answer came there none on that occasion. The debate on the schedule affords him a chance to redeem his earlier silence—now that he has had the opportunity to think about it—and he will still be within Joad's three hours. If the answer is too difficult or will take him more than three hours to answer, I shall ask him a simpler question why is it that—as I mentioned in the debate on Second Reading—clause 1 mentions
  "a Greater London Authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor"
  whereas, curiously, the schedule asks
  "Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Assembly, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?"?
  There must be some reason why that curious rearrangement has occurred. I, personally, should be happy to hear it.
  6.30 pm
  Mr, Raynsford: We are debating the single schedule to the Bill, which proposes the form of the question to be voted on in the referendum. It asks Londoners whether they are
  "in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly"—
  yes or no?
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) questioned why the Government did not include the phrase "a directly elected mayor". As I said, at least six weeks before the date of the referendum we will publish a White Paper spelling out in detail the electoral arrangements. All Londoners will have an opportunity to study the White Paper, which we will ensure is made available widely.
  680
  We will ensure also that summary copies are distributed to every London household, so that Londoners have the information on which they can form a judgment. They will be able to consider the proposed electoral arrangements and reach their view on whether to vote in favour of them.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has answered a question, but not the question asked by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). Simply put, what is the objection to adding—if not in our Committee, in a Committee in the other place—the two words "directly elected"? What is the draftsman's objection to adding those two words?
  Mr. Raynsford: The objection is that they are unnecessary. The electoral system will be clearly explained in the White Paper. The question refers to "an elected mayor" and "a separately elected assembly" to make it quite clear that there will be separate elections for the mayor and the assembly.
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) raised the interesting image of a good man on the rack. He will recall that Conservative Members recently elected a leader—although I will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to judge whether he is a good man or whether he is on the rack—but that, subsequently, the Conservative party felt that the wider endorsement of the party membership was required. As I recall it, the mechanism that was proposed was a dual question, merged into one "Are you in favour of the new Leader of the Opposition, and are you in favour of all that he is doing?"
  I am sure that Conservative Members, having experienced that single question, will now tell the House that such questions are wrong, and that there should have been two separate questions so mat Conservative party members could have voted separately on the separate propositions. Their case against a single question is pretty unconvincing, because their own practice does not support the case that they have been arguing.
  The Government believe that more than one question is not appropriate, and that one question is right. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster rightly asked me to give reasons for our belief, and I propose to do so.
  Fundamentally, there are four reasons. The first is that we spelled out our proposals in the Green Paper, and we invited comments on 61 separate questions. Despite the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—I urge his researchers to do a little more thorough digging—the responses to those questions show strong support for the proposal for a separately elected mayor and assembly. It is quite clear that there is such support, and we believe that we are working with the grain of public opinion, as demonstrated by opinion polls.
  The second point is that—as I have said repeatedly, including in the debate on clause 1 stand part—there is no simple second question. There are five possible permutations on the question whether to have a mayor and an assembly first, to have a mayor and an assembly, each separately elected; secondly, to have a mayor alone, with no assembly; thirdly, to have an assembly alone, with no mayor; fourthly, to have a mayor with an assembly comprised of borough leaders—which is the Opposition's

  681
  preferred formulation; and fifthly, to have a mayor elected out of an assembly. The permutations raise five separate issues, and no single formulation has yet been produced to satisfy all of them.
  I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the interesting progress of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on the issue over the course of this Committee stage. He started by making his own proposal on a two-question referendum—which, as was demonstrated in last Wednesday's debate, has serious flaws. His proposal simply reflected the Liberal Democrats' view that the mayor should be elected from within the assembly—which was totally unacceptable to the Conservative party.
  Recognising Conservative Members' opposition and attempting to gain their support for his proposition, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey expressed sympathy for the Conservatives' formulation of two questions, despite the fact that the Conservative party's proposals would open the door to an outcome—a mayor without an assembly—that the Liberal Democrats totally oppose and which virtually everyone who has examined the issue realises is completely unrealistic.
  Subsequently, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made what he called a "blind offer" to support whichever two options arose as favourites in the consultation, without even knowing what those options might be. His researchers have been diligently looking through the consultation responses, so perhaps we will soon hear what those options are, although we have not heard them yet.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey finally offered to go and think about another possible question and agree the wording with the official Opposition. Significantly, no agreed wording has yet appeared, although it may. After all this time and consideration, however, Opposition Members' inability to come up with one simple alternative second question speaks volumes for the practicalities involved.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister confirm that, whichever two questions might be proposed, the Government would oppose them and insist on one question?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not. I have made it quite clear that we are proceeding in an appropriate and considered manner, examining the options in the light of our manifesto, of responses to the consultation and of the enormous practical difficulties that those who argue for second questions are having in devising an agreed formula. As I said, there is no agreed simple second question. If the right hon. Gentleman can propose such a question, I shall happily give way to him so that he can tell us what it is.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Willingly or not, the hon. Gentleman is making an important statement. He is saying that, in principle, he is prepared to accept two questions. That is my understanding of what he has just said.
  Mr. Raynsford: I noted that the right hon. Gentleman declined entirely to offer an alternative second question, thus proving my point. The Government are pragmatic and not dogmatic about the matter. We said that we believe that a single question is correct and proper, but we consulted and listened to people's views. We have received 1,200 responses to our consultation, some of which have dealt with the issues, although others have not. We have also talked at endless meetings. I have spoken to very large numbers of people, and I have been entirely unconvinced of the merits of a second question. That is the position.
  Mr. Hughes: The Minister made a very clear statement, for which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and I am grateful. We will go away, do our bit and be constructive about it. I give the Minister an undertaking that, with the support of Labour Members if possible, we will devise a two-question option that will be ready in time for deliberations in the other place, if not in time for the Report stage—which we may not have, for reasons that the Minister knows as well as I do.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman made the same proposal last week, but, in the five days since then, nothing has been forthcoming. I do not blame him for that—he probably has other things to do—but if the matter was such an overriding priority, I do not doubt that a form of words that satisfied the hon. Gentleman could have been included in an amendment. So far, the evidence is that no formulation has been devised that encapsulates the varied concerns of the people who believe that there might be a second question.
  My third point—this is in response to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—is that some of the permutations would be unworkable. In my view, it would be improper for a Government to put forward a proposition that they believed to be unworkable—that would be constitutional nonsense.
  Fourthly, we are trying to present to the people of London, in line with our manifesto commitment, a clear proposition on which they can make a considered judgment. It is our considered view that the question as spelled out in the schedule does that. I warmly commend the schedule.
  Question put, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 297, Noes 157.

  Division No. 94]

  [6.40 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Beard, Nigel

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Alexander, Douglas

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Ashton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Best, Harold

  Austin, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  683

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Healey, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Heppell, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hill, Keith

  Chaytor, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hoey, Kate

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Colman, Tony

  Hurst, Alan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W amp; Hessle)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Alan (Feltham amp; Heston)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Ann (Brentford amp; lsleworth)

  Denham, John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby amp; Kenilworth)

  Drew, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Laxton, Bob

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Levitt, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Efford, Clive

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lock, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McAllion, John

  Flint, Caroline

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Galloway, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  684

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mandelson, Peter

  Singh, Marsha

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe amp; Lunesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Milbum, Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Miller, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Norris, Dan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Timms, Stephen

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Todd, Mark

  Pike, Peter L

  Touhig, Don

  Plaskitt, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Pollard, Kerry

  Truswell, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  White, Brian

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wills, Michael

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Wise, Audrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wood, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Wray, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brady, Graham

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Burnett, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Boswell, Tim

  Burstow, Paul

  685

  Butterfill, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Madel, Sir David

  Chidgey, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clappison, James

  Maples, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll amp; Bute)

  Cotter, Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Öpik, Lembit

  Duncan, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Page, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Evans, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Faber, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gale, Roger

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Garnier, Edward

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gibb, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gill, Christopher

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Greenway, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Streeter, Gary

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Syms, Robert

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher amp; Walton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heath, David (Somerton amp; Frome)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tavler Sir Teddy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Townend, John

  Horam, John

  Tredinnick David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tyler, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wallace, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Walter, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Johnson Smith,

  Webb, Steve

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Whittingdale, John

  Key, Robert

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Wilkinson, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Willetts, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Willis, Phil

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wilshire, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Leigh, Edward

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Yeo, Tim

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. Adrian Sanders and

  Loughton, Tim

  Mr. Donald Gorrie.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to

Clause 2

  ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE
  Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, after 'borough', insert
  'and in the district councils of Broxbourne, Elmbridge, Epping Forest, Epsom and Ewell, Hertsmere, Reigate and Banstead and Spelthorne.'
  This is a probing amendment, dealing with an anomaly arising from the geographical coverage of the Metropolitan police, which comprises two distinct areas. The first is London, which has just over 7 million residents. Then there is the area outside London, with approximately 500,000 residents, which includes parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey, but not Kent or Buckinghamshire.
  The origins of that situation are historical. There has been no serious complaint about it because the administration of the Metropolitan police is non-political. However, for the first time since 1829, the Metropolitan police area is to be brought under political control. The Green Paper says that it will be controlled by
  "a police authority with a majority of elected representatives."
  It will be more appropriate to consider the merits of that when we come to debate the substantive Bill next year.
  The new police committee will be dominated by London members—at least half will be London assemblymen—whose thinking will be inappropriate in all respects for the home counties. It is important to remember that the parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey concerned are not suburbs but rural areas, which require a special type of policing that is not necessarily the strong point of an inner-city assemblyman.
  Some of the people who will be affected by the proposals are not eligible to vote in the referendum. The Government are introducing a change that will be London dominated. Those who will dominate will be consulted in the referendum but those in the home counties will not. That is undemocratic and unconstitutional, raising doubts about the effectiveness of crime fighting in the home counties. We cannot put up with a new method of policing being imposed, changing a system that has existed for more than 160 years, without giving the people affected a say through the ballot box.
  There is another flaw. I should like to put this in as a late bid in the consultation process. I am aware of the Government's proposals and I expect the Minister to reply that he has consulted the districts and there will be one representative from those areas on the new police committee. However, in the debate the Friday before last on the policing of London, the Home Secretary said—I hope that the Minister is listening to this, because it is an important point—that there would be a police committee of 25. The Green Paper says that it will be a committee of 21. I presume that the Home Secretary has the last word, so let us assume that there will be a committee of 25. One representative in 25 to speak for more than 500,000 people is not enough.
  The representation of Scotland and Wales in this House has established the principle of minorities being over-represented. The number of people living outside the Greater London authority area is 6.6 per cent. of the number living inside. To save hon. Members getting out their calculators, I can tell them that that should equate to 1.65 members on the police committee.

  687
  I put it to the Minister that there should be at least two representatives from those areas on the police committee. I suggest that one of those should represent the larger area, which is in Surrey, and that the other one should represent the districts in Essex and Hertfordshire. That would be fair and democratic. I realise that if the Minister accepted the idea, he would be conceding that there was someone fighting for his or her own patch, which he has not been too happy about before. I have tabled the amendment in a constructive spirit, however, and I hope that the Minister will consider the points raised seriously
  7 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: As Spelthorne is mentioned in the amendment, I feel that it is necessary to explain the local point of view. I am glad, for reasons that will become clear in a moment, that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that his was a probing amendment.
  On this issue at least, I am more than happy to take the Government at their word. They have explained that they want to give local people a direct say in the affairs of the Metropolitan police; I accept that assurance in good faith. The Government say that they believe that it is right to hold a referendum of those who will be affected by the proposed changes; I cannot disagree with that. I do not object to either of those two expressed aims. The Bill as it stands, however, will not achieve either of those aims for my constituents. Almost all my constituents—I shall come back to the remainder later—are policed by the Metropolitan police, yet they will not be consulted about whether they want a police authority.
  The amendment offers one solution to the problem. There must, indeed, be a solution and I urge the Government to find it. As my hon. Friend's amendment is a probing amendment, I am happy to support it, but it offers a solution which will not appeal to my constituents. If there is one thing that unites the overwhelming majority of my constituents, whoever they vote for, it is that they want nothing to do with London. The past 40 years have been spent fighting to stay out of the wretched place. When Middlesex was absorbed, we were the bit that managed to persuade the Government of the day to leave us out. Every time anything is suggested that somehow or other involves us with London, we smell a rat. Whoever the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne is, he or she will be here objecting.
  We have every reason to be suspicious of the Bill and of the solution being proposed in the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said that the amendment concerned some areas of the home counties and of Surrey. In our minds, we are still Middlesex and not Surrey. If there are to be extra places on the new authority, Middlesex will stake its claim and will not want to be lumped in with Surrey.
  On Second Reading, I obtained an assurance from the Minister that he had no intention of tinkering with the Greater London boundaries. I should be grateful if he would say that again tonight, tomorrow and the day after because I have every intention of holding him to that promise permanently. I hope that he does not see it as a convenient way in which to shut me up for a moment. My constituents are implacably opposed to the alteration of the boundaries as a way in which to solve the anomaly.
  I believe that there are only two possible ways forward. We could, as suggested in the amendment, involve my constituents in the referendum so that we could be
  688
  consulted in accordance with the Government's aims. I suspect, however, that even if the Government were minded to agree to that, they would be forced to admit that they had to have a separate question because the last thing that my constituents want is to be consulted on anything other than policing. If the Government will not have two questions on the referendum paper, they are unlikely to be prepared to have three, one of which would be a special question for Spelthorne. That solution would not commend itself to the Government.
  There are other issues, such as the powers of the authority and its structure, but those are matters best left for the main Bill. I give notice that I shall want to discuss what the authority will do vis-a-vis my constituency, but I shall leave the matter for tonight.
  The only other solution that I can see—I am not necessarily commending it to the Minister—is to review the boundaries of the Metropolitan police area. On Second Reading, the Minister made it clear that he had no plans to review the boundaries at the moment. I found that comment both reassuring and disconcerting. When does "at the moment" cease?
  There is a precedent. When the local government boundaries were changed in the former Middlesex, Surrey and Berkshire areas, part of a village that I represent— part of the village of Colnbrook—was moved into Slough. The result was that that part of my constituency was moved into the Thames Valley police area, so there is a precedent for looking at the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district.
  I ask the Minister to consider that possibility. I am not sure that it would be wholly popular with all my constituents, but it does offer a solution to a genuine problem. We have to find a solution. We cannot have people in London being consulted about the policing of areas outside London when the local people are not to be consulted.
  The amendment is a probing one. I hope that it is not pressed to a Division because that would give me some difficulty. I believe, however, that the spirit of the amendment is absolutely right. I urge the Minister to think again and I hope that he will agree to do so. I hope that at some stage, having thought about the matter, he will tell us what his conclusions are.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Like the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I believe that the amendment raises the right questions but comes up with the wrong answer. The hon. Gentleman probably came up with the right solution, which is that the county areas should be removed from the Metropolitan police district and allowed to join the county police forces with which they have more characteristics in common. That seems an admirably sensible solution. It is clearly not an easy solution because it would involve unscrambling management structures and some major reorganisation within the Metropolitan police. Discussions and negotiations would have to be entered into. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion, however, seems sensible.
  I hope that the Minister, in replying, will take into account the fact that there is another boundary anomaly that may have been overlooked. I am referring not to the far-flung suburbs, but to the heart of London. There will be two police authorities, one for the Metropolitan police and the other for the City of London police. That will be

  689
  a continuing anomaly and I believe that it would make a great deal of sense for the police authority for Greater London to cover the two police forces. There is no justification for having a separate structure for the City of London police.
  In broad terms, we welcome the substance of the Government's approach to the creation of an elected police authority, which is a big step forward. We are aware that there are different ways in which to do that. One way, which I believe the Government envisage, is to create a police authority on provincial English lines. That would be very welcome. The other way is the American city model, which is mayor-dominated. I intervened in the debate on the Metropolitan police 10 days ago, and the Home Secretary reassured us that the American model was not envisaged—that the Government envisaged a police authority in which the Greater London authority would be the dominant body and that the mayor would not interfere with operational decisions. That reassurance should go a long way to removing the fears that people may have about the new structure.
  Mr. Raynsford: We have had a short and interesting debate about the referendum franchise. I do not accept that the franchise should be extended, as proposed by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), to residents of districts that lie outside Greater London even though, in certain instances, policing in those areas may be the responsibility of the Metropolitan police.
  It is right and proper that London residents should vote on proposals about the way in which London is governed, and the Bill provides for that. Policing is just one of the proposed functions of the Greater London authority. There are others. For example, London's transport will be one of the major responsibilities of the new authority. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the London Underground network goes beyond the Greater London boundary to Amersham, Chesham, Chalfont and other parts of Buckinghamshire, for example. However, the amendment does not seek to allow residents of those areas the right to vote because they might be affected by decisions taken in respect of London's transport. Therefore, the amendment is partial in that it relates to only one function of the Greater London authority and not to its overall responsibility.
  I do not agree that the residents of Elmbridge or Reigate and Banstead should influence the way in which the people of London are governed. That seems a curious proposition. What the Government are proposing would not disadvantage the people in the areas to which the amendment refers. Our proposal would bring the Metropolitan police closer in practice to police forces and police authorities elsewhere in the country.
  At the moment, residents of Spelthorne, Hertsmere and other areas mentioned in the amendment have no say in the way in which they are policed. The Home Secretary is a police authority and local authorities are not represented on the Metropolitan police committee. The Government propose a democratically elected police authority that will include representatives of London local authorities. We propose in the consultation paper that there should also be representation for the outer London boroughs—I should say the out-of-London boroughs—that are served by the Metropolitan police.
  690
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary commented on the issue on 14 November during a debate on the policing of London. The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to his remarks and implied that he had suggested that there would be a police authority of 25 members. That is not the case. I quote from Hansard
  "We propose a police authority of 21 members, and it is proportionate to have one representative from the outer areas … We remain open to representations about the exact balance of elected members. However, as we have found in other areas—for example, in the Thames Valley, which combines three counties—there are always pressures to increase the total number of members. That desire must be balanced against the need to create a body that is small enough to work efficiently and effectively."—[Official Report, 14 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 1141.]
  That is the Government's position. We have not decided; we have consulted. We have heard the representations that were made in response to the consultation paper and I have heard the speeches this evening. No decisions have yet been taken, but we have to balance the competing claims of areas that may want representation with the need to keep the authority to a businesslike size.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South suggested that there should be one representative from the south and one from the north so that they could each fight for their own patch. However, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) clearly wanted to have nothing to do with that arrangement. I should also remind the hon. Member for Croydon, South that the north includes parts of Hertsmere, Broxbourne and Epping Forest—three separate authorities. How could each of them fight for their own patch? In the south there are Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, and Reigate and Banstead, so any representative would have to cover a number of different areas.
  Mr. Wilshire: I thank the Minister for making a magnificent case for having five extra members. Does he not consider that he has just done exactly that?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening when I quoted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the need to keep the body to a reasonable and businesslike size and not to allow it to be enlarged unreasonably.
  As I am sure the hon. Member for Croydon, South is aware, the Metropolitan police operational area does not extend across all the districts that he has identified. That reduces the justification for his proposals and makes them far less practicable. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would not wish to suggest that the referendum franchise should be extended to cover people who have no interest whatever in the outcome, but that would be the implication of his proposals. The amendment is impracticable and in many ways undesirable.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to the City of London police. I can assure him that because the amendment and clause 2 refer to the right to vote in a referendum, residents in the City will be entitled to vote. Obviously, wider issues about policing in the City are a separate matter and are not within the remit of the clause.
  The amendment is ill-conceived and impracticable and I urge the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw it.
  Mr. Ottaway: The amendment may be impracticable, but it is not ill-conceived. Although everyone seems to

  691
  relish shredding my amateur drafting, an important point has been made. I welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who accepted the spirit of the amendment and agreed with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who said that the solution may be to take the police out of the Metropolitan area. I did not realise that that was Liberal Democrat policy, but I was grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
  7.15 pm
  The Minister used as an illustration the fact that Chesham and Amersham would be affected by some of the proposals in the Green Paper, but were not being consulted. However, his argument about consultation and influence cuts both ways. As the Minister is aware, there is virtually no underground in south London—all the trains run overground—and local authorities have absolutely no say in the operation of the railways in Greater London.
  The Minister missed the fundamental point of the amendment when he said that people in the five districts affected have no say in the way in which they are policed. That is not the point. We are saying that they have no say in the change in the way in which they are policed. The Minister quoted the Home Secretary in the debate a week last Friday. I suspect that the Home Secretary diligently rechecked his notes and corrected his speech in Hansard, but if the Minister would care to check the tape, he will find the Home Secretary did say that there would be 25 members of the police authority. I remember it because I was so struck by the difference between the two figures. I would not want to mislead the House, but I accept that the Home Secretary has perhaps changed his mind and the figure is 21.
  The Minister also pointed out that if there were two representatives on the body, the boroughs in the north and the south would be fighting for the right to nomination. Under the Government's proposals, the five districts all over London will be fighting for the nomination so at least my amendment would go some way towards resolving the issue.
  As I said at the outset, it is a probing amendment and we shall return to the point it raised when the substantive Bill is debated in a year's time. Under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I wish to raise an issue concerning access to voting in the referendum that will affect people living in Greater London who wish to participate and cast a vote expressing their opinion about the future government of London. I refer to the many disabled people who live in London, and I have a few questions for the Minister.
  My first question concerns the publication of the White Paper. I welcome the fact that a summary will be circulated to every household, but will there be accessible versions of that summary in Braille, large print and audio format to make it available to more people? It is a relatively small step which would send an important signal to disabled people in London that the Government
  692
  wish to make sure that they have a chance to express their views and understand the case that the Government are making for changes in London's government.
  I want to ask a couple of questions about voting. Will people who are unable—as they often are in respect of other elections—to cast their vote in person, due to sickness, disability or holidays, be able to cast a postal vote so that they can express their view on the future government of London?
  More important, the referendum gives the Government a golden opportunity to innovate and experiment with the provision of access for blind and partially sighted people. The referendum provides a controlled opportunity to ensure that such people are able to attend a polling station and vote unaided. At the moment, all too often—as was evidenced in the recent general election—blind and partially sighted people who vote in person have to go through the indignity of expressing their voting intention to someone else and having it marked on the ballot paper for them.
  It may be of interest to hon. Members that I am promoting a private Member's Bill, the Elections (Visually Impaired Voters) Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading on 13 February. That will be considered too late to have an effect on this Bill. I hope that when the Government have reflected on what I have said, they will take the opportunity in another place to table amendments to allow the law to be changed, so that returning officers can use large print in polling stations to enable people to choose unaided whether to vote yes or no. I hope that the Government will reflect on the possibility of experimenting with Braille templates, given the simple question to which they are passionately committed.
  Such measures would ensure that the outcome of the referendum—even if we do not agree with it—is at least inclusive. I hope that the Government will consider wording to ensure that there is no doubt in the minds of returning officers when the process is set up across London. I will be very interested to hear whether Ministers are prepared to take such measures to ensure that London's disabled people can participate fully in the debate.
  The Minister for Transport in London(Ms Glenda Jackson): I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has raised an issue which is clearly of particular concern to him and his party. As I am sure he is aware, the issue is also a very high priority for the Government. The Green Paper was made available, as I am sure he is also aware, in eight languages other than English.
  The hon. Member raised a point to do with people who are visually impaired. The proposals will be published not only in Braille but in large print, and will be available on cassette. It is our intention to ensure that the summary of the White Paper is available in similar formats.
  The hon. Member asked whether postal votes will be available. I reassure him again that, yes, they will. We shall make particular efforts to ensure that everyone is aware of their rights in the referendum.
  The hon. Member raised some very interesting points about what he would like to be in the Bill. It is certainly our intention to examine those proposals. It would be worth examining them and putting them in the White

  693
  Paper. The Government are clear that, when we speak about equality, we genuinely mean it. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have already taken many steps to forward the equality of people with disabilities— whatever they may be. He is right to say that there can be no area more important to people with disabilities than equality in exercising what I would regard as one of their most precious possessions: the franchise.
  Clause 2 defines the classes of person entitled to vote in the referendum. They will include those entitled to vote at a local government election in any London borough and those entitled to vote as residents at a ward election in the City of London. It is the usual practice for local elections that the eligibility requirement should be that of residency. We intend to follow that practice in the referendum.
  It is a clearly established principle that the entitlement to vote in a referendum is also derived from residency. That principle was reaffirmed in the referendums earlier in the year in Scotland and Wales. We intend that the GLA should be elected by London residents. That was made clear in the Green Paper. It makes sense that people eligible to vote in the election of the GLA should be the ones who decide whether it should be established.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On the issue concerning wards of the City of London, I declare an interest. As a member of a set of chambers in the Temple, I have a vote. All members of chambers in the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple are on the electoral roll of the City—even though, technically, the Temple is not in the City, which is a double nonsense.
  I am not trying to be provocative, but I must point out the anomaly. I have always felt embarrassed that such a tradition continues. People who have votes in wards of the City, which include the Temple outside the City, are regarded as electors for all London purposes. I am in favour of the principle enunciated by the Minister that franchise is based on residency. Clearly, votes from the Temple are not residential—although one or two people live there, the votes are generally business votes.
  I hope that at some stage—it may not be possible during the passage of this Bill—we get to grips with such an anomaly, since it means that there are two sorts of voter in the same referendum. There are people who vote because they live in London—the Minister for London and Construction, the Minister for Transport in London and I have our homes in London, and that is where we vote—and people who vote simply because they work in London. We clearly need to address that.
  Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising that point. I reassure him that the only criterion that will allow someone to vote in the referendum is that of residency. We have been in very close consultation with the City of London corporation to ensure that the franchise for the referendum is based on fair, uniform entitlements across the City and the 32 boroughs.
  694
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that he had a right to vote because he is a member of chambers. It is very clear that the only entitlement to vote in the referendum—both in the wards of the City and across 32 boroughs—is through residency.
  Mr. Hughes: I am very grateful to the Minister. She has taken my point. The Government have clearly been seized of it. I am grateful that, in this context at least, the anomaly has been resolved. We shall clearly have to return to the issue in other contexts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  COUNTING OFFICERS
  Mr. Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert
  'but shall not so certify until after the declaration of the results of all local government elections held in Greater London on the same day as the referendum'.
  This is a fairly narrow and technical amendment which is intended to put into proper order the way in which the results of the local elections and the referendum should be dealt with. It is the Liberal Democrats' view that London borough election results should take precedence over the Greater London referendum, not least because we will be electing people who will be exercising authority and responsibility on behalf of Londoners there and then. The people who elect them deserve to know the results sooner rather than later.
  We will have to wait and see whether excitement about the referendum is stimulated by the Government campaign in support of it, but the results can wait, although that might deny the Government some publicity opportunities, until we have had the London borough results. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, because it is a modest amendment that will enable the London boroughs to continue their good work and not be delayed by the referendum votes being counted before the local election votes.
  7.30 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I have difficulty accepting the scenario advanced by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), that the voters of London will have a priority in knowing the results of their choices. I cannot believe, given the enormous public support for the restoration of a democratic voice to Londoners—which has been denied them for so long—that they would not wish to know the results of the referendum in the same way that they will eagerly anticipate the results of the local elections.
  We see no good reason for the legislation to stipulate that the local election votes should be counted first. Nor would we expect to provide that the referendum should be counted first before the borough polls can be declared. Detailed count arrangements will rightly be a matter for returning officers and counting officers in the light of

  695
  legislative provision and any directions from the chief counting officer. We are working closely with returning officers and local electoral administrators.
  Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister assure us that no pressure will be applied to persuade counting officers to count the referendum first, if elected members wished to see the London borough elections counted first?
  Ms Jackson:on mature reflection, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to withdraw that question. The implications for the standards and approach to their task of counting officers and those who count the votes are unreasonable and unfair. I cannot envisage a situation in which any such pressure would be brought to bear. Perhaps more importantly, I cannot envisage a situation, should such pressure be brought to bear, in which the officers responsible for the proper conduct of the count would give way to it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that that is the case. I wish to ask another question. I am told on reliable authority that, in the Welsh referendum, the order of declaration of the results was decided by the Secretary of State for Wales. At his express instigation, the Carmarthen result was held back until last. May we have an absolute assurance that the announcement of the results will also not be the subject of any political interference?
  Ms Jackson: With respect, we had an example of the sort of information that the hon. Gentleman said had come from a reliable source when he claimed that Greater London Labour party members had an overwhelming antipathy to the Government's proposals. I am not casting any particular slur on what he has just asked, but I merely remark on what the House is privileged to know from experience.
  I repeat that I cannot conceive of any scenario in which those who are responsible for conducting the count, and the post-voting process, would fall victim to undue political pressure. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I cannot conceive of any such pressure being brought to bear to delay the results of the local elections or the referendum.
  The grant money that we will provide to local authorities under clause 5 will, among other things, cover the cost of hiring extra counters to count the referendum alongside the local elections. That seems to us the proper way to proceed. There will inevitably be a time penalty arising from the separation of ballot papers for the two polls, but we have had no indication that those who will be charged with carrying out the count think that that will lead to excessive delay. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman, and that, in the light of what I have said, he will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for the reassurance that she has offered, in her confirmation of the additional resources that will be granted to enable the counts to be expedited, and in her comments that no political influence will be brought to bear on the conduct of the counts. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
  696
  '(4A) The Chief Counting Officer shall not certify the total of votes cast for each answer under subsection (4) above unless at least 50 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
  '(4B) The Chief Counting Officer shall not certify the total of votes cast for each answer under subsection (4) above unless at least 30 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in favour of the government's proposals'.
  Mr. Ottaway: These two amendments would have the important effect of imposing a threshold, before a valid referendum result was achieved, of 50 per cent. for turnout and 30 per cent. for saying yes. We want reform and we recognise that there is a case for a mayor for London. We want a mayor and we want an assembly, but we want an assembly of a different composition from that proposed by the Government. We want an assembly in which the boroughs are more involved. We want the thinking to come from the bottom up and to involve people from the boroughs on a formal basis. We are opposed to the Government's thinking that GLA policy will pass from the Government down to the assembly.
  We accept that the Government are unlikely to adopt our proposals, given their majority. However, whatever is decided, the assembly must have legitimacy. The verdict, whatever it is, must be widely supported by Londoners. It will be valid, in our judgment, only if 50 per cent. of London's voters go to the polls. That is a critical figure, because if that threshold is not reached, the majority of Londoners will not have expressed an opinion in the referendum. Accepting the amendment will be the only way for the Government to send a signal to Londoners to reassure them that the changes proposed will have a strong mandate.
  The referendum is a test of public opinion and it is essential that the outcome on 7 May is decisive, conclusive and final. It is equally essential that the answer comes from the majority. It is reasonable and right that the arrangements for the referendum send the signal that change cannot happen unless some 2.5 million of London's voters actually vote. The arrangements should ensure that if that turnout is not reached, the changes should not happen. If the voters stay at home, their silence should signal rejection. The Government should not be able to proceed and declare the referendum a success unless it receives that essential mandate.
  We require a second threshold. A minimum of 30 per cent. of the voters should say yes. That would mean that1.5million out of London's 5 million voters would say yes. London has 7 million residents and it would be wrong to claim a mandate if fewer than 1.5 million of them had voted yes. That would be unacceptable. The Minister has claimed a mandate, based on the turnout in the general election and, according to my research in the Library,1.6 million people voted for the Labour party in London. If he is not so sure that those 1.6 million people will vote for him again, why on earth should not he accept the amendment? If they do not turn out to vote, it will be a sign of disapproval.
  Is the Minister saying that those people turned out at the general election but are not inclined to do so for his proposals for a Greater London authority? If so, he is

  697
  wrong to claim that he has a mandate for his proposals. Anything less than those 1.6 million votes will show disapproval and rejection by the electorate. The referendum should not go ahead with so little support.
  After all, what does the Minister have to lose? Frankly, he will lose his credibility and his mandate. Failure to accept the amendments will show a loss of confidence on his part and will be an admission that he is frightened to test public opinion. Indeed, it will be a contempt of the democratic process. The Prime Minister is on the record as saying that he is not a great proponent of government by referendum, so the Minister should be keen to persuade him that he is wrong and that the people of London will turn out in their millions to support his proposals.
  Mr. Raynsford: They will.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Minister says that they will; is he saying that 1.5 million will turn out? He is uncharacteristically silent on that point. He should be keen to allay the Prime Minister's fears. If he cannot demonstrate that the people of London will turn out in their millions, he should accept the amendment and send the right signal to the Prime Minister and to Londoners.
  By accepting our proposals the Government would effectively be saying, "If enough of you want reform, you should have it; if you stay at home, we get the message."
  Mr. Burstow: We oppose the amendments. We do not believe that there is a need for a threshold. It is also important to put it on the record that no one on either side of the argument should be able to suborn and claim those people who do not vote in the referendum. We must ensure that we have a debate that enthuses people enough to make them go and cast their votes. We must remove the barriers that stop people exercising their democratic right to make a choice.
  Liberal Democrat Members disagree fundamentally with the Government about the question that they have decided should be put to the people of London, but we believe that it is important to have a campaign that gets people to go out and cast their votes. I hope that it will become clearer, when the White Paper is published, exactly what powers will really reside with the authority. That, as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said in our first day in Committee, is what will really enthuse people.
  People want to know what difference the London authority will make to their lives. That is what we need to communicate. Thresholds are not an answer; they are a device proposed by a party with no sympathy with the idea of a referendum in the first place as Conservative Members said earlier today, when they had a mandate they abolished the Greater London council without the need for a referendum. That is why I and my party do not support the idea of thresholds.
  Mr. Brooke: The Minister for London has heard me saying on two previous occasions that I canvassed for 120 hours on the doorsteps of my constituency in the
  698
  general election campaign—I shall now tell him for the third time and, as the Bellman said in "The Hunting of the Snark",
  "What I tell you three times is true"—
  and that during that entire time not one person asked me about a Greater London authority and strategic government in London. Incidentally, in that time I did not see one canvasser for or representative of any party other than mine, which is perhaps why I am sitting here today.
  My parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), said on Second Reading that they talk of nothing else in her constituency, although I acknowledge that she said that that involved the time since the general election campaign, as well as the campaign itself.
  The royal borough—the Chelsea authority—is separated from the City of Westminster by the River Westbourne, which now flows underground. I am separated from the constituency of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North by a series of Westbourne roads. I find it puzzling that there should be such divergence between the casual conversations in our two constituencies.
  I mention that in the context of the test that the threshold would set the Government, who have consistently said that there is overwhelming enthusiasm for their proposal. In a recent debate, the Minister for London mentioned again the 82 per cent. approval in an opinion poll and the 86 per cent. approval by businesses in London. He must be expecting an overwhelming outpouring of votes next May.
  7.45 pm
  In the schedule stand part debate, the Minister for London said that I would not expect the Government to come up with an unworkable suggestion; I certainly would not. I earlier quoted his remarks at column 416 last Wednesday to the effect that the Government would make absolutely sure that they proposed something that would work and, as he knows, I have enormous trust and confidence in him. I hope that he will have the same trust and confidence in the people of London, and will expect them to turn out to vote.
  In those circumstances, the Minister for London should accept the amendment. If he does not, perhaps his confidence in the vote in the referendum is not so great as I previously imagined. In that case, I would begin to wonder whether his proposal for a Greater London authority, in the form that he has advocated, might not be as strong as he has sought to persuade us that it is.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Whether the right hon. Gentleman says something three times or 30 times, it is always well worth hearing, but on this occasion I disagree with his argument. It would perhaps be churlish to suggest that the GLA was never mentioned in those hundreds of hours of campaigning because the driving force for so many people, not only in London but throughout the country, was to get rid of the incumbent Conservative Government.
  Mr. John Randall: A few months after the general election, in the Uxbridge by-election, when

  699
  such questions were not on people's minds, I had exactly the same reaction as my right hon. Friend: London governance was not mentioned once.
  Ms Jackson: Presumably because it was not raised by the hon. Gentleman—and I well understand his reluctance, as his party has come rather late to the idea of restoring a democratic voice to London. As my hon. Friend the Minister for London said on Second Reading, there has been a conversion; but from what I have heard in Committee so far, it seems to me that the problem for Conservative Members is that they are on the horns of a dilemma their basic belief, as shown by their action in abolishing the GLC without any consultation or legitimacy whatever, is that the people of London should not have their democratic voice restored; but they realise that, although they campaigned ferociously against my party's proposals, the idea of restoring that democratic voice is popular in London.
  I was left breathless by the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who believes that setting a threshold would impart legitimacy to the referendum. It is strange that he should breathe the word "legitimacy" when the purpose of the Government's action is to restore a democratic voice to London and when his party abolished the GLC without any consultation. I also found interesting his argument that if people stay at home it will be a proof of failure—in a sense, a no vote. If memory serves me correctly, at the time of the Housing Act 1988 and the setting up of tenants' choice, the Conservative Government argued that those who did not vote could be deemed to support the proposal.
  The Government totally oppose the sort of franchises and artificial thresholds proposed in the amendments. There is no substantial case for what is essentially a wrecking device. If one amendment suggests that a 50 per cent. threshold is necessary, while another proposes a 30 per cent. threshold, no great principled case is involved.
  As with all pre-legislative referendums, this one will be advisory. The referendum is a device employed by Parliament to test the views of the public on a clear point of principle, in this case, whether Londoners favour our plans for a Greater London authority. It will be for Parliament to reflect on the result of the referendum. That is why the insertion of any form of threshold would be inappropriate. The people of London will vote in the referendum, and Parliament will take that vote into account.
  Despite the arguments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South, the Government are confident—I am pleased that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is equally confident—of a particularly high turnout in May. Every opinion poll that asks Londoners directly shows that they categorically and overwhelmingly favour our proposals. Even in the event of a low turnout, there is no case for allowing those who stay at home to be counted as no votes, as argued by the Opposition.
  The amendments could produce a ludicrous situation. Londoners could turn out in their millions in the referendum to make their democratic choice but the chief counting officer would be unable to certify the results if fewer than 50 or 30 per cent. had voted
  700
  in a way acceptable to the hon. Member for Croydon, South. That would be ridiculous. The people of London would deserve to know how they had voted and Parliament, having provided for the referendum, would be entitled to ask what the answer was. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Ottaway: We will do no such thing. The hon. Lady gave no good arguments for withdrawing the amendments; indeed, she had no arguments at all. She said that her proposals had overwhelming support in the polls. If that is the case, let her put it to the test: let her put her money where her mouth is and prove to the people of London that her proposals have overwhelming support.
  From the Minister's speech, one would think that she was nostalgically proposing the return of the GLC, but that is not being restored. We make no apology for having abolished it and have no wish to see it restored—any more than she has. If the Bill is so popular, let us put the proposals to the test and give the people of London a chance to show what they want. If the majority of them decline to do so, the result should be declared invalid. We intend to divide the House.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 113, Noes 315.

  Division No. 95]

  [7.53 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hammond, Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hayes, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Horam, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Johnson Smith,

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Burns, Simon

  Key, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clappison, James

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward

  Cran, James

  Letwin, Oliver

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Day, Stephen

  Lidington, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fallon, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, Sir David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Maples, John

  Garnier, Edward

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gibb, Nick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gray, James

  Page, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Paice, James

  Greenway, John

  Paterson, Owen

  701

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Prior, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Viggers, Peter

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Walter, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Willetts, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clwyd, Ann

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainger, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coleman, Iain

  Alexander, Douglas

  Colman, Tony

  Allan, Richard

  Connarty, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ashton, Joe

  Cotter, Brian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cousins, Jim

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Cox, Tom

  Banks, Tony

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Darvill, Keith

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Betts, Clive

  Dawson, Hilton

  Boateng, Paul

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Drew, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Byers, Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Casale, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Galloway, George

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clelland, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  702

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNulty, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harvey, Nick

  Marek, Dr John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Maxton, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Heppell, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hesford, Stephen

  Michael, Alun

  Hill, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Milbum, Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Miller, Andrew

  Home Robertson, John

  Moore, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hope, Phil

  Morley, Elliot

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Norris, Dan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Hurst, Alan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hutton, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Pendry, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kemp, Fraser

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kidney, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rendel, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rogers, Allan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rooney, Terry

  Laxton, Bob

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lepper, David

  Roy, Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Linton, Martin

  Salter, Martin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sanders, Adrian

  Lock, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McAllion, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCabe, Steve

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Singh, Marsha

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  703

  Tumer, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tumer, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Snape, Peter

  Tyler, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  Wallace, James

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Stevenson, George

  Webb, Steve

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  White, Brian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Willis, Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wills, Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wise, Audrey

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wray, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wyatt, Derek

  Todd, Mark

  Touhig, Don

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Jane Kennedy and

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  REFERENDUM SUPPLEMENTARY
  Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 4, page 2, line 26, after 'shall', insert
  'subject to subsection (1A) below,'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 32, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
  '(1A) The polls at the referendum shall be open from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m.'
  Mr. Ottaway: This simple amendment proposes that the hours for the referendum should be extended to between 7 am and 10 pm. Those are the same hours that we use for general elections and, in our judgment, this issue is of similar importance. The proposed arrangements are that the polls open from 8 am to 9 pm. Plenty of people work before 8 am or come back after 9 pm and they will have difficulty getting to polls during this period.
  London is the international commercial centre of the world, with people working long hours substantial distances from their homes. Some of them travel for perhaps an hour each way from one side of London to the other to earn their crust. It could cause difficulties if this important issue is dealt with during the polling hours of 8 am to 9 pm.
  I anticipate that the Minister will say that it is impractical to have the referendum from 7 am to 10 pm while the boroughs are voting from 8 am to 9 pm. The logical response to that is, "If that is the case, change the date of the referendum." She may say in response to that suggestion, "But that will add to the expense." Of course, the last refuge in these circumstances is to raise the question of cost.
  704
  The Minister will note that the clear financial memorandum suggests that the cost of having the referendum on 7 May 1998 is £3 million, and the cost of having the referendum on another date is £5 million. Therefore, the cost of moving the referendum to another day will be £2 million. Some might say that that is a lot for an issue such as this. Others might say that, in the history of London, £2 million is not such a big sum. In truth, it is what the GLC spent every eight hours in its heyday in the 1980s.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that it is not an extraordinary sum of money and that it is possible to devise a system whereby polling hours reflect the working conditions of many people. I hope that she will be able to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I support the amendment. We opposed the amendments on thresholds, which we felt gave the election artificial legitimacy. I am sure that the Government are keen to give the election legitimacy through the turnout. The Liberal Democrats believe that the amendment would increase the turnout, which is to be welcomed.
  One of the objections to the amendment is that polling hours for local government elections are from 8 am to 9 pm. There are solutions to that practical problem. One way would be to issue referendum ballot papers during the hours when local government elections are not held. My office has contacted the returning officer in my borough, who believes that there would be no problem dealing with that practical difficulty.
  An alternative solution would be to extend the hours of the local government elections. I believe that polling stations should be open longer for local government elections. They are important elections some people consider them to be more important than elections to the House. There is a strong case for extending the hours for local government elections.
  The case for extending the polling hours for the referendum is even stronger, because of its constitutional significance and the importance of encouraging as high a turnout as possible. I am sure that, when right hon. and hon. Members have campaigned in local and other elections, they have had to encourage voters to participate in the democratic process. Late at night, just before the polls close, some people find reasons not to turn out to vote. By extending the hours, we will negate their arguments. We all have anecdotes to tell of people who feel unable to vote during the hours when local government elections are held.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) mentioned the problem of working hours. We live in a society in which people have long, extended working hours. It is difficult for some people to get to the polls between 8 am and 9 pm. The amendment would enable those people to participate, which would secure a much greater mandate for the Government's proposals.
  There is another strong argument in favour of the amendment. The Government allowed extended hours in the referendums in Scotland and Wales. Londoners should be given the same rights. It is interesting to note that the report of the Hansard Society entitled "Election Campaigns", issued in September 1991, asks why we do not have the same polling hours for all types of elections. It is an interesting question, and I hope that, if the Minister

  705
  is not prepared to accept the amendment, she will justify the reason for having different polling hours for different elections.
  Other bodies have reported on the same issue. The report of the Commission for Local Democracy, entitled "Taking Charge The rebirth for Local Democracy", says that there is no good reason for the difference, and proposes that extended hours should apply to local government as well as to parliamentary elections. I believe that extended hours should also apply to referendums, and we have an excellent chance to make that change now.
  The Committee may also want to take note of the fact that, when a local government election is taking place at the same time as a parliamentary or a European election, the polling hours are extended for both elections. If that can be done for parliamentary and European elections, why can it not be done for a referendum? It seems extraordinary that referendums are the only exception.
  The Minister may find my final reason for extending the polling hours even more powerful. This is the second day in Committee, and no amendments have been accepted so far. Some concessions have been made, and the Government have given some undertakings, but they have not accepted any amendments. There may well be a hidden agenda. The Government may not want a Report stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a strong point to Madam Speaker earlier today. I was not present, but I believe that she was quite concerned, because the Government had already set the timetable for this week's business and had assumed that there would not be a Report stage. They second-guessed the House. The Government Whips may want to question that, but Madam Speaker was very concerned that there would not be a Report stage this week. If only to curry favour with Madam Speaker, Ministers should accept the amendments in the spirit of cross-party co-operation.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). He is absolutely right. The Minister for London and Construction is no longer in his place no doubt he has gone to a darkened room to calm down after the excesses of not accepting any reasoned amendments.
  There is a good case for accepting the amendment. A more regular system of referendums is being put into operation: this is unlikely to be the last referendum. We need to be flexible about when voting should take place. After all, the current polling hours have not been set in stone. They were changed in the 1970s principally to recognise different work patterns. We no longer live in a world where people work from 9 to 5: they now work different shifts. People start early, especially in London. London has adopted a method of working that is a little ahead of the rest of the country. People who work in the City and in the money exchanges arrive early in the morning, as do cleaners. By not extending the polling times, we are denying those people the franchise.
  I am pleased to see the Minister for London and Construction back in his place. It is important for the Government to show that they are prepared to listen to
  706
  reasoned debate. If they refuse to accept any amendment, and to listen to any argument, the whole purpose of this debate is negated.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Was my hon. Friend as struck as I was by the Minister's revelation—I think that that is not too strong a word— that it was deemed necessary to extend the polling hours for the referendums in Scotland and Wales? Has my hon. Friend reflected on why London is apparently expected to vote in a referendum on one basis, whereas the Scots and the Welsh were able to vote on an entirely different basis? Does that not throw new light on the matter? I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's thoughts on that matter.
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend should also bear in mind the fact that the population of London is larger than the populations of Scotland and Wales combined. That emphasises the fact that there is another agenda. When we began the debate, we thought that having the referendum on the same day would artificially increase the number of people voting in the local government elections. It quickly became apparent that we had misjudged the Government, because it had nothing to do with that. They were frightened that there would not be much of a turnout for a separate referendum. The amendment would provide them with a way to increase the number of people who vote in the referendum. There is nothing to fear from democracy.
  The Chairman: I call Ms Glenda Jackson.
  Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
  Mr. Brooke rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I keep missing him, but it is not deliberate.
  Mr. Brooke: I am fielding at backward short leg, Sir Alan. I apologise.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has done us all a service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) testified, by drawing our attention to the fact that the Government's proposals for the referendum in London are less attractive, less generous and less satisfactory than the arrangements in Scotland and Wales.
  I am half Welsh—indeed, I am more Welsh than anything else. I do not remember the precise terms of the Government's sloganeering in the Welsh referendum, but I recall it being something like, "Don't let Wales be left behind." Given the powers that are to be given to the Assembly in Wales, I am not in the least surprised that the people of Wales in the end demonstrated what they thought of the Government's proposals by the narrowness of the majority, which was contrary to all the Government's expectations.
  Although I have testified to my Welshness, I am more a Londoner, by definition, than I am anything else. I profoundly resent London being treated less generously than Scotland and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred to working patterns in London, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).

  707
  If one takes the employed population and divides it by 659, the average number of people working in each constituency of this land is 37,500. Each day, my constituency has the privilege of receiving 750,000 working people, which is 20 times the national average. By the nature of things, a significant number of those people are less likely to be able to vote as a result of the voting hours that have been declared. My constituency constitutes between 20 and 25 per cent. of the entire employment of Greater London. The people who make that journey to work in the heart of the capital might be regarded as the essence of Londonness. I am disappointed that, unless the hon. Lady is about to accept the amendment, we are to be treated as a second-class city.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I must say just a sentence or two in support of the amendment [HON. MEMBERS: "Only a sentence."] The arguments are so strong that I felt they needed only a sentence or two in support.
  The Minister may say that, because it is likely that the local elections will be held on the same day—Liberal Democrat Members have supported the idea that they should be on the same day—to facilitate an early referendum, it would be complicated to have the extended hours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made clear—he was clearly supported around the Chamber—if the option is a lesser or a greater number of hours and if we are doing something on the same day that London has not done before but Scotland and Wales have done, there must be a logic in opting for both elections to have the longer hours. There is no disadvantage to the electors or to the constitutional and democratic nature of the result.
  I hope that the Government will accept the argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, that would allow them to show that they are willing not merely to listen to arguments but to accept them. That is very different from listening to but rejecting every argument, as they have done so far.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I wonder that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) bothers to ask a question, as he seems to know what my reply is to be. I hope that an element of my response will cause him some surprise.
  Certainly for the first time in my experience, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) presented himself as a character of somewhat schizophrenic nature. He began his contribution by saying that he was more Welsh—he did not define precisely whom he was more Welsh than—and went on to say that he was more a Londoner than many Londoners. As I thought that we had established a neighbourly connection by virtue of our constituencies being contiguous and our histories being inextricably linked with Birkenhead, I was disappointed that he failed to touch on our connections with the north-west of England.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that there was a strong case for accepting the amendments. If there is, he certainly did not present it. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said that the hours for the London referendum were unfair, given the hours allowed for the similar referendums in Scotland and Wales—I am paraphrasing and I am sure that he will forgive me. That
  708
  point made before—I believe on Second Reading—to rebut that argument was that there were huge physical distances in the countries of Scotland and Wales. Both have a much more dispersed electorate than London. Although London is large and comprises millions of people, it is much more homogenous in an electoral sense—it is much easier for people to get to the polling booths and for votes to be returned for counting.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The geographical aspect is irrelevant to this point; it is the working hours that matter. The working patterns of Londoners are diverse. Many Londoners commute not merely into the City and the constituency of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), but out of London. They commute miles and miles—the length and breadth of the country. My brother, for example, is often in Leeds on business during the day. To be frank with the Minister, there is a large variety in commuting patterns, which presents an even stronger case for polling hours being even more extended in London.
  Ms Jackson: That point about the working hours and working patterns of Londoners was also made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). That is undoubtedly the case, but if work precludes an individual from attending the polling booth, a postal vote will be available for this referendum, as it is for local and for general elections.
  Mr. Pickles: Is the hon. Lady saying that, because London is compact and so many people live here, the hours allocated for a general election are inappropriate?
  Ms Jackson: No, I have no recollection of having said that. My point was that the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for Croydon, South based their arguments for a change in the polling hours for the referendum on the work patterns of Londoners. I understood their argument to be that, because people start work earlier and finish later and may have long distances to travel to their places of employment, their lives would be facilitated if polling stations were open from 7 am until 10 pm. The point that I was making to rebut that argument was that postal votes would be available to people for the referendum as they are for local and general elections.
  I am grateful for the opportunity that the amendments offer to clarify for the Committee the arrangements that we intend to put in place on referendum polling day.
  Mr. Ottaway: As justification for rejecting the amendment, the hon. Lady said that the postal vote provisions would compensate. Is she saying that hours of work and distances to be travelled across London are acceptable grounds for having a postal vote? If so, will she accept an amendment to that effect?
  Ms Jackson: It is my understanding that there is already a right within law to a postal vote because of the inability to be present at a polling station because of work. The hon. Member for Croydon, South looks perplexed. I am confident that what I am saying is correct, not least because I have exercised such a right on more than one occasion.

  709
  We will set out detailed arrangements for the combined poll in secondary legislation. We intend that the referendum poll should run from 8 am until 9 pm, alongside that for borough elections. Clearly, it makes sense with a combined poll for both to open and close at the same time. We do not believe that extending the hours for the referendum poll to run from 7 am until 10 pm would be in the interests of an efficient combined poll. A combined poll in which people could cast one vote but not another at certain times would be almost impossible to administer.
  I have already touched on work commitments and the availability of postal votes. We want to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to exercise his or her democratic rights in both the referendum and the local elections. Extending the referendum would cost more, delay the count and provide little advantage in terms of increased turnout.
  I hope that I have been able to explain to hon. Members how we intend to proceed and have allayed any concerns. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Forth: I am now more confused than I was to start with. The Minister prayed in aid the fact that, because Wales and Scotland have more dispersed populations, it is easier to get to polling stations and that, therefore, their circumstances differ from those of London. My knowledge of Scotland may be a little out of date, but things have not changed that much over the years. Actually, I spent a little time in Scotland over the summer break. I also have knowledge of Wales because I lived and worked there at one time.
  The whole point about Scotland and Wales is that, traditionally, people tend to live much closer to their workplace. The great London and south-east tradition of commuting is almost unknown in Scotland and Wales, although I admit that commuting is becoming a little more frequent. If one adds that to the fact that travelling in Scotland and Wales is much easier and quicker precisely because their populations are more dispersed, one begins to see the utter fallacy of the Minister's argument.
  If that is the basis of the Minister's argument, her analysis is profoundly flawed. She still has not answered the question that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raised a short time ago. It is not good enough for Ministers to read from their notes at the Dispatch Box, making no connection with points made by Opposition Members in the debate. We are being provoked into attempting to get our arguments across in a more forceful way simply because Ministers will not listen to the debate properly or attempt to reply to the points that have been made.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: Did the right hon. Gentleman find the Minister's answer as unsatisfactory as I did? To increase turnout in the referendum, we could easily extend the hours for local elections to bring them into line with the period of 7 am to 10 pm, which the amendment
  710
  seeks to introduce, thus getting around all the practical difficulties that the Minister outlined. She has therefore made no case for keeping the hours at 8 am to 9 pm.
  Mr. Forth: I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is an interesting point. It is relevant, for the purposes of this debate, to consider how far extending the hours would increase turnout. Sadly, we speak in the context of a voting environment in which turnout in local elections, where candidates are supposed to be closest to the people and where the issues are supposed to affect people more, tends to be lowest of all. That is a regrettable long-standing historical fact of British elections.
  Let me focus on the point about Scotland and Wales, and London. It is simply not good enough for our arguments to be brushed aside by the Minister's glib and unsatisfactory—I shall not even dignify it by calling it an analysis—assertion that, because Scotland is quite big with not many people in it—
  Mr. Pickles: Is not the substantive point that, even in Scotland and Wales the bulk of the population live in urban areas? Even within the confines of the old borough system, there are plenty of rural areas in London. As many people in rural areas of London will want to come to the polls as in Scotland and Wales.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. Let us leave aside for the moment the great stretches of Scotland, which are thinly populated. The hon. Member for Moray will concede that, although distances may be greater, the time taken to travel them is much less because of the lack of congestion. When I spent some time in Glasgow recently, I was amused to find that the Glaswegian definition of "traffic gridlock" was quite alien to me. I found driving in Glasgow to be a joyous experience because one could make progress easily and move around readily. [Interruption.] I do not know when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) was last in Glasgow or what his recent experiences of driving in Glasgow were. He may like to enlighten us on that. He seems strangely reluctant to do so. It is the Committee's loss.
  I see your Chairman's eyes narrowing at me, Sir Alan. I shall not dwell on this point for much longer. I simply wish to say that that kind of response from Ministers in reply to serious points made by Opposition Members is not good enough. I hope that, before we decide whether we wish to push the amendment to a vote, the Minister will seek to catch your eye again, Sir Alan, to attempt seriously to respond to our arguments, rather than merely ask us to accept them on the basis of assertion.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Given that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) walked into the Chamber some 20 minutes ago, his assessment of today's debate hardly warrants close analysis.
  Mr. Pickles: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Jackson: No.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that people in Scotland and Wales find it easier to get to their polling stations because they live closer

  711
  to their place of work. If I recall correctly, during most of his Government's tenure, the people of Scotland and Wales had no work to which to go.
  The right hon. Gentleman argued that we had failed to give due consideration to the points that Opposition Members had presented. I stand by my previous statement. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that a strong case had been made for the amendments. If that is so, neither he nor the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, or indeed the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), has made it.
  Mr. Ottaway: I must confess that, having listened to this interesting debate, I find the Minister's arguments totally unpersuasive.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade me.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Minister is trying to persuade us why we are wrong in putting forward the amendment. We put forward some perfectly valid arguments to which she failed to come up with a reasonable response. She described Scotland and Wales as some sort of outer land where people come down from the mountains, taking several hours trekking through the snow, to get to the polling stations. [Interruption.] We have Scottish Members present and we shall be pleased to hear from them.
  Mr. Raynsford: Has the hon. Gentleman been to Scotland lately?
  Mr. Ottaway: I most certainly have and I have spent much of my life in Scotland.
  The Minister's description of those countries is false and I should be surprised if people in Scotland and Wales would have to spend as long getting to polling stations as some people in London spend getting from one side of the city to another.
  I tabled the amendment primarily as a probing amendment, but the more I listened to the debate, the more I wished that I had been determined to divide the Committee. However, we are still only on clause 4— about a third of the way through—and we shall obviously be here until late tonight. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

  EXCLUSION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The clause is unusual in relation to elections, although I concede that a similar one was included in the legislation for referendums in Scotland and Wales. Bizarrely, because of the guillotine that clause was not debated. The clause that we are debating states
  "No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast as certified by the Chief Counting Officer, or a counting officer, appointed in accordance with section 3."
  712
  It would be unusual, even if there had not been a by-election in Winchester, for someone not to raise constitutional points about the clause's impropriety and unsuitability. My hon. Friends and I shall ask the Committee to reject the clause. If it is accepted, no matter what goes wrong in the election there can be no challenge to the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast.
  Some six months ago, at the general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) was elected with a majority of two.
  Mr. David Jamieson: "Must try harder."
  Mr. Hughes: We did, and I am glad to say that history tells the tale. Nobody would have denied the right of the former Member for Winchester to challenge the result on the ground of the number of votes that were certified as being duly cast for each of the candidates. I am not sure that those who lose by two votes in future will do the same.
  Mr. Ottaway: They will.
  Mr. Hughes: If a Conservative loses by two votes and decides to take us on again on the basis of 55 unfranked ballot papers, I warn the hon. Gentleman he might be as embarrassed on the morning after the night before as I hope Conservative Members were this time.
  Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point, as I will explain later when I make my speech.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman wants to make a separate point.
  No one denies that something went wrong at Winchester. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester accepted that and so did Gerry Malone. It was agreed by both parties that the matter should go to court. As a result of the challenge, there was an extraordinary reversal of fortune when the re-elected Member had a majority of 21,556. That is 68 per cent. of the vote and a majority of 39.6 per cent.
  Mr. Forth: I think we know that.
  Mr. Hughes: I think that the right hon. Gentleman does know it, but he may not know that we have such an efficient Library that it has already produced a statistical analysis of by-elections in this Parliament. I was not expecting to be presented with the updated figures which show that the share of the vote that my hon. Friend won in Winchester was higher than the share of the vote for any party, except for some Labour Members. At the top is the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) who got 74.4 per cent. of the vote. The Member with the highest percentage of the vote in Northern Ireland was the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) who got 41.3 per cent.
  As a result of the Winchester challenge, my hon. Friend has converted the smallest Liberal Democrat majority to the largest Liberal Democrat majority and the largest share of the vote, leaving my hon. Friends the Members

  713
  for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) far behind. He has a majority larger than that of any Tory Member.
  Mr. Forth: That is not difficult.
  Mr. Hughes: It is always the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who tops that poll. He has a majority of 18,340 and 31.8 per cent. of the vote, but he has been overwhelmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester who sped past him. The important issue is that there was a court challenge relating to the number of votes that had been counted. Whether it is an election or a referendum, Parliament should not state that nobody can challenge the result.
  8.45 pm
  I say that not just because my hon. Friend could have his re-run and the former Member for Winchester could challenge the victory, but in the interests of all our parties. In the cause of any future result we should delete the clause. I hope that the Committee agrees. If there is a proper ground for an appeal the courts should be able to decide and should not be precluded from doing that by an arrogant clause.
  Mr. Ottaway: The reason for the clause is a mystery. In our view, the Government and their officials must be held to account for errors. Mistakes are not uncommon. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the Winchester by-election and I should like to correct him on one point. The first election was won by Gerry Malone who was denied his victory by incorrectly franked ballot papers.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ottaway: No, I will not give way because this is not my main point. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to have his day in the sun and he gloated and stuck the result up our noses. We did not like the consequences of the re-run, but anyone who sees his opponent win by two votes when 50 ballot papers show that he should not have won would take the decision that was taken by Gerry Malone. It is not a familiar process. There can be errors in sorting and in franking and there should be a right of appeal if circumstances permit.
  The clause sets a dubious trend. Effectively, it is contracting out of the principle of judicial review. Parliament would have the last word and courts could be excluded if the clause were included in the legislation. Ministers may be tempted to exclude judicial review in other legislation or to include such a clause in the substantive Bill on the Greater London authority.
  The Minister for London and Construction has recently been to New York. Apart from parliamentary answers, I know that from meetings that I went to there. At every one of them I was told, "Oh, was here three weeks ago." He will know that New York's new constitution was put in place just four years ago. It is still being explored and people are testing the ground. There
  714
  is much doubt over the mayor's powers. The council can veto the mayor's legislative proposals, but the question whether it can veto his power of appointment is rather vague. The Minister will probably be aware that, in the New York courts, there are more than 20 cases of judicial review of the mayor's decisions. If they had such a clause in their substantive Bill, all those powers would be excluded. That shows that it is essential that the checks and balances of the courts versus Parliament are maintained. We share the Liberal Democrats' view that the clause should not be included in the Bill.
  Mr. Raynsford: I hope to be able to persuade the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he has misinterpreted the clause. When I have explained exactly what its impact is, I hope that he will recognise that it is not sinister, as he implies.
  Clause 6 is a valuable protection to ensure that the Government can respond swiftly to the referendum results. As I shall explain, it does not prohibit legal challenge where there has been some form of misconduct over the referendum count. The clause's purpose is the same as that behind the equivalent clauses in the Referendum Act 1975, the Scotland Act 1978, the Wales Act 1978 and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997. There is a strong precedent for the clause in previous legislation.
  The clause is designed to prevent any frivolous challenges to the counting of votes or ballot papers, but we recognise that the Bill does not amount to an absolute bar on legal proceedings as the courts may construe clause 6 as not ousting their jurisdiction in appropriate cases.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the Minister describe a frivolous challenge?
  Mr. Raynsford: It must be obvious to the hon. Gentleman, who has recently come into the Chamber, that raising a question about the validity of half a dozen votes in a referendum, where the outcome had been decided by a majority of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands and where six votes would have no effect on the conclusion of the referendum, would be a frivolous challenge. It is right and proper that public money should not be wasted in pursuit of frivolous challenges.
  This is an important point. The courts may construe clause 6 as not ousting their jurisdiction in appropriate cases, such as one involving a flagrant breach of the law by a counting officer in the conduct of the referendum. I assure all hon. Members that there is no question of the courts not being able to consider appropriate cases.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey implied that there had been no debate on this issue in the other place when the Scotland and Wales referendum legislation was being considered there. The clause was fully debated in another place on stand part. The Lord Advocate spoke for the Government. Lord Lester of Herne Hill spoke for the hon. Gentleman's party. There was no vote at the end of that and the clause was accepted.
  We recognise that the courts are rightly jealous of their jurisdiction and carefully examine clauses that seek to oust their powers. I am advised by Law Officers that there is a substantial body of case law concerning the proper interpretation of such statutory provisions. Should any

  715
  legal proceedings be brought challenging the actions of the chief counting officer or a counting officer, it will be for the court, in accordance with case law and the particular circumstances of the case, to decide whether a challenge could be entertained in the light of clause 6.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am encouraged by what the Minister says. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I did not suggest that there was no debate on the other Bill; only that there was no debate here. I put to the Minister the pertinent question. I share the concern and endorse the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Let us take a case parallel to the by-election case. Let us say that a referendum had been decided by a majority of two and there were 55 unmarked papers—it is the best case that we can give because it really happened. Is the Minister saying that his legal advice is that there will be nothing to preclude a challenge by someone who wants to argue that the referendum result was wrong and that, had the papers been included, it would have gone the other way?
  Mr. Raynsford: The important point, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, is that it will be for the courts to reach a view on whether they should entertain such an application. They would reach judgment as to whether in practice clause 6 should apply, or whether it should not because it would be wrong for it to oust their jurisdiction. That is the crucial consideration and I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is looking for.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: If that is the case and the law, I accept that. In that case, the clause is slightly odd because an ordinary lay person or anyone else who reads an Act that says
  "No court shall entertain any proceedings"
  and is then told that the courts can entertain them if they want to, will think that this is not the clearest legislation in the world. They might regard it even as misleading.
  Mr. Raynsford: It will not be for the first time in this place that we encounter such difficulty with the phrasing of legislation. When first considering the clause, I expressed some concerns on that ground, but I am satisfied that this is a proper provision, which is designed to prevent frivolous challenges, while not preventing a genuine challenge.
  Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has raised an important point. He gave the figures for Winchester, and the Minister rightly said that this will be a matter for the court to decide, but the court will pick up the Bill, which by then will be an Act, read
  "No court shall entertain any proceedings"
  and decide that it cannot hear the case, effectively saying that legal proceedings will not happen.
  Mr. Raynsford: As I said earlier, there is a substantial body of case law concerning the interpretation of such provisions and I am advised, by people in a far better position than I to understand it, that the clause will not prevent a court from entertaining a case, where it believes that it is right and proper to do so.
  716
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) mentioned New York. I do not think that the New York example is helpful in this respect. During my visit to New York, I was somewhat startled, during a discussion with the city attorney, to be told that his office contains several hundred employees who deal with outstanding lawsuits relating to the city of New York. I believe that the figure quoted was 160,000. That shows the litigiousness of the American people, which I hope will not be a precedent in this country.
  I hope that I have satisfied the Committee that the clause is a safeguard to prevent frivolous litigation. It does not cut across fundamental rights.
  Mr. Pickles: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman insists.
  Mr. Pickles: The Minister has gone a considerable way. He has been honest and straightforward in saying that he had concerns when he first considered the clause, but he said, "Do not worry. The powers of the courts are such that they can still consider proceedings." I should be grateful if he could give just some examples of how the words "any proceedings" can be nullified by court action. If courts cannot consider any proceedings, how can they consider proceedings at all?
  Mr. Raynsford: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have already said that this matter has been considered in the context of several previous Acts—in 1975, in 1978 and earlier this year. Those people who are far better qualified than I to consider these matters are satisfied that the clause does not oust the courts' jurisdiction in serious matters. That is the crucial consideration. We are providing a safeguard against frivolous litigation. We are basing it on the precedents that have been brought into law with all previous recent referendums. On that basis, I support the clause.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

  FUNCTIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 15, at beginning insert
  'Subject to section (London Electoral Convention) below,'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 25, in page 3, line 17, leave out
  'and any direction given under it'.
  No. 10, in page 3, line 30, at beginning insert
  'which the London Electoral Convention recommends and'.
  No. 26, in page 3, line 31, at end insert—
  '(3) The Commission's report shall be based on the assumption that the elections will be conducted on the "first past the post" system.'
  No. 11, in clause 9, page 4, line 29, at end insert
  'and with the agreement of the London Electoral Convention'.

  717
  New clause 1—London Electoral Convention—
  —'Within a month of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State shall appoint, after consultation with representatives of all the political parties represented at local government and parliamentary level in Greater London and with others, a London Electoral Convention, which shall consider and recommend an appropriate proportional electoral system for Greater London, which commands broad consensus.'.
  9 pm
  Mr. Hughes: This is an important group of amendments because they refer to the electoral process for the Londonwide body. We are keen that the House does not dig itself into a position that produces a sterile and infertile debate, where we all end up with exactly the same view as we held at the beginning.
  We have proposed, and are inviting the Committee to accept, that there should be set up to establish the electoral arrangements for London the same sort of body that was set up for Scotland. In Scotland, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, initially the Scottish National party, the trade unions, the Churches and other bodies sat down and worked out an electoral system that would in their view obtain the best and widest support. It was not the electoral system in the minds of any of us when we began the process, but ultimately the Scottish Constitutional Convention agreed to it as part of the package. It was worth doing as it meant that there was a common platform in support of the referendum proposals and a Scottish Parliament. As the Committee knows, the result was a majority of about 4:1 in favour of the proposal that Scotland should have its own Parliament.
  Wales had no electoral convention or commission and no constitutional convention or commission, and the House remembers the history of proceedings from there on. The proposal for an Assembly for Wales scraped through by the narrowest of majorities. The Government almost lost their proposal, to the dismay of those of us in the House who have long been advocates of a Welsh Parliament, a Welsh Senate or a Welsh Assembly. More important, the people of Wales almost lost the proposal.
  We do not want the Londonwide body to stumble and fall on the basis that it does not enjoy a democratic mandate. The truth is that the Greater London council, the body's previous incarnation, had precisely that weakness. The Government of the day, of whatever colour, were able to look across the river to county hall and say, "The body over there does not enjoy a majority of public support from the electorate", and it did not. We are asking the House to agree that, whatever we think about the particular electoral system, there should be a way of arriving at it that obtains maximum agreement.
  I have made it clear to Ministers and others that the principle of going through a Green Paper is welcome. At the beginning, it sets out 10 key criteria, the first nine of which are that it should be strategic, democratic, inclusive, effective, small, audible, clear about its role, efficient and influential. I agree with those nine criteria. The 10th is the great new Labour proposal that the new authority should be consensual. I do not think that everyone wants their politics to be consensual; indeed, I do not think that it is possible for our politics to be consensual. I certainly hope that they are not. I am happy
  718
  for the authority to be collaborative and co-operative, but to suggest that we all have to agree, or that politics in London in future should require a consensus, is nonsense. There will be differences of view. For example, there may be a difference of view over whether London Transport should be publicly or privately owned. There will not be consensus across the political divide on that issue, and I do not think that there should be. I want to ensure—it must be in the interest of the Committee and the House to ensure—that the Londonwide authority reflects the view of the majority of London's citizens as best represented through the democratic process.
  I therefore hope that the Committee will agree that we should attempt to deliver an electoral system that meets some fairly clear criteria and also takes into account all the issues in London.
  As I have said in every venue in which I have been asked about the matter, Ministers—very reasonably— have made no firm and final proposal. They said that they would consult about the election and franchise methods and about constituencies. I welcome that consultation, although neither my team nor I have yet been able to work out—we have not had time, in one afternoon—what all the consultation responses have said on the issues.
  There is, however, widespread support—I am not saying majority support—for a representative form of election. Some hon. Members—including some Labour and Tory Members—are advocates of the traditional first-past-the-post system. For the purposes of this debate, I ask hon. Members to put out of their minds arguments over national Government and a national Parliament and to isolate arguments over local elections to local councils. We are not talking about either of those matters; we are talking about a type of regional government that we have not had before.
  I accept that there is no precedent for such a government. Neither the Greater London council nor the Inner London education authority nor the London county council provides an exact precedent. We can therefore start with a clean slate. I ask hon. Members to keep an open mind about the outcome, as I will. I am not one of those people who were born muttering, "single transferable vote". I was not brought up believing that that was a political mantra and a precondition of any of the world's political systems, because it is simply not true. We have to try to find some principles. In all seriousness and optimism, I invite the Committee to reflect on what those principles might be and to agree them.
  I ask the Committee to accept, first, that one of those principles should be that the voting system should be fair and give equal weight to all votes, not allowing people in London to feel that their vote does not count as much as the vote of someone else in their part of London.
  Secondly—I ask colleagues to reflect on how to implement it—there should be voter choice. In my constituency, Bengali voters, for example, should be able to choose a Bengali candidate. All political parties should allow voters—such as those in the Afro-Caribbean community—to say, "I want someone to represent me who has the same ethnic background."
  Voters should be able to choose a candidate on the basis of experience and age. Someone might say, "I want to put at the top of my list a trade unionist". If they are a first-time voter or 18-year-old, they might say, "I want to put a young person at the top of my list." After the general

  719
  election, the House welcomed some new young hon. Members. I unreservedly welcome them. Two Labour Members are about 25, and that is extremely welcome. I hope that hon. Members realise the benefit of a broad age range in the House.
  The Labour party—although it has had to do some slightly funny things to make it happen—has done a better job than the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative party in increasing considerably the number of women Members. I hugely welcome that development, and the House is already better for it. I am convinced that we will be much better off if we have more women in Parliament. Women should know that they will have the opportunity to vote for women, or men for women, if that is what they want. They should have a choice.
  As I stand here, I am very conscious of the fact that the political process delivers to Parliament for the elector one type of Labour candidate, one type of Conservative candidate or one type of Liberal Democrat. Electors in my constituency, who might be my supporters but who are African or Bangladeshi, do not have the opportunity to vote for a Liberal Democrat who is African or Bangladeshi, if it so happens that the person who wins in the first-past-the-post selection system in the party is a white Anglo-Saxon. That is an important issue.
  The third matter on which I ask the Committee to reflect is a difficult one, and I do not pretend otherwise. We should try to use real electoral boundaries that are natural and sensible. 1 shall not detain the Committee too long, but I want to outline the salient points. The Government propose that the authority should have something like 20 to 30 members. At first sight, that might suggest one member per borough. The weakness of that is that anyone elected would be, in effect, his or her borough's spokesperson. That would be a bad thing because the authority is not that kind of body, which is why we, like the Government, voted against the Conservative proposal that the assembly should comprise a group of London borough leaders. I represent the old boroughs of Southwark and Bermondsey so I come here by definition partly to be the Member of Parliament for those boroughs and to fight their corner—my electorate would expect nothing less. The same is true of all electorates. Thus, to end up with 32 or 33 seats, each representing a local authority area, would be wrong.
  Another possible set of boundaries are the European Parliament constituency boundaries. I share what I think is the Government's view, which is that we do not want long and complicated hearings or the redrawing of London maps to break up existing communities but that some of the European boundaries hardly form natural communities. I urge colleagues to consider that we would do well not to take off the shelf, as it were, boundaries that were created for another purpose and which would not serve these proposals well. The obvious example of that is that some of those boundaries extend beyond Greater London. They were not meant to form the basis for a set of Londonwide representatives, so they would be inappropriate in this case.
  A third possibility would be to take London as a whole and deal with it as one constituency. However, that has some huge weaknesses because it would involve a list system. I accept that if one has been a Liberal for 25 years and has not understood these things, one must have been somewhere else, but there are two ways to proceed. One is to have a party list system, in which case Walworth
  720
  road or Millbank tower, Cowley street or Smith square decides who gets on the list—or the members decide— and the voters have no choice. The second way is to have a list influenced by the voters—they choose who goes on the list and in what order. Obviously, my party would prefer the latter option if there were to be a list system.
  Some element of a list system might be a good idea, but that would have one overriding disadvantage if we were left with a Londonwide constituency. It would mean that people in, say, Hillingdon, Barnet, Havering or Croydon might feel that they were dominated by the central London weighted vote. The old Inner London education authority was always Labour controlled—I am not complaining about that—but it meant that a Tory voter in a Tory constituency in a potentially Tory borough felt, or could have felt, that it was never his authority. I do not want people in Kingston, Croydon, Barnet or Enfield to feel that the new authority is not for them. Whatever the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) feels about the need for the new authority, if that authority is to exist, it is important that he and his voters feel that it is for them. The same goes for the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and his voters. We must be sensitive to the different communities.
  London is a collection of many things. It is a collection of villages, which are real places. It is a collection of local authorities which are not very real but are recent amalgamations. Some of their predecessors were much more real—Clerkenwell, Holborn, Bermondsey, Southwark and Camberwell—but the new boroughs are artificial. However, the county areas are not artificial. Middlesex is not artificial. The Kent part of London still has a Kent postal code. The people of Bromley and Bexley feel themselves to be in Kent. The people of Croydon and Sutton feel that they are in Surrey. Yes, they are in Greater London, but it is the Surrey part of Greater London. The people in the eastern boroughs are proud to live in Essex—and so they should be.
  9.15 pm
  I hope that we shall consider a system that would allow those communities to speak. They may not have exactly the same size of electorate, but, with a fair electoral system, that does not matter. I do not want to go into detail, but, for example, the Kent part of Greater London could elect three members, the Surrey part could elect six members and the Middlesex part could elect 10 members, if those are the right proportions. The areas do not have to have the same number of constituencies.
  I want to ensure that all the ethnic communities also feel that they can own the result of the election. For them to feel part of it, they must be in a constituency big enough to allow them to be represented. If only one person is elected from my constituency—it might be a white man or woman, or a black man or woman—there is only one person to represent everybody in Southwark, North and Bermondsey. If the constituency covered all of the old Surrey part of London, there would be seven, eight or nine members elected. It is likely that those elected representatives would include someone with a Cypriot background, a black person and an Asian representative. There would also probably be a roughly even balance between women and men. That is very important. I do not want anyone to feel that the assembly does not speak for

  721
  them. I am far more concerned about that than about the political balance, because it is important that everybody owns the place.
  Of course it would be nonsense if there were a majority of members—that majority would have come from Labour if the election had been this year—who did not command a majority of support among Londoners. That would not reflect what Londoners wanted. I want secure legislation.
  I do not have a prescription or all the answers. My party is not dogmatic about the issue or arrogant about the outcome. In Scotland, the Liberal Democrats negotiated with Labour and others, arriving at an outcome that was different from the place where we all started. We have ended up with a mixed system—some alternative vote and some single transferable vote. That may be what we decide on. I ask the Committee, rather than rushing into what might be the wrong decision, to agree a procedure to take the discussion out of this place so that we can try to reach the maximum agreement on the system. If we can agree on the best system for all of us, we can go out to fight our own corners and the Londonwide body will have the variety, pluralism and benefit of all our voices. I hope that the Committee and the Government will welcome positively a proposal that would give us the best way of arriving at the best electoral system.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) may not have been born muttering "STV", but he was certainly born muttering "proportional representation". Although he slightly wrapped up his message, it is clear from new clause 1 that what he proposes is proportional representation. It will not come as an enormous surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I take a radically different position, which is set out in amendments Nos. 25 and 26 and can be summarised as support for the first-past-the-post system.
  I will illustrate my case by referring to what happened in the 1997 general election. It might be thought that the Conservatives would favour a more proportional system because, with the first-past-the-post system, the result was that Labour won 419 seats whereas the Conservatives won 165. On that basis, some Ministers believe that they do not need to bother with the arguments and that hon. Members can take it or leave it.
  It is a useful correction to remember that on the basis of pure proportionality, the result of the 1997 election would have been that Labour had 285 seats and the Conservatives 202 seats. Achieving that result under a PR system is anything but easy, however, as has been demonstrated conclusively by the Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom, an organisation run in association with the London school of economics and Birkbeck college. It employed ICM which interviewed 8,500 voters straight after the election and asked them to vote again using the main PR systems that were being advocated.
  Under the alternative vote system, Labour would have won 436 seats and the Conservatives would have been down to 110. Rather than making the system fairer or more proportional, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey claims, that type of PR would
  722
  make it substantially worse. The same is true of the supplementary vote system, a close cousin of the alternative vote system which is, I gather, used for presidential elections in Sri Lanka.
  The same survey showed that with the single transferable vote system, Labour support would be overstated. Our own support would be understated and Liberal Democrat support would be significantly overstated. Doubtless that is why the single transferable vote system is the Liberal Democrats' favoured system.
  On the basis of the 1997 election, the only system of PR that would come close to proportionality is the additional member system. If the election had been based on having half elected locally and half elected regionally, there would have been about 300 Labour Members, 200 Conservative Members and just over 100 Liberal Democrat Members.
  A different price is paid for that system. Half the representatives—it does not need to be half because the proportion can be different—are elected without constituencies to represent. The direct link goes; it would go almost entirely if we went to an entire list system under which, in effect, the party chooses and controls the candidate. The candidate is answerable to the party and not to the public; I find that entirely objectionable.
  For a range of reasons, I strongly support the retention of the first-past-the-post system for London elections. First, I am aware of no overwhelming reason or public demand for a change to proportional representation. The survey to which I referred showed that 41 per cent. were in favour of first past the post, 44 per cent. supported the additional member system and 14 per cent. were undecided, so it was very much even Stevens.
  The Government have already promised a referendum on PR in parliamentary elections during this Parliament. That is already pledged. There will then be a full debate and the issues will be explored. I see no case for changing the system in London before that referendum.
  Secondly, I am strongly opposed to breaking the link between the elected representative and the public. I do not accept the implicit argument in the Green Paper that London's assemblymen are in effect strategic thinkers. The Green Paper says
  "The method of election to the assembly needs to reflect and support the role of assembly members. Assembly members will be required to think and act strategically, looking at London-wide issues and the long-term interests of the capital. We do not think they need to or should duplicate the local representational roles of borough Councillors, MPs and Euro-MPs."
  I do not see how a representative can think strategically or in any other political way without being linked to the local community. We do not want assemblymen who are insulated from public opinion. Therefore, we want assemblymen representing the existing boroughs and—if the Government introduce such a system—elected on a first-past-the-post system.
  I do not believe that any of the PR systems proposed has a clear advantage over the first-past-the-post system. As the democratic audit shows, a number of the PR systems produce a worse result in terms of proportionality. Others, such as the list system or the partial list system, simply destroy the link with the public and put the party and not the public in the driving seat.
  The first-past-the-post system provides certainty. It is easy to understand. It has provided elected Governments that are able to govern—and that can be applied to local

  723
  government. It has not generally led to coalition deals which the public may not want and which may result in entirely unforeseen policies.
  I am encouraged by one of the Minister's statements this afternoon. When one of my hon. Friends suggested that PR was inevitable, the Minister appeared to dissent from that proposition and said that no decision had been made. I welcome that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think extremely carefully before introducing election by PR for London. The Conservative party is opposed to PR. We will campaign against it and we believe that the case has not remotely been made for it. We favour the first-past-the-post system.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), and would like to add to some of the points that he has made. I recognise that I am no longer a London Member. I speak merely from my experience as a Conservative councillor in London for a considerable time. I have resisted the temptation to accept the invitation from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to speak as an ethnic minority. In the light of some of the recent rugby matches, it is best if I do not do that.
  My memory of London government under the GLC and the ILEA is bitter. It did not matter who was in control, there was conflict at every stage. I am concerned that the Labour Government have produced a proposal tacked on to the wish for a voice for London, and then proceeded to destroy its strength. The proposal for proportional representation is the last nail in that coffin.
  We will have a series of levels of potential conflict between the boroughs, the GLA, the mayor, the regional development authority, the Government office for London and the Government. In the middle, we shall have the assembly, which could be elected by proportional representation. The experience in this country and many others, as reflected in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, is that we tend to end up with deals—a hung assembly.
  We need to ponder extremely carefully and consider seriously supporting the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend. At every move, the Government have undermined the strength of the mayor and the voice for London. They will undermine it even more if we have a hung assembly, which is the natural consequence of a form of proportional representation.
  I am deeply concerned that the people of London will vote in a referendum for what they see as a strong voice. What they will get is permanently hung government in London. The proportional representation proposal will ensure that, as is reflected in many nations throughout the world, including the one from which I emigrated, we have strong government destroyed by proportional representation. I fully support my right hon. Friend's amendments.
  9.30 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Although the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) argue strongly against each other, it was a pleasure to listen to both arguments being so succinctly presented in a dedicated way.
  724
  I turn first to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. We are grateful for the tabling of the amendments. As they make clear, and as the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey underlined in a particularly succinct manner, it is his desire to arrive at a consensus—that is essential—behind his call for an electoral convention. He listed in essence three points to which he wished the Committee to give due consideration. The first was a fair-voting system. The second was that, whatever system is devised, it should be inclusive. The third was on the issue of boundaries.
  What became apparent in the presentation of the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was the infinite variety in London—not only a geographic or ethnic variety but one including gender dimensions. It is clearly of the utmost importance that the electoral systems that will be used to elect the mayor and members of the assembly are the most appropriate ones. Both the mayor and the assembly will need to command the support and confidence of the people of London in their infinite variety. More than that, the electoral system selected for the assembly will help to determine the kind of body that emerges.
  We want an assembly that can act strategically, consider Londonwide issues, properly represent the wide range of communities across the city, and take decisions that are in the long-term interests of this great capital. The electoral system needs to reflect that, and to ensure that it produces people who are capable of performing the role that will be expected of assembly members.
  It is because we recognised the crucial importance of electoral issues in making London's strategic authority effective that a whole chapter of the Green Paper was devoted to the complex issues involved. We asked seven specific questions on electoral issues.
  Much reference has been made to the responses that have been received to that Green Paper and they are still being sifted and analysed. I can tell the Committee that they reveal both the significance that respondents attach to these matters and the very wide range of views and opinions that exist in this great metropolis. The Government intend to study all the responses that have been received. There is little point in consultation exercises if close attention is not paid to the opinions expressed, and the Government give a clear commitment to do so.
  The proposals will properly be set out in the White Paper that will be published before the referendum next spring. Following a yes vote, the main Bill will be presented in the next Session.
  A London electoral convention would not add to that process, and setting it up would be extremely cumbersome and unnecessarily bureaucratic. It is no small matter seeking to consult every political grouping represented in London local authorities, and there is no guarantee that all those diverse groups, and the main parties, could agree on the composition of the convention in time for it to convene, consult, make recommendations, and publish them before a referendum on 7 May. In all probability, the convention would serve to delay the referendum—and progress towards new government for London—by many months, putting at risk substantive legislation next Session.

  725
  The Government believe that it would be better to proceed as we have outlined. We will, after taking account of the responses that we have received, take the decision on what electoral systems will be the most appropriate. No doubt whatever we decide will be unwelcome to some, but that would also be the case with an electoral convention. The Government's decisions will form part of the package of proposals that we will put to the people of London in our White Paper, and on which they will be able to vote on 7 May. Of course, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will know, in the end it will be for Parliament to establish the authority in the context of the Bill.
  A London electoral convention would only complicate and delay the process and would not guarantee that better electoral systems were selected. I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will see fit to withdraw his amendments. Given the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for ensuring that London has the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals fully ahead of the referendum, it would seem odd to delay until after the referendum a decision on an issue that could fundamentally affect the nature and character of the GLA.
  The amendments and the argument presented by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey— albeit clearly, succinctly and with the best of intentions— would serve only to delay progress towards democratic citywide government.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's considered reply, and I understand why she is not accepting the amendments. However, I have never argued for delay—as the Minister will see from Hansard—and my party is at one with the Government. One way to achieve our aims would be to allow the convention to sit past May, but require it to complete its deliberations by the time the substantive legislation was introduced next year. We do not argue that the convention would have finished its work before the referendum in May.
  Ms Jackson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I cannot accept that a convention that extended beyond the referendum would be helpful to the people of London. No greater clarity would be achieved, and confusion would be inevitable. People would think that they were being asked to buy a pig in a poke, and that is not the direction that we believe the new form of government should take. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the people of London have already waited 11 years too long, and anything that would delay the process would surely not find favour with them.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield presented his arguments for amendments Nos. 25 and 26 with great clarity and conviction, but I cannot see any great advantage in fettering consideration of the consultation process, or negating the responses that have been received, by legislating as he proposed. It is surely for the people of London to make a judgment on proposed electoral systems in the referendum in May, as part of the package presented to them in the White Paper.
  The right hon. Gentleman made much of what he perceived to be the essential link between elector and elected. I agree whole-heartedly with him that that is vital,
  726
  if a parliamentary constituency is the basis of the link, but we are proposing a new form of local government in which the assembly and the mayor, working together, will have a strategic view of London.
  The right hon. Gentleman discounted the idea of a strategic view, but Londoners do not live exclusively in their own parliamentary constituency or local authority area they may have homes in one part of London and work or attend an educational establishment in another. They can bewail the failures that they perceive across London as a whole. It does a disservice to Londoners to present them as concerned exclusively about local issues in their city. There has been a strong response to the idea of restoring a democratic voice for the whole of London, because Londoners have a sense of being part of the city as a whole.
  We are still considering responses to the Green Paper. We have made it clear that proposals for electoral systems for the authority will be fully covered in the White Paper, and that is what the people of London will be asked to vote on. We believe that that is the correct order to follow.
  The Bill makes clear the areas in which directions from the Secretary of State may be necessary. Those directions will be guided by the provisions in the White Paper and by the timetable necessary to ensure that recommendations are available in time for the substantive legislation establishing the GLA.
  Given the passion and conviction that informed the contributions of both the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, it is somewhat unlikely that they will respond to my request to withdraw the amendments, but I hope that they will give that request fair consideration.
  Dr. Cable: I acknowledge that the Green Paper provided in a short space a helpful summary of the key arguments for different electoral systems, but it is opaque about where the Government are heading, and we want to introduce a process that will lead to greater transparency.
  It is perhaps unhelpful to approach the question as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) did, by calculating which party would do best out of which system; that is not the spirit of our approach. We should consider how to improve the legitimacy of the new body. The old Greater London council had a chequered history: as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) pointed out, it was often associated with great bitterness.
  We need the new authority to be legitimate and grounded in public opinion, and to engender popular support and a sense of ownership. The first requirement for that is that it should be representative. I remind the Committee what happened in the last two GLC elections. The striking results are reminders of the dangers of simply reproducing the national first-past-the-post system.
  In 1977, for example, the Labour party had a bad year and won only 32 per cent. of the votes, getting roughly the same number of seats, but the Conservatives won 70 per cent. of the seats with only 52 per cent. of the votes. Such a result could easily be reproduced in a bad mid-term poll for the Government.
  The 1981 result, which I think brought the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to national prominence, saw the Labour party achieve only 41 per

  727
  cent. of the vote, but it won a majority—54 per cent.—of the seats. It was the palace revolution that followed which changed the face of London. It was fundamentally unrepresentative.
  9.45 pm
  The problem with unrepresentative local government— the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield missed this point—is that the lack of representative government inherent in the first-past-the-post system, combined with low turnout, produces appalling anomalies in local government. In my adult life, I have lived in two local authority areas, both of which illustrate in different ways the problem of the first-past-the-post system creating vast majorities for parties.
  I served for some years on Glasgow city council, a privilege that I shared with you, Mr. Martin. Glasgow has many positive things to its credit, but 80 years of virtual one-party rule has hardly helped the city to provide representative and credible government. I now live in another one-party state, although, as it is Liberal Democrat controlled, I think that it is more competent and popular than others. However, it is clearly unrepresentative, and it is unsatisfactory that the borough has had virtually no Labour representation for much of the past two decades. It is unsatisfactory that turnouts of 40 per cent. in local elections, combined with narrow majorities, produce overwhelming results.
  The argument applies not only to the assembly but to the formula for electing the mayor. It is not inconceivable that we could get three or four admirable candidates in the mayoral election, who each attract broadly the same number of votes. If the traditional pattern of local government election turnout is reproduced, the mayor could be elected with the support of barely 10 to 15 per cent. of the population. That would be profoundly unsatisfactory.
  In considering the options, we must address two issues that were briefly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). First, we need geographical balance. It would be appalling if we reproduced the problem that existed throughout the history of the GLC, of an inner London dominated by Labour representatives against suburbs dominated by Conservatives, with the city polarised and resentment about the levels of rates and services. We want a system with better geographical balance.
  The second objective is better ethnic balance. Only four of 74 London Members are from ethnic minorities. It is a credit to the Labour party that it has brought us this far forward. We and the Conservatives do not have any. About 16 would be more appropriate, given the ethnic distribution. I am arguing not for politically correct quotas but for a system that allows a choice of candidates.
  We have our own formulation—large multi-member constituencies and candidate selection—but that is not the issue. We are not arguing for a particular approach, but for a process that allows consideration of representative government, with large constituencies that allow partnerships and cross-party alliances to develop.
  To help the Government, we have chosen in the amendment the language used in the Cook-Maclennan process, through which we are trying achieve at national
  728
  level a more representative system of government. That has opened up the possibility of dialogue between our parties on this subject. We are trying to reproduce the same spirit of consensus at London level.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The issues touched on by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) are well known to us. Not only are they part and parcel of the Liberal Democrat ethos, but clearly they are valid in their own right. He presented them clearly and succinctly, and touched on many of the issues raised by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  Without in any way wishing to discount the argument of the hon. Member for Twickenham, the central point is the legitimacy of the system. Our Green Paper set out a section containing all the issues touched on tonight. We are now saying to the people of London, "We have asked you to consider our proposals. You have responded to us, and we are now in the process of considering your responses." Without genuinely giving those responses the due respect and consideration that they deserve, the legitimacy—which is essential as we move to a modern form of government—would be flawed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Hughes: I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 298.

  Division No. 96]

  [9.50 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Hancock, Mike

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brake, Tom

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Moore, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burstow, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Chaytor, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Wallace, James

  Cotter, Brian

  Webb, Steve

  Dafis, Cynog

  Willis, Phil

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Mr. Adrian Sanders and

  Gorrie, Donald

  Mr. David Heath.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benton, Joe

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allan, Richard

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ashton, Joe

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Burgon, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beard, Nigel

  Byers, Stephen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  729

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Casale, Roger

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heppell, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clelland, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hurst, Alan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hutton, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Crausby, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Doran, Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dowd, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Laxton, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Lepper, David

  Efford, Clive

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Levitt, Tom

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lock, David

  Flint, Caroline

  McAllion, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Galbraith, Sam

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Galloway, George

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McLeish, Henry

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  730

  McWalter, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Maxton, John

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Snape, Peter

  Milbum, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Miller, Andrew

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morley, Elliot

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mountford, Kali

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Norris, Dan

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Öpik, Lembit

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Pope, Greg

  Trickett, Jon Truswell, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Watts, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  White, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Willis, Phil

  Rogers, Allan

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wise, Audrey

  Rooney, Terry

  Wood, Mike

  Rowlands, Ted

  Worthington, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Wray, James

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Salter, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sawford, Phil

  Jane Kennedy and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o 'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report progress.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. McFall.]
  Question agreed to.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Amendment proposed: No. 26, in clause 7, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
  '(3) The Commission's report shall be based on the assumption that the elections will be conducted on the "first past the post" system.'.—[Sir Norman Fowler.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 327.

  Division No. 97]

  [10.4 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Arbuthnot, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Leigh, Edward

  Baldry, Tony

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bercow, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brady, Graham

  MacKay, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Madel, Sir David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burns, Simon

  Maples, John

  Butterfill, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cash, William

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clappison, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Cran, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Day, Stephen

  Pickles, Eric

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Prior, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Randall, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Flight, Howard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fraser, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Garnier, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gibb, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Steen, Anthony

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Streeter, Gary

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gray, James

  Syms, Robert

  Green, Damian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Townend, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Tredinnick, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Trend, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hayes, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Walter, Robert

  Horam, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wilkinson, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Johnson Smith,

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  732

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Alexander, Douglas

  Darvill, Keith

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Allen, Graham

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ashton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barnes, Harry

  Denham, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dismore, Andrew

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobbin, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Doran, Frank

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Dowd, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Drew, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Boateng, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brake, Tom

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burden, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Byers, Stephen

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Galloway, George

  Cabom, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Casale, Roger

  Gorrie, Donald

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chidgey, David

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Home Robertson, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Cox, Tom

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  733

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moriey, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mudie, George

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Ingram, Adam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pendry, Tom

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kidney, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rogers, Allan

  Laxton, Bob

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rowlands, Ted

  Levitt, Tom

  Roy, Frank

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lock, David

  Salter, Martin

  McAllion, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McFall, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McLeish, Henry

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWalter, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mandelson, Peter

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marek, Dr John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Maxton, John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Merron, Gillian

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Michael, Alun

  Stringer, Graham

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Milbum, Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Taylor, David (NWLeics)

  734

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Webb, Steve

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  White, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Todd, Mark

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Touhig, Don

  Willis, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Winnick, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Wise, Audrey

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wood, Mike

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wray, James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tyler, Paul

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wallace, James

  Wyatt, Derek

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Watts, David

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: Even a casual perusal of the clause would lead the Committee to conclude that it is either a bit of a tease or deliberately obscure. The very first word of the clause, "If, leaves us in some doubt about the Government's intentions. We might expect their intentions to be somewhat clearer at this stage, the Green Paper notwithstanding. [Interruption.] We are immediately confronted with the possibility that— [Interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Only one Member should be addressing the Chamber. We cannot have conversations in the Chamber.
  Mr. Forth: We are left with the possibility that the Secretary of State may direct the Local Government Commission, or he may not. I assume that it is plausible that the Secretary of State may not give such a direction, in which case would we be entitled to make certain assumptions about the way in which the matter would proceed? Presumably, given the indication we have already had of the sort of numbers involved in the assembly, it would not be unreasonable to assume one member per borough. That is a straightforward and workable assumption. From that would flow the further assumption that it would be one member per borough elected on a first-past-the-post system, which would be clear and well understood by Londoners. It would be a straightforward approach.
  Matters then become more complicated because, as I read the clause—the Minister will clarify this in due course—if the Secretary of State were to decide to give a direction to the Local Government Commission, that would lead to the provisions in subsection (l)(a). I am genuinely intrigued because that ties the Secretary of State's hands and, therefore, those of the Local Government Commission. It refers to "showing the electoral areas"—that is plural—
  "into which it recommends that Greater London should be divided".
  That appears to preclude the possibility of London being one area for the purpose of the election. One distinct possibility being considered by those who are more in favour of proportional representation than I am is that

  735
  London would be a single area with a single list from which the electorate could choose its members, but the clause clearly says "areas". That is quite a strong hint from the Government that they are precluding the possibility of one approach that could be taken under a system of proportional representation.
  I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but that seems an odd approach if the Government genuinely have an open mind. If they decide not to go down the straightforward route that I would prefer of one member per borough, first past the post—which is easily understood, something to which Londoners could readily relate, and would give the size of assembly that the Government have said that they would prefer—surely the Secretary of State would want to direct the commission to look at a number of other ways of organising the election. But there is the problem of the wording as one of the ways that could be pursued will not be allowed, if I read the Bill correctly. Of course, we all know that it is hazardous for an hon. Member to read and interpret a Bill, but we must do it to elucidate the Government's intentions.
  The clause then refers—it is now more logical—to the number of areas and members and directs the commission to state
  "the name by which it recommends that each such electoral area should be known."
  As I have already said, if we stuck to the straightforward traditional approach, that would not be a requirement because the areas would be the familiar boroughs. That would be elegant and straightforward. If we give some artificial name to areas, we must immediately ask what sort of relationship voters in London would feel they had with the areas cobbled together by the commission under the direction of the Secretary of State.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position is even more difficult? As I have tried to point out in interventions and in a brief speech, there could be more confusion. If the areas chosen are not coterminous with the boroughs, there will be difficulties with representation and even greater difficulties with discussion and argument between the two tiers of the boroughs and the assembly and the relationship between the representatives of the assembly and the areas that the boroughs partially cover.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. There is potential confusion from the attempt to group boroughs into the sort of areas that underlie the wording in the clause. Presumably, one of the options hinted at in the clause, if I read it correctly, is that the electoral areas could be the existing European Parliament constituencies, which gives the possibility of 10 areas for London. We are then in a little difficulty: would the number of members of the assembly divide neatly by 10 or would there be variable numbers per area? Would there be sufficient members in each of the 10 areas to give meaning to anything other than a first-past-the-post system?
  Mr. Pickles: If my hon. Friend is right and the number of members will not be divisible by 10, and if a system other than first past the post is used, how will electors be able to get rid of someone elected to the assembly who they feel has let them down?
  Mr. Forth: That is a valid and searching question—it is typical of my hon. Friend—but it is not one which I feel
  736
  obliged to answer as I am not defending such a method of election. The Committee must explore the possibilities that lie within clause 7.
  It is striking that there is almost infinite cause for confusion and very little hope of clarity emerging from the process described in the clause. Perhaps Ministers have some as yet unrevealed desire and well worked-out plan up their sleeve—having undergone the sham process of issuing a Green Paper—but they will not say. Perhaps they will say to the commission, "This is what we want to do." If so, Ministers might do us all a favour, shortening events considerably—I am trying to be helpful—by telling us what is in their minds, short-circuiting all the anguish that I am going through right now.
  Worse than Ministers having a well thought-out, predetermined plan would be if—heaven forfend—they had not a clue of what they would do about electoral arrangements and were groping through a fog of confusion, hoping that the Local Government Commission will get them off the hook. That would not do.
  Depending on the nature of the directions given by the Secretary of State on whether my analysis of that key word "areas", in the plural, ties the commission's hands— as I suggest that it will—and on whether it is likely that the number of assembly members that Ministers have suggested they would prefer fits in with the number of European constituencies, or with some other formulation that I have not yet been able to devise myself, we shall have in London under the proposals a satisfactory system that makes sense to Londoners and induces them to vote, providing some accountability and identifiability of electors with representatives, or we shall not.
  Mr. Lansley: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is proceeding on the basis that the commission, under the direction that it will be given, is to divide the total number of members into the electoral areas? What if Ministers plan to have an additional member election system for the assembly, by which a number of assembly members will be elected on an all-London basis while others will be elected on a constituency basis? How will the commission interpret the Government's intentions when the direction in the Bill seems simply to assume that the total number of members will be divided into the number of electoral areas?
  Mr. Forth: Undoubtedly, we shall shortly receive an answer to that question—although, if I were my hon. Friend, I would not hold my breath.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has led me very neatly to the next subsection, which provides that the direction will specify both the number of electoral areas and the total number of members. Such a direction will leave to the hapless commission the job of making sense of the electoral system that will be devised—which must make sense not only in representative terms, by representing the people of London, but in the nature of the assembly itself. He has very perceptively asked whether one can make sense of an alternative member system, for example, in a system consisting of such a relatively small assembly and a relatively small number of members.
  There is a real danger that Ministers have painted themselves into a corner by having predetermined a smallish assembly for an area as enormous as London.

  737
  By the by, is it not interesting that Scotland, which has fewer people than Greater London, will be given an assembly with, from memory, 170 members? That size of assembly is deemed necessary properly to represent the people of Scotland; yet it is thought that Londoners—with the huge variety of views and circumstances in London— will be represented properly by a very small assembly. That question has not yet been answered.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I take my right hon. Friend's point about the Government painting themselves into a corner but, as he pointed out, the clause begins with the little word "If, and the Bill later states that if the Government do not like the report, they can throw it back and start again.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed; I am sure that when we come to clause 8 we shall want to explore that point in some depth. Like my hon. Friend, I have been intrigued by what might happen between the draft report being published and the report achieving its final form. However, if I were to be tempted to deal prematurely with that clause, I suspect that you, Mr. Martin, might take a dim view of that, and I do not want to incur your wrath at this early stage in the proceedings.
  I want to give colleagues the chance to express their views, but I hope that I have raised sufficient legitimate questions on the clause to show that we need much more clarity from the Government—it is not an unreasonable request—before we decide how to vote. Otherwise, the Government will effectively be expecting us to sign a blank cheque for them, and that is something which I should be very reluctant to do at this early stage.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We support the clause. Logically, if one sets up a body to examine boundaries, one has to give it a brief and require it to do certain things. It seems to us that the clause sets out just what the body has to do—it must consider electoral areas and the number of people to be elected, it has to suggest a name for the electoral areas, and so on.
  The clause is logical and keeps all the options open. If the Government make a terrible mistake and come up with a ghastly and completely unrepresentative electoral system, for which I shall condemn them for ever, terrible things will happen to them but, more important, the clause still allows them to deal with the situation and to have another system.
  It is no secret to Ministers and certainly not to you, Mr. Martin, that I and my colleagues sought to table an amendment to change the body in question in clause 7 from the Local Government Commission for England to the Boundary Commission for England. I raise the matter only because I was told that although it was a perfectly proper subject for debate, the long title of the Bill would first need to have been amended in that way. I just want to flag up the fact that it is more appropriate that the issue is considered by the boundary commission than by the Local Government Commission because we are not debating local government.
  The Minister for Transport in London may not have realised it, but at one point she mentioned power to local government, and other hon. Members occasionally did the
  738
  same. Let us be politically corrected when we have made mistakes, because we are talking not about local government but about regional government. Therefore, the Local Government Commission is being given a job that it has not traditionally been asked to do. I accept that we do not have a regional boundary commission at the moment, but it would have been better for the issue to be considered by the Boundary Commission for England.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Boundary Commission for England is the proper body to deal with such matters in that it can hold hearings and has the expertise to adjust boundaries? The Local Government Commission is set up to deal with the nuts and bolts of how local government works and should have nothing to do with deciding electoral areas.
  Mr. Hughes: I accept those points. Whatever the difference between the hon. Gentleman's views and mine, I am troubled that we are remitting this particular task to this particular body. My colleagues and I would certainly have been happier if the task had gone to the Boundary Commission for England because it effectively relates to parliamentary constituencies.
  I should be grateful for an explanation of why it cannot go to the boundary commission, if indeed it cannot. I should like to hear the arguments so that I can be persuaded. If there are no strong arguments, I should be grateful if Ministers would reflect on the possibility of amendments in the other place to allow the relevant body to be the Boundary Commission for England.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on the clause, which has several flaws. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has referred to some. I had the opportunity to interrupt him briefly on one significant flaw which needs a response from the Minister. No decision appears to have been taken on the electoral system, but the power that the Secretary of State seeks under the clause would not leave scope for places on the assembly to be set aside if there were an additional member system. That option is being precluded, just as the drafting of the clause may have precluded the further option—although not one that I advocate—of treating the whole of London as one constituency.
  There are three further problems with the clause. The first was referred to in the previous debate: it would be better if the clause made it clear that we were operating on the basis of first past the post. I shall not revisit those arguments in detail, but it behoves us to remember that democracy is not simply about proportionality, but about accountability, representativeness and the efficiency with which the will of the electorate is converted into political action by a legislature. On all those counts, a first-past-the-post system has a great deal to commend it.
  The second problem is that nowhere does the clause— or those following it that govern the manner in which the Secretary of State is to exercise the powers—refer to the opportunity to refer such directions back to Parliament. We are legislating for the Secretary of State, with the subsequent action of the Local Government Commission, to determine a key part of our constitution: the manner in which the first of the regional bodies in England—it may

  739
  be the only one—is to be elected. When we discuss the legislation on Scotland and Wales, I imagine that we shall debate the manner of election in some detail.
  The arrangements for London are to be taken out of the hands of Parliament and handed over to the Secretary of State, operating with the advice of the Local Government Commission. As I read the Bill, not only can the Secretary of State make directions, but if he does not like the answer he can send it back for a different one. Clause 10 would allow the Secretary of State to require the Local Government Commission to take certain matters into account and to be guided by him on how it should respond on those matters. Great discretion is being handed over to the Secretary of State on the key issue of the electoral system.
  My third problem relates to timing. Ministers have referred to consultation and the responses to the Green Paper that was issued some time ago. Several questions have been asked about the electoral system, covering the boundaries of the electoral areas and the manner in which elections are to take place. We do not know the character of the responses and what analysis Ministers have made of how to respond. We know that there were only 1,200 responses. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has reminded me that more than 10,000 responses from Londoners were received in the 1994 consultation exercise. None the less, those 1,200 views were made in response to the Green Paper and they should be taken into account. That is why we are debating the clause and the manner in which it is to be interpreted by the Secretary of State.
  There are significant deficiencies in the clause which ought to be considered on Report or in another place so that we can make the legislation more acceptable.
  Mr. Pickles: I would not have spoken on the clause if I had not been inspired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who gave us a most eloquent explanation of its inadequacies. Some thought needs to be given to whether the Local Government Commission should be involved, as the Government suggest, or whether the boundary commission should be involved, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggests.
  I believe that on this occasion the Government are right and that the Local Government Commission, rather than the boundary commission, should be involved. Throughout the debate, there has been discussion on whether we are dealing with regional or with local government. I believe that we are dealing with some form of super-local government and not with regional government. If the new system is to work well, it must operate with the consent of the boroughs and in co-operation with them.
  A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity of giving evidence to the Local Government Commission and I have seen it working in various parts of the United Kingdom. It brings a local perspective to devising the size of electoral divisions, the boundaries and the number of representatives within a ward. I was very impressed by the way in which the commission would look carefully at the size of local communities and try to group them.
  Should a strategic authority differ from conventional local government? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested, it seems from
  740
  clause 7(2) that it might be possible to have just one local government division. Alternatively, we might consider the boundaries of European Parliament constituencies or borough boundaries.
  I understand that there is a desire to break the constituency and ward links, and to look at London as a whole strategically. It is suggested that, if constituency and ward links are broken, we shall get better government. I do not believe that that will happen. A political class will be created that is impervious to criticism from the public. There is no way in which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, electors will be able to remove members of the assembly who have failed. They will be cushioned from that and they will be able to live with any decisions that they care to make. Therefore, they can make decisions that upset people's rights in respect of property or individual liberty and a responsive democracy can do nothing about it.
  A very small return—a mere 1,200 who responded out of a population larger than that of Scotland or Wales— was concerned about the way in which elections should be conducted. It is usually assumed that we elect people to be responsible to us and not to disappear into an obscure authority that cannot respond. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is correct in saying that we are moving to a new system of regional government, we have reached a key point in our devolving constitution and we have to get it right now. We have to lay down clear guidance about the elections.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as it is unlikely that I shall have the chance to speak. Does he agree that the bottom line is that, if we discourage the electorate from voting, the system will have failed?
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very perceptive point. It is possible that the electors can achieve nothing by voting, as they will not be able to remove unpopular members of the strategic authority. That will erode confidence in the process of democracy generally and the strength of the strategic authority.
  To avoid dividing the Committee, the Minister will have to respond in detail to all the points raised.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I did not expect to participate in the debate, but I am delighted to make a short, succinct speech. We are considering far-reaching, fundamental reforms. The House relies on democracy. If we discourage people from voting because the system is unappealing in one way or another, we shall do democracy in Britain no favours whatever.
  I should like to comment on two issues: the system of proportional representation envisaged in the clause and whether the Local Government Commission or the boundary commission should decide the electoral areas.
  I cannot understand the rush for proportional representation in the Scottish Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and in Europe. No doubt we shall have a referendum on whether we should have proportional representation for Westminster elections. Proportional representation does not produce fair votes; it simply encourages minorities. If the level pavement party managed to get enough votes in the London election,

  741
  it would be represented on the London assembly. I make that suggestion in jest, but it would be a one-issue party, when everyone on both sides of the Chamber should be concerned with the promotion of London. Unless we promote London to the wider world, what on earth is the point of the Bill? We are about promoting the excellence of London for tourism and trade and for the benefit of the general standard of living for the people of London. What on earth does encouraging minorities do for that?
  I have only a few minutes left to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Obviously Labour Members are not enjoying my speech very much and that is because it hurts.
  Mr. Pickles: As we have to decide whether the boundary commission or the Local Government Commission should decide the electoral areas, let me remind my hon. Friend that sitting in the Chamber is a former member of the Local Government Commission, a potential candidate for the London mayor. I wonder whether we could tempt her to say which would be best— the Local Government Commission or the boundary commission.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend raises a very good point. One wonders whether the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) will be acting the part of Elizabeth I, the Lord Mayor of London or whoever she might be when she stands for the post. My hon. Friend leads me down paths of temptation down which I should not be led.
  The issue is whether we should use the Local Government Commission or the boundary commission. I attended the local boundary commission hearing when it was trying to pronounce on the Gloucestershire constituency boundaries. That hearing was conducted by an eminent lawyer. People from all interested parties in Gloucestershire gave views. That is the right forum in which to pronounce on boundaries—whether they be constituencies in London or wards that make up electoral areas in London.
  I ask the Minister to treat the issue seriously. I hope that he will respond to it in detail, when I allow him to get to his feet. The Local Government Commission is concerned with the ethics and working of local government and how it should organise its administrative processes rather than the individual boundaries of wards or constituencies.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I trust that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is not disappointed that it is a she and not a he who rises to respond.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in support of the clause, was in the main complete. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I regret that he is not in his place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Here he is."] Just in time. He questioned whether the proposals in clause 7 should be best vested in the Local Government Commission and argued for such functions to be vested in the boundary commission. I well understood his argument.
  There is disagreement between the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and the Government over the definition that the GLA is regional government.
  742
  We regard it as citywide government. Therefore, we believe that it is more appropriate that the Local Government Commission should engage in the functions, should it be necessary. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the whole basis of the clause is entirely dependent on the people of London voting yes in the referendum.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady was right; I made it into the Chamber just on time. I am interested in, but slightly concerned by, the comment—which is right in itself—that she has just made. The GLA would be citywide government. My understanding of Labour party policy is that the GLA is also regional government and was intended to be the first of a series of regional governments. If the hon. Lady is now saying that the GLA will not be regional government, her right hon. and hon. Friends and other Members will be surprised to hear it.
  Ms Jackson: I can only repeat that it has always been our presentation, representation, perception and indeed commitment that the GLA represents citywide government. The hon. Gentleman may be confusing two issues. Clearly the Government have considered the possibility of regional government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are engaged in consultation on the regional development agencies. I repeat that it is our perception that the people of London will be best served—if they vote yes in the referendum—by the Local Government Commission.
  The contributions from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Cotswold were obfuscatory to the extent that, if mine were a less charitable nature, I would think that it was deliberate. However, I have a charitable nature and I am prepared to believe that the obfuscatory nature of their contributions was because they simply do not understand clause 7. It may be helpful to the Committee if I define the purpose of the clause.
  Clause 7 confers new functions on the Local Government Commission for England, requiring it—at the direction of the Secretary of State—to prepare a report in respect of electoral areas for any elected assembly established after the referendum. That is an important point. The powers given to the Secretary of State under the clause to direct the commission will not be used—I emphasise that point—until there has been an affirmative vote in the referendum, by which stage the Government will have published a White Paper setting out direct proposals. We will make clear our proposals for the election method and the constituencies.
  Clause 7 requires the commission, at the direction of the Secretary of State, to prepare a report recommending the electoral areas into which Greater London should be divided for the purpose of electing the members of any assembly established following the referendum, the number of members who should be elected for each electoral area and the name by which each electoral area should be known. It also requires that any direction made by the Secretary of State must specify the total number of electoral areas and the total number of members for which the recommendations in the Commission's report must provide. That is a sensible provision which is designed to

  743
  speed the process of establishing the GLA after an affirmative vote in the referendum. Conservative Members have made no case and offered no argument for its removal.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

  SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
  Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I will comment briefly on the clause. The commission will be established with agreed terms of reference and objectives. It will then deliberate and report back. The Secretary of State may not like the recommendations that the commission makes, but would it be democratic to overrule those recommendations as clause 9 would allow?
  What would be the Secretary of State's purpose in overriding the commission's recommendations? Can the Minister explain in what circumstances the Secretary of State might see fit to direct the commission to review its findings? Could those circumstances include political expediency or convenience? It is because we have doubts about the purpose of clause 9 that we cannot support it, but—given the late hour—we will not push the issue any further. We will recommend that it is considered in greater detail in another place.
  Mr. Raynsford: The clause enables the Secretary of State, when a report has been submitted under clause 8, to direct the commission to review the recommendations made in the report, and to submit a further report making revised recommendations. It is a fail-safe provision, designed to ensure that the Local Government Commission can be asked to look again at its recommendations or any part of its recommendations, once it has delivered its report.
  The provision is well precedented. [Interruption.] Before Conservative Members start crowing, let me remind them that it takes as its model section 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1992, which was used more than once by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment in the previous Administration.
  Circumstances in which such a provision might come into play could include when the commission had changed its mind so much between the draft and final reports that people locally felt that they had not been given sufficient opportunity to comment on the substance of what the commission was proposing in its final report. Alternatively, representations might be made to the Secretary of State on publication of the final report of such importance that they justified the commission being asked to reconsider what it had recommended.
  The provision is not about giving the Secretary of State the power to second guess the Local Government Commission. Indeed, it provides only for the commission to revise—to re-examine its decision, and not necessarily to come up with new recommendations—but, without that power, there would be no provision for the commission to take what may be a necessary second look. In the light of those comments, I trust that hon. Members will be satisfied that our intentions are entirely sensible.
  11 pm
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: In reviewing clause 8, can the Minister tell us, as the Minister for Transport in London failed to do, why, technically, the commission should consider the Local Government Commission's recommendations rather than those of the boundary commission? We have not had an answer to that technical question, which has been raised by several hon. Members.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

  PAYMENTS BY SECRETARY OF STATE TO COMMISSION
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: What do the Government estimate will be the costs of clauses 11 and 12? They provide for money to be spent, and now is the time for a Minister to put on record the estimated costs. Conservative Members sometimes complain that the exercise will cost the taxpayer a great deal, but we think that it could be cheap to set up. What advice does the Minister have about costs?
  Mr. Raynsford: It is impossible to give an estimate at this stage, because it depends entirely on what remit is given to the Local Government Commission. Were it to involve a lengthy and protracted examination of complex constituencies, there would obviously be greater costs than if it were a relatively simple matter relating to existing boundaries that might need some modest modification.
  I cannot give the answer that the hon. Gentleman requests, but there is no question of any expenditure being made until after a positive referendum result, by which stage there will have been a statement in the White Paper of the Government's intentions in relation to the boundaries. We will then be in a much better position to give him the information that he seeks. I hope that he accepts that the provision is sensible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

  EXPENDITURE
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept entirely that the matter may not be elaborated until after the referendum and that no money will be spent before then, but it would be helpful to know what the Minister's advisers suggest that the expenditure in connection with the referendum will be. Someone must have done an estimate. This does not depend on the boundary commission; it involves setting up the arrangements for the referendum. A ballpark figure would interest those who read our proceedings.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the explanatory memorandum, he will find that we have already indicated that we expect a maximum provision of

  745
  about £20 million for preparatory arrangements for bringing the new authority into existence. Once again, no expenditure will be incurred until after a positive vote in a referendum. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

  SHORT TITLE
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a very important clause. It says that it is the short title, but the Bill should not, by any definition, have a short title. Had we known what the Government were going to say in Committee, we would have sought to amend the short title to read that the Act should be cited as the "Greater London Authority (Referendum), You Can Have Any Choice You Like For Democracy in London Provided It's the One We Give You and You Won't Have Any Other Alternative Act 1997."
  The serious point is that it is disappointing that, at the end of the Committee stage, the Government are still wedded to giving the people of London only the Government's choice. We are grateful, however, that the Minister conceded that that is only a matter of pragmatism, and that it would be acceptable if two questions that do the job could be formulated. We have already started work on that. I am sure that the Minister is looking forward, as are others, to the two-question alternative. I am sure that it will be persuasive and that he will find it impossible not to support it.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I trust that the hon. Gentleman has not made this point simply because he neglected to
  746
  table an amendment and now regrets it. His additions would not have made this a short title but an unnecessarily long one. Clause 13 specifies that the Bill, if enacted,
  "may be cited as the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1997."
  It is a matter of convenience. The proposed title is short and appropriate to the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without amendment.

PETITION

  Harold Wood Hospital
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I present a petition on behalf of my constituents relating to the location of an accident and emergency unit in a hospital close to my constituency. They are concerned that, after a lengthy and fair inquiry, the recommendation that it be sited at Harold Wood may be overturned. It has been signed by 16,500 electors in my constituency and states
  "The Petition of residents of the parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar and patients of Harold Wood Hospital
  Declare that it is in the interest of local people, and in the strategic interest of the National Health Service, to build the new accident and emergency unit for Barking, Havering and Brentwood at Harold Wood Hospital
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons support their plea for this much needed unit
  And the petitioners remain, etc"
  To lie upon the Table.

  Residential Boat Owners (London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  11.8 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: It is a pleasure to raise this matter on the Adjournment, albeit at a very late hour, and to resume a dialogue with the Minister for Transport in London, albeit on a very different subject. Perhaps I can summarise briefly the essence of my concern. I am concerned with the behaviour of the Port of London Authority—a public trust and a statutory public authority—which has been behaving irresponsibly. It has imposed large increases in mooring charges—in effect, rents on boat dwellers—on the tidal waters of the Thames in a way that is likely to cause considerable distress. The increases will cause many residential boat owners to leave their accommodation because they are simply unable to pay owing to sharp increases for which there has been no consultation.
  I ask the Minister to have a fresh look at whether she can intervene informally, not by using her statutory authority but by using her good offices to bring the parties together to seek an amicable resolution. Failing that—and if the PLA continues to behave in an arbitrary and unsatisfactory way—I ask her to use her statutory authority in terms of the appointment of the non-executive directors of the PLA. Looking further ahead, I ask her to look at whether a more effective system of regulation— possibly an ombudsman—needs to be introduced to protect people from the arbitrary misuses of authority.
  This is important, and goes way beyond my narrow constituency concern. There is a broad issue of principle here, and the Labour party's election commitment to provide security in housing is very much part of that. A group of people have been rendered extremely insecure as a result of a large increase in what is effectively their rent. Many already have insecure tenure arrangements, as the arrangements that pertain to boat owners are often not as secure as for those with normal property relationships. The already high level of insecurity will be enhanced by these large increases.
  I am speaking on behalf of a substantial number of boat owners in my constituency—approximately 230—the majority of whom are affected by the increases. However, there is a larger community in the country—about 30,000 people occupying 15,000 boats—who will be following this discussion with considerable interest.
  The broader interest that I want to highlight relates not simply to the particular problem of the boat dwellers but to the question of the accountability of quangos—in this case, it is a completely, rather than quasi-autonomous, agency, and could be called a "cango"—and the ability of the Government to call them to account for unsatisfactory behaviour. In a letter to me, the Minister said that this was not a matter in which the Department played a part, and that the changes in question were a commercial matter for the Port of London Authority. I would beg to differ: that is, in part, an error. If it is true, it is an extraordinary statement of the ministerial approach to accountability. The PLA is a public body and must be brought to account, and there are mechanisms by which the Government can do this. Let me give a little background. The system of tenure on the Thames and other waterways is extremely
  748
  complex. Many authorities are involved, but I am concerned only with the Port of London Authority, which was established in 1968. It was given a clear statutory duty; not, as the Minister has suggested, to behave commercially—that is not the language of the Act. The Act says that the PLA should levy the
  "best charges that can reasonably be obtained …. excluding any elements of monopoly power."
  The principles behind that stricture have been observed for the past 10 years with an amicable arrangement between the Residential Boat Owners Association and the PLA. For 10 years, a general formula, based on the lengths of boats, was applied. It was a simple administrative procedure with relatively low costs which was accepted by all parties. What has caused that to break down is that the PLA has arbitrarily and without consultation imposed a new system without any redress for the boat owners.
  Our objections fall into two parts—they relate partly to the process and partly to the charges. As regards the process, the PLA argues—this is part of the Act—that the boat owners can resort to arbitration. In correspondence with me and some of the boat owners, the Minister seems to feel that the concept of arbitration in this case is reasonable. I ask her to consider why, in practice, it is not. Many boat owners cannot resort to arbitration, including the substantial number who are, in effect, tenants of licensees and so have no direct access to arbitration. That is the most vulnerable category, because they can be asked to quit their moorings at 28 days' notice. They are very insecure. I visited some of them last Friday; many were reluctant even to be photographed because of their insecurity. They are not able to pursue the arbitration route.
  There is the broader issue of the difficulty of trying to introduce arbitration into such disputes. I shall draw an analogy. If an employer cut the wages of his workers by 50 per cent. and said, "Fine, if you don't like it, you can always have individual arbitration on your individual wages," we would consider that to be a breach of the concept of collective bargaining. Surely the Minister, in her political capacity, accepts that collective bargaining is essential to protect vulnerable groups.
  If one of the water authorities increased charges by 200 per cent., 300 per cent. or 400 per cent.—which is the size of increase that many boat dwellers now face—and said, "If individual water consumers want to dispute this, they can take us to individual arbitration; they can take their solicitor along and fight this in the courts," we would regard that as a gross abuse and grossly unsatisfactory. We have regulators to manage such a problem. Asking individual boat owners to pursue the route of individual arbitration is totally inappropriate to the problem. The process is wrong and arbitrary, and, I would argue, an example of maladministration.
  I referred to the terms of the 1968 Act. The Port of London Authority is not required merely to observe commercial principles. The Minister is right to point to the fact that it must be commercial, but it must avoid the misuse of monopoly power. It is clear that in this case there is a monopoly, because there is a gross excess demand for moorings. Individual boat dwellers are not able to pull anchor and go somewhere else: they do not have that discretion, so we are talking about an abuse of a monopoly.

  749
  An important factor is that the increased charges in no way reflect any improvement in services. I visited some of the moorings at the end of last week, and saw that large amounts of driftwood had accumulated over months. The Port of London Authority makes no attempt to provide services to those people. That stands in considerable contrast to some of the other authorities. The waterways authority imposes charges that are somewhat higher than the present PLA charges, although much less than the new ones, but, unlike the PLA, it offers in return a comprehensive range of services on thousands of miles of canals and rivers.
  The Minister wrote to me and explained that she expected the Port of London Authority to operate commercially. What exactly does that mean? I have a copy of the PLA's annual report and accounts, which contains about 10 pages of balance sheets and cash-flow statements. There is not a single reference to the charges earned from boat owners. It is an utterly trivial element within the overall accounting framework of that corporation. That is not surprising. According to my rough calculation, the additional revenue that it will earn from these steep increases is about £10,000, which is ridiculously small for an organisation with a turnover of £20 million: it barely pays for half the salary of one of its non-executive directors. It is a trivially small part of its overall commercial operation. The imposition of this increase was an oversight by top management and had little to do with hard commercial principles. If the PLA were seriously interested in applying commercial principles, it would address itself to anomalies such as the fact that pleasure craft are not charged navigation duties.
  I now come to what the Minister can do to alleviate the situation. The least that she can do—not acting in a statutory capacity but simply as a reasonable person who has oversight, albeit indirectly, of the Port of London Authority—is to call in the parties to get them to discuss matters, as we and the Residential Boat Owners Association have requested. I find it difficult to fathom why she is reluctant to do so. I do not know whether she feels that I would be bringing along a group of roughnecks who will break the crockery at her Department and behave irresponsibly. I remind her that the honorary president of the association is Madam Speaker. It is a respectable organisation and its members simply wish to sit down and discuss matters with the PLA.
  We are asking the Minister, in a reasonable tone, simply to hold a conversation. If she finds that difficult and if the PLA persists in imposing highly unreasonable charges, she might consider the use of her statutory power, as she does have some. That power lies in the appointment of the non-executive directors. I remind her who some of those people are. They were appointed under the previous Government and bear their stamp. For example, the chairman, Sir Brian Shaw, is paid £50,000 a year for a part-time job, which he doubles up with being chairman of the Automobile Association and a director of Enterprise Oil. The gentleman who was probably directly responsible for the increases is a Mr. C. W. Jonas. He has a £19,000 part-time salary and combines that work with being a director of Railtrack.
  Those gentlemen have absolutely no background whatever in the sort of problems that I am describing— the problems of managing a sensitive relationship with
  750
  a group of home owners on the Thames. Their whole background is in commercial shipping—no doubt they are very competent at that. I ask the Minister to try to impose some of her authority on the PLA by asking one or other of those directors to stand down and, perhaps, to be replaced by someone who is a little more aware of the concerns of the houseboat owners.
  Finally, as I do not want to prolong proceedings all night, I must ask the Minister to think about some of the long-term and wider implications of the issue. We have here a classic case of a public organisation with a very substantial monopoly power that is able to impose its will; what is required is either a regulator, or at the very least some form of ombudsman as a court of appeal. Neither exists in this case. Clearly, there is a strong case for a change of governance to bring greater accountability to bear.
  I ask the Minister to study all those options but in the first instance, to look again—she has already rejected this option—at how she can intercede and produce more reasonable treatment in this case.
  11.22 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on obtaining this debate. First, it may be helpful to the House, Sir Alan, if—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are no longer in Committee.
  Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It may be helpful to the House if I say something about the constitution and statutory powers of the Port of London Authority, before dealing with the authority's relationship with residential boat owners on the river.
  The PLA is the statutory harbour authority for the River Thames. It is a trust port with statutory responsibility for conservancy of the tidal River Thames. It owns much of the river bed and foreshore. The statutory provisions relating to the PLA are set out in the Port of London Act 1968. Under that Act, the PLA provides navigational services and is responsible for maintaining shipping channels, moorings and navigation lights. The authority is also responsible for licensing river works. In the case of houseboats, works licences are issued to cover the mooring points.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's points about requiring changes to the PLA, as I am sure he is aware the Department is conducting a review of trust ports. Accountability is one of the important factors that is being examined. We are also looking at the relationship to be established between the PLA and our proposed Greater London authority.
  The PLA funds statutory functions by charging for services provided, including the issuing of works licences. The 1968 Act requires the charge for licences to be the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The PLA regards that as "the market rate". Section 67 of the Act provides for disputes regarding charges to be considered by an independent arbitrator appointed by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

  751
  Arbitration in such cases should be possible at a reasonable cost to all parties involved, as the arbitrator will be able to assess the appropriateness of the charges being disputed without the need for a detailed legal case. I understand that it has rarely been necessary to resort to arbitration, as it has almost always been possible to reach a commercial agreement by negotiation.
  There are 234 residential craft moored on the tidal Thames within the PLA's jurisdiction. Those craft range from floating, purpose-built two-storey houses and bungalows to Dutch-type barges, canal narrow boats and various other vessel conversions with much less living space. Residential craft are mainly concentrated on licensed moorings on both banks of the river between Cheyne walk in Chelsea and Swan island in Twickenham.
  Six licensees have negotiated long-term agreements with the PLA's agents in respect of 99 of those craft. Fees have been set and reassessment criteria established for 20-to-60-year terms. A further 105 residential craft are moored at 11 separate locations on bulk licences held by seven licensees. The remaining 30 craft are held on river works licences granted to 23 individual licensees.
  Thus, the current 234 moorings are licensed to 36 licensees. That means that the vast majority of occupiers are tenants of the licence holder. In those cases, there is no agreement whatever between the occupier of the boat and the Port of London Authority.
  I shall now deal with the current dispute between boat owners and the Port of London Authority. In 1986, the PLA consulted the Residential Boat Owners Association and, at that time, arrangements were made for a rate per foot length to be applied to all residential craft moored on the tidal Thames and linked to the annual retail prices index. That arrangement continued until 1993, when the PLA gave notice to licence holders that a review would be undertaken in 1997.
  In recent years, a number of new residential mooring developments have been licensed and the PLA's chartered surveyor agents have negotiated long-term agreements with new licensees. The current annual consideration agreements are for greater sums than those paid under the 1986 arrangements. In addition, the nature of houseboats has changed to some degree, with purpose-built floating houses and bungalows now appearing on residential moorings up and down the Thames.
  The PLA was advised that an assessment based solely on the length of craft was no longer appropriate, and was not in accordance with the PLA's obligation to obtain the best consideration. Charging by craft length did not produce a market rate as it took no account of the amount of living area available in each dwelling.
  Ninety-nine moorings are not subject to the current round of reassessments. Of the 135 that are currently being re-assessed, some 20 are licensed to individuals. To date, notice of the revised annual charge has been given to two bodies and three individuals in relation to 49 craft. The PLA has explained to those concerned the procedure for making objections to the charges. The
  752
  PLA's assessor would discuss the grounds for the objection with the licensee and, failing an agreement on the annual sum, an arbitrator would then be appointed, as provided for in the Port of London Act 1968.
  All those so far reassessed have formally objected in accordance with the procedure that I have described. The Swan Island harbour at Twickenham, with 37 craft, has appointed a chartered surveyor to represent it in negotiations with the PLA. The Richmond Upon Thames Churches Housing Trust and the three private individuals have appointed the Residential Boat Owners Association to represent them. The remaining 86 moorings fall due for reassessment in the first quarter of 1998.
  The Residential Boat Owners Association has recently written to me and to those hon. Members whose constituencies cover the Thames. The association wants the PLA to negotiate directly with the occupants of the houseboats rather than with the licensee of the mooring. That would be possible where the harbour legislation provides for the occupants of houseboats to have licences with the harbour authority, but that is the position for only a few occupants under the Port of London Act.
  The Residential Boat Owners Association has asked the Government to intervene. The hon. Member for Twickenham has also asked Ministers to hold a meeting. I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks offensive. I would not disregard a request from people, even if they did break the crockery, and it is clearly a duty of Ministers to meet those who have concerns. I am not aware that his letter also contained a request for a meeting, but if he wishes to ask for one, I shall be happy to oblige.
  My Department has no locus to intervene in disputes over mooring charges. However, my officials have raised with the PLA the concerns that have been expressed to me. The PLA has shown that it is keen to reach an agreement and that its agent is anxious to deal directly with the licence holders and those who are appointed to represent them. If that is not possible, there is, as I explained earlier, a procedure for objections which has been notified to licence holders. In the last resort, the Act gives them recourse to arbitration as a means of ensuring that the charges imposed are reasonable.
  I accept that occupants who are the tenants of the licence holder are unable to use the arbitration route since the PLA is not levying a charge on them. The fact that all the reassessments made so far are subject to objections demonstrates that the licence holders are not simply accepting the revised charges. Therefore, it would appear that the objection procedure is working effectively, and that licence holders are taking steps to protect the interests of boat owners, who are, in effect, their tenants.
  I hope that I have reassured the House that the procedures that are currently in force for the licensing of houseboats on the Thames make adequate provision for those who wish to object to the proposed increases in houseboat mooring charges.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve midnight.

TREASURY

  Tax Avoidance Schemes
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his review of avoidance of direct taxes, he will examine the use of Jersey-based capital gains tax avoidance schemes by British companies. [12587]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the legislation which would need to be enacted prior to the United Kingdom joining a single currency. [15338]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires an Act of Parliament before the UK would be able to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union. In addition, as confirmed in the Chancellor's statement on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 583–88, whenever a decision to enter is taken by the Government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people, and this would require legislation. Separately, the Bank of England would need to be compatible with the terms of the Treaty which apply if we were to join and there would be changes needed to related UK legislation.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what decisions relating to the European Single Currency—other than those determined in treaties or protocols concerning the operation of the European Monetary Institute, the European System of Central Banks or the statutes and duties of the European central banks— member states unable or unwilling to participate in the single currency, or the representatives of their respective central banks, will be excluded. [15436]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All decisions relating the European Central Bank (ECB) will be taken pursuant to the Treaty establishing the European Community, including its various Protocols, in particular Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 11, which collectively lay down the rights and obligations of participating and non-participating member states and their National Central Banks.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representation he has made concerning the formation of a working group of first-round EMU participants distinct from the ECOFIN group. [16987]

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the proposal of the French Government for a Conseil de 1'Euro. [17002]
  358
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 November 1997]: The UK is in agreement with all other Member States that the ECOFIN Council will remain the decision-making body for economic and financial issues after the start of stage three of EMU, as it is now.

  Tax and Benefits Task Force
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the members of the Tax and Benefits Task Force chaired by Mr. Martin Taylor. [16845]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Martin Taylor chairs a Task Force on which the Treasury, Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security and Department for Education and Employment are represented by senior officials. It is not the usual practice to name individual officials.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public appointments he has made since 1 May; and how many and what percentage of these(a) receive remuneration and (b) are of (i) Afro-Caribbean and (ii) Asian origin. [16782]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor's Department and Agencies have made 31 public appointments since 1 May 1997, of which eight (26 per cent.) receive remuneration. The information about ethnic origin cannot be provided since to do so would risk identifying individuals without their consent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has provided information for all departments in an aggregated form.

  Wealth Tax
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will calculate the revenue impact of imposing an additional 1 per cent. annual tax on individuals whose assets exceed £1 million. [17040]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to assess precisely the number and wealth of millionaires in the United Kingdom at any one time. The only available estimates are derived from inheritance tax data on a year-of-death basis. On this basis it is provisionally estimated that living individuals with net marketable wealth—that is, excluding pension rights—exceeding £1 million in 1994, the latest available year, owned assets totalling £116 billion, of which 1 per cent. represents just over £1 billion.

  Exchange Rates
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 13 November,Official Report, column 625, on exchange rates, if he will publish the available evidence which suggests that the use of foreign currency is fairly stable over time. [16899]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 20 November 1997]: The following figures, which are the most recent available, show exports and imports invoiced in foreign currency from 1979–88. It suggests that the proportion of trade invoiced in foreign currency was generally stable over that period, after allowing for a likely once-off adjustment by businesses to the lifting of foreign exchange controls.
  359

  Proportion of UK exports invoiced in sterling and foreign currency (by value) 1979–881

  Year

  Invoiced in currency of destination country2

  Invoiced in US dollars

  Invoiced in other foreign currencies

  Invoiced in sterling

  1979

  12

  12

  2

  74

  1980

  11

  11

  2

  76

  1981

  16

  9

  1

  74

  1982

  18

  15

  2

  65

  1983

  19

  14

  2

  65

  1984

  22

  15

  0

  63

  1985

  23

  18

  0

  59

  1986

  26

  20

  3

  54

  1987

  24

  19

  3

  57

  1988

  24

  15

  3

  62

  1Data 1979 based on annual figures; 83–88 based on November transactions except for 1987, which is based on May data.

  2 'Invoiced in currency of destination country' includes US dollar for US/UK trade.

  Proportion of UK imports invoiced in sterling and foreign currency (by value) 1979–881

  Year

  Invoiced in importing country currency2

  Invoiced in US dollars

  Invoiced in other foreign currencies

  Invoiced in sterling

  1979

  38

  21

  3

  38

  1980

  38

  27

  3

  32

  1981

  41

  23

  1

  3

  1982

  41

  22

  2

  34

  1983

  44

  19

  2

  35

  1984

  41

  25

  1

  34

  1985

  43

  24

  1

  32

  1986

  46

  17

  2

  37

  1987

  46

  13

  1

  40

  1988

  41

  16

  2

  43

  Notes:

  1 Data 1979–83 annual figures; 83–88 based on September transactions except for 1987 which is based on March data.

  2 'Invoiced in currency of importing country' includes US for US/UK trade.

  Sources:

  'British Business' 31 May 1985, 17 January 1986 and 24 April 1987 (DTI) and 'Business Bulletin' 15 December 1989 (CSO).

  Airbus
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons for his Department not having approved the grant of launch aid to British Aerospace in respect of its involvement in the Airbus A340–500 and 600 aircraft. [17255]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 21 November 1997]: The Government have yet to announce their decision concerning the application for assistance from British Aerospace.

  National Asset Register
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to publish the National Asset Register. [17817]
  360
  Mr. Darling
  I am publishing The National Asset Register today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

  The National Asset Register fulfils the Government's Manifesto commitment to publish a thorough inventory of the assets they own. Publication demonstrates the Government's commitment to greater openness and accountability by letting the nation see what assets the nation owns.

  This is the first time that any Government have had such a comprehensive picture of all the assets they hold. The National Asset Register will be an invaluable starting point in helping departments to identify whether they are making the best use of their assets and achieving value for money. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to maintaining prudent and sound financial management.

  To help departments do this the Treasury has also introduced two new measures to encourage departments to get the best from their assets:

  First, at present any receipts from the sale of surplus assets must be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund unless the Treasury agrees that the department concerned can retain them to increase its gross spending power. (The receipts then count as negative public expenditure so do not increase net spending or the Control Total.)

  From 1 April 1998 until 1 April 2001 when the new resource budgeting arrangements are in place, the Treasury will allow departments to retain 100 per cent. of the receipts from assets of which they dispose, subject to certain limits. These limits are that:

  the value of an individual sale does not exceed £100 million;

  the value of the total sales for any financial year does not exceed 3 per cent. of a department's cash-limited vote; and

  the receipts can only be used to finance capital spending. They cannot be used to finance current spending.

  These limits are necessary to ensure that these sales do not distort the Government's overall spending allocations.

  Second, Departments are also being encouraged to make better use of assets they retain. This more effective management may include increasing commercial activity which has generally been constrained by lack of incentives for departments and by current Treasury guidance.

  Under the new arrangements Departments will be helped to maximise the value they retain from their assets by

  being able to retain receipts from commercial activity;

  being encouraged to develop relationships with the private sector to bring in any necessary skills and expertise;

  the Treasury's Private Finance Task Force will provide support to Departments; and

  this new approach in being developed in partnership with departments which are being consulted on the arrangements.

  361

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council what is her policy in respect of the faxing of press releases on the day of release to Opposition party spokesmen; what changes have been introduced since 1 May; and if she will make a statement. [16283]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  All press releases issued on my behalf are posted to the relevant Opposition spokesman on the day of release. Press notices are not routinely faxed to Opposition party spokesmen unless requested. There has been no change since 1 May.

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council if she will place in the Library a copy of the internal departmental guidance on the dissemination of information; and if she will make a statement. [16284]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  In my small Department it has not bee necessary to issue detailed guidance on the dissemination of information.

  Maximum loan available to students and estimated length of repayment under new student support arrangements

  Earnings (as a percentage of average earnings)

  Number of years of study

  Maximum loan available (1990–00 prices) (£)

  50 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  85 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  125 per cent.

  150 per cent.

  200 per cent.

  300 percent.

  Number of years taken to repay loans

  3

  10,395

  1—

  17

  13

  10

  7

  5

  4

  3

  4

  14,020

  1—

  21

  16

  12

  9

  7

  5

  3

  5

  17,645

  1—

  25

  19

  15

  10

  8

  6

  4

  6

  21,270

  1—

  28

  22

  17

  12

  9

  7

  4

  7

  24,890

  1—

  32

  25

  19

  14

  11

  8

  5

  8

  28,520

  1—

  34

  27

  21

  15

  12

  8

  5

  1 Loans never fully repaid. 'Average earnings' have been taken from the 'New Earnings Survey 1997'. Average graduate earnings would be expected to increase more rapidly than average earnings for full-time workers as a whole, thus reducing the average length of the repayment period for any given amount of loan;

  Repayments will not begin until a graduate has a gross annual income of £10,000 and will stop if at any time their income falls below this threshold;

  The figures for 'maximum loan available' are based on the assumption that the graduates enter higher education in 1999–2000 and are therefore eligible for a 100 per cent. maintenance loan (as opposed to the 75 per cent. loan available in the 1998–99 transitional year). They also assume that loans will be uprated annually in line with inflation

  Child Care
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to build on the Child care Consultation carried out by the last Government. [17274]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have already taken action to improve childcare by extending the childcare disregard and offering young people the opportunity to obtain training and work experience in childcare as part of the New Deal programme. We are currently developing a National Childcare Strategy which will help parents, especially women, to balance family and working life and I will make an announcement in the first part of next year.
  362

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Loans
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the total loan available to students whose parents are not required to provide a parental contribution for those undertaking higher education for(a) three years, (b) four years, (c) five years, (d) six years, (e) seven years and (f) eight years; and what is his estimate of how long the loan will take to repay in each case if a graduate earns (i) 50 per cent. average earnings, (ii) 75 per cent. average earnings, (iii) 85 per cent. average earnings, (iv) average earnings, (v) 125 per cent. average earnings, (vi) 150 per cent. average earnings, (vii) twice average earnings and (viii) three times average earnings. [16429]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]: The table following sets out the estimated maximum amount of loan available to students studying outside London and living away from home during their studies, and the estimated number of years it would take to repay these loans. It should be noted, however, that the vast majority of students will be on courses lasting not more than four years. Of those few on courses lasting longer than four years, medical and dental students might also be eligible for income-related bursaries from the Department of Health to help with living costs.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those non-degree education courses which will be subject to the Government's new student fees policy. [16541]

  Dr. Howells
  Undergraduate full-time courses of higher education leading to an HND or DipHE or to a certificate, diploma or other academic award comparable to a first degree will be subject to the new arrangements for student support starting in autumn 1998. Postgraduate and part-time courses of initial teacher training will also be covered. However, we have already announced that students on PGCE courses will continue to receive free tuition.
  363

  Teachers (Advanced Skilled Status)
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the percentage of teachers who achieve advanced skilled teacher status. [16909]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government intends to introduce a new career grade of Advanced Skills Teacher to reward the best teachers who are prepared to take on additional roles contributing to the quality of teaching in their schools. In the first instance, it is proposed that the new grade could be introduced on a pilot basis in September 1998. Further decisions will be taken following the pilots.

  University Admissions (Oxford and Cambridge)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of undergraduate students admitted to Oxford and Cambridge universities came from outside the European Union in the last year for which figures are available. [16760]

  Dr. Howells
  The most recent data available are for academic year 1996–97 and are given in the table:

  Entrants1 to undergraduate courses 1996–97

  University

  Percentage of non-EU undergraduate entrants

  Oxford

  7.2

  Cambridge

  8.0

  1 Students on their first year of study.

  Mandatory awards in England and Wales1

  Academic years 1991–92 to 1995–96

  Percentage of award holders receiving full, partial and nil rates of grant

  1991–922

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Full maintenance grant

  39

  42

  44

  45

  45

  Partial maintenance grant

  36

  34

  33

  32

  30

  Nil maintenance grant

  25

  24

  22

  23

  24

  Source:

  F503G

  Notes:

  1Made by LEAs in England and Wales to students normally domiciled in their area who are studying in the United Kingdom. Includes awards made to postgraduate students on courses of initial teacher training.

  2Excluding awards made by the London Residuary Body for which full details are not available.

  University Funding
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the amount of university funding per student in England in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [16935]

  Dr. Howells
  Public funding in cash terms per higher education student in England paid through grants to the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Teacher Training Agency and through publicly funded tuition fees was £4,973 in 1994–95; £4,976 in 1995–96; £4,803 in 1996–97; and is £4,858 in 1997–98.

  Age Discrimination
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the protection afforded under(a) European Union and (b) United Kingdom law to employees against age discrimination. [17044]
  364
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of undergraduate students admitted to Oxford and Cambridge universities came from grant-maintained schools in the most recent year for which figures are available. [16857]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not held centrally. I understand that the Admissions Offices of both universities do produce annual statistics along these lines and my hon. Friend might care to speak to them directly.

  Student Maintenance Grant
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many(a) first-year, (b) second-year, (c) third-year and (d) fourth-year undergraduate students at Oxford and Cambridge universities qualified for a maintenance grant in each of the last five years; [16758]

  (2) if he will list the proportion for each year of the last five years of (a) first-year, (b) second-year, (c) third-year and (d) fourth-year undergraduate students attending all United Kingdom universities who qualified for a maintenance grant. [16759]

  Dr. Howells
  Information is not collected centrally on maintenance awards by year of course nor on awards made to students at individual universities. The table below shows the percentage of mandatory award holders from England and Wales who received full, partial and nil maintenance grants in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Employees in the UK are afforded protection under employment legislation. However, there is no specific age discrimination legislation in either the United Kingdom or the European Union.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his agencies issue to(a) employers and (b) employees about age discrimination in the work place. [17041]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My colleagues and I take every opportunity to explain to employers the benefits of a diverse workforce. The Employment Service encourages employers to recruit on merit, irrespective of age. It also encourages jobseekers to treat age as a positive asset in jobsearch and provides advice on handling objection to employment which may be due to age.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the Government's policy on age discrimination in the work place; [17042]
  365
  (2) what proposals his Department has to tackle age discrimination in the work place. [17043]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government believes that age discrimination in employment is unfair and makes no economic sense, either for business or society. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North on 22 May 1997,Official Report, column 825, that I intended to consult widely on the best approach to this issue. The consultation is taking place.

  LEA Funding
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria are laid down by his Department for LEAs obtaining support for bids under the New Deal scheme for replacing old school buildings; and if he will make a statement. [17024]

  Mr. Byers
  We issued guidance to Local Education Authorities (LEAs) on how to bid for the next tranche of New Deal for Schools funding on 5 November. In deciding allocations, we shall consider LEAs plans to meet their most urgent building needs as a whole. We are asking LEAs to assess the condition of their school buildings objectively in four priority bands. This will allow us to compare the needs of LEAs consistently across the country.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the procedure followed by his Department in approving funding for design work on the replacement of old school buildings and in allocating funding for the replacement of such schools. [17025]

  Mr. Byers
  For county schools, we do not allow separately for design fees when we allocate Annual Capital Guidelines (ACGs) or Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs); design fees are part of the project costs which LEAs meet from borrowing and other sources of funding at their disposal. For voluntary aided and special agreement schools, LEAs may bid for grant aid for design fees in the annual capital bidding round in October each year or, in the case of statutory proposals, before publication. The annual bidding letter sets out the priorities for distributing resources to schools. Authorities may bid to replace a school in the Exceptional Basic Need (EBN) category. EBN funding is only given if the building will have to be taken out of use within the next twelve months; repair is impracticable; and no alternative provision exists.

  For New Deal for Schools allocations in 1997–98, we gave priority to bids to cover the development costs of innovative Public Private Partnerships and building work which could be completed between 30 September 1997 and 31 March 1998. No whole-school replacements were supported.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those schemes included in the 1997–98 financial year bids for school replacements which are due for completion by 31 March 1998. [17026]

  Mr. Byers
  No Annual Capital Guideline or Supplementary Credit Approval cover, grant aid for governors costs, or grant through the New Deal for Schools 366
  is being provided in 1997–98 for whole school replacements scheduled for completion before 31 March 1998.

  Lancaster Adult College
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the allocation of additional resources to Lancaster Adult College. [17546]

  Dr. Howells
  On 12 November, my right hon. Friend set out the Government's vision and priorities for further education. He announced additional funding for the sector next year, totalling £83 million. The Further Education Funding Council will take decisions, in the light of guidance from my right hon. Friend, on the general principles to be applied to funding for the academic year 1998–99. Allocations of funding to sector colleges, and external institutions like Lancaster Adult College, are the responsibility of the Council which will make them early next year.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government (South-East England)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government have taken to meet local government associations and council leaders for authorities covering South-East England since 1 May. [16504]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Ministerial colleagues and I have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Local Government Association, the Association of London Government and individual council leaders since 1 May, to discuss a wide range of topics, including the London and South East Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN).

  Rural England White Paper
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government intend to continue the updating of statistics which the 1995 White Paper on Rural England and its 1996 update emphasised the importance of updating; and if he will make a statement. [16506]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to publish an update of the commitments set out in the previous Administration's White Papers on Rural England, but statistics on issues affecting the countryside continue to be collected and updated. Much of this information is published.

  For example, we will be undertaking a major national survey of the habitats, plants, landscape features and land types of the British Countryside to mark the end of the Millennium. Countryside Survey 2000 will update and extend previous surveys undertaken at intervals over the last 20 years.

  Biocidal Products Directive
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the total
  367
  projected costs to British business of the amended European Union directive on the placing of biocidal products on the market; and what discussions he has had with British business interests on this matter. [16984]

  Angela Eagle
  I have had no direct discussions with British business about the Biocidal Products Directive. The Health and Safety Executive have consulted business on all aspects of this directive through regular meetings of a working group on biocides.

  When the directive is implemented, British business will benefit from the opening up of the EU-wide market in biocidal products and from the introduction of a single risk assessment procedure for approval of products, involving mutual recognition of product authorisations in all member states. HSE's estimate of the costs to industry of implementing the directive are set out in the cost benefit assessment (CBA) appended to the Department's Explanatory Memorandum 9600/97 submitted in August 1997. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Costs are estimated on the basis of the additional costs over and above those which would be incurred by a compliance with existing chemical control regimes. The CBA shows estimated one-off costs in the range of £5–£20 million, with annual costs of around £6.7 million, depending on the number of new products placed on the market. This estimate of annual costs takes account of the significant reduction in costs achieved by the simplified administrative procedures negotiated by the United Kingdom. HSE are currently updating the cost estimates in the CBA in discussion with the Chemical Industries Association.

  Coastguards
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the locations of the permanently manned coast stations planned for 2001 which will have responsibility for marine and coastal safety in the Irish Sea; [16977]

  (2). if he will make a statement on the provision of coastguard services for the North West of England following the proposed closure of the Liverpool Centre in 2000. [16973]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Coastguard Agency plans that in the year 2001, the following permanently manned coastguard stations will have responsibility for marine and coastal safety in the Irish Sea:

  Maritime Rescue Sub Centre (MRSC) Belfast

  MRSC Holyhead

  MRSC Milford Haven

  Following the closure of Liverpool in 2000, the level of provision of coastguard services in the North West will be unaffected. Radio sites will remain at Calbeck, Walney Island, Blackpool, Liverpool and Heswall and will be controlled by MRSC Holyhead. An additional Sector Manager will be located at Liverpool.

  Local Authority Spending
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by how much local authority spending increases for each 1 per cent. rise in the GDP deflator. [16870]
  368
  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no automatic link between inflation in the economy generally, as measured by any rise in the GDP deflator, and local authority spending. The impact would depend on the rate of increase in prices for the particular services and goods purchased by authorities, and on authorities' budgetary reactions to these pressures.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent on bus lane cameras since 1 May. [16840]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Traffic Director for London is currently developing a trial in north London as part of a project to test the use of cameras to enforce bus lanes, but nothing has been spent on cameras since 1 May. We understand that the London local authorities are also working towards using cameras to enforce bus lanes but we have no information on how much money they might have spent on cameras.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been successfully prosecuted for driving in bus lanes since 1 May. [16841]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not separately identified in the statistics collected centrally.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average number of police man hours spent each week studying the film from bus lane cameras. [16843]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  From 5 December prosecutions will begin in the Traffic Director for London's project in north London to test cameras to enforce bus lanes. He estimates that it will then require about two police man hours per week to study the film from the cameras.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the revenue expected from fines for driving in bus lanes during the next financial year. [16842]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No estimates are made of future fine revenue for specific offences.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what annual targets have been set for social housing construction. [16974]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has not set annual targets for social housing construction. Official estimates of the newly arising need for social housing in England over the period 1991–2001, published in 1995, indicate a requirement for 60,000 to 100,000 lettings per year.

  My Department has commissioned the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge University to carry out a feasibility study of an economic model of housing need for the period 1996–2006. Ministers have not yet reached conclusions on this research, or on the proportion of housing need which will be met by means other than new construction. A report on the research will be published shortly.
  369

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will seek to negotiate an enforcement mechanism for reviewing carbon dioxide emission targets at Kyoto. [16868]

  Mr. Meacher
  Both the UK and the EU believe that the targets to be agreed in Kyoto should be legally binding. We consider that targets, as well as other commitments in the Protocol, must be backed by a strong compliance regime. However, the details of the regime provided for in the Protocol will be elaborated after Kyoto.

  Lord Sainsbury
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met Lord Sainsbury in an official capacity; and what subjects were discussed. [16836]

  Mr. Prescott
  I met Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 20 October 1997 for the first and only time since the General Election. We had a wide-ranging discussion on a number of issues relating to the policy areas of my Department. In particular, the meeting covered rail freight, lorry weights, mixed-use housing and retail developments and the speed and consistency of the planning process generally.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by how much the interest rate bill of local authorities rises for each 1 per cent. rise in interest rates. [16861]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I estimate that English local authorities currently hold about £5 billion in variable rate debt, on which additional interest payments of £50 million would arise if interest rates rose by 1 per cent. generally.

  Further, if authorities borrow an additional £2 billion in 1997–98, broadly in line with the issue of new credit approvals, then a 1 per cent. rise in interest rates would increase interest payments on this new borrowing by about £20 million.

  Local authorities currently hold around £10 billion in bank deposits and other short-term investments and might therefore earn additional interest of up to £100 million, if rates rose by 1 percent.

  However, the additional costs or income arising from the increase in interest rates would tend to be offset over time by compensating changes in HRA subsidy and Revenue Support Grant paid to local authorities by central government.

  Tourist Coaches (London)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of parking facilities for tourist coaches in London; and what plans he has to make improvements. [16791]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In London, the provision of coach parking and its enforcement is generally the responsibility of the local authorities. We aim to 370
  encourage the local authorities, the coach and tourist industries and other interested parties to discuss and implement measures to assist the operation and parking of coaches.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of acid rain on Britain's trees. [17170]

  Angela Eagle
  Maps of acid deposition in the UK based on work carried out for my Department have recently been published in reports by the Review Group on Acid Rain and the Critical Loads Advisory Group. Copies have been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Research into the sensitivity of trees to acid deposition is being carried out both in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. From the research, maps of the sensitivity of forest ecosystems to acid deposition have been developed on a UK and European scale. The areas of the UK forest at risk of damage can be identified by combining the maps of sensitivity and acid deposition.

  In addition, surveys of woodland tree condition in the UK are carried out annually. While these do not assess directly the impact of acid rain, the have provided evidence that, during the past few years, the previous decline in tree health has been reversed.

  Acid rain and damage to sensitive ecosystems including trees is an on-going transboundary problem. The UK was one of the first countries to ratify the Second Sulphur Protocol under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. This commits the UK to an 80 per cent. reduction in its 1980 sulphur emissions by 2010. My Department is currently taking an active part in negotiations in the EU and UNECE aiming to provide further protection to the environment from acid deposition.

  English Partnerships (Allocation of Funds)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, by region, the amount of money in each of the last five financial years which English Partnerships allocated to(a) housing development, (b) employment, and (c) retail development. [16894]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer: 20 November 1997]: English Partnerships became fully operational in April 1994, with statutory objectives focusing on the sustainable regeneration of areas of need promoting job creation, inward investment and environmental improvements through the reclamation and development of vacant, derelict and underused land and buildings. It operates through broadly based strategic partnerships throughout the English regions with local authorities, the private sector, voluntary bodies and others.

  Although English Partnerships does not keep information in the form requested, the table sets out, by region, English Partnerships' approved investment by development type under its Partnership Investment Programme, over its first three years of operation.
  371

  Approved Partnership Investment Programme

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  North East Region

  Housing

  0.584

  3.408

  5.022

  Retail

  1.453

  —

  2.670

  Other

  Commercial/Industrial

  16.374

  8.574

  47.594

  Total

  18.411

  11.982

  55.286

  North West Region

  Housing

  11.628

  4.223

  6.440

  Retail

  0.300

  2.874

  6.416

  Other

  Commercial/Industrial

  14.878

  37.137

  39.086

  Total

  26.806

  44.234

  51.942

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Housing

  1.018

  4.913

  1.926

  Retail

  —

  —

  2.744

  Other

  Commercial/Industrial

  8.861

  18.760

  34.276

  Total

  9.879

  23.673

  38.946

  Midlands

  Housing

  0.805

  1.777

  0.845

  Retail

  3.370

  0.982

  0.546

  Other

  Commercial/Industrial

  34.444

  37.385

  44.107

  Total

  38.619

  40.144

  45.498

  London and South East

  Housing

  8.287

  0.705

  2.084

  Retail

  6.000

  —

  —

  Other

  Commercial/Industrial

  6.800

  20.694

  26.700

  Total

  21.087

  21.399

  28.784

  South West

  Housing

  0.113

  —

  0.200

  Retail

  —

  —

  1.400

  Other

  Commercial/Industrial

  —

  9.321

  26.113

  Total

  0.113

  9.321

  27.713

  Total all regions

  114.915

  150.753

  248.169

  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 November,Official Report, column 127, (1) if he will list the organisations and other interested parties which were consulted over the proposed Code of Safe Working Practices for Fishing Vessels' and if he will make a statement; [17553]

  (2) when the new code of safe working practices for fishing vessel will be published. [17552]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Norman Godman, dated 24 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Questions relating to the new Code of Safe Working Practice for Fishermen.
  372
  The first draft of the Code has recently been prepared for the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The MSA is convening an early meeting of the Fishing Industry Safety Group's Technical Sub Group to discuss the draft Code and to consider its further development.
  Publication of the Code, which will provide guidance on the regulations which implement the Framework Directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and associated daughter directives, is dependent on progress on its development and on consultation with the fishing industry. We aim to introduce the regulations to implement the Directive early in 1998 and, subject to completion of the Code, to bring them into force by 31 March 1998.

  CITES
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Government(a) abstained from the vote to down list three populations of African elephants at the CITES conference and (b) agreed to an exemption to the ban on ivory sales by Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe. [17578]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) on 8 July,Official Report, column 449, which reports the main decisions taken by the Conference.

  Schools (Safe Routes)
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department is taking to encourage more children to walk to school. [17432]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 18 November,Official Report, columns 137–38.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the level of Objective 5b funding in the less-favoured areas of the North of England in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995 and (iv) 1996. [17310]

  Angela Eagle
  European Funds under Objective 5b became available for the Northern Uplands from 1 January 1994. However they must be supplemented by other funds from the public and private sectors. The full amount of the funding available is as follows:

  £ million

  European structural funds

  Public/private sectors

  Total

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  8.8

  12.4

  21.2

  1995

  11.5

  16.4

  27.9

  1996

  13.1

  18.8

  31.9

  373

  South Downs
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about a timetable for public consultation on the long-term structure for the management of the South Downs; and if he will indicate the form that consultation will take. [16723]

  Angela Eagle
  At our request, the Countryside Commission is carrying out the consultation on the long-term arrangements for the South Downs. A conference will take place in Brighton on 26 November to launch the consultation document and mark the beginning of the further debate on the future of the Downs. Copies of the consultation document will be available from the Commission's London office from that date. Copies will also be freely available at libraries within the South Downs and surrounding towns from the following week. Written views are requested by 12 January 1998 when the Commission will start its analysis, but any significant points made later in January can still be taken into account. The Commission will analyse the responses and bring the results and advice to Ministers next spring.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many examples of the horizontal transmission of genetic material from genetically modified organisMs approved for(a) field testing and (b) marketing his Department has evaluated. [17339]

  Angela Eagle
  The risks of all types of gene transfer, including horizontal gene transfer, are evaluated when considering all applications for consent to release or market genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the UK. To date 134 applications for the experimental release of GMOs in Great Britain and 24 notifications for marketing GMOs in the European Community have been considered since the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 came into force on 1 February 1993.

  Driving and Diabetes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the members of the Honorary Advisory Panel on Driving and Diabetes, with their relevant expertise and date of appointment. [16901]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The members of the Honorary Advisory Panel on Driving and Diabetes, and their date of appointment to the Panel, are as follows:

  Appointed

  Dr. Peter J. Watkins (Chairman since 1977)

  Kings College Hospital, London

  1985

  Professor John D. Ward

  The Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

  1985

  Dr. John L. Day

  Ipswich Hospital, Suffolk

  1985

  Dr. Nina Essex

  Mayday Hospital, Thornton Heath, Surrey

  1989

  374

  Appointed

  Dr. Brian Frier

  The Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh

  1996

  Dr. Stephen G. Gilbey

  St. James's University Hospital, Leeds

  1997

  Dr. Anthony B. Stevens

  Royal Hospitals Trust, Belfast

  1997

  All are consultant physicians who specialise in diabetes.

  EU Committee of the Regions
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to make British members of the EU Committee of the Regions directly elected by the regions they represent; [17197]

  (2) what plans he has to review the method of appointment of British members of the EU Committee of the Regions; and if he will make a statement. [17340]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Members of the Committee of the Regions are appointed by the Council of Ministers of the European Union following nominations by member states. Under the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 United Kingdom members of the Committee must be elected members of a local authority at the time of their nomination. Any change to the method of appointment, including the direct election of members, would require a Treaty amendment agreed by all European Union member states acting unanimously.

  London Government
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses to the Green Paper "New Leadership for London"(a) expressed satisfaction with the proposals, (b) expressed concerns over (i) the length of time between the publication of the White Paper and the Referendum, (ii) the number of questions in the Referendum and (iii) the proposal for a directly elected mayor and (c) expressed opinions on the election of mayor; what percentage (a) to (c) constituted of the total number of responses; and if he will make a statement. [17586]

  Mr. Raynsford
  An analysis of the responses to the Green Paper "New Leadership for London" will be included in the White Paper.

  On 21 November copies of the responses were placed in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions main library, 2 Marsham Street, SW1P. Lists of individuals and organisations who responded, were placed in the House of Commons Library on the same day.

  Office Space
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statistics his Department collates on the amount of empty office space in each region of England; and what estimate he has made of the amount of office space that has been empty(a) for more than six months and (b) for more than a year. [17716]
  375
  Mr. Raynsford
  None. Information on vacant office space in the major centres is available from leading commercial agents, but is not collated centrally.

  Thames 2000
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on his Thames 2000 river transport initiative. [17708]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am pleased to announce that excellent progress has been made as a result of my Thames 2000 initiative on proposals to establish new passenger transport services on the River Thames by the Millennium, and to leave a permanent legacy thereafter.

  Today I can announce three new developments which, taken together, should provide the blueprint for securing a new future for passenger transport on the Thames, which I believe is an important ingredient in developing a modern, integrated transport system for the capital. As well as providing an important access route to the Millennium Experience, the aim is to secure a lasting legacy of new investment and high-quality services, which will provide a convenient and attractive new means of travel for Londoners and for visitors.

  The initiative has been taken forward at my request by the Cross River Partnership, which includes the London Boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth, the Cities of Westminster and London, the Port of London Authority, London Transport and others, in collaboration with the New Millennium Experience Company and the Government Office for London.

  First, the Cross River Partnership and the New Millennium Experience Company have formally invited a shortlist of potential operators to tender to run new River services. Some of these would serve the Millennium Experience, with direct services from dedicated central London piers and downstream "park-and-sail" sites, as well as a shuttle service to Greenwich. Operators are also being invited to tender for longer-term services, including a "hopper" service linking key central London destinations, and "express" services to central London from both up-stream and down-stream. Potential operators may bid for any or all of these services.

  Second, the Partnership has drawn up a programme of new infrastructure works along the River. This will provide high-quality new piers at key locations, including close to Waterloo and Blackfriars Stations. It will also secure the much-needed improvement of some existing piers, and improved linkages with other public transport

  Board Members of the Housing Corporation

  Name

  Appointed to the Board

  Current appointment ends

  Remuneration (per annum)£

  Main areas of expertise

  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Chairman)

  6 November 1997

  31 March 2001

  37,958

  Regulation, management and organisational expertise

  George Cracknell (Deputy Chairman)

  1 December 1994

  30 November 1997

  21,706

  Finance and banking

  Eric Armitage

  1 October 1997

  30 September 2000

  9,899

  Registered Social Landlords

  Sheila Button

  1 October 1997

  30 September 2000

  9,899

  Social housing sector

  Sylvia Denman

  1 March 1996

  28 February 1999

  9,899

  Legal

  John Foster

  1 June 1996

  31 May 1999

  9,899

  Local government

  Ken Griffin

  1 October 1995

  31 May 1999

  9,899

  Business

  David Kleeman

  3 September 1990

  30 September 1998

  9,899

  Business

  376
  modes. The Partnership has sought funding from the Millennium Commission for this project. Matching funding will come from a variety of sources, including local authorities, the PLA, the Single Regeneration Budget and the private sector. The New Millennium Experience Company is also developing new piers on the Greenwich peninsula and downstream.

  Finally, we have been working with members of the Partnership to develop new arrangements for managing piers and passenger services on the Thames. Our intention is that a new agency should be set up with responsibility for managing piers and for promoting and co-ordinating river passenger services in London. This agency would in due course come under the aegis of the new London Transport Authority proposed in the "New Leadership for London" Green Paper as part of the plans for a new Greater London Authority. In the interim a shadow agency will be set up under London Transport to commission the new river services and manage piers.

  Green Belt (Carrington Moss)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from employees of Manchester United regarding the club's planning application to build on green belt land at Carrington Moss. [17329]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State received no representations from employees of the club on this matter.

  Housing Corporation
  Ms Jennifer Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the directors of the Housing Corporation, indicating the tenure of their directorships, their remuneration and the qualifications which led to their appointments. [14730]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [pursuant to his answer, 11 November 1997, c. 483–84]: Details of the directors of the Housing Corporation are in the table.

  In making appointments to the Board of the Housing Corporation, candidates are sought who, in addition to their individual areas of expertise and knowledge, are able to take a broad view of housing policy and related issues. Candidates should be able to contribute usefully in directing a major Non Departmental Public Body and to make constructive contributions to the development of social housing policy at the national level. The Board needs members with a range of skills and expertise extending from knowledge of finance and regulation to an understanding of how housing policy impacts on other areas of social welfare.
  377

  Board Members of the Housing Corporation

  Name

  Appointed to the Board

  Current appointment ends

  Remuneration (per annum) £

  Main areas of expertise

  Robin Thompson

  17 March 1989

  16 March 1998

  9,899

  Rural housing

  Julia Unwin

  26 February 1992

  25 February 1998

  9,899

  Homelessness and tenant participation

  Derek Waddington

  28 January 1994

  27 January 2000

  9,899

  Local government

  Dr. Peter Williams

  1 October 1995

  30 September 1998

  9,899

  Lending institutions

  Anthony Mayer (Chief Executive)

  30 April 1991

  n/a

  n/a

  Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Small Claims
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish the results of the monitoring conducted by his Department into the effects on waiting times of the last increase in the small-claims limit. [17456]

  Mr. Hoon
  The last increase in the small claims limit was made on 6 January 1996 and, as the monitoring of waiting times was introduced that year, the information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the resources of the small claims court to ensure that the proposal to raise the small claims limit from April 1999 does not result in increased delays. [17408]

  Mr. Hoon
  The proposed increase in the small claims limit must be considered along with the other civil justice reform proposals. Resources will be allocated to reflect changes in workload consequent upon implementation of the reforms as a whole.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give a breakdown of the length of time taken by small claims cases in county courts by type of case; and what assessment he has made of the factors underlying delays. [17455]

  Mr. Hoon
  The table below shows the average length of time taken for small claims cases in 1996 from the issue of the summons to the hearing. It was previously published in "Judicial Statistics 1996" (CM 3716) in July 1997. These cases take a substantially shorter time than those which proceed to trial.

  Average waiting times1 for arbitrations, by nature of claim, 1996

  Nature of claim

  Average waiting time in weeks (issue of summons to arbitration)

  Debt

  21

  Negligence—personal injury

  23

  Other negligence

  22

  Non-possession housing dispute

  26

  Other

  22

  Total

  21

  1 Figures are based on three months sample data from selected county courts.

  378

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arson Attacks
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list all recorded instances of arson attacks on(a) Protestant churches, (b) Catholic churches, (c) orange and other loyal institutions' premises and (d) Gaelic Athletic Association premises in the period and since July, indicating the estimated cost of damages. [14183]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: Recorded instances of fire caused by arson in these categories are listed below. Estimated costs of damage are not held centrally and are therefore unavailable.

  Arson attacks on protestant churches

  6. July 1997: 1st Kilrea Presbyterian Church, Church Street, Kilrea;

  6. July 1997: Presbyterian Church Hall, Dunloy

  9. July 1997: Presbyterian Church Hall, Castle Street, Ballycastle

  9. July 1997 Apostolic Church, Melmount Road, Strabane

  9. July 1997: Carnmoney Parish Church, Church Road, Carnmoney

  9. July 1997: Strathfoyle, Londonderry

  10.July 1997: Presbyterian Church Hall, New Street, Dungiven

  17. August 1997: Presbyterian Church, Ballyhoe, Newtownbutler

  30. August 1997: Church of Ireland Manse, Main Street, Dundrum

  31. August 1997: Whitehouse Presbyterian Church, Shore Road, Glengormley

  14. September 1997: St. Columbanus Church Hall, Groomsport Road, Bangor

  21 September 1997: May Street Presbyterian Church, May Street, Belfast

  26 October 1997: St. Stephens Church, Millfield, Belfast

  Arson attacks on catholic churches

  12. July 1997: Killowen Chapel, Kylesbrae, Coleraine

  29 September 1997: Tanaghmore RC Church, Fernisky Road, Kells

  Arson attacks on orange halls

  4 July 1997 College Square, Bessbrook

  6 July 1997 Old English Road, Dungannon

  6 July 1997 Newry

  6 July 1997 Antrim Road, Glengormley

  7 July 1997 Orritor Road, Cookstown

  7 July 1997 Tirooney Road, Sixmilecross

  7 July 1997 Brackey Road, Beragh

  379

  7 July 1997 Armagh Road, Newtownhamilton

  7 July 1997 Coleraine Road, Ballycastle

  8 July 1997 Station Road, Dunloy

  9 July 1997 Athernee Road, Carrickmore

  11 July 1997 Bond Street, Londonderry

  12 July 1997 Great Georges Street, Warrenpoint

  12 July 1997 Rasharkin, Ballymoney

  15 July 1997 Gortvale Road, Rock, Ballymoney

  6 August 1997 Dyan, Caledon

  6 August 1997 Newry

  12 August 1997 Ballycoran Road, Carryduff

  26 August 1997 Armagh Road, Newtownhamilton

  8 September 1997 Aughintober Road, Dungannon

  1 October 1997 Darkley Road, Keady

  14 October 1997 Main Street, Rasharkin

  Arson attacks on GAA premises

  13 July 1997 GAA Club, Mary's Lane, Killyleagh

  28 August 1997 GAA Clubhouse, Crosskeys Road, Ahoghill

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team since 2 May, specifying in each case(a) the participating Minister or Ministers, (b) the destination of the trip, (c) the purpose of the trip and (d) the cost of the trip; and if she will make a statement. [15252]

  Mr. Murphy
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Secretary of state

  Washington (USA)

  Briefing influential audiences on Government Policy on Northern Ireland

  £15,209.25

  Paul Murphy

  Washington (USA)

  Briefing Americans on political situation in Northern Ireland

  £6,173.80

  Brussels

  Introduction as Northern Ireland Minister for European Affairs

  £2,586,88

  Adam Ingram1

  Paris

  To attend Paris Air Show

  £1,187.80

  Boston (USA) Washington

  Inward Investment Visit

  £5,961.60

  Chicago Minneapolis (USA) St. Louis New York Washington

  IDB Trade Mission

  £6,818.70

  Lord Dubs

  New York (USA)

  Delegate to 43rd Annual Conference of the International Downtown Association

  £4,941.70

  1 The costs refer to expenditure on flights only. However they do not include internal US flights, accommodation, or any miscellaneous expenditure, as this information is not readily available and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  380

  Joint Framework Document
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Joint Framework Document is the preferred option of Her Majesty's Government for a settlement in Ireland. [15678]

  Mr. Murphy
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: Our primary aim is to secure agreement amongst unionists and nationalists. So far as the Government is concerned, no outcome is either predetermined or excluded in advance, or limited by anything other than the need for agreement. The Joint Framework Document describes a shared understanding reached between the British and Irish Governments on the parameters of a possible outcome to the talks process. We believe it is, as the Prime Minister said in May, a reasonable basis for negotiation. The development under this Government of a wider constitutional reform programme, including our commitment to devolution elsewhere in the United Kingdom and to better protection of human rights through incorporation of the ECHR, may also have helpful implications for an agreed outcome to the current negotiations.

  Policing
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish her key policing objectives and key performance indicators for the year 1998–99. [17816]

  Dr. Mowlam
  I am arranging for copies of the key objectives and key performance indicators for the year 1998–99 to be placed in the Library on Tuesday 25 November at 11.00.

WALES

  NHS
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has proposed for the NHS to ensure that the interests of pensioners are not overlooked, with particular reference to(a) hip and other joint operations and (b) bed blocking. [16105]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  While the National Health Service in Wales does not discriminate against pensioners, who receive access to services on the same basis as other patients, I am keen that the interests of elderly people are not overlooked. I stressed the point when announcing recently the provision of an extra £9.5 million this year for the NHS in Wales. Whilst I urged the Service to use the money to improve their emergency services, reduce the need for people to be admitted to hospital and reduce delays in discharging patients, I stressed that Trusts must not forget their elective surgery obligations.

  The Patient's Charter guarantees that
  "a patient will receive a hip or knee or a cataract operation within 18 months of being referred to their doctor".

  However, this guarantee embraces the total patient population and does not target any one group. Latest figures provided by Health Authorities show that there were 35 breaches to this guarantee during the last quarter—this is an improvement from the June quarter when there were 85 breaches. As yet we do not know where the breaches lie, but this will be thoroughly investigated.
  381

  A340–600 Aircraft
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning applications for regional development assistance for the A340–600 aircraft project by British Aerospace. [16099]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I expect to make a decision on the company's application for Regional Selective Assistance shortly.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the level of university funding per student in Wales in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [16936]

  Mr. Hain
  The level of funding per student in Wales in 1998–99 will depend upon the allocation for higher education within the Department's expenditure plans for next year which will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the amount of extra funding which will be available for Welsh(a) further and (b) higher education in 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [16855]

  Mr. Hain
  The final claim from the Further Education Funding Council for Wales for extra funding under the Demand-Led Element scheme is currently being considered. There are no plans to increase the 1997–98 budget of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lake Windermere Speed Limit
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what consultations the Sports Council had with anglers and walkers before deciding to support the opponents of the proposed speed limit on Lake Windermere at the public inquiry; [14604]

  Minister

  Date

  Location

  Purpose

  Cost to nearest £100

  Mr. Clarke

  12 May-14 May

  Cannes

  Support for the British film industry

  1,700

  Mr. Smith

  14 May-16 May

  Cannes

  Support for the British film industry

  1,500

  Mr. Banks

  10 June-11 June

  Paris

  Support for the FA bid for the World Cup 2006 and attend the Turnoi de France

  1,600

  Mr. Fisher

  28 June-1 July

  Rome/Luxembourg

  Attending State opening and Culture Council

  1,900

  Mr. Fisher

  28 July-same day

  Brussels

  Meet representatives of the EP Culture and Media Committee

  1,600

  Mr. Clarke

  31 August-3 September

  Venice/Rome

  Support for the British film industry/Meeting with Italian DPM

  2,600

  Mr. Clarke

  2 October-5 October

  Brittany

  Support for the British film industry

  500

  Mr. Clarke

  8 October-15 October

  Far East

  Promotion of British tourism

  10,200

  Mr. Banks

  10 October-same day

  Rome

  Support for the FA bid for the World Cup 2006 and attend the England v Italy qualifier

  1,600

  Mr. Fisher

  15 October-16 October

  Frankfurt

  Promotion of the British publishing industry and attend the European Book Fair

  1,200

  Mr. Banks

  23 October-30 October

  USA/Trinidad/Costa Rica

  Support for the FA bid for the World Cup 2006

  9,800

  Mr. Smith

  21 October-26 October

  USA

  Promotion of British creative industries

  112,100

  Mr. Smith

  11 November-same day

  Brussels

  Visit to the European Commission

  1500

  Total

  46,800

  1 Denotes full figures not yet available.

  382
  (2). what was the total cost incurred by the Sports Council in making representations to the public inquiry into the proposed speed limit on Lake Windermere. [14605]

  Mr. Banks
  The then GB Sports Council (GBSC) consulted a wide range of sports interests groups before deciding to support the opponents of the proposed speed limit upon Lake Windermere. Anglers and walkers organisations included:

  Salmon and Trout Association;

  Furness and South Cumbria Fisheries Consultative Association;

  Northern Federation of Sea Angling Societies;

  Fly Dresser' Guild;

  Ramblers Association; and

  Northumberland Long Distance Walkers' Association.

  In 1996–97, the GBSC and its successor, the English Sports Council (ESC) spent £7,200 on the Lake Windermere speed limit issue. In 1997–98 to date, the ESC has spent £4,600. Information on GBSC spending in previous years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The Lake District National Park Authority successfully appealed to the High Court to have the original decision not to introduce a speed limit quashed. A hearing took place on 18 November at which the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions did not oppose the Authority's legal challenge. He is now required to re-consider the whole issue afresh and a further round of representations is necessary.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [15208]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information requested is set out in the table.
  383

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the Answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 10 November 1997,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. [15869]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: E-mail addresses exist for all Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Ministers can be reached at: chris.smith@culture.gov.uk, tom.clarke@culture.gov.uk, mark.fisher@culture.gov.uk and tony,banks@culture.gov.uk. The Permanent Secretary can be reached at hayden.phillips@culture.gov.uk. The Chief Executives of the Department's two agencies do not currently have e-mail addresses. More information on contact details can be obtained from the Department's website at www.culture.gov.uk.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [16307]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has made arrangements to fax press notices on the day of release to the main Opposition Spokesman, as was the practice before 1 May. On request we would do the same for other Opposition Parties.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports what has been the sum given in

  Table 2: Awards announced in the Wansbeck constituency

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Project title description

  Award date

  Award amount (£)

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Northumberland County Council

  West Wylam Bridge, Tyneside Riverside Country Park, West Wylam

  3 April 1996

  157,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Northumberland Womens Aid

  To improve inadequate staffing levels and provide transport

  23 October 1995

  124,742

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Chevington Community Initiative

  Encourage social cohesion by integrating disaffected youth into the community

  23 October 1995

  119,150

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Trinity Youth Association

  Provides leisure, recreational and educational opportunities to targeted vulnerable groups of young people

  11 June 1996

  115,809

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Northumberland Federation of YMCAs

  Promote and develop a range of youth and community initiatives for groups of young people living in rural areas

  11 June 1996

  106,090

  Arts Council of England

  Ellington Colliery Band

  Purchase of new instruments and equipment.

  16 July 1997

  54,478

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Spital Estate Community Association Ltd.

  A community training centre for the use of all community members on the estate

  11 June 1996

  47,915

  National Lottery Charities Board

  General Access Northumberland Group (G A N G)

  To improve access for disabled people to the built environment

  17 December 1996

  39,564

  384
  grant aid since the commencement of the National Lottery (a) in total, (b) by region and (c) in the Wansbeck constituency. [16168]

  Mr. Banks
  To date the National Lottery distributing bodies have announced awards worth £4.49 billion to over 30,000 projects throughout the UK. Table 1 below provides a breakdown by country and English region. Wansbeck has received awards worth over £1 million covering 31 projects; these are detailed in Table 2.

  Information on all Lottery awards is now available on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.eov.uk.

  Table 1: Breakdown of awards announced by value

  Total £

  As percentage of total awards

  England

  London (Local)1

  368,519,487

  8.2

  London (National)1

  622,407,546

  13.9

  North West

  376,894,368

  8.4

  North East

  232,927,750

  5.2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  283,570,947

  6.3

  Eastern

  224,875,804

  5.0

  East Midlands

  183,698,156

  4.1

  West Midlands

  314,142,340

  7.0

  South West

  304,968,472

  6.8

  South East

  330,806,176

  7.4

  Merseyside

  91,801,641

  2.0

  England wide

  9,938,161

  0.2

  Total

  3,344,550,848

  74.5

  Scotland

  446,629,736

  9.9

  Wales

  214,094,982

  4.8

  Northern Ireland

  132,105,934

  2.9

  Total

  4,137,381,500

  UK wide

  329,499,704

  7.3

  Overseas

  24,600,000

  0.5

  Grand total

  4,491,481,204

  100.0

  1 Awards to bodies based in London include many to institutions that are of national importance and are of benefit to the country as a whole. These are therefore separated from local awards in London.

  385

  Table 2: Awards announced in the Wansbeck constituency

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Project title description

  Award date

  Award amount (£)

  Arts Council of England

  Wansbeck's Ashington Colliery Band

  To purchase instruments

  11 December 1996

  38,026

  Arts Council of England

  Pegswood Brass Band

  To purchase instruments.

  21 January 1997

  34,195

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Womens Health Advice Centre

  To increase hours worked by womens health advice centre co-ordinator

  23 October 1995

  25,013

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Northumberland Federation of YMCAs

  To enable vital work to continue within a deprived community

  23 October 1995

  25,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Contact Morpeth Mental Health Group

  To purchase a caravan to use a permanent respite holiday facility for people with mental health problems and their carers

  17 December 1996

  22,620

  English sports Council

  Northumberland CC

  To upgrade the sports hall at Hirst High School, Ashington and to provide a district centre of excellence for cricket

  6 June 1995

  13,400

  English Sports Council

  Cambois Amateur Rowing Club

  Purchase of rowing equipment

  11 September 1997

  13,194

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Abuse Counselling and Training

  Provides office and travel costs for the expansion of a counselling service for abused young people

  11 June 1996

  10,000

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Castle Morpeth Borough Council

  Morpeth, Carlisle Park, feasibility study

  12 December 1996

  9,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Access to the Working Countryside

  Providing access to the working countryside of North East England

  23 October 1995

  7,250

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Welfare Crescent Residents Association

  To improve living conditions/community facilities for local tenants

  23 October 1995

  6,000

  Arts Council of England

  Num Northumberland Area

  Miners picnic-Northumberland Coalfield visual art project

  19 March 1997

  5,000

  Arts Council of England

  Bothal Church Development Group

  Bothal church arts project

  11 June 1997

  5,000

  Arts Council of England

  Wansbeck Youth Concert Band

  In tune with youth

  11 June 1997

  5,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  B. Ware (Blyth Women are …)

  To support women who are lone parents, on low income and victims of abuse

  1 July 1997

  4,992

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Cambois Camera Club

  To establish a club in a premises also used as a day centre for older people from Blyth as part of Age Concern

  13 May 1997

  4,879

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Castle Morpeth Mediation

  To provide a dispute resolution service led by victim support

  1 July 1997

  4,800

  Arts Council of England

  Quadro Ariano

  Quadro Adriano: ome and away

  11 June 1997

  4,790

  Arts Council of England

  Trinity Youth Association

  Schools out (summer programme)

  11 June 1997

  4,680

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Bedlingtonshire Community High School P.T.A.

  To provide equipment for the Duke of Edinburgh scheme

  1 July 1997

  3,629

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Northumberland Hospital Radio

  To provide a training resource for volunteers

  13 May 1997

  2,763

  Arts Council of England

  The Mid-Northumberland Chorus

  Chorus development project

  11 June 1997

  2,000

  Arts Council of England

  Blyth Town band

  Blyth Town band residential training weekend

  11 June 1997 31 awards

  1,264

  Total

  31 awards

  1,017,243

  Tourism
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to introduce a Tourism Development White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [16570]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  We are working closely with the tourism industry and we shall be discussing with the newly revitalised Tourism Forum on 26 November our ideas for developing tourism.
  386

  Heritage Lottery Fund
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the level of grant allocated to date by the Heritage Lottery Fund to(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland expressed as a percentage of population; what is the value of grants applied for, but not yet determined, as a percentage of the population in each country; and how many applications remain undetermined in each country more than 12 months after submission. [16580]
  387
  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: As at 17 November 1997 the value of awards made by the Heritage Lottery Fund for projects in England, Wales and Scotland was as follows:

  £

  England

  630,937,408

  Wales

  19,575,315

  Scotland

  95,233,358

  Taking into account the value of awards for projects in Northern Ireland, the above figures represent, respectively, 83 per cent., 3 per cent. and 13 per cent. of the total value of awards made by the HLF.

  The populations of England, Wales and Scotland and their percentage—proportion of the total United Kingdom population, were estimated1 in 1996 as:

  Population

  Per cent.

  England

  49,089,085

  83

  Wales

  2,921,075

  5

  Scotland

  5,128,000

  9

  1Source: Office for National Statistics.

  The value of grants applied for, but not yet determined, in respect of each of the three countries is not readily available. However, the figure for the United Kingdom, as at 17 November 1997, was £839,882,885.

  The number of applications which remain undetermined more than 12 months after submission in respect of the three countries is likewise not readily available. However, the figure for the United Kingdom was 154 as at 17 November 1997.

  Visitor Numbers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact on visitor numbers to the United Kingdom from(a) within and (b) outside the EU, of the introduction of a single currency not including the United Kingdom. [16792]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Many factors influence the numbers of visitors to the UK, and it is difficult to quantify the effect of each factor. Anything which eases the movement of people is generally seen by the industry to be positive. The travel and tourism industry is represented on the Business Advisory Group established by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the practical implications of the single currency for businesses, whether or not the United Kingdom joins. A report summarising the Advisory Group's work will be published early in 1998.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visitors to the United Kingdom were from(a) the Far East, (b) the EU and (c) the USA in each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement on trends in visitor numbers. [16790]
  388
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  In 1995 and 1996, the number of visits made to the UK by residents of the Far East, the EU and the USA was as follows (in millions of visits):

  Million

  1995

  1996

  Far East

  1.7

  1.6

  EU

  13.9

  15.5

  USA

  3.1

  3.1

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will ban smoking(a) within the Millennium Dome and (b) on the Millennium Experience site. [16449]

  Mr. Mandelson
  In developing their policy within the Dome and its environs the New Millennium Experience Company (the operating company for the Experience at Greenwich) will take fully into account relevant central and local government policies and all statutory requirements and best practice concerning health and fire safety.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what arrangements have been made for the involvement of church, charitable and other non-commercial organisations in the Millennium Exhibition in Greenwich. [16408]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company is planning to focus on spiritual renewal as one of the themes of the Millennium Experience. This will, among other things, look at the major role Christianity has played in shaping this country and the rest of the world over the past 2000 years. It will also reflect the multi-faith nature of modern British society. To this end, the Company is liaising closely with the Churches and Other Faiths Sub-group of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's Millennium Co-ordination Group.

  The Company is also in discussion with not-for-profit organisations, charities, interest groups and local authorities across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with the Lottery Distributor bodies. The aim of this ongoing consultation process is to enable as many people as possible to contribute to the development of the NMEC's national programme and to maximise participation in it. The national programme, will be an integral part of the Millennium Experience, and will reflect the central Experience theme that
  "It's time to make a difference".

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on his meeting with the French Minister for European Affairs on 16 September. [16976]

  Mr. Mandelson
  We discussed a number of matters of mutual interest including the Luxembourg Jobs summit.
  389

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pursuant to his Answer of 10 November 1997,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. [15864]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: The list of e-mail addresses requested is as follows:

  Dr. Clark: (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)

  dclark@ccta.gov.uk

  Mr. Kilfoyle: (Parliamentary Secretary):

  pkilfoyle@ccta.gov.uk

  The Committee on Standards in Public Life:

  http://www.open.gov.uk\cspl\csplhome.htm

  Better Government:

  bettergov@gtnet.gov.uk

  Better Regulation:

  better.regulation@gtnet.gov.uk

  Central Information and Technology Unit:

  acarty@citu.gov.uk

  lwatson@citu.gov.uk

  cmuid@citu.gov.uk

  clefevre@citu.gov.uk

  mgladwyn@citu.gov.uk

  cholmes@citu.gov.uk

  Citizen's Charter Unit:

  charter@gtnet.gov.uk

  Civil Service Employer Group:

  opssecretariat@gtnet.gov.uk

  Fast stream and European Staffing Division:

  fsed.recruit.co@gtnet.gov.uk

  Development and Equal Opportunities Division:

  deod.ops@gtnet.gov.uk

  Office of the Civil Service Commissioners:

  ocsc@gtnet.gov.uk

  Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments:

  wwwhttp://ww.open.gov.uk/ocpa

  Management and Conditions of Service Division:

  jstrach.co.hgr@gtnet.gov.uk

  International Public Service Unit:

  ipsu.co@gtnet.gov.uk

  Efficiency and Effectiveness Group:

  efficiency.unit@gtnet.gov.uk

  Machinery of Government and Standards Group:

  open.co.wh@gtnet.gov.uk

  AGENCIES

  Civil Service College:

  hickey@cscollege.attmail.com

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate:

  jcisc@property.gov.uk

  Security Facilities Executive:

  safe@ndirect.com

  The Buying Agency:

  Stephen.sage@ tba.gov.uk

  390

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency:

  rassirati@ccta.gov.uk

  Government Car and Despatch Agency:

  gcda@compuserve.com

  Central Office of Information

  COI are currently in the final stages of implementing e-mail. They hope to be on-line by the end of this month. The Chief Executive's e-mail address will then be: tdouglas@coi.gov.uk.

  The Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Mandelson and the Permanent Secretary, Mr. Mountfield do not have an e-mail address at the present time but the Department is giving consideration to their introduction.

  Web Sites
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if it is Government policy that all Government departments should have web sites on the World Wide Web and that they should make their site addresses well known. [17442]

  Dr. David Clark
  Whilst this is a matter for individual Departments to decide whether to establish and publish web sites on the World Wide Web, I am pleased to inform the hon. Member that all the major Departments of State do indeed already have public web sites.

  They form part of the nearly 600 public sector organisations that are accessible on World Wide Web via the Government Information Service run by CCTA (an Agency of my Department) through its web address http://www.open.gov.uk/. The service is accessed by users between 1.5 and 3 million times a week.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [16314]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am placing my Department's guidance notes on answering Parliamentary Questions, Parliamentary Inquiries and letters from members of the public, together with the Departmental instructions on the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the Library of the House. The guidance on the Code of Practice can also be found on my Department's Internet site at http://www/mod.uk/pol_docs/dci1997.htm.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if consideration has been given to the development of science parks close to DERA sites in the Strategic Defence Review. [16670]

  Dr. Reid
  Yes.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria by which DERA is to be assessed as part of the Strategic Defence Review. [16668]
  391
  Dr. Reid
  The Strategic Defence Review includes a rigorous scrutiny of Departmental assets to ensure best value for money. This includes an examination of Agencies, and options for the future of DERA are being considered as part of this process. Options will be assessed on the basis of value for money and on how best to meet the Department's requirements for access to a wide range of technology.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the location of DERA sites will be considered as part of the Strategic Defence Review; [16669]

  (2) if the impact of DERA sites on locally-based high technology industries will be taken into account in the Strategic Defence Review. [16667]

  Dr. Reid
  Work on options for the future of DERA is concerned primarily with the overall role and organisation of the Agency rather than the location of particular sites. The relationship between DERA and high-technology industries will be an important consideration in this work, although not confined to particular geographical locations.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many public appointments he has made since 1 May; and how many and what percentage of these(a) receive remuneration and (b) are of (i) Afro-Caribbean and (ii) Asian origin. [16776]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD has made 32 public appointments to its Non Departmental Public Bodies since 1 May 1997 of which 22, or 69 per cent. receive remuneration. In all but one case, the remuneration involved is a payment of £200–£250 a day for those days on which the Committee, the Defence Scientific Advisory Council meets. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responding to part(b) of your question of behalf of all Departments.

  Cadet Forces
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial contribution his Department has made to the(a) Army, (b) Sea and (c) Air cadets for each of the last five financial years; what is the figure for the current year; what is the projected figure for the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [16928]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence's financial contribution in support of Army, Sea and Air cadets during each of the last five financial years is shown below. Also shown, although not specifically requested, is similar detail in respect of the Combined Cadet Force (CCF). Figures given are in £ million.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Army Cadets(ACF)

  n/a

  20.9

  22.2

  23.4

  28.0

  Sea Cadets(SCC)

  5.6

  5.3

  5.6

  5.7

  6.2

  Air Cadets(ATC)

  16.1

  17.6

  18.3

  19.8

  17.5

  CCF

  n/a

  6.1

  6.6

  6.2

  5.8

  392
  Expenditure in current year: Forecast expenditure in Financial Year 1997–98 (£) is:

  £ million

  (a) ACF

  25.7

  (b) SCC

  6.3

  (c) ATC

  17.0

  (d) CCF

  6.4

  Projected funding for next financial year: The allocation of funds for the next financial year will be determined as part of the MOD's long term costing, which is the process by which the Department recosts and adjusts its internal plans. The Department's internal plans represent projections and assumptions, which inform advice to Ministers on the affordability of particular elements of the defence programme and it has been the policy of successive Governments not to publish detailed information arising from this. Accordingly, I am withholding the information requested in the third part of the question which constitutes internal discussion and advice, under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Minister's Statement In February 1997, when in opposition, I addressed the Royal United Services Institute. When considering the question of re-fostering links between military and civilian society I made the following comments in respect of cadet forces:"… cadet forces are, in my view, perhaps the most under-utilised of all in reaching their true potential of civil utility, particularly in offering opportunities for self-development, initiative, character building and leadership qualities among our young people, many of whom are forced by circumstances into blind alleys".

  Whilst it would be inappropriate to comment upon future funding levels whilst the Strategic Defence Review work progresses, I can confirm that the Government's commitment to cadet forces, as a major national youth organisation, remains undiminished. Their value both to the civilian community and to our Regular and Reserve Forces is acknowledged, and they will receive our continued support.

  Officers (Education)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers in each of the Armed Forces were educated in(a) state and (b) private schools. [17138]

  Dr. Reid
  The breakdown of the educational background of all presently serving officers in the Armed Forces is not readily available. However, figures are available regarding the educational background of those more recently joining the Armed Forces for direct entry officer training. The latest figures from the three officer training establishments show that 80 per cent. of those joining Britannia Royal Navy College in Dartmouth, 45 per cent. of those entering the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, and 82 per cent. of those entering RAF Cranwell come from State schools.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what period was specified under the 21-year agreement reached in 1976 between the Government and US Forces in respect of RAF Menwith Hill to take account of
  393
  circumstances where the Government wished to terminate the US use of the base; and what period of notice now applies. [16990]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 20 November 1997]: No period of notice was specified. The arrangements were to facilitate the commitment of US funding and did not constitute any form of lease. As with all sites that are made available to the United States Visiting Forces, termination of occupation would be a matter for the Governments of the United Kingdom and United States under arrangements that exist for our mutual defence.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 17 July 1997,Official Report, column 324, what is the present status of the US Forces occupying RAF Menwith Hill following the expiry of the 21-year agreement. [16989]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 20 November 1997]: RAF Menwith Hill continues to be made available to the United States Visiting Forces on the same basis as other RAF sites in the United Kingdom.

  Service Women
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he had with the Minister for Women before deciding to allow women on to the front lines. [17166]

  Dr. Reid
  Appropriate discussions took place at Ministerial level before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced, on 27 October 1997, the Government's decision to expand opportunities for women serving in the Army.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of which sections of the Treaty of Amsterdam his Department contributed to the drafting. [17015]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 20 November 1997]: The United Kingdom's position on the draft Treaty of Amsterdam was reached after consultation between relevant Government Departments.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 154, what changes in his policy on fox hunting have been made since June; and what guidance his Department has issued on this subject since that date. [17344]

  Mr. Spellar
  There has been no change in my Department's policy on foxhunting since June. On a matter of detail, following the announcement on 8 August 1997 by the Masters of Foxhounds Association that the practice of digging out foxes once they have gone to ground will in future only take place at the request of the landowner or occupier, my Department has made it known to all hunts which have a licence to operate on the Defence Estate that the Ministry of Defence, as landowner, will not request or allow digging out on the Defence Estate.
  394

  Officer Training Corps
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the membership of the Officer Training Corps in each institution in which it operates; [13757]

  (2) what percentage of members of the Officer Training Corps subsequently join the regular forces. [13756]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his answers, 5 November 1997, Official Report, col. 254]: The figures for OTC establishments given include not only the authorised numbers of Officer Cadets, but also a number of instructor and support staff. The number of Officer Cadets for which each Officer Training Corps is established is shown in the following table, together with the total establishment which was given in my earlier reply:

  Total establishment

  Officer cadets

  Aberdeen

  168

  140

  Belfast

  168

  140

  Birmingham

  168

  140

  Bristol

  168

  140

  Cambridge

  224

  198

  East Midlands

  168

  140

  Edinburgh

  168

  140

  Exeter

  168

  140

  Glasgow

  168

  140

  Leeds

  168

  140

  Liverpool

  168

  140

  London

  364

  322

  Manchester

  168

  140

  Northumbria

  168

  140

  Oxford

  224

  198

  Sheffield

  168

  140

  Southampton

  168

  140

  Tayforth

  168

  140

  Wales

  168

  140

  This means that the 260 members of the OTC commissioned into the Regular Forces in academic year 1995–96 represent nearly 9 per cent. of the Officer Cadet establishment, not 7.5 per cent. as I said in my separate answer of 5 November 1997.

  Land (Military Training)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from land owners whose land was formerly used for military training; and if he will estimate the amount of private land on which military training has been discontinued in the last year. [17345]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has received a number of representations from landowners who have on occasions allowed access to their land for training purposes. With the exception of a few landowners in Wales, I am not aware of any action by landowners to withdraw permission for military training.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies

  395
  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. [15214]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Expenditure on official hospitality by this Department is shown in the following table:

  Year

  FCO £000

  Agencies £

  NDPB'S £000

  1980–81

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1987–88

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1990–91

  1—

  1—

  862

  1991–92

  5,688

  1—

  969

  1992–93

  1—

  1—

  967

  1993–94

  7,476

  1—

  958

  1994–95

  7,660

  455

  1,038

  1995–96

  9,282

  786

  1,091

  1996–97

  9,538

  687

  1,073

  1997–98 May-September

  4,083

  335

  423

  1 Figures unavailable.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if he will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15215]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Details of expenditure by this Department (Diplomatic Wing) on official duty travel overseas by officers serving in the United Kingdom is shown below. Expenditure for air fares is not separately identifiable.

  Year

  £ million

  1980–81

  No details retained

  1987–88

  4.7

  1990–91

  5.6

  1991–92

  5.6

  1992–93

  8.3

  1993–94

  6.7

  1994–95

  6.8

  1995–96

  7.9

  1996–97

  8.4

  1997 1 May-30 September

  2.9

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98, year to date, (vi) the 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15217]
  396
  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Total expenditure on advertising and publicity in this Department for the last five financial years is as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  458,000

  1994–95

  243,000

  1995–96

  573,000

  1996–97

  365,349

  1997 (to date)

  148,758

  The full year estimate for 1997–98 is: £436,774.

  The planned expenditure for 1998–99 is: £525,703.

  Total expenditure on advertising and publicity for Wilton Park Executive Agency for the last five financial years is as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  22,000

  1994–95

  20,000

  1995–96

  15,000

  1996–97

  21,000

  1997 (to date)

  8,000

  The full year estimate for 1997–98 is: £28,000.

  The planned expenditure for 1998–99 is: £30,000.

  Quota-hopping
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the draft protocol on quota-hopping, put forward at the Amsterdam summit. [16925]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The draft protocol put forward by the previous administration was not supported by any other Member State.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answers of 17 July 1997,Official Report, column 252 and 6 June 1997, Official Report, column 283, when he will reach a conclusion as to which documents of The Schengen Acquis will be placed in the Library; and when the Schengen Secretariat will complete its review of the classification of these documents. [16968]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The main Schengen Treaties are already in the Libraries of the House. Work under way within Schengen on the definition of the rest of the acquis is expected to be completed very soon.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Spanish amendment on voting arrangements on asylum and border controls put forward at the Amsterdam summit. [16913]
  397
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Spanish amendment on voting arrangements submitted at the Amsterdam summit is contained in Article 4 of the Schengen Protocols and states that the unanimous agreement of the Schengen States would be necessary for the UK or Ireland to participate in aspects of the Schengen Acquis.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed Schengen-related agreement between the United Kingdom, Ireland, Iceland and Norway. [17080]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In accordance with Declaration 47, adopted by the Inter-governmental Conference at Amsterdam, the Council is currently considering how to give effect to the requirement in Article 6 of the Schengen Protocol that an agreement should be concluded with Norway and Iceland for the establishment of rights and obligations between Ireland and the UK on the one hand and Iceland and Norway on the other in the domains of the Schengen acquis which apply to these States. No decisions have yet been taken on whether any part of the Schengen acquis should apply to the UK in accordance with the Protocol.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he proposes to make with regard to(a) military and (b) civilian aircraft landing rights in Gibraltar. [16969]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None. British military and civilian aircraft have no problems with landing rights at Gibraltar airport, which is owned by the Ministry of Defence and managed by the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the impact of the proposals contained in the Amsterdam Treaty on the use of Gibralter's operational facilities during WEU operations by(a) Spain and (b) other WEU members. [17076]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the policy areas in which he is opposed to an extension of qualified majority voting in principle. [16914]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are committed to retaining the national veto over key matters of national interest, such as taxation, defence and security, immigration, decisions over the budget and Treaty changes. These issues were settled for the foreseeable future at the Amsterdam European Council.

  Organisation of African Unity
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the European Union proposes to give to the Conflict Prevention Unit of the Organisation of African Unity. [16983]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The European Union (EU) is giving 860,000 ecu (about £635,000) to the Conflict Prevention Unit of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to improve communication links between its 398
  national and regional offices and its teams in the field. The EU is also actively considering further possible practical assistance.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with El Salvador. [16869]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Relations with El Salvador are friendly. We welcome the near completion of the implementation of the 1992 Peace Accords which have restored peace and democracy to that country. We are involved in a political dialogue with El Salvador through the San Jose process which began in November 1985. The next Ministerial meeting of the EU/San Jose dialogue will take place during our Presidency in Costa Rica next February. Our trade relationship is also developing with our exports up by 7.7 per cent. We are currently negotiating an Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with El Salvador and Air Services talks took place on 20 and 21 November to discuss ways of improving air services between our two countries.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the United Nations Resolution Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. [16924]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We voted against the Resolution tabled in the United Nations First Committee by Malaysia about the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, because of its selective quotation of the Advisory Opinion and its unrealistic call for time-bound multilateral negotiations.

  We remain committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament and continue to hold the International Court of Justice in high regard. We have said that we will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons and, when satisfied with progress, will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations.

  Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations on the military intervention by Angola in Congo Brazzaville in the UN Security Council. [17154]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 17 October, the United Nations Security Council issued a statement condemning all external interference in the Republic of Congo and, in particular, the intervention of foreign forces in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, and calling for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces including mercenaries. The UK fully supports this statement.

  Ottawa Treaty
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Her Majesty's Government will ratify the Ottawa Treaty. [17050]
  399
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We look forward to signing the Ottawa Convention on 3 December and will ratify it as soon as the necessary legislation is in place.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the term rights and obligations of natural and legal persons in Article 309 of the Treaty establishing the European Community as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty; which European institution will be responsible for interpreting this provision; and if he will make a statement. [17221]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The reference to"rights and obligations of natural and legal persons"
  in this Article refers to their rights and obligations under Community law. The Council will, in the first instance, be responsible for interpreting this provision. It is also subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

  Electronic Communications
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the role of(a) the Home Department and (b) the Ministry of Defence on the discussions on COM(97)503 and a common European encryption procedure on electronic communication. [17266]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Electronic communications are regularly discussed between interested Departments, including my Department and the Home Office. Both Departments were directly involved in consideration of the UK's response to COM(97)503, but the Ministry of Defence was not.

  Africa (Great Lakes Region)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new measures he will propose to the EU to deal with the situation in the Great Lakes region of Africa. [17151]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  During our presidency we will seek to ensure co-ordinated EU action in support of stability and economic development in the region, which takes account of humanitarian concerns, human rights issues and the need for improved and more accountable government. We will support the efforts of the EU Special Envoy for the Great Lakes, Aldo Ajello, to promote dialogue and the negotiated resolution of conflict in the region.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose the convening by the UN Secretary General of a conference on the problem of displaced people in the Great Lakes region. [17152]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We support the principle of convening, as soon as conditions allow it to produce concrete results, a conference under UN and OAU auspices to address issues of peace, stability and development in the Great Lakes region. We will consult closely with regional states, partners in the EU and at the UN on the practicalities of arranging such a conference.
  400

  Intelligence and Security Committee (Drug Trafficking)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will submit his plans for the redirecting of intelligence resources towards combating the drugs trade to the Intelligence and Security Committee with an estimate of the time required(a) for that redirection and (b) to undo that redirection. [17021]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is for the Intelligence and Security Committee to request information on intelligence issues which it wishes to consider.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if joining the single currency will be considered acquis communautaire for applicant countries to the European Union. [17222]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Acceptance of the Community aim of economic and monetary union will be part of the acquis communautaire for applicant countries. The Treaty imposes an obligation to join the Single Currency on Member States considered, in compliance with Articles 109j and k, to fulfil the necessary conditions. However this obligation does not apply to Member States which, like the UK and Denmark, have negotiated special provisions. Applicant countries will have to decide whether to seek to negotiate special provisions in their treaties of accession.

  War Crimes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the definition of war crimes to be used in the draft statute of the International Criminal Court. [16059]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The definition of war crimes to be used in the draft statute of the International Criminal Court will be on the agenda for the next Preparatory Committee meeting in December. The United Kingdom will be an active participant in that discussion.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the timing of a new intergovernmental conference. [17084]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We see no need for a further intergovernmental conference (IGC) in the near future. Under the Protocol on the Institutions in the Treaty of Amsterdam, an IGC will be called to review the institutional provisions of the Treaties before the Union enlarges to 21 or more Member States.

  European Union (Co-operation)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the co-operation envisaged by Article 127 of the treaty establishing the European Community will be restricted to that laid out in Article 129. [17287]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Article 127 (in the Amsterdam Treaty as Article 109p) gives the Community a general role of supporting and, if necessary, complementing
  401
  co-operation that is occurring or may occur at Member State level, while respecting the competences of the Member States. The only specific power given to the Community for this purpose is that in Article 129 (or Article 109r) to adopt incentive measures to encourage and support co-operation.

  European Union (Enlargement)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on European Union applicant countries and the desirability of expansion of the Western European Union. [17290]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Enlargement of the European Union is a priority for us. It will fulfil Europe's historic destiny and will enhance security and stability. Enlargement must remain an all-inclusive process.

  We broadly agree with the European Commission's recommendations on the applicants' readiness for membership based on the criteria laid down by the Copenhagen and Madrid European Councils of June 1993 and December 1995 respectively. Generally speaking, these criteria require the new Member States to be able to take on the obligations of membership. Membership of the Western European Union is not such an obligation.

  The criteria agreed by WEU Member States at Maastricht in 1991 established the eligibility of countries for different categories of WEU membership as and when they assume membership of NATO, the EU or both. The UK will welcome applications for these respective categories from new NATO and EU Members States should they choose to apply.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has held with representatives of(a) other governments and (b) international bodies over computer millennium compliance. [17074]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no consultations with other governments or international bodies on computer millennium compliance. Officials continue to discuss this issue in appropriate contacts with other governments.

  European Union (International Agreements)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Treaty of Amsterdam allows for the European Union to withdraw from international treaties and agreements. [17077]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Treaty of Amsterdam allows the Council, acting unanimously, to conclude international agreements under certain circumstances in the areas of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters. Implicitly, any decision subsequently to withdraw from such an agreement would similarly be taken by the Council acting unanimously. It would also be subject to the relevant rules of international law.
  402

  Euro-Mediterranean Process
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Process. [17083]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The United Kingdom is committed to the Euro-Mediterranean Process, which provides for economic, political and social co-operation with the 12 Mediterranean partners. We support progress towards a Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area by 2010: the new wave of Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements are the first step towards this goal. The Euro-Med partnership will be an important part of our EU Presidency: we hope to host a Euro-Med Capital Markets Conference in London in March, and a seminar on the human dimension of the partnership in May. We are discussing with EU partners the idea of holding a meeting of Foreign Ministers to give impetus to the relationship.

  Amsterdam Treaty (Foreign Policy)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, if the European Union decided to refrain from taking any military action against Iraq, with the United Kingdom abstaining from that decision under Article 1 (10) (J.13) of the Amsterdam Treaty, the United Kingdom would be prevented by the provisions of that treaty from committing United Kingdom forces or otherwise acting in support of any military action taken against Iraq by the United States of America. [17256]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The European Union does not take military action. The hypothetical scenario in the hon. Member's question could therefore not arise.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in relation to Article 1 (10) (J.13) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, whether, if a member state voted for the adoption of a foreign policy stance, requiring unanimity, but voted against a particular implementation of that policy requiring qualified majority voting, that member state would be precluded from taking unilateral action in a way contrary to the implementation agreed by qualified majority voting. [17258]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Member States are bound by implementing decisions taken in accordance with Article J. 13.2. If a Member State has difficulties with a proposed implementing decision, such that it would contemplate taking unilateral contrary action, it can prevent the adoption of the decision by invoking the "emergency brake" provisions in Article J.13.2 second paragraph.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in relation to Article 1 (10) (J.13) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, whether, if a member state abstained from a decision and the European Union apart from that state adopted a foreign policy and acted upon it, the abstaining member state is prevented from taking unilateral action in relation to that foreign policy. [17257]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A Member State which abstains from a CFSP decision requiring unanimity is not prevented from taking unilateral action in relation to the policy concerned. But it is required to refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action
  403
  based on that decision. Any Member State can block rather than abstain from a CFSP decision likely to conflict with its interests.

  Fontainebleau Rebate
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making at European Union level regarding the Fontainebleau rebate. [17082]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The United Kingdom rebate is enshrined in the Own Resources Decision, which can be changed only with the agreement of the UK Government and following ratification by the UK Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have repeatedly made it clear to our Community partners that we shall not agree any change to the rebate which results in a system less advantageous to the United Kingdom than the current arrangement. The rebate will remain fully justified given the size of our net contribution in relation to our relative prosperity.

  Amsterdam Treaty (Social Charter)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made 404
  of the legal effect of the references in the preamble to the new Article 117 set out in Article 2 (22) of the Treaty of Amsterdam to the European Social Charter of 18 October 1961 and the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. [17226]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  These references indicate a political attachment to the rights identified in the Charters, the provisions of which will not become justiciable before the European Court of Justice.

  European Union (Common Concern Principle)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if repeated rejection of recommendations made under Article 128 of the treaty establishing the European Community will be judged to be a breach of the common concern principle; and if he will make a statement. [17289]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Recommendations adopted under Article 128 (old Article 109q) of the Treaty establishing the European Community as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam will have no binding force, and thus create no binding obligations on Member States. We fully endorse the principles set out in Article 125 (old Article 109n) which encourage the promotion of"a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce and labour markets responsive to economic change".
  405

PRIME MINISTER

  Political Donations
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral Answers of 12 November 1997,Official Report, columns 898–99, if he will list the names of those with whom he or his advisers have had meetings or discussions in No. 10 Downing Street on policy matters since 2 May who have also made donations or loans to the Labour Party of £5,000 or more in the past 12 months. [16727]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 November 1997]: No. When individuals or groups meet me or my advisers on Government policy, they are not asked whether they have provided funding to the Labour Party or any other party.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will extend the remit of Sir Patrick Neill's Committee to include the identifying of all those individuals and companies who have donated money to political parties in the years 1992 to 1997 inclusive, indicating the sums they donated. [16366]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]: I have proposed that all Parties disclose to the Neill Committee—on a confidential basis—the names of donors and the amounts over £5,000 donated since 1992, so that the Committee can properly assess the current state of affairs of party funding and see how the system had been working in practice. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has agreed to this. I have urged the hon. and learned Gentlemen's party to do the same.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral Answer of 12 November 1997,Official Report, column 898, when he first learned of the £1 million donation from Mr. Ecclestone. [16755]

  The Prime Minister
  Before I became Prime Minister.

  Planning Policy (Supermarkets)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received regarding planning policy towards supermarkets. [16876]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a variety of representations concerning planning policy. Our policy was set out in our Response to the Fourth Report of the Environment Select Commmittee on Shopping Centres. Our Response reaffirmed the policy set out in Policy guidance Note 6 (PPG6). This seeks to focus development, especially retail development, within existing town centres.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding planning policy towards supermarkets. [16877]

  The Prime Minister
  Along with other Ministerial colleagues, I was consulted on the Government's406
  Response to the Fourth Report of the Environment Select Committee on Shopping Centres (Cmnd 3729). This Response reaffirmed the policy set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (PPG6), which seeks to focus development, especially retail development, within existing town centres.

  Lord Sainsbury
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met Lord Sainsbury in an official capacity; and what subjects were discussed. [16897]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not met Lord Sainsbury in an official capacity.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 323 in what circumstances the United Kingdom would consult (a) France, (b) Russia, (c) China and (d) Arab states prior to endorsing military action by (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the USA against Iraq. [17439]

  The Prime Minister
  Since the crisis with Iraq began, we have maintained close contact with the US, France, Russia, and China as permanent members of the Security Council, and a number of Arab states in our efforts to seek a diplomatic solution.

  It is not sensible to speculate on the circumstances in which military action would be appropriate.

  We are pleased that the solidarity of the Security Council has forced the Iraqi regime to resume full co-operation with UNSCOM United Nations Special Commission) without the need to resort to military action.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) which Minister is responsible for co-ordinating the work and outputs of(a) the Treasury's departmental spending reviews of current public expenditure and tax and benefits, (b) the Department of Social Security's review of the future of the welfare state, (c) the benefit-by-benefit review, (d) the benefits integrity programme and (e) the review of pensions; [17035]

  (2) what are the anticipated time scales for (a) the Department of Social Security's review of the future of the welfare state, (b) the DSS benefit by benefit review, (c) the benefits integrity programme and (d) the Treasury's review of tax and benefits; and how and when the findings of each review will be reported to the House. [17038]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is Chairman of the ministerial
  407
  committee on public expenditure which is overseeing the Comprehensive Spending Review announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 11 June. It includes departmental and cross-departmental reviews and is expected to take about a year to complete.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is conducting a wide-ranging review of the Social Security system within the framework of the Comprehensive Spending Programme. As a first step in the review, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Minister for Welfare Reform expect to publish a Green Paper on the framework for welfare reform around the turn of the year.

  The Benefit Integrity Project, checking the correctness of Disability Living Allowance payments by means of postal inquiries and visits, is due to be completed by 31 March 1999.

  The review of tax and benefits, headed by Martin Taylor, Chief Executive of Barclays Bank, and involving officials from the Treasury, the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the Inland Revenue will inform my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's, Spring Budget.

  Diana, Princess of Wales
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 3 November 1997,Official Report, column 3, on his role in the events surrounding the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, if he will list those from whom he sought advice. [17262]

  The Prime Minister
  No. It has been the long-standing practice, enshrined in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, that the sources of advice to Ministers on such matters are not normally made public.

  Ministerial Task Force on Child Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister what will be the long-term role of the Ministerial Task Force on Child Care. [17535]

  The Prime Minister
  In his statement in the House on 19 November 1997,Official Report, columns 327–29, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that the first job of the Ministerial Task Force would be to prepare the full Government response to Sir William Utting's report. As part of that it will be asked to consider what, if any, its long-term role should be.

  Carrington Moss (Planning Application)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list those organisations and individuals which have made representations to him(a) in favour of and (b) against Manchester United's planning application to build on green belt land at Carrington Moss; [17190]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding Manchester United's application for planning permission to build on green belt land at Carrington Moss; [17191]
  408
  (3) what discussions he has had with directors of Manchester United regarding its application to build on green belt land at Carrington Moss; [17189]

  (4) what representations he has received from employees of Manchester United regarding the club's planning application to build on green belt land at Carrington Moss. [17330]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 November 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for London and Construction on 21 November, Official Report, column 336.

  UK Parliamentary Delegation
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the latest information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union covering the period May to September 1997. [17545]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Mr. Jonathan Powell
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps were taken to ensure that no conflict of interest arises in respect of Mr. Jonathan Powell's role as Chief of Staff as a result of his knowledge of contributions to the Leader of the Opposition's office fund. [17562]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 26 June 1997,Official Report, column 611.

  Official Meetings
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister when he met(a) Lord Levy, (b) Lord Merlyn-Rees, (c) Baroness Dean of Thornton le Fylde, (d) Baroness Jay of Paddington, (e) Mr. John Mendleson, (f) Mr. Colin Lehmann, (g) Mr. David Goldman, (h) Mr. Gary Bond, (i) Mr. David Pitt-Watson, (j) Sir Emmanuel Kaye, (k) Sir Trevor Chinn, (l) Mr. Alex Bernstein, (m) Mr. Ashley Mitchell and (n) Mr. David Ward in an official capacity; and what was discussed. [17585]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others.

  Anglo-French Summit
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1997,Official Report, column 617, who provided rooms in Canary Wharf free of charge, when he expects to have final figures for the cost of preparing and furnishing the rooms; and if he will place these figures in the Library. [17569]

  The Prime Minister
  Canary Wharf Limited provided rooms in Canary Wharf free of charge. We expect to have final figures for the cost of preparing and furnishing the rooms shortly. The figures will be placed in the Library.
  409

  British Film Industry
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister who he met and what was discussed at his meeting with representatives from the British film industry held before the July budget. [17440]

  The Prime Minister
  I have discussed the British film industry with ministerial colleagues and others prior to and after the Budget.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Bicycle Allowance
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the President of the Council if she will introduce travel allowances for hon. Members using their bicycles on Parliamentary business. [16844]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I have asked the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider the merits of a cycling allowance for MPs in its next report. The report will, if appropriate, make recommendations on a possible mechanism for reimbursing the cost of using bicycles on official business—for Members of both Houses—and recommend an appropriate figure for any allowance. The SSRB's report is due to be published in the New Year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received the National Radiological Protection Board's report on the radiological significance of past dumpings of radioactive waste at(a) Beaufort's Dyke and (b) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [17615]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have now received the results of the independent assessment which I asked the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to undertake, and I have arranged for copies of NRPB's report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The report concludes that all the past dumpings which were identified during the searches of records would give rise to doses well within the International Commission on Radiological Protection's recommended dose limit for members of the public. Moreover, in all cases except one, the report states that the calculated doses were at a level considered trivial in radiological protection terms. Only in relation to the disposals in Liverpool Bay area were peak critical group doses estimated to have been above the 'trivial' level, and even these were well within the recommended dose limit. The NRPB conclude that, since estimated doses from the dispersion of radionuclides in marine waters are not significant in radiological protection terms, there is no need for additional environmental monitoring in connection with the disposals.

  The NRPB consider that the only eventuality which could give rise to a significant calculated dose is if one of the two anti-static devices dumped off the Isle of Arran in 1958 were to be washed ashore or trawled up and handled by a member of the public. They conclude that the likelihood of this situation occurring is extremely low but advise that it may nevertheless be prudent to ensure
  410
  that trawlermen and organisations responsible for dealing with material washed up on beaches are made aware of the possibility and advised to seek expert assistance if there is reason to suspect that one of these sources has appeared. In the light of this, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are exploring with the NRPB how such advice can effectively be provided.

  Quarantine Reform
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the members of his Assessment Panel on Quarantine Reform indicating their qualifications. [16952]

  Mr. Rooker
  The members of the Advisory Group on Quarantine are:Professor Ian Kennedy LL.D (Chairman), Professor of Health Law, Ethics and Policy at the School of Public Policy, University College London. He was previously president of the Centre for Medical Law and Ethics, Kings College London and chaired the Government's Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation in 1995–96.
  Dr. Barbara Bannister MSc FRCP, Consultant in Infectious and Tropical Diseases at the Royal Free Hospital, London.
  Mr. Paul deVile BVetMed, a small animal veterinary practitioner in Eastbourne. He is a past president of both the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animals Veterinary Association.
  Dr. Chris Dye who is on secondment from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicines as Senior Epidemiologist at the World Health Organisation, Geneva.
  Professor Os Jarrett, Professor of Comparative Virology at the University of Glasgow.
  Professor Herbert Sewell, Head of Immunology at University Hospital Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.
  and
  Sir Joseph Smith who is the retired head of the Public Health Laboratory Service. He is a former member of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the terms of reference for the Assessment Panel on Quarantine Reform; when it will begin and finish its work; and how many officials at which grades will be assigned in support of the work of the panel. [16953]

  Mr. Rooker
  The terms of reference for the Advisory Group on Quarantine are as follows:"To assess the risk of introduction of rabies into the United Kingdom under the current policy of quarantine for pet animals and under alternative policies, particularly the five set out below. The assessment should advise on, and take full account of the practical aspects of enforcement of the policies in determining the risk posed by each. The assessment should also consider and advise on the costs and benefits of each of the policies, and of the risk of introducing other animal diseases transmissible to humans.

  The alternative policies to be assessed are:
  Option (a): maintain the existing policy whereby imported animals are housed in secure quarantine facilities for six months;
  Option (b): reduce the length of time animals are required to spend in quarantine;

  411
  Options (c) and (d): allow in animals for which reliable alternative assurances can be obtained, in particular those from EU Member States and certain rabies-free countries, through restrictions based on identification, vaccination, blood testing, certification and a system of checks after entry. In option (c) checks would be made at the point of entry, in option (d) these checks would be made away from the point of entry in approved reception centres. Where these assurances cannot be met, animals would be quarantined as now;
  Options (e) and (f): give up quarantine altogether. Under option (e) imported animals only would be subject to pre-entry vaccination. Under option (f) all domestic cats and dogs would be vaccinated. Farm livestock and foxes in affected areas would be vaccinated were the disease to be introduced."

  The Advisory Group is beginning its work now and aims to produce its report in the Spring of 1998.

  One Grade 7, one Veterinary Adviser, one Higher Executive Officer and one Administrative Officer have been assigned to support the work of the Advisory Group. Other staff will be involved as necessary.

  Flood Warnings (Somerset)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve floodplain zoning and flood warning systems in Somerset. [17071]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is responsible for carrying out surveys in relation to its flood defence function and for arranging for flood warnings to be issued. It has recently undertaken a survey of all main-river floodplain in Somerset, under the provisions of Section 105(2) of the Water Resources Act 1991. In its latest Corporate Plan, the Agency has set out targets for its flood warning arrangements which will involve the development of new telemetry, forecasting and warning dissemination systems.

  Bruton Flood Detention Dam
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what survey of the reservoir site was conducted prior to the construction of the Bruton flood detention dam. [17072]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has advised that surveys, including topographic and ground site investigation, were undertaken by consulting engineers to satisfy the requirements of the Engineers appointed pursuant to the Reservoirs Act 1975.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the design standards of the Bruton flood detention dam. [17073]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has advised that the design standard of the Bruton flood detention dam was established at the time of construction by the consulting engineers, in accordance with current legislation and best practice. A review was subsequently undertaken in 1995–96, by consulting engineers Babtie using the latest methodologies. This independent hydrological assessment indicates that the dam currently provides protection against floods in excess of the 1 in 100 year return period.
  412

  Regional Panels
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer of 7 November 1997,Official Report, columns 363–65, on the former regional panels, if he will list the addresses of each of the individual panel members. [17348]

  Mr. Rooker
  No.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Biotechnological Invention
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the impact of commercial monopoly rights over natural DNA sequences. [15341]

  Mr. Battle
  Under current United Kingdom law (the Patents Act 1977) it is possible to obtain patent rights for DNA sequences but only where they are isolated from the body, only where such sequences simultaneously meet the three general conditions for patentability: they are new, they are inventive and they are capable of industrial application. Discoveries, for example that a particular sequence exists in nature, are not patentable. This legislation provides for exceptions to patent rights for the benefit of those who wish to carry out research relating to protected DNA sequences.

  Significant progress in genetic engineering and biotechnology in general has been made in the United Kingdom throughout the twenty years this legislation has been in place. No assessment has been made during that time to identify the precise impact on patent rights to such progress, and to disentangle their role in facilitating the recovery of the costs of research and development from that of other factors which influence decisions to invest in research and the marketing of biotechnoligical products.

  However, the current uncertainty which exists in this area of law in Europe at present has the potential to act as a deterrent to investment in this industry. This Directive could play an important role in harmonising and clarifying national laws.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government took to ensure that members of the public were informed of a consultation on the proposed EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions. [16736]

  Mr. Battle
  Information concerning the Commission's proposal was circulated widely, including by use of the internet. As a result, over 150 organisations have made their views known to me or my Department and have taken part in a consultation exercise, including a major meeting of interested parties held in London in October. Organisations should include those representing environmental interests, health and patient groups, animal welfare, the professions, industry, trade unions and religious groups.

  Mr. Benn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposed EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions on(a) employment and (b) small biotech companies. [16751]
  413
  Mr. Battle
  Since the European Commission's proposed Directive is substantially consistent with current United Kingdom legislation (The Patent Act 1977), no specific assessment has been made of the impact of the proposed Directive. The Patents Act has been in place throughout the development of the modern biotechnology industry in the United Kingdom, which already employs over 10,000 people, a figure forecast to rise to 14,000 over the next two years. A sound intellectual property regime is considered essential to financing support for small and medium biotechnology companies and to safeguard their contribution to improving the quality of life through developments in this technology.

  Patents (Biological Materials)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has conducted into the benefits of granting patents on living biological materials. [16750]

  Mr. Battle
  Assuming general conditions for patentability are met, patent rights may be obtained for plant and animal materials under current United Kingdom legislation (The Patents Act 1977). This legislation has been in place throughout the development of the modern biotechnological industry in the United Kingdom.

  No specific research has been conducted. However, the industry has made significant progress in enhancing quality of life with medical advances in treatments for conditions such as Asthma, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Hepatitis B.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her estimate of the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98 year to date, (vi) the 1997–98 full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15213]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Total Departmental expenditure on publicity is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Expenditure on publicity, including advertising, from centrally-managed budgets is as follows:

  £000

  1993–94

  8,468

  1994–95

  8,112

  1995–96

  9,211

  1996–97

  9,216

  April-October 1997

  2,348

  Planned spend for 1997–98 and 1998–99 is not available.

  Chief Executives of the Department's Executive Agencies have been asked to respond direct.
  414
  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 24 November 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML), a net running cost Agency, to your question about expenditure on publicity and advertising.
  The figures for NWML are as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1993–94

  n/a

  1994–95

  9

  1995–96

  16

  1996–97

  28

  1997–98 year to date

  12

  1997–98 full year estimate

  25

  1998–99 planned

  25

  n/a = not available.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 24 November 1997:
  I have been asked to respond to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising. The total for all forms for Companies House (shown in £000s) are:

  £000

  1993–94

  378

  1994–95

  448

  1995–96

  364

  1996–97

  289

  1997–98 (to date)

  49

  1997–98 (estimated)

  444

  1998–99 (plan)

  444

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 24 November 1997:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about expenditure on publicity and advertising.
  The figures in £'000 are as follows:

  £000

  Marketing

  Recruitment advertising

  1993–94

  1,545

  0

  1994–95

  887

  7

  1995–96

  557

  17

  1996–97

  546

  48

  1997–98 (end of October)

  330

  40

  1997–98 (forecast)

  650

  60

  1998–99 (forecast)

  617

  62

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 24 November 1997:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade, for named day reply on 11 November, about expenditure by her Department, its agencies and non departmental bodies on all forms of advertising and publicity. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service.
  The Employment Tribunals Service was established as an executive agency on 1 April 1997. The Agency spent to 31 October 1997 £97,000 on publicity and advertising. We expect to spend £146,000 in the current financial year. This mainly covers the cost of explanatory leaflets for the public and, where appropriate, advertisements to locate parties who we are otherwise unable to trace. Plans for 1998/9 have not yet been finalised.
  415
  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 24 November 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about The Insolvency Service's expenditure on publicity and advertising for 1993–94 to 1996–97, 1997–98 to date and full year estimates, and 1998–99 planned expenditure.
  The Insolvency Service has a statutory obligation to advertise each compulsory corporate and personal insolvency in the London Gazette and one other newspaper. The costs are charged to the estate of the insolvent company/individual, and not directly to the Department.
  Recruitment advertising is undertaken from time to time at both national and local level. Expenditure was devolved to the Agency from 1993–94, and the amounts expended have been:

  £

  1993–94

  14,900

  1994–95

  4,595

  1995–96

  4,060

  1996–97

  40,960

  1997–98 to date

  6,170

  1997–98 full year estimate

  20,000

  It is not possible to provide an estimate of planned expenditure for 1998–99 at this stage as financial and manpower settlements have not yet been agreed.
  In addition The Service incurred some £12,00 advertising costs during 1995–96 as part of the contracting out study taking place at that time.
  The Service also publishes a range of guidance material designed to provide its users and the public with information about various aspects of insolvency as well as its Annual Report and Accounts each year. Expenditure on these publications totalled:

  £

  1993–94

  n/a

  1994–95

  29,670

  1995–96

  24,465

  1996–97

  50,210

  1997–98 to date

  21,140

  1997–98 full year estimate

  47,000

  n/a = not available.

  Again, it is not possible to provide an estimate of planned expenditure for 1998–99 at this stage as financial and manpower settlements have not yet been agreed.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 24 November 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade, Mrs Margaret Beckett MP, has asked me to reply, on behalf of The Radiocommunications Agency, to your question concerning details in respect of expenditure on publicity activities undertaken from financial year 1993–94, including proposed expenditure for financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99.
  The details are as follows:

  Financial year

  Spend £

  1993–94

  188,706

  1994–95

  211,634

  1995–96

  369,732

  1996–97

  304,049

  1997–98 to date

  366,000

  1997–98 estimate

  420,000

  1998–99 budget

  450,000

  I hope that this is helpful.
  416

  Competition Bill
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will exempt(a) newspaper distribution arrangements, (b) the arrangements between oil companies and filling stations and (c) the tie between brewers and pubs from the terms of the Competition Bill prohibitions. [15817]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Agreements which fulfil the criteria for exemption under European block exemption regulations, including those relating to beer tie agreements, petrol service station agreements and exclusive distribution will be automatically exempt from the Chapter 1 prohibition in the Competition Bill. There is no exemption from Chapter II prohibition in the Bill.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average period for a company seeking an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry, from its first contacts with the Department of Trade and Industry to seek information on how to apply, to the granting of the licence. [16143]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]: The Export Control Organisation (ECO) of my department has a Helpline and other advisory facilities for exporters seeking to obtain export licences. Since individual circumstances are so varied, it is not possible to keep records relating the first date of inquiry to the received date of a formal application for an export licence (if indeed such an application is made). Inquiries are dealt with promptly—usually the same day.

  In some 'pre-licence' inquiries, exporters request advice on the licensable status (or 'rating') of goods that may be exported. Targets for dealing with such applications, provided full information is received with the inquiry, are:

  10 working days where circulation to other Government Departments is not required.

  20 working days where circulation to other Government Departments is required.

  For the last four week period for which statistics have been compiled (22 September to 17 October 1997) those targets have been met in 96 per cent, of non-circulated cases and 80 per cent, of circulated cases.

  Once an export licence application is received by the ECO, performance targets are applied to the length of time it takes Government to process. The targets, provided full information is supplied with the application, are:

  10 working days where circulation to other Government Departments is not required.

  20 working days where circulation to other Government Departments is required.

  For the last four week period for which statistics have been compiled (22 September to 17 October 1997), those targets have been met in 71 per cent of non-circulated cases and 48 per cent. of circulated cases.

  The ECO does not record the average length of time it takes for an export licence application to be issued.
  417

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much revenue she plans to raise from non fossil fuel energy, in the first full year of the extended fossil fuel levy under the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [Lords]. [16148]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]: The amount to be raised from the Levy in 1998–99 is currently being estimated by the Levy Collector. I will announce their estimate when it becomes available. The Fossil Fuel Levy Bill will have no effect on the total amount of revenue raised. Levy is paid on electricity supplied by licensed electricity suppliers. It is not possible to plan how much Levy will be raised on electricity from specific sources as this will depend upon the volume of electricity supplied from those sources which is subject to a range of factors including the availability of plant and the commercial decisions of the companies involved.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate(a) the total amount expected to be raised by the fossil fuel levy in 1998–99 and (b) the amount to be raised from (i) the nuclear industry, (ii) hydro-electric generation and (iii) other renewable sources of energy. [16057]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]: The amount to be raised from the Levy in 1998–99 is currently being estimated by the Levy Collector. I will announce their estimate when it becomes available. The Fossil Fuel Levy Bill will have no effect on the total amount of revenue raised. Levy is paid on electricity supplied by licensed electricity suppliers. It is not possible to plan how much Levy will be raised on electricity from specific sources as this will depend upon the volume of electricity supplied from those sources which is subject to a range of factors including the availability of plant and the commercial decisions of the companies involved.

  Business Opportunities
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new steps the Government are taking to enhance opportunities for business start-ups and small businesses seeking to compete in established industry sectors. [16503]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government recognise the value of providing a climate within which those starting new enterprises and those running small businesses can compete and win. This is why I support the work of the Business Links, which provide access to high quality business services, and why I have taken steps to make them more effective. I launched the vision for enhancing Business Links on 7 October, and I am sure that the commitment to continuous improvement in service standards which is required will be of immense benefit to emerging businesses.

  Electrical Retailing
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of implementing the recommendations contained in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report on electrical retailing on the numbers of electrical retailing businesses operating. [16523]
  418
  Mrs. Beckett
  The MMC have found that, as a result of a number of entrenched practices by suppliers and dealers of domestic electrical goods, retail prices are higher than they would otherwise be, price competition in these markets is muted, new retailers have difficulty getting supplies, and innovation in retailing is discouraged.

  My proposed remedies, announced on 30 July 1997, would stop suppliers and dealers from relying on recommended retail prices and help dealers who want to compete on price but have difficulty getting supplies. They would allow consumers to benefit from lower prices through stronger price competition and more choice of retail outlets.

  During the consultation on my proposals small retailers have told me, as they did the MMC, that a number of them would close if the proposed remedies were implemented. I am considering these arguments.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations against her electrical retailing proposals she has received. [16522]

  Mrs. Beckett
  By the close of 14 November, I had received around 140 representations raising one or more objections to the proposals I announced on 30 July 1997.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the impact on prices of her electrical retailing proposals. [16521]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The MMC found that a number of entrenched practices by suppliers and dealers of domestic electrical goods operated against the public interest by causing retail prices to be higher than they would otherwise be. I announced on 30 July 1997 my proposals to prohibit these practices, and that consumers would benefit from lower prices through stronger competition and more choice of retail outlets.

  Recommended Retail Prices
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the use of recommended retail prices in(a) electrical retailing and (b) newspaper distribution. [16576]

  Mrs. Beckett
  In relation to electrical retailing, the MMC found various practices which encouraged retailers to adhere to recommended retail prices, and concluded that the level of retail prices was influenced by recommended retail prices, and that tackling only the associated practices would be an insufficient remedy. They therefore recommended that recommended retail prices themselves be prohibited in these markets. I accepted their recommendation in my announcement of 30 July 1997.

  In relation to newspaper distribution the MMC, in its 1993 report, made no adverse findings against the publishers' practice of displaying newspaper cover prices, which are in effect recommended retail prices.

  Departmental Announcements
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what circumstances it is her Department's policy to make announcements to the media prior to informing Parliament. [16966]
  419
  Mrs. Beckett
  It is the Department's policy, as far as practicable, to inform Parliament of major policy decisions before making announcements to the media.

  Some announcements are market sensitive, and there is a need to ensure that the information reaches the market in an orderly fashion. The contents of MMC monopoly and merger reports and my decisions on them are, for example, market sensitive. My normal practice is to announce my decision to the market at the same time as the report is published and laid in Parliament.

  Stena and P&O Merger
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will investigate the report contained in The Observer newspaper of 16 November relating to the proposed merger of Stena and P&O with a view to identifying the source close to the authorities cited in the report. [16967]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have seen the press report to which the hon. Member refers. The report was speculative, and inaccurate in a number of respects. It contained nothing which suggests that it was derived from a UK official source. Unless there is other evidence to suggest that it was derived from a UK official source, I do not intend to investigate the report further.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she plans to publish her decision on the P&O and Stena ferries merger; and if she will make an oral statement. [17065]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 21 November 1997]: I published the Monopolies and Merger's report on the proposed joint venture between P&O and Stena on 19 November. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament. As is usual in such cases, I also issued a Press Notice announcing my decision on the report, copies of which are available in the libraries of both Houses.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to her Answer to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) of 6 November 1997,Official Report, columns 296–97, if she will set out the ways in which the Euratom Safeguards Office scrutinises the United Kingdom plutonium stocks. [16853]

  Mrs. Beckett
  All civil nuclear material in the UK, including plutonium, is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the tripartite UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement. These require the regular provision of information by nuclear operators to the Euratom Safeguards Directorate. The UK's plutonium stocks, along with other civil nuclear material in the UK, are also subject to inspection by safeguards inspectors. Details of the reporting and associated procedures are set out in Commission Regulation (Euratom) No. 3227/76. I have placed copies of the Regulation in the library of the House.

  Coal Supplies
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the DTI forecasts for coal burn in the electricity sector and for deepmines and opencast coal production in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 2001. [17136]
  420
  Mr. Battle
  UK deep-mined and opencast coal output in 1997 are likely to be about 31 million tonnes and 17 million tonnes respectively. The previous administration published energy projections for the UK as Energy Paper 65 in March 1995 which is available in the libraries of the House indicated that coal burn in 2000 was likely to fall within the range 14.6 to 23.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent.

  My Department is working on a new set of projections which I intend to publish next year.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the revisions which she has made to her instructions to the Low Pay Commission in the last month. [17066]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 21 November 1997]: There have been no changes to the Low Pay Commission's terms of reference.

  BP Power Station
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which ministers(a) saw the relevant papers regarding, (b) discussed and (c) were involved in the decision concerning the approval for a new British Petroleum gas-fired power station. [17062]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 21 November 1997]: Departmental responsibility for applications for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 rests with the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and it is those Ministers who considered the papers on BP's Salt End power station project and who will come to consider the papers on BP's other proposed power station project at Baglan Bay.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average time her Department has taken to give substantive answers to named day questions in the current parliamentary session. [17560]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Eighty-nine per cent. of the named day questions were answered within 5 sitting days and 71 per cent, within 2 days of the date for answer.

  Fax and Telephone Installation Costs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost to public funds of installing(a) a fax and (b) a telephone at her mobile home. [17561]

  Mrs. Beckett
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [16302]
  421
  Mr. Dewar
  My Department disseminates information in a number of different ways. There is no central guidance held by my Department which covers all of the various means of issuing information.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [16301]

  Mr. Dewar
  Scottish Office press releases are not faxed on the day of release to Opposition party spokesmen. Copies of the press releases are, however, mailed on the day of release to the Scottish headquarters of the four main political parties in Scotland. This was the position prior to 1 May and I have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average funding per student in further education in Scotland in each of the last five years. [16509]

  Mr. Wilson
  The average Government funding per full-time equivalent student in further education colleges in Scotland (in cash terms and rounded to the nearest £) over the last three years is shown in the list:

  1995–96: £2,812

  1994–95: £2,902

  1993–94: £2,811.

  Employment numbers (full-time equivalents)

  Body

  Total

  Glasgow

  Edinburgh

  Aberdeen

  Dundee

  Stirling

  Inverness

  Executive NDPBs

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  157

  20

  77

  9

  —

  —

  11

  Crofters' Commission

  76

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise1

  350

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  174

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  44

  —

  44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Galleries of Scotland

  164

  —

  164

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Library of Scotland

  217

  —

  217

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Museums of Scotland

  270

  —

  270

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh

  202

  —

  202

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland

  65

  —

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Agricultural and Biological Research Institutes:

  Hannah Research Institute

  140

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Macaulay Research Institute

  260

  —

  —

  260

  —

  —

  —

  Moredun Research Institute

  156

  —

  156

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rowett Research Institute

  276

  —

  —

  276

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  343

  —

  —

  —

  343

  —

  —

  Scottish Arts Council

  80

  —

  80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Children's Reporter Administration

  327

  66

  22

  17

  18

  38

  16

  Scottish Community Education Council

  30

  —

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  88

  88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Enterprise1

  1,714

  694

  114

  94

  91

  79

  —

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  637

  12

  91

  64

  —

  101

  —

  Scottish Further Education Unit

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  —

  422
  The figures for 1992–93 and 1991–92 are not compatible with those above. They include expenditure on other vocational education and assistance, transport, residential accommodation and bursary support and cannot be disaggregated.

  1992–93: £3,481

  1991–92: £3,228.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate his Department has made of the total annual sum likely to be required of students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to pay towards the fees for their fourth year at a Scottish university once the scheme is fully in operation. [16645]

  Mr. Wilson
  From academic year 1998–99 new full-time undergraduate students will be required to contribute up to a maximum of £1,000 a year in tuition fees, depending on their parents', spouses' or own income. The Scottish Office does not have responsibility for assessing the contribution towards fees for students domiciled in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and no specific estimate of the likely average fee per student for those students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland studying in Scotland is available.

  Quangos
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the quangos in Scotland employing more than 20 employees, with the total level of employment and the respective employment levels in each of the quangos in(a) Glasgow, (b) Edinburgh, (c) Aberdeen, (d) Dundee, (e) Stirling and (f) Inverness. [16520]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information is set out in the following table.
  423

  Employment numbers (full-time equivalents)

  Body

  Total

  Glassgow

  Edinburgh

  Aberdeen

  Dundee

  Stirling

  Inverness

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  60

  —

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Homes

  837

  218

  310

  8

  48

  —

  17

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  273

  3

  270

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Executive NDPBs

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  613

  —

  199

  36

  —

  9

  39

  Scottish Qualifications Authority

  350

  350

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Screen

  38

  38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Sports Council

  150

  —

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Tourist Board

  157

  —

  120

  —

  —

  —

  37

  Water Authorities

  East of Scotland Water Authority

  1,963

  —

  714

  —

  —

  226

  —

  North of Scotland Water Authority

  1,928

  —

  —

  403

  370

  —

  253

  West of Scotland Water Authority

  2,725

  1,267

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Figures relate to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Enterprise networks as a whole.

HEALTH

  Abortion
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of a first trimester NHS abortion by vacuum aspiration in(a) Sheffield and (b) Newcastle. [15671]

  Ms Jowell
  Estimates of the costs information requested are shown in the table:

  Estimates of the average cost of a first trimester National Health Service abortion by vacuum in Sheffield and Newcastle

  Estimate of average cost of first trimester NHS abortion by vacuum £

  Trust

  Day case

  In-patient

  Central Sheffield Hospitals NHS Trust

  443

  443

  Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS Trust (Newcastle)

  289

  343

  NHS Dentists Register
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people expected to be removed from NHS dentists' registers because they have not made an appointment in the last 15 months. [16634]

  Mr. Milburn
  From 1 September 1996, the registration period for both adult continuing care and child capitation was harmonised to provide patients with a period of continuing dental care for 15 months following each course of treatment. The most recent estimate is that registration numbers may gradually fall by about 4 million as a result of this change. However, the actual effect on the number of patients registered with a dentist will depend on the response to the incentive for many patients to attend the dentist on a more regular basis.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those studies which his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the potential dangers and side effects of fluoridated water supplies; if
  424
  he will list those dangers or side effects; and when he expects his Department to complete the current review of the fluoridation programme. [16501]

  Ms Jowell
  Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of water supplies rests not on the results of a few studies but on the assessments of the very extensive, relevant published scientific literature on the effects of fluoride (including human exposure to fluoride present naturally in drinking water), and on the results of more than half a century of fluoridation. No serious side effects have been identified from fluoridating water by one part of fluoride per million parts of water (the optimum level), but we continue to monitor and evaluate the progress of the programme.

  We cannot at present predict when we will complete our review.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the decision was taken to exempt Formula 1 racing from the proposed ban on tobacco sponsorship of sport; what ministerial meetings took place on this subject between 16 October and 6 November; which Ministers attended these meetings; and if he will publish the minutes of these meetings. [16749]

  Mr. Dobson
  The issue was discussed in correspondence between Ministers which was brought to a close on 3 November when my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health wrote to the presidency. It is not the Government's practice to disclose the nature or detailed records of inter-ministerial discussions on policy matters.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department made of the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of exempting formula one from the ban on tobacco sponsorship. [16741]

  Ms Jowell
  After considering the issue of sponsorship in great depth, the Government have proposed excluding formula one from the scope of the proposed EU Directive on tobacco advertising and sponsorship which is currently being negotiated. The Government have always made it clear that it is pursuing twin objectives of reducing smoking and of safeguarding sport from any effects arising from the loss of tobacco sponsorship. The fact is that a blanket Europe-wide ban on formula one
  425
  sponsorship would mean not only fewer grand prix in Europe but, perversely, more tobacco advertising on our TV screens beamed in from events from outside the European Union.

  General Practitioners (Correspondence)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the decision of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), to send the letter of 21 October to general practitioners; to which doctors it was sent and what is the estimated cost of printing and mailing these letters. [16767]

  Mr. Milburn
  The purpose of the letter was to inform general practitioners about a number of policy developments which are of direct relevance to them and to underline the priority the Government attach to primary care. The cost of printing and mailing these letters including postage, was £14,000.

  Trauma Centres
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to health authorities in respect of the development of major trauma centres following the report by Sheffield University on the clinical effectiveness of the trauma centre at Stoke on Trent; and if he will make a statement. [16955]

  Mr. Boateng
  A report, "The cost-effectiveness of the regional trauma system in the North-West Midlands" was published in March 1996. It was made available to health authorities and National Health Service trusts to help inform their decisions on the organisation of accident and emergency services. Copies are available in the Library.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 59, what plans he has to change the arrangements for remunerating general practitioners for care of patients in nursing and residential homes. [17175]

  Mr. Milburn
  With effect from April 1998, health authorities will be able, under amendments to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, to give general practitioners financial incentives beyond those set out in the Statement of Fees and Allowances to enhance the provision of local general medical services. Subject to local priorities which the health authority will determine, this may include the provision of specified general medical services tailored to the needs of those living in nursing and residential homes.

  At present, the Government have no further plans to change the arrangements for remunerating general practitioners for care of patients in nursing and residential homes.

  Cancer
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department will be taking to address the differences in the incidence of cancers between the north and south of England. [16660]
  426
  Ms Jowell
  There is no clear pattern in the overall incidence of cancers when comparing the north and south of England. Stomach, lung and cervical cancers are registered more frequently in the north of England than the south, but female breast cancer and malignant melanoma rates are lower in the north. Death rates from all cancers combined are higher in the north of England.

  Sir Donald Acheson, former Chief Medical Officer, is carrying out an independent inquiry into inequalities in health which will report next summer. His recommendations, together with responses to the forthcoming Green Paper on the new public health strategy, will be used to develop next year's White Paper which will aim to reduce geographical health inequalities such as these.

  The Government is also committed to implementation of the recommendations in the document "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services" which sets out the need for high-quality cancer care wherever a patient may live.

  Hospitals (Performance Indicators)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to introduce new clinical indicators of hospital performance; and what measures he plans to take against hospitals with low levels of performance. [16661]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are already consulting across the National Health Service and the clinical professions on a set of 15 provisional health authority and trust clinical indicators. These indicators may raise questions on aspects of the quality of clinical care for local investigations and are for use within the NHS. Decisions on taking them forward will be taken in light of the consultation process.

  We are committed to improving levels of performance throughout the whole of the NHS. Our plans will be set out in an NHS White Paper which we intend to publish shortly.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure waiting lists will not rise in the next 12 months in England. [16662]

  Mr. Milburn
  We inherited record numbers of patients waiting for treatment from the previous Government. We cannot expect to turn this round overnight. Our immediate priorities are to ensure that the National Health Service deals effectively with emergencies during the winter and that by the end of next March there are no patients waiting more than 18 months for admission to hospital. We are determined to have shorter waiting lists by the end of this Parliament. The wide-ranging action plan for waiting lists and times announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 18 November and the considerable extra resources we have made available to the NHS for this year and next will ensure that we begin to turn the tide.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the proportion of waiting list initiative funding that has been spent in the private sector in the last three years; and what monitoring is
  427
  undertaken of clinical standards for the private sector in respect of patients being treated under the waiting list initiative. [17337]

  Mr. Milburn
  Central funding for the previous Government's waiting list initiative ran from 1987–88 to 1993–94 inclusive. Since then the money has been built into health authorities' recurrent revenue baselines and is no longer centrally earmarked for waiting list initiatives. It is for health authorities, as purchasers, to assess their population's needs and to target resources through contracts to ensure that those needs and national priorities such as waiting list and waiting time targets are met. It is also their responsibility to monitor the clinical standards and quality of care of any hospital with which they contract, whether this is an independent hospital or National Health Service trust.

  Guidance to health authorities and general practitioner fundholders effective from April 1998 is that they should explore the scope to make maximum cost-effective use of local NHS capacity before thinking about use of private sector provision.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have died while on waiting lists in each of the last 10 years; and if he will indicate the treatment for which they were waiting. [17343]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is collected on removals from waiting lists but this does not differentiate between the various reasons, which include death. Patients may die from any one of a wide range of causes, in common with the rest of the population, while waiting for treatment and the cause may have nothing to do with the condition for which they were on a waiting list.

  NHS Bureaucracy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria his Department will use to measure the savings achieved from the elimination of excess NHS bureaucracy; and by what date he expects to achieve his target for these savings. [16663]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government are committed to reducing National Health Service bureaucracy. As a first step, we are tackling the worst features of the internal market and reducing NHS management costs in Great Britain by £100 million in 1997–98. The NHS Executive has set targets for 1997–98 with every health authority and trust in England to reduce their management costs.

  The NHS Executive calculates the costs of managing the NHS using two measures: health authority costs; and trust management costs. Health authority costs are monitored quarterly through regional offices. Where there is significant deviation from plan, it is for the NHS Executive regional offices to negotiate recovery plans for those health authorities concerned. Trusts report their management costs in their annual accounts. It is for the regional offices to ensure that trusts are taking the necessary steps to deliver the savings by the end of the year. Current information indicates that both health authorities and trusts are on target to achieve their 1997–98 plans by the end of the year.

  We will shortly be announcing further actions to reduce NHS bureaucracy linked to functional and structural change, as part of our plans to replace the internal market.
  428

  NHS Contracts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts have been made between purchasers and providers in the NHS in each of the last five years; and how many GP fundholder contracts with providers have been made since fundholding began. [17341]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of contracts between purchasers and providers and on general practitioner fundholders' contracts is not collected centrally. Some data have been held at a regional level but this has not been collected or validated on a consistent basis.

  Clinical Depression
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to include consideration of targets for the diagnosis of clinical depression in a future review of health policy. [17196]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no such plans.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of treating clinical depression, broken down into costs(a) of actual treatment, (b) associated with sickness benefit, (c) of working days lost to illness resulting in lost income revenue and (d) of community care. [17198]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have made no estimate of these costs.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last had meetings within the Department of Social Security, the Treasury and the Department for Education and Employment to discuss policy on the treatment of clinical depression. [17194]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treatment of clinical depression is a matter for the relevant bodies. We hold meetings with other Government departments as and when appropriate.

  In recent months, officials have had discussions with colleagues at both the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment on the problems mentally ill people face on securing employment.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to set up a task force to examine the diagnosis and treatment of clinical depression. [17195]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no such plans. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group, a statutory body that advises United Kingdom Health Ministers on standards of clinical care, began work in March this year to review the clinical management of depression in primary and secondary care. We expect to receive its report early in 1998.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by(a) health authority and (b) region, the total savings made by general practitioners and the percentage of savings spent in each year since the inception of fundholding. [17334]
  429
  Mr. Milburn
  Information held centrally on savings made on general practitioner fundholder budgets, and on spending from these savings (excluding savings voluntarily returned by fundholders to their health authorities), has been placed in the Library.

  For 1991–92 and 1992–93, these are savings made at regional health authority level. From 1993–94 to 1995–96, data are available at family health services authority/health authority level on both savings made and spending from savings.

  "Retained savings" are savings made on fundholders' budgets, excluding amounts voluntarily returned to the health authority, retained for spending in future years. "Accumulated savings available for spending" are all savings made since entry to fundholding less any savings spent.

  In 1995–96, fundholders in England retained £84.8 million or 2.4 per cent. of their budgets in savings, and spent £47.6 million (32 per cent.) of their £150.9 million accumulated savings.

  All data are taken from audited accounts, returned by National Health Service Executive Regional Offices. Information is not yet available from 1996–97 audited accounts.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area had been waiting for treatment for more than(a) 24 months, (b) 18 months and (c) 12 months, (i) on 31 March and (ii) at the latest available date. [17029]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on patients awaiting admission to Mid-Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust on 31 March 1997 and 30 September 1997 is given in the table.

  Number waiting

  At 31 March 1997

  At 30 September21997

  For 12 months or more

  1104

  441

  For 18 months or more

  0

  3

  For 24 months or more

  0

  0

  1 Figure is final one and differs from provisional figure supplied in the reply given to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford on 11 June 1997 at column 479.

  2 Figures for 30 September 1997 are provisional.

  Minister for Public Health
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Minister for Public Health informed him of her concerns over a potential conflict of interest arising out of her family links with the motor racing industry; and if he will publish(a) the advice he offered her and (b) the advice she received from the Permanent Secretary.[16747]

  Mr. Dobson
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health first raised this issue with me when we discussed the division of responsibilities within the Ministerial team at the start of May.
  430
  Both the Permanent Secretary and I are fully satisfied that no conflict of interest arises for my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and that she has fully observed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's guidance to Ministers on conduct and procedures.

  It is not the practice to publish internal advice on such matters.

  Funding Formula
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways his Department's proposals to change the funding formula used to allocate National Health Service funds between health authorities reflects the sparsity of areas; and if he will make a statement. [17453]

  Mr. Milburn
  A geographical cost adjustment for emergency ambulance services was introduced into the national weighted capitation formula used to inform 1998–99 revenue allocations to health authorities. This includes a measure of rural sparsity.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the numbers and cost of elderly patients blocking beds. [17335]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) on 12 November 1997,Official Report, column 602.

  Specific information on the cost of delayed discharges is not collected centrally and we have no plans to change this. The Department is seeking to reduce the burden of data collection by the National Health Service and rationalise data flows within the NHS and between the NHS and the centre. The amount of information required to calculate the average cost of delayed discharge would not be in line with this policy.

  NHS Trusts (Finances)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts have been assessed by his Department in respect of their long-term financial viability; and what has been the outcome in each case. [17333]

  Mr. Milburn
  The financial viability of all trusts is assessed as a part of each trust's annual business planning cycle. The financial monitoring process and independent auditing of accounts are also elements in the assessment framework. The outcome in the vast majority of cases has been the continued existence of the trusts as they were established.

  Trusts are merged or reconfigured for a number of operational reasons. The majority of reconfigurations are to improve local service provision although a small number have resulted principally from concerns over their long term financial viability. These are:
  the merger of West Dorset Community Health NHS Trust with West Dorset Mental Health NHS Trust to form the Dorset Community NHS Trust on 1 April 1994;

  431
  the merger of Royal Liverpool University NHS Trust and Broadgreen NHS Trust to form Royal Liverpool University and Broadgreen NHS Trust on 1 April 1995;
  the merger of Louth and District Healthcare NHS Trust and Lincoln Hospitals NHS Trust to form Lincoln and Louth NHS Trust on 1 April 1996;
  the merger of Royal Free NHS Trust and the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital NHS Trust on 1 April 1996;
  the dissolution of Anglian Harbours NHS Trust on 30 September 1997.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Anti-social Behaviour
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deal with criminal anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods. [15791]

  Mr. Michael
  Anti-social behaviour which harasses or intimidates neighbours, or disturbs a community in general, is unacceptable and the Government intend to tackle it directly. The Crime and Disorder Bill will contain provisions to enable the police or a local authority to apply for a court order prohibiting an individual from behaving in this way. Breach of the Order will be a criminal offence.

  Juveniles
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the number of juveniles held within the prison system. [15793]

  Ms Quin
  Our aim is a faster, more efficient youth justice system with a clear emphasis on early and effective intervention to prevent young people offending. We will be bringing forward legislation to strengthen the scope for dealing effectively with young people in the community.

  We will shortly announce new custodial sentencing arrangements for young people. We are also reviewing the whole range of secure accommodation for remanded and sentenced young people.

  Our aim is to find ways of making better and more effective use of the accommodation and to ensure positive and constructive regimes which safeguard young people's welfare and tackle offending behaviour.

  Parole
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to improving the system whereby the Parole Board takes fully into account representations from victims or their families. [15794]

  Ms. Quin
  The Parole Board considers any representations submitted to it from or on behalf of victmis when considering the conditions to be contained in the licence of an offender to be released from custody to supervision by the Probation Service. Under the Victims Charter and the Probation Service National Standards, probation services are required to make contact with victims of violent or sexual offences, or the victims of any offence for which the offender was sentenced to 432
  four years or more, to enable them to express any concerns they want to be taken into account when the Parole Board is considering the conditions to be attached to release licences.

  Victim Support
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to provide greater support for victims of crime. [15795]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer to the oral answer the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington (Ms Quin) West gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Mr Salter) earlier today.

  Criminal Justice System (Delays)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle delays in the criminal justice system. [15796]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are committed to tackling delay throughout the criminal justice system especially in the youth justice system and have pledged to halve the time taken to deal with persistent young offenders. The Crime and Disorder Bill will contain the necessary measures and, will make provision for statutory time limits which will be tougher for young offenders than for adults, and tougher still for persistent young offenders.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet representatives of prison officers to discuss prison matters. [15797]

  Ms Quin
  I visited Prison Officer Association staff at their headquarters in London on 24 July and have had several other formal meetings with their representatives, which will continue, although no precise date has been arranged for the next meeting.

  Metropolitan Police Recruitment
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Metropolitan police recruitment. [15799]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that he has recruited 811 officers this financial year. He plans four further intakes, bringing the total for 1997–98 to 1,210.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. [15800]
  433
  Mr. Michael
  The Great Britain criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most generous in the world. In 1996–97 it paid out over £210 million to some 47,000 victims of crime. We are currently looking at expenditure on victims of crime, including expenditure on the scheme, as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review initiated earlier this year. We shall consider whether any changes should be made to the scheme in the light of the findings that emerge from the review.

  Police (Resources)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he makes of the needs of the police force when allocating resources within his departmental budget. [15801]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government's overall aim is to ensure that the police have adequate resources to play their key part in cutting and preventing crime. In assessing the spending needs of the police we take into account, amongst other considerations, the budget pressures identified by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.

  Members of Parliament (Bribery)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make bribery of hon. Members an offence. [15802]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are committed to tackling all forms of corruption, including bribery of hon. Members. My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement on the reform of the law in this area early next year, taking account of the results of the consultation exercise which he launched in June and of proposals which the Law Commission are preparing. He will also take account of any further recommendations which the Committee on Standards in Public Life might make and of the views of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.

  European Elections (Electoral Arrangements)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the electoral arrangements proposed for the next European elections. [15803]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which is to have its Second Reading tomorrow, provides for elections to the European Parliament to be conducted using a proportionally-based regional list system.

  Restorative Justice
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of projects under evaluation by his Department relating to restorative justice. [15804]

  Mr. Michael
  Restorative justice is one way of fulfilling this Government's intention to confront offenders—especially young offenders—with the consequences of their actions.
  434

  Restraint Methods
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to police forces on methods of restraint, with particular reference to positional asphyxia. [15806]

  Mr. Michael
  The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued detailed guidance to all police self-defence trainers on this subject. This deals with the circumstances in which positional asphyxia is most likely to occur, risk factors, and how to recognise the symptoms and give first aid. The recent HMIC report of Officer Safety also made particular reference to the need for Police officers to have training in first aid and the care of individuals who have been restrained.

  Young Offenders (Parents)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that support and guidance is given to parents of young offenders. [15807]

  Mr. Michael
  Reform of the youth justice system is one of the Government'skey priorities. As part of our radical shift in priorities we will introduce a new Parenting Order which encourages parents to accept their responsibilities for the behaviour of their children. There will be an element which allows the courts to direct that parents exercise control over their children and an element which allows the court to impose a requirement on parents to attend training and guidance sessions. We intend to include proposals for the Parenting Order and the establishment of Youth Offender Teams in the forthcoming Crime and Disorder Bill.

  Prison and Probation Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure integration and co-operation between the Prison Service and the probation service. [15808]

  Ms Quin
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in July, I am leading the work of a review into the efficiency and effectiveness of the ways in which the two services work together. There is no predetermined outcome to the review. We shall be considering options for improving their performance next year with a view to consulting widely about the future of both services in due course.

  Anti-social Neighbours
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in respect of his policy to tackle anti-social neighbours. [15809]

  Mr. Michael
  In September we published a consultation paper outlining proposals for a new court order which would prohibit an individual who had engaged in anti-social behaviour from continuing to behave in that way. The responses received have been generally positive, and we will introduce appropriate provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill shortly.
  435

  Alcopops
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the report by the Office for National Statistics on alcopops; and if he will make a statement. [15810]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The findings of the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) report "Young teenagers and alcohol in 1996" support those of other surveys and research, which indicate worrying levels of alcohol misuse by young people. The Government's announcement on 17 July made clear our concern about this problem and set out the action which we expected all concerned, including the industry itself, to take.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to protect the public from serious sex offenders released early from non-life sentences. [15811]

  Mr. Michael
  The Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders who have been convicted of sex offences against children and other serious sex offences to notify the police of their name and address and any changes to these details. The police will work with the Probation Service and other agencies to use this information to protect children and vulnerable people by alerting agencies and individuals of the presence of an offender in their area when appropriate. The Crime and Disorder Bill will also introduce provisions to allow for the extended supervision of sex offenders. This will enable probation services to ensure that offenders complete treatment programmes.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to introduce to safeguard the rights of British citizens under the European Convention on Human Rights. [15812]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We introduced the Human Rights Bill in another place last month. The Bill gives further effect in domestic law to the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, and will significantly improve the ability of people in the United Kingdom to rely on their Convention rights before our own courts.

  Drugs and Crime
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle the link between drugs and crime. [15813]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle the link between drugs and crime. [15815]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office has a research programme designed to shed further light on the links between drugs and crime. In addition, a Home Office Drugs Prevention Initiative study is testing the 436
  impact of drug treatment interventions in the criminal justice system—from arrest through sentence and beyond—to refer people with drug problems to drug treatment programmes.

  A new testing and treatment order will be introduced to give courts the powers to require drug misusing offenders to undergo treatment. The new order will be rigorously enforced and include the use of drug testing to ensure those in treatment are staying off illegal drugs.

  The new United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator Keith Hellawell, has been appointed and will be supported by a Deputy, Michael Trace. The immediate priorities for the Co-ordinator will include reviewing existing action against drug misuse and submitting proposals to Ministers for a new strategy as quickly as possible, aimed at tackling drug problems through effective enforcement, treatment and education.

  Youth Crime
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received to his proposals to tackle youth crime. [15814]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government's formal proposals for tackling youth crime were set out in the three consultation documents and the consultation periods for these documents closed recently. Several hundred responses were received, and these are currently being assessed. The intention is to provide Parliament with a report on these consultation exercises as soon as practicable. More generally we have received an enthusiastic response from the police, the public and most other organisations in the field.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the use of private contractors in the management of the Prison Service. [15816]

  Ms Quin
  Since 1 May, my right hon. Friend has received representations from hon. Members, the Prison Service Trade Unions, members of staff, representatives of contractors and other members of the public. The subjects covered include: the building and running of new prisons under the private finance initiative; the involvement of the private sector in Prison Service administration under the Quantum project; and the contractual management of industries at Coldingley prison.

  Figures are available for Parliamentary Questions and Ministers' cases and are listed in the table:

  Representations received on private sector involvement in prison service management

  Subject

  Parliamentary Questions

  Ministers cases

  Quantum

  6

  2

  PFI and Prisons

  3

  —

  Prisons and Private sector

  4

  10

  Total

  13

  12

  437

  Police Officers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there are per head of population in(a) England as a whole and (b) the Devon and Cornwall constabulary. [15789]

  Mr. Michael
  The average ratio for England is one police officer: 414 people. In the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary the ratio is one police officer: 538 people. This is based on police numbers at March 1997, and the latest population figures which are for June 1996.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will raise the penalty for illegal use of bus lanes. [16839]

  Review

  Consultation

  Expected completion date

  Joint review with Northern Ireland Office to consider permanent United Kingdom wide counter terrorism legislation

  Consultation document to be published early 1998

  Autumn 1998

  Review of the law relating to bribery and corruption. "Prevention of Corruption— Consolidation and Amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1889–1916: A Government Statement"—issued June 1997

  Discussion paper: "Clarification of the Law relating to Bribery of an MP"—issued December 1996

  Early 1998

  Strategic Review of National Police Training

  No formal consultation paper

  Early 1998

  Inter-Departmental Review of Police Pensions

  Consultation document still to be issued

  To be decided

  Review of Firefighters' Pension Scheme

  Consultation document still to be issued

  To be decided

  Review of Community Fire Safety

  Consultation document on the strategy proposed in the report of the Community Fire Safety Task Force published November 1997

  To be decided

  Review of Prison Nursing Services

  Consultation document issued 21 October 1997

  February 1998

  Review of long-term future of organisation of Prison Service Health Care

  Joint Prison Service/Department of Health Working Group. Consultation document not yet issued

  Mid 1998

  Review of Prison Service Drug Strategy

  No consultation document issued

  March 1998

  Review of Prisons Investigations Strategy

  No consultation document issued

  First stage completion April 1998

  Review of the operation of release of prisoners on temporary licence

  No consultation document issued, but consultation with Police/Probation Service and other interested parties to be carried out by the end of 1997

  Mid 1998

  Review of Government proposals on reform of Youth Justice System

  Three consultation papers: "Tackling Youth Crime"—September 1997, "New National and Local Focus on Youth Crime"— October 1997 "Tackling Delays in Youth Justice System"—October 1997

  Results of review to be reflected in Crime and Disorder Bill

  Review of measures to deal with anti-social behaviour

  Consultation document on community safety orders published 9 September 1997

  Results of review to be reflected in Crime and Disorder Bill

  438
  Mr. Michael
  Illegal use of a bus lane is an offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and carries a maximum fine of £1,000. An offence can be dealt with under the fixed penalty procedure, in which case the penalty is currently £20.

  We have no plans to increase the maximum penalty which may be imposed by the courts, but we are reviewing the current level of the fixed penalty.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the reviews being undertaken by his Department, indicating the consultation documents issued in relation to each review and the expected completion date for each. [16539]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested about reviews is set out in the table.
  439

  Review

  Consultation

  Expected completion date

  Review of measures to deal with the protection of communities from known sex offenders who pose a continuing risk

  Consultation document on communtity protetion order issued November 1997

  Results of review to be reflected in Crime and Disorder Bill

  Review of measures on Communitity Safety

  Consultation paper "Getting to Grips with Crime" —issued September 1997

  Results of review to be reflected in Crime and Disorder Bill

  In addition, my Department is carrying out a Comprehensive Spending Review, and contributing to cross-Departmental reviews of the criminal justice system and of illegal drugs, in accordance with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's statement of 11 June 1997, Official Report, columns 1143–44. The statement said that these reviews were expected to take 12 months to complete. My Department is also carrying out a review of those non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) for which the Home Office is the sponsoring Department. This review is part of a Government-wide exercise which is referred to in the Government's public consultation paper "Opening Up Quangos" issued in November 1997.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences (Dog Breeding)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Huntingdon Life Sciences was granted a licence to breed dogs at their laboratory at Occold; and to what extent his Department's inquiry into Huntingdon Life Sciences' treatment of dogs was taken into account in allowing the licence. [16726]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Certificate of Designation was amended on 23 May to allow the breeding of dogs.

  Careful consideration was given to the suitability of allowing Huntingdon Life Sciences to breed dogs in the light of the allegations made in the Channel 4 programme. The emerging findings from the Chief Inspector's investigation showed, however, that the problems uncovered by the broadcast were limited to the Huntingdon site.

  The Chief Inspector had specifically assessed conditions at Occold. The housing conditions for the dogs and the adequacy of the staffing arrangements to ensure the welfare of the animals were therefore checked before the Certificate of Designation was amended.

  Illegal Entrants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the total cost to public funds of the removal of illegal entrants between 1 May and 30 September; [16768]

  (2) how many illegal entrants have been removed from the constituency of Leicester, East since 1 May; and what has been the cost to pubic funds. [16769]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Statistics and costings in relation to the removal of overseas nationals as illegal entrants are not available on the basis of Parliamentary constituencies. Details of the costs of removing illegal entrants are not maintained separately from those of overseas nationals removed by the deportation process and the information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  440

  Breath Testing
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government has to introduce random breath testing for alcohol. [16898]

  Mr. Michael
  The law already provides the police with wide powers to test drivers for drinking and driving: they may administer a test in the event of an accident or a moving traffic offence; of if they have cause to suspect a driver has alcohol in his body. These powers are used extensively. In England and Wales in 1996, it has been calculated that some 781,000 roadside breath tests were carried out, the highest number ever.

  My noble Friend the Minister for Roads is currently considering a number of options for improving road safety, including possible measures on drinking and driving.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use electronic tagging as a substitute for part of a custodial sentence so as to bring about the early release of convicted prisoners. [17158]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made on 20 November 1997,Official Report, column 453.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all foreign visits(a) Ministers and (b) officials from his Department have undertaken since 2 May separately identifying those examining the operation of electronic tagging systems; and if he will make a statement. [16582]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 November 1997]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 13 November 1997, Official Report, column 642. Of the foreign visits listed in that reply, only the one on 4–6 November involved study of electronic monitoring. That visit was undertaken by one Minister accompanied by three officials. No other foreign visits by officials on this subject have been undertaken since 2 May. The right hon. Member may, however, be interested to note that I looked at the operation of electronic tagging in one city in the United States of America while on a visit there in 1995.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of requiring asylum seekers to live in reception centres; and if he will make a statement. [17407]
  441
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The interdepartmental study of the asylum process is looking at reception centres as one of a wide range of different options in the course of its examination of the arrangements for providing support and accommodation to asylum seekers. The study team will report to Ministers in the new year.

  WPC Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of the interview between the hon. Member for Linlithgow and Commander David Venness in July 1997 on further investigations into the death of WPC Fletcher. [15887]

  Mr. Straw
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the investigation into the murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher is continuing. The investigation is taking account of all the circumstances of the case, including those raised by my hon. Friend.

  Telecommunications (Interception)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the law to protect calls on mobile and cordless telephones from intrusive interception. [15792]

  Mr. Straw
  It is already an offence intentionally to intercept a communication in the course of its transmission over a public telecommunications system. I shall, in due course, introduce legislation to bring interception on private networks into the statutory framework.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about regulation of the private security industry. [15798]

  Mr. Michael
  We have received over 60 responses to our recent consultation exercise with the industry and others on the best way to provide a comprehensive, effective and streamlined system for regulation of the private security industry. We shall be making recommendations for action once we have analysed all the responses.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the operation of recent reforms relating to the right to silence; and if he will make a statement. [15805]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate has been monitoring the effects of the 1994 right to silence legislation since its introduction. The findings of the research will be published in two parts: the first, due at the end of this year, will cover the changes in the frequency of the suspect's use of right to silence in police interviews; and the second, due early next year, will look at the wider impact of the provisions on the criminal justice system.
  442

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many clients have appealed against their assessment since the establishment of the CSA; and what percentage of appellants have been successful in winning their appeal. [14545]

  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. Jeff Ennis, dated 21 November 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about appeals to the Child Support Agency.
  I am unable to give you precisely the information that you have requested, so I have provided as much information as is available. Although appeals were received during the first year of operation, reliable information on this area of performance has only been collected since April 1994. From that date to 30 September 1997, 25,754 appeals have been received by the Agency.
  Not all appeals sent to the Agency are sent to the Independent Tribunal Service and not all of those sent to Independent Tribunal Service are heard by a tribunal. Some will be withdrawn by the appellant, others may lapse or be ruled as outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal before they are allocated a hearing.
  From April 1994 to September 1997 26,280 cases have been lodged with the Independent Tribunal Service (during the same period the agency has completed or in some way reviewed approximately 1.1 million assessments). More cases have been lodged with Independent Tribunal Services than have been recorded as received by the Agency, as this includes some cases which were received by the Agency in 1993–94. Of those cases lodged with Independent Tribunal Services 17,091 have been cleared by a hearing, 12,990 of which have been returned to the Agency for reassessment; the reassessment requested can be linked to the reason for the appeal, or may be a result of other factors which have come to light during the appeal process. This represents 49 per cent, of cases lodged with the Independent Tribunal or approximately 1 per cent, of assessments completed or reviewed during this period.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the expenditure by(a) her 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. [15222]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the following table.
  443

  £ 000

  1987–88

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1 May to 30 September 1997

  Department of Social Security Headquarters

  1,582,930

  75,778

  54,036

  78,833

  38,525

  40,493

  15,885

  7,160

  5,149

  Resettlement Agency

  —

  —

  231

  136

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Information Technology Services Agency

  —

  —

  13,376

  24,026

  17,544

  7,229

  416

  0

  0

  Benefits Agency

  —

  —

  24,224

  60,429

  82,799

  62,064

  71,567

  22,331

  3,433

  Contributions Agency

  —

  —

  67

  1,040

  3,637

  6,021

  3,434

  7,066

  423

  Child Support Agency

  —

  —

  —

  11,437

  20,439

  5,992

  3,6002

  4,622

  0

  War Pensions Agency

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,517

  5,340

  2,215

  2,007

  506

  Independent Statutory Bodies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,810

  3,010

  2,171

  1 Expenditure information for 1980–81 is not available.

  2 The Department's Non-Departmental Public Bodies are funded on-Vote and, as such, their expenditure prior to 1995–96 is subsumed within DSS HQ.

  3 The Resettlement Agency was disbanded in 1995–96.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the expenditure by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92,

  £ 000

  1987–88

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1 May to 30 September 1997

  Department of Social Security

  788,683

  213,231

  205,482

  202,253

  158,66

  200,154

  160,672

  79,629

  21,713

  Information technology Services Agency

  —

  38.014

  121,084

  174,274

  53,119

  56,364

  48,139

  44,704

  4,700

  Benefits Agency

  —

  —

  102,447

  62,517

  57,346

  113,266

  172,120

  185,752

  16,258

  Contributions Agency

  —

  —

  —

  12,960

  31,838

  15,040

  21,356

  —

  —

  Child Support Agency

  —

  —

  —

  8,988

  NIL

  9,584

  8,080

  7,046

  —

  War Pensions Agency

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47,198

  3,975

  2,134

  2,899

  874

  Non Departmental Public Bodies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,850

  199

  488

  1 A breakdown of air fares and other expenditure relating to overseas travel is not available.

  2 Figures for the 1980–81 financial year are not available.

  3 Figures include the amounts paid for subsistence.

  4 The Department's NDPBs are funded on-Vote and, as such, their expenditure prior to 1995–96 is subsumed within DSS HQ.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98, year to date, (vi) the 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15225]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information is set out in the table.

  £

  1993–94

  18,333,603

  1994–95

  20,054,914

  1995–96

  20,085,672

  1996–97

  17,724,255

  1997–981

  3,464,040

  1997–982

  12,937,210

  1998–993

  11,399,000

  1Figures as at September 1997.

  2Full year Estimate.

  3Planned Expenditure.

  444
  (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94,(viii) 1995–96,(ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if she will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating tooverseas travel. [15223]

  Mr.Field
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Benefit Recipients (Income Tax)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the number of people receiving(a) income support, (b) housing benefit, (c) council tax benefit and (d) family credit who are also liable to pay income tax. [17568]

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

  As at May 1997, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that there were 424,000 Family Credit recipients who were paying income tax at the time the award began. This represents 57 per cent, of the Family Credit caseload.

  Information on the number of people receiving Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit who are also liable to pay income tax is not available.

  Note:

  Number is rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentage is given to the nearest full per cent.

  Source:

  5 per cent, sample of Family Credit awards as at 31 May 1997.
  445
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of family credit paid income tax in 1996–97. [17347]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  As at May 1997, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that there were 424,000 Family Credit recipients who were paying income tax at the time the award began. This represents 57 per cent, of the Family Credit caseload.

  Note:

  Number is rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentage is given to the nearest full per cent.

  Source:

  5 per cent, sample of Family Credit awards as at 31 May 1997.

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for social Security what proposals she has to encourage the involvement of local Benefits Agency officers in the development of health action zones. [17227]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department is working closely with the Department of Health to consider what role Social Security, and the Benefits Agency, might play in the development of health action zones. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no specific proposals at this time.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount of which the 433 lone parents who were helped to obtain jobs by the New Deal pilot scheme were better off in work. [17559]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not yet available.

  The evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents includes a quantitative survey of a sample of participants in all eight areas of the scheme which will collect information from lone parents on how much better off they are in work.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average eligible rent for housing benefit and the average housing benefit awarded to single people under 25 years under(a) previous scheme rules, (b) the local reference rent and (c) the single room rent, for the quarters ending February 1997 and May 1997. [17409]

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

  Estimated eligible rent for single people aged under 25 claiming housing benefit for accommodation in the private sector (excluding Housing Associations)—Great Britain—provisional

  February 1997 £

  Assessed under previous scheme rules

  55.60

  Assessed under local reference rent scheme

  49.10

  Assessed under single room rent scheme

  43.00

  Note:

  Comparable figures for May 1997 are not yet available.

  Source: Return from a representative sample of local authorities.
  446

  Eligible rent and housing for single people aged under 25 claiming housing benefit for accommodation in the private sector (excluding Housing Associations) and assessed under single room rent scheme —Great Britain

  May 1997 £

  Eligible rent

  40.30

  Average housing benefit

  37.80

  Notes:

  1. Comparable figures for February 1997 are not available

  2. Average housing benefit figure for single people under 25 and assessed under other schemes are not routinely collected.

  Source: Quartely 100 per cent. counts

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the expenditure by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if she will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15263]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]: Expenditure on overseas travel made by the Department for International Development and its agency, the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), for the years requested is as follows:

  £000

  DFID

  NRI

  Total

  1991–92

  1,066

  166

  1,232

  1992–93

  1,249

  170

  1,419

  1993–94

  1,375

  178

  1,553

  1994–95

  1,374

  112

  1,486

  1995–96

  1,514

  179

  1,693

  1996–97

  1,471

  —

  1,471

  1997–98 to 30 September

  531

  —

  —

  NRI was transferred to private ownership in 1996–97.

  Figures for years prior to 1991–92 and the breakdown between air fares and other expenditure cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

  World Bank
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she intends to take to use her position as a Governor of the World Bank to ensure that promises made to parliamentarians by the World Bank President in his letter of January 1996 are being kept. [17033]

  Clare Short
  The UK will use its influence in the World Bank to strengthen its poverty focus and encourage it to set quantifiable targets for poverty reduction and to measure progress towards these.
  447
  The World Bank is a key partner in our efforts to pursue the international development targets, which are based on agreements reached at a series of UN Summits. The President of the World Bank, Mr. James Wolfensohn, has already made a clear commitment to the targets, which I very much welcome. We will encourage the Bank to devote more attention to monitoring and evaluating the output and the impact of its activities, and to integrate gender considerations and environmental and social sustainability into its projects including enhanced support for activities which help the poorest, such as education, health and clean water.

  We will pursue these objectives through regular discussions with the President of the Bank and with senior management; through the extensive contacts which exist between professional advisers and programme managers in the Bank and my department; through our regular contacts with non-governmental organisations to discuss policy issues and specific Bank-funded projects; and through the interventions in formal Board proceedings made by our Director at the Bank and his team in the UK Delegation.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list current British aid projects in El Salvador. [16910]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In addition to a £100,000 British Partnership Scheme, administered by the British Embassy in San Salvador, which enables support to be provided for small local development projects, we are currently supporting the following projects through the Department for International Development (DFID) Joint Funding Scheme.

  Organisation

  Project title

  DFID contribution (£)

  Health Unlimited

  Relief and training programme

  257,000

  International Co-operation for Development

  Institutional strengthening of NGOs

  67,827

  It is likely that additional projects in El Salvador will be supported this year through the block grant arrangement of the Joint Funding Scheme, which operates on the basis of claims in arrears. Twenty-eight CAFOD, Christian Aid and Oxfam projects in El Salvador were supported in this way last year.

  Iraq
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the 1997 proposals for demining to be administered by the European Community Humanitarian Office in Northern Iraq. [16979]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) does not itself administer projects. It works in partnership with NGOs, UN and other international agencies that are themselves responsible for project administration.

  In 1997 the only ECHO funded partner for demining in Iraq was the British NGO Mines Advisory Group (MAG). MAG has a contract for £680,000 primarily to supply
  448
  mine detectors and other equipment such as protection jackets, helmets etc. ECHO has also provided £1.5 million for medical support for land mine victims. Britain contributes about a seventh of the cost of the ECHO programme.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what finances are budgeted for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for mixed credits in place of ATP for each agreed country programme. [17446]

  Clare Short
  There will be no separate budget allocation for mixed credit projects. In announcing the closure of the ATP scheme the White Paper on International Development also made it clear that any new mixed credit projects will be managed within agreed country programmes.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the countries to which ATP assistance has been given and (b) the amounts involved in each of the last five years. [17443]

  Clare Short
  The countries and amounts involved for all ATP agreements concluded in each of the last five years are as follows (figures in £ million):

  £ million

  Country

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Chile

  0.0

  0.8

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  China

  2.0

  4.2

  12.3

  3.8

  27.2

  Ghana

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  8.7

  7.8

  India

  1.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Indonesia

  0.0

  0.0

  29.7

  9.5

  0.0

  Lesotho

  0.0

  4.8

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Malaysia

  1.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Morocco

  10.9

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Pakistan

  0.0

  0.0

  2.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Philippines

  0.0

  0.0

  4.2

  9.2

  0.0

  Sri Lanka

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Thailand

  0.0

  4.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Turkey

  6.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Zimbabwe

  4.3

  0.0

  1.4

  0.0

  0.0

  Total

  26.2

  14.0

  50.1

  31.2

  35.0

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she intends to bring forward legislation on the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [17449]

  Clare Short
  We shall be seeking to bring forward legislation to enable the creation of a new public/private partnership for the Commonwealth Development Corporation as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  Zimbabwe and Zambia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is currently giving for the maintenance of order in rural areas in Zimbabwe. [17448]

  Clare Short
  DFID is supporting a programme of reforms by the Zimbabwe Republic Police to introduce community policing, including in the rural areas.
  449
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to give development assistance to(a) Zambia and (b) Zimbabwe; and if she will make a statement. [17451]

  Clare Short
  We have substantial development programmes in both countries. These are being refocused in line with the recent White Paper (Cm. 3789).

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Government of Zimbabwe on assistance with compensation in connection with land redistribution; and if she will make a statement. [17444]

  Clare Short
  The issue has been discussed with the Government of Zimbabwe by British Ministers and officials. We have told the Government of Zimbabwe that we cannot support the rapid programme of land acquisition that they seem to envisage. We would be willing to support a properly prepared programme of land reform as part of a partnership to eliminate poverty.
  450
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Government of Zambia on(a) human rights and (b) good government; and if she will make a statement. [17445]

  Clare Short
  I raised these issues with the Government of Zambia earlier this year. Officials have pursued them frequently since.

  Somalia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is currently giving for disaster relief in Somalia. [17450]

  Clare Short
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 178. Since then, I have provided a further £0.5 million bilaterally to help—$0.25 million for UNICEF, which is co-ordinating the logistical operation and £0.25 million for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

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

Baroness Young of Old Scone
Miss Barbara Scott Young, having been created Baroness Young of Old Scone, of Old Scone in Perth and Kinross, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Nicol and the Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde.
Lord Hattersley
The Right Honourable Roy Sydney George Hattersley, having been created Baron Hattersley, of Sparkbrook in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Richard and the Lord Peston, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
The Right Honourable Richard Andrew Ryder, OBE, having been created Baron Ryder of Wensum, of Wensum in the County of Norfolk, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Viscount Cranborne and the Lord Peyton of Yeovil.

European Monetary Union: Pension Funds
2.49 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to introduce the subject of fully funded pension schemes as a factor of convergence during the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the European Union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we shall use our presidency as constructively and supportively as possible in ensuring that the launch of EMU is successful. We have no plans to raise the subject of fully funded pension schemes as a factor of convergence during our presidency. Article 104c of the Maastricht Treaty and the stability pact make clear that member states must avoid excessive deficits in EMU.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting reply, which seems to be somewhat contradictory. If the Government are looking for the success of EMU, it is hard to imagine how unfunded pensions cannot be included in the subject. Does the Minister accept that fully funded occupational
746
schemes represent an annual surcharge of 6 per cent. of corporate costs? Does that not mean that there is a hidden charge to be counted in reckoning the true rate of public debt in terms of our EU partners?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are certainly differences between us and our EU partners in the extent to which pension schemes are fully funded. Those differences are not directly reflected in the convergence criteria but are reflected indirectly, in the sense that, when unfunded schemes come to be paid for, they affect the deficit which countries have to declare under the stability pact, which in turn affects the convergence criteria.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that most of our European partners have been operating pay-as-you-go schemes for years? If it is convergence we are after, we ought not to be pressing our own Government to go for funded schemes, particularly at a moment when the tragic chaos in world markets proves that investments in such funded schemes cannot guarantee full retirement security.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I confirm that, as I said earlier, other European countries have a higher proportion of their pension provision in unfunded, pay-as-you-go schemes than we do; but I repeat that this is not directly a convergence criterion for European monetary union. There is no question of any pressure being put upon us to change our funded scheme to an unfunded scheme.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that, quite apart from the specific rules against "bail-out" in the treaty and in the stability pact, there are other reasons why this specific argument against monetary union—whatever the other arguments may be—is a non-starter? These obligations are extremely uncertain and no more predictable than, say, the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations. Does he further agree that in the decade or more which is still available for dealing with these questions, there is no reason why our EMU partners should not be able to take the kind of measures to avoid hidden future liabilities which we ourselves in Britain took in the 1980s? Will he therefore dispose of this disreputable canard once and for all?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to emphasise that under Article 140b—the so-called "bail-out" clause—there is no question whatever of our being required within EMU to contribute to any lack in other countries' pension funds. Therefore I can agree with the remainder of the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that Article 104c lacks credibility in this situation? He is not being pressed on this because everyone is trying to dodge the issue. Britain's problems, compared with those of the other European nations, are minute in comparison. The many billions of pounds of liabilities,

747
which are not problematical but are factual, will have to be met one way or the other. Does the Minister seriously suggest that those liabilities can be met without any impact on the economic and financial situation of the member states?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when those countries which have unfunded schemes have to start paying out of current income, their deficits will be affected and they will need to make other arrangements in order to deal with them. I do not in any way accept what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said in relation to Articles 104c and 104b. Article 104b is quite explicit that we cannot be called upon to contribute. Article 104c is explicit, in that excessive deficits, either now or in the future, are not acceptable.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, bearing in mind the importance that the Government place on pensions, can the Minister explain the logic behind the decision taken recently to deprive pension funds—which are contributed to by long-term savers—of £5 billion per year? Surely the Government should be helping the pensioner.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the removal of double taxation relief, which is what I take the noble Lord to be referring to, is a matter for this country alone and is not affected by our membership or otherwise of EMU.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, regardless of pension funds, if we in this country manage to meet sustainable convergence well in advance of the year 2002, he will have in mind joining the single currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor made it clear in his Statement on 27th October that sustainable convergence means sustainable over a period of years. We are setting ourselves tough economic targets rather than fiscal targets which will determine the stage at which we put to the people of this country the issue of when we go into EMU.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a trustee of an occupational pension scheme. Is it not the case that, compared with the United Kingdom, other European countries have an immense potential liability in relation to pension funds? If the Government are genuinely interested in the long-term viability of EMU, should not that be taken into account in assessing the debt ratio of individual countries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have answered the noble Lord's first question twice already, if not three times. The Government have always recognised that a number of our European partners have a higher proportion of their pension provision in unfunded schemes. Eventually somebody will have to pay for that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the whole business of unfunded pensions is a complete myth? An unfunded pension is simply a system whereby present-day workers pay for present-day pensions in the hope that future workers will pay for their pensions. There is no technical problem as a matter of arithmetic, let alone economics, with an unfunded pension scheme. It certainly has nothing to do with EMU.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no technical problem with any version of funding of pensions; the issue is one of intergenerational equity. We must ensure that no generation is forced to pay both for its own pensions and for those of its parents or children.

Vitamin B6
2.59 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their decision to restrict the general sale of Vitamin B6.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government have no plans to reconsider their decision to limit the level of Vitamin B6 in dietary supplements sold under food law.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It seems particularly perverse in the light of the Government's stance on the sale of organophosphates and the huge body of scientific literature on peripheral neuropathy, psychoneuropathy and damage to a good many of the organs in the body when there are only about 18 papers—I have seen the list that CoT has seen—showing that peripheral nerve damage is caused by Vitamin B6 in overdose and not at doses below 250 milligrams, except as stated in the much disputed Dalton paper. Can the Minister look at one or other case—either organophosphates or Vitamin B6—and decide which is right?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, our stand is not perverse. There is a consistency in that our policy both on the recommended dosage of Vitamin B6 in foods and our stand on OPs is the consequence of the official scientific advice we have taken. There are differences between the two. The regime for OPs is much stricter in terms of licensing and controls over sales and use. B6 has a lighter regime. Whether the regime for controlling OPs is strict enough is a question on which our scientific advice says "Yes". The noble Countess disagrees. I personally would not discourage her from continuing to ask her questions.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that he might do very well to recall that the noble Countess is, first, very persistent and, secondly,

749
very often right? There is at least a possibility, remote as it may seem to him, that the Government or the department concerned have got it wrong.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I always appreciate the noble Lord's questions and normally agree with them. It had crossed my mind, long before I took this job, that the noble Countess could be right in a number of ways. I have conducted my job so far on the basis of that possibility.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, following on from that, perhaps I may ask the Minister who are the members of the Committee on Toxicity and what areas of interest they represent.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Committee on Toxicity has 15 members. They are appointed for their expertise. They are basically scientists or medics. Their interest in terms of expertise is in the broad area of relevant sciences. If they have financial interests, they are required to declare them.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any studies on the British population which show the uptake of Vitamin B6 rather than the intake of Vitamin B6? Is 10 milligrams of Vitamin B6 sufficient in terms of intake?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, there have been a number of surveys on this matter. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy in 1991 recommended the average daily intake required for the purpose that these particular nutrients perform. It was 1.4 milligrams a day for men and 1.2 milligrams a day for women. Many studies—the noble Countess referred to them—and many official bodies have accepted that 50 milligrams and above is potentially a dangerous dose if used over a prolonged period. It was on the advice of the Committee on Toxicity and our Food Advisory Committee that we accepted 10 milligrams as a recommended daily dose for food supplements. We are not discussing medicines. Other countries take different numbers, but often, especially in Europe, less. For the assistance of the House, perhaps I may point out that one can get one's recommended daily dose of Vitamin B6 from the consumption of 12 pints of beer a day.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand the Government's position to be that Vitamin B6 deficiency is rare and that therefore to restrict the availability of Vitamin B supplements would not be widely felt. Is the Minister aware of a recent study by David Benton and others of a number of young British adults which reveals that 42.3 per cent. of males and 63.7 per cent. of females had a Vitamin B status which was in either the marginal or the deficient range? If he is aware of that, has he any comment?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am not aware of that study. Since starting this job I have read all kinds of documents that I shrewdly spent my previous life ignoring. The basic survey was conducted in 1990.
750
It demonstrated, or claimed to demonstrate, that a deficiency of Vitamin B6 was very rare. The Committee on Toxicity looked at 100 studies on various aspects of the subject. It was still convinced that Vitamin B6 deficiency was rare. I shall inquire about the significance or weight of the study to which the noble Earl refers.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord. The study was on the intake and not the uptake. Particular groups of individuals, such as women on the pill, women on hormone replacement therapy, and people like myself who have been chemically poisoned, need extra doses of Vitamin B6 because their metabolism has been altered by the other chemicals that are affecting them. Those people rely on purchases of Vitamin B6 from healthfood shops. There will be enormous expense to the health service if we all go to our GPs for prescriptions. Has that been taken into account?
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords. I think we can say that. The restraints we have applied refer only to food supplements. Vitamin B6 can still be licensed and be available from a pharmacist in amounts up to 49 milligrams a day. A doctor can prescribe more than 50 milligrams. Those who have complaints for which Vitamin B6 is an appropriate remedy can still get it from the pharmacist or from the doctor. It is not our information that this imposes a particular extra burden.

Prisoners: Suicides
3.7 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prisoners in England and Wales have taken their own lives in the financial year 1997-98 so far, and of these, how many were male remand prisoners under the age of 21.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, 48 prisoners in England and Wales have taken their own lives since 1st April 1997, including one male remand prisoner under the age of 21.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not that indicate that there has been a further steep increase in the rate of self-inflicted deaths since the start of this year? Bearing in mind that only 27 per cent. of the prisoners who took their own lives in the last financial year were being monitored at the time of their death, do we not have to admit that our identification of those at risk is not very reliable? Can the Minister say whether any of the 18 young men under 21 who suffered self-inflicted death in the past year were being monitored at the time and whether, in view of this tragic loss of life, the Government will ask the recently appointed assistant

751
director for young prisoners to address the question of prevention as a matter of the highest priority, taking into consideration that at the Army's institution for young offenders there have been no self-inflicted deaths in the past five years?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, during the past 10 years the overall trend as regards suicide has been an annual increase of 6 to 8 per cent. However, against the rise in the prison population, of which your Lordships are well aware, during the past three years the number of deaths has reduced slightly from 127 to 116 per 100,000. So far, 64 prisoner have died. If sustained, that would be a rate of 118. The noble Lord raised some further matters. I appreciate that there were more than two questions but these are sufficiently serious matters for me to deal with them. Of course the assistant director will have this very much in mind. It is an extremely important question. The noble Lord asked whether the young men who died were being monitored. They would have been monitored, but plainly the monitoring failed. I say with all candour that I know of no monitoring system that will ever bring about a situation where no inmate in a custodial institution is unable to take his or her life.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister familiar with the Howard League report on young offenders, Banged up, Beaten up, Cutting up, which was produced by a committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws? Does he accept the concern expressed in the report that prison overcrowding is making it increasingly difficult to protect prisoners from other prisoners? In particular, does he accept the recommendation of the report that prisoners should no longer be allowed to keep razor blades in their cells?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware of the contents of that report. There is no evidence that overcrowding of itself results in an increase in suicide. There is a large number of prisoners who prefer to share cells because it mitigates the loneliness and boredom of the day. Obviously, the Government are paying particular attention to the Kennedy Report, as they are to other reports. The fact that the Director of the Prison Service, Mr. Richard Tilt, recently recirculated the useful document Caring for the Suicidal in Custody demonstrates that this issue is treated with great seriousness.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the pioneering work of the Children's Society in its remand and rescue initiative, which is officially launched today, has secured the release from remand of over 50 youngsters in the first six months and that that demonstrates many more young people on remand could be supervised in the community and thus be at far less risk of suicide, self-harm, bullying and criminal contamination?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that question and also for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it so that I might do useful research. The Government believe that the initiative which the right reverend Prelate has specified, and the work of NACRO's juvenile remand review group, are very helpful in assisting the court with information when it makes remand decisions. The youth justice reform programme, to which reference was made earlier to your Lordships, will include measures for improving the delivery of youth justice services. One of the extremely important proposals which cannot be over-stressed will include placing a statutory duty on local authorities to provide appropriate access to youth justice services, which will include bail support. Accordingly, that should help the pressures on the juvenile remand system as well as on the wider prison estate.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that these appalling figures are due to the equally appalling conditions in which remand prisoners are still kept in England and Wales? Does he further agree that 18 years ago the May Report condemned the conditions of remand prisoners as being unacceptable? Those conditions are exactly the same today, but twice as bad, because of the canker, as it has been called, of overcrowding. Will the Minister tell the House whether this Government are as complacent as the last one was about this appalling blot on the penal system in this country?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I well remember reading the admirable report which Sir John May produced, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, pointed out, several years ago. Remand suicides form over half the total number of deaths. It is an extremely difficult problem. This Government are not complacent. As your Lordships will know, I repeated, with the leave of the House, a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary which dealt specifically with returning prisoners who are at the end of their sentences to the community on the basis of electronic tagging. That is a useful, partial first step to deal with these problems. There can be no doubt that there are problems. It is wholly untrue to suggest that this Government are complacent.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, bearing in mind that it will take several years to provide the institutions for young people on remand outside the prison system, will the Government consider extending the electronic bracelet system, which the Home Secretary has announced will be proposed for people approaching the end of their sentences, to those young people on remand who are most at risk?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are eager to look at every practical step that there may be to reduce unnecessary remand prison population. If the tagging system works, subject to the proviso that public safety is properly secured, we shall attend to it.

Ferry Passengers: UK Entry Procedure
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will advise ferry operators how to identify, among prospective passengers possessing all the necessary personal papers and documents for travel and entry into the United Kingdom, those who will not be permitted by the British immigration authorities to stay in this country.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the authority to grant or refuse leave to enter is vested in the immigration officer at the point of entry. This authority cannot be exercised without a proper interview, nor in advance of the ferry passenger arriving in the United Kingdom. While advice may be given in general terms as to liability for detention and removal costs, the decision whether or not to carry a passenger is ultimately a commercial decision for the carrying companies.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Why cannot ferries be treated like Eurotunnel where British officials, stationed on the French side, take quick decisions on passengers before they cross the Channel instead of the ferries being expected to pay for expensive return journeys for correctly documented tourist visitors who have, much later, applied for asylum?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, carrying passengers for commercial purposes is exactly that. If commercial organisations wish to take a commercial risk, sometimes there will be adverse financial consequences. For the life of me, I cannot see why the taxpayer should pay for what may have been a commercial misjudgment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says about commercial risk, but does he agree that the safety of life at sea is more important than immigration control? Does he further agree that a ferry from Ireland to France, putting into, say, Plymouth rather than founder at sea in a gale, should be immune from penalties under the carrier's liability Act?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course I agree that the safety of life, whether at sea or on land, is infinitely more important than commercial considerations. But the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is really dealing with the situation that your Lordships well know about at Dover. It has nothing to do with misadventure at sea—stormy winds driving a ferry into a particular port—but is concerned with ferry companies deliberately, for purposes which are commercial, carrying passengers from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I repeat that if they wish to make those commercial decisions, the Government believe, rightly, I suggest, that if commercial mischance comes about, the company should pay and not the taxpayer.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is it correct that the gypsy visitors from central Europe were actuated by
754
television programmes giving the impression that seeking asylum produced a worthwhile stay in Britain? Did they not also believe that even if their application was unsuccessful, they would still be welcome because of the impression given by Labour and Liberal Democrat spokesmen when in opposition?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I dare say that television programmes had some influence on some of the people who came from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Quite which programme I simply cannot say. I do now know. It may have been the televised proceedings of your Lordships' House which caused them to want to come here. That is possible, but unlikely. The fact is that these unfortunate people have come here to better themselves. We recognise that. But our system of immigration control is not designed for people in that category. We have to make it perfectly plain that the immigration and asylum regime will be properly, fairly and efficiently put into practice. That is what we have done. I believe it is significant that the numbers coming have fallen very significantly. Since the ameliorative regime which the Home Secretary introduced, namely, the opportunity for making further representations, the numbers have been very significantly reduced.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House, will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the Jobs Summit.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTESS in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Acts of public authorities]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("one or more of").
The noble and learned Lord said: We now come to Clause 6, which is one of the most important clauses in this important Bill because on its terms depends to what extent persons who are aggrieved in this country by offences against their human rights still have to go to Strasbourg—in other words, it is a question of how widely "public authorities", which are the only bodies specifically enjoined to observe the provisions of the convention, are defined.
At first sight, the amendment appears to be a drafting amendment, as it is, but it is an important one. Clause 6(1) has, I think, an unintended effect on the Bill. It states:
"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with one or more of the Convention rights".
The amendment seeks to leave out the words "one or more of', so that the subsection will read,
"incompatible with the Convention rights".
That is because in some cases and, importantly, in the case of Article 8 (which guarantees privacy) and Article 10 (which gives the right to free expression) those two articles have to be balanced one against the other. What I am sure is an unintended effect is produced if attention is drawn only to one of those articles.
Perhaps I may give the Committee an example. The BBC is undoubtedly a public authority under the Bill as drafted. On the whole, the BBC is pretty good at observing the decencies of privacy. If there is one criticism to be made, it is perhaps that, like most photographers, the BBC's photographers seem to be most particularly engaged by expressions of human grief. They tend to take photographs of persons who are in tears after suffering some grievous sorrow. There is an example—it does not relate to the BBC—which came to the notice of the Press Complaints Commission and was upheld, of a local newspaper photographer photographing some sorrowing relatives as they returned from a funeral. Supposing the BBC had done that: it could be alleged that the BBC had offended against Article 8 which guarantees privacy, but it would have been entitled to say in an appropriate case that that article had to be balanced against the article giving a right to free expression.
This is an extremely well drafted Bill, as has been consistently pointed out in this Committee. That is not due merely to the draftsman (although this is obviously a most able draftsman); it is also due to my noble and learned friend because this is very much a Minister's Bill and its various components have been extremely accurately and skilfully fitted together so that it is a coherent and cogent whole. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated at an earlier stage, it is nevertheless a human artefact and human artefacts are liable, like all human endeavours, to be fallible. I suggest that there is a mistake in directing that one of the convention rights is sufficient to put the public authority in peril. As I see those two crucial convention rights operating, they have to be held in balance and the point of balance will, I think, be the public benefit.
Justice will hold the scales of justice with those two convention rights, one in one pan and one in the other, and will weigh the one against the other, the fulcrum being the public interest so that if there is only one to be considered, the Bill does not operate as I am sure that the Government and all those noble Lords who support the Bill, as I do, intend it to operate. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his welcoming words about the general quality of the
756
drafting of the Bill. I know that the officials who hear his words will welcome them, particularly as they come from such a distinguished source. I entirely endorse the noble and learned Lord's description of the internal code of the BBC as being a strict model which is generally regarded as a suitable code and which seems to be vigorously policed by the BBC.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on a number of occasions, what is intended as a consequence of the Bill, should it become law, is that a balancing act will necessarily have to be undertaken between Article 8 on privacy and Article 10 on freedom of expression. I entirely endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said about the balancing exercise.
On earlier occasions the noble and learned Lord has sometimes chided us for having too adamant an approach towards any proposal for improvement. We have considered this amendment (because it might have been reached on an earlier occasion) and we should like to reflect on it with care and on whether the phrase which ultimately appears in the Bill should be,
"one or more of the Convention rights",
as at present or, if the noble and learned Lord's amendment is successful, "the Convention rights", or the third alternative, which has been suggested in the interval between our first consideration in Committee and today, which is "a Convention right". I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept my assurance that we shall reflect carefully on those three alternatives—that is, on the noble and learned Lord's proposed amendment, on the present wording, and on the further suggestion of "a Convention right"—and that we shall return to the matter at the next stage.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: That is a very welcome change from the first day of Committee when we had unremitting negatives from the Government. On that occasion, Members of the Committee were probably reminded of Goethe' s description of Mephistofeles as the spirit that always says "No". I would be very reluctant to see my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the company of Mephistofeles. I very much welcome the change indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that the Government will reflect upon the matter. It is a notable approvement. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 3, line 40, at end insert ("except where the public authority is a person who is a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3) and the nature of the act is private").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. If I do not altogether agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has just said about the drafting of the Bill, I should point out that in this case I am seeking to make good drafting better. I was not able to be present when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading, but I have read and re-read all that was said on that occasion.I should like to think that my

757
amendment is constructive and that I may receive the same kind of warm commendation for it as the noble and learned Lord has just received for his. However, if I do not, I feel sure that it will tease something more out of the Government with regard to the complications surrounding the definition of "public authority" in Clause 6.
The amendment deals with subsection (3)(c), which provides that the expression "public authority" should include,
"any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
The drafting that I would also like to see improved is to be found is subsection (5) which says:
In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(c) if the nature of the act is private".
I readily concede that, by all the normal standards of convoluted drafting, that subsection is crystal clear. Nevertheless, I found it bizarre to read that a person may ape the chameleon and be a public authority at one moment in relation to an act the nature of which is not private, but not be a public authority the next moment where the nature of the act is private. It seems to me that if a simple drafting amendment could allow a public authority to be a public authority for all the Bill's purposes, without in any way altering the sense of the legislation, it would be useful and make the understanding of what the Administration means by a "public authority" just a little more clearer and more accessible.
With my amendment, and my support for Amendment No. 42 which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Wakeham—to leave out subsection (5)—I seek to provide that under subsection (3)(c) a "public authority" does not act unlawfully if it is acting privately. I hope that that suggestion will find favour with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend Lord Coleraine said about his amendment, which he described merely as a drafting amendment. I have to say that we on this side of the Committee find Clause 6 rather difficult. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that "public authority" was fully defined in Clause 6. We have tabled a number of later amendments with which we shall be exploring that point. I should imagine that we shall be exploring it after the Statement has been repeated by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
It would, therefore, be of some use if the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government could say a little more when responding to my noble friend's amendment on the definition of "public authority", so as to allow us a little time to ponder over such matters before we come to deal with later amendments on the clause. I certainly find it a very difficult clause to understand—and I speak not as an eminent lawyer as most speakers in this debate have been—and, indeed, a very difficult concept to understand. It would be useful to have such matters explained. I appreciate that it is often most difficult to
758
explain them in language which a simple person can understand, but I would like to hear the exact meaning of the definition explained in simple terms.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: As one of the later amendments has already been referred to and because of the way in which the amendments are grouped, I feel that I ought to say a few words reflecting the other side of the coin as regards Amendment No. 43, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Meston. My noble friend is currently detained in one of Her Majesty's courts in Chelmsford and apologises for his absence.
If one looks at Amendment No. 43, it will be seen that, as I shall explain later, it is designed to ensure that the mere fact that something is categorised as private will not necessarily take it outside the scope of the clause, especially as regards certain employment relationships. I shall return to that aspect later, unless the Committee would find it more convenient for me to deal with it now. I should point out that the matter has been raised by the Bar Council and is of some importance.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will forgive me, I shall not deal with Amendment No. 43 now bearing in mind the groupings which I believe have been agreed. We suggest that "public authority" is plainly defined in Clause 6. When the Bill is enacted, one will be dealing with two types of public authority—those which everyone would recognise as being plainly public authorities in the exercise of their functions, and those public authorities which are public authorities because, in part of their functions, they carry out what would be regarded as public functions. Examples vary, but I believe that the courts will have in mind changing social economic and cultural conditions when they come to consider particular decisions on particular aspects of a public authority.
We suggest that the purpose behind the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already brings about what he wishes to achieve. As Members of the Committee have seen, Clause 6(1) makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible at present—subject to reflection on the amendment that we have just discussed—with convention rights. Clause 6(3)(c) provides that a "public authority" includes,
"any person certain of whose functions are of a public nature".
Clause 6(5) provides that:
"In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(c) if the nature of the act is private".
I believe that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave an illustration on an earlier occasion. For example, Railtrack has statutory public powers and functions as the safety regulatory authority; but, equally, it may well carry out private transactions, such as the disposal of, the acquisition of, or the development of property.
If one follows the scheme through, we suggest that it is perfectly capable of being understood. The amendment would exempt from the prohibition in

759
Clause 6(1) a public authority falling within Clause 6(3) in respect of its private acts. However, I venture to suggest to the Committee that that is already achieved, we say satisfactorily, by subsection (5). The other public authorities specified in Clause 6(3) are courts and tribunals which, we think, are in a very similar position to obvious public authorities, such as government departments, in that all their acts are to be treated as being of such a public nature as to engage the convention. I hope that I have given a helpful explanation—indeed, my response was intended to be helpful—and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: Having heard what the Minister said in regard to my amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Jobs Summit
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the special European Council on employment in Luxembourg on 21st November which was attended by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The Council's conclusions have been placed in the Library. The Statement is as follows:
"Unemployment in Europe represents not only personal tragedy on a huge scale but also a tremendous waste of economic talent and potential. At the Amsterdam European Council in June jobs were given the top priority they should always have had. We agreed then a new treaty framework for action on employment, the Employment Chapter. The aim was a co-ordinated strategy to promote a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce and flexible labour markets responsive to economic change. At Luxembourg, the first time the European Council has met just to discuss jobs, we decided how to put this Amsterdam aim into effect.
"Let me make it clear at the outset that we are not creating new EU competences or new EU spending programmes, although we have agreed some useful redeployment of existing resources. What we can agree at European level is the broad lines of a practical approach to job creation. We can commit ourselves to finding and following best practice wherever appropriate. What we therefore sought and agreed was a set of common practical objectives to be enshrined in non-binding guidelines for national employment policies.
760
"At the heart of Europe's new approach is the need to create the right macroeconomic framework and to move more rapidly on the structural reform of labour markets. Removing barriers to the completion of the single market remains crucial, but the role of small firms in creating jobs is now recognised as central, as is the need to create a simpler regulatory and administrative environment for business. These are all ideas which we have promoted and to which we can subscribe wholeheartedly.
"There were three points at the heart of our discussions: first, an adaptable and skilled workforce responsive to economic change. The emphasis must be on education, skills, technology and an active employment service. We need flexibility, not in the sense of hire and fire management but in the sense of businesses and employees being able to respond to new and changing economic conditions. Secondly, there is entrepreneurship, especially small business. This is where many of the new jobs we need must come from, and we must nurture this sector. Thirdly, we must tackle structural unemployment. This cannot be lowered simply by demand management. We want neither laissez-faire nor old-style state intervention but targeted measures specifically directed at the long-term and young unemployed.
"Under adaptability, the Council endorsed the idea of modernising work organisation, including flexible working arrangements to help companies be both productive and competitive. In an important step forward, it also agreed to examine any new regulations to make sure they reduce barriers to employment and help labour markets adapt to structural economic changes. This was a particular British initiative.
"Under entrepreneurship, the focus was the vital role of small and medium-sized enterprises. It was agreed that member states should make starting and running businesses easier by reducing the overhead costs and administrative burdens, in particular of taking on extra staff. More widely, it was agreed that taxation and benefit systems should be made more employment friendly, for example by reducing the tax burden on both labour and other non-wage labour costs where they are at levels which hinder job creation. Some countries are keen to consider the reduction of VAT on labour-intensive services not exposed to cross-border competition.
"To tackle structural unemployment, the Council agreed an approach based on employability. There should be specific commitments to improve the ability of individuals to get and retain jobs, with special emphasis on youth and long-term unemployment. In particular, all member states undertook to offer a fresh start in terms of training or similar measures to all young people unemployed for six months and all adults unemployed for 12 months. A specific target of 20 per cent. was set for the number of unemployed benefiting from active measures to improve their employability. There was also extra emphasis on ensuring that young people do not leave the school system too early and inadequately equipped for the jobs market.

761
"The Council also emphasised the importance of equal opportunities. In particular, there should be commitments aimed at tackling gender inequality, making it easier for parents to reconcile work and family life and addressing the problems of the disabled in the workplace.
"The actual guidelines setting out these practical objectives and commitments in more detail will be adopted by the end of the year. It will then be for member states to prepare national action plans on how they intend converting these into action. These plans will be subject to scrutiny by other partners. Each member state will be able to apply them in accordance with national circumstances but will be expected to address all the objectives in one way or another. We will review progress first at the Cardiff European Council in June.
"The Luxembourg Council also welcomed extra mobilisation of the resources of the European Investment Bank to improve economic performance. One billion ecu from the bank's reserves will be used over three years to finance new initiatives to help high tech SMEs. Of this, 125 million ecu has already been earmarked for a new European technology facility. The EIB is also starting to lend in the health, education and environment sectors and is stepping up its support for trans-European network projects. In addition, the European Council agreed in principle to redeploy 450 million ecu from the existing EC budget over three years to help job creation, again particularly supporting innovative and job-creating small and medium-sized enterprises. These financial measures will be helpful, but they of course play only a supporting role: reform of labour and product markets is the real key to improving Europe's employment performance.
"The Jobs Summit marks Europe's commitment to a new approach to create jobs and security for the future, not the old-fashioned free-for-all resulting in widespread social exclusion, nor loading more costs and regulations onto business, but a third way: investing in people, in their skills, in small businesses, and setting a stable, long-term framework for business and industry to plan for the future and create jobs. Education and training are the keys. The so-called European social model is being refocussed, based on a modern approach of reform, flexibility and investment in people. We aim to involve both sides of industry fully in this approach.
"We will use the UK Presidency next year to ensure that this is carried through in order to make a real difference to employment, employability and social inclusion. Luxembourg agreed an approach for the long term. Effective follow-up is vital.
"At Amsterdam we showed how a united British Government with a clear direction in Europe could make Britain's voice heard. At Luxembourg we showed how a constructive British approach could result in a new direction on tackling unemployment, an approach based on competitiveness, employability and labour market reform, combining job creation with a fair and cohesive society.
762
"We recognised at a European level the terrible personal damage which occurs each time an individual who is willing and anxious to work is still unable to find a job through no fault of his own. That is why this Labour Government are working for a Europe that is working for jobs. This approach is right for Britain, right for Europe and right for the people of Europe."
y Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I apologise that I appear to have given him my cold which must have made the job more onerous than usual. I hope that he will rapidly recover.
We welcome the fact that the European leaders discussed unemployment in Luxembourg. As has been pointed out on all sides of this House over many years, it is the greatest problem facing western Europe and, as the Statement says, Europe's young people in particular. Of course we welcome many of the aspirations expressed in the final communiqué, particularly measures such as the plan to do more to help the disabled and the aspiration to reduce the tax burden on wage and non-wage costs.
However, there are a number of matters to which I wish to draw attention. First, it is a pity that this huge practical problem was not addressed by our partners in Europe a little earlier. After all, your Lordships will remember that the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Major, was constantly pressing on our European colleagues the need to turn away from costly interventionist strategies and so help business and employment to grow. He received precious little support from the Labour Party at the time.
Secondly, when joblessness is addressed at a summit, it produces, perhaps typically for any summit of this kind, what appears to be a miasma of rhetoric rather than real, firm conclusions. Judging from the press reports we have read on the results of the summit and in view of references to "rows and confusion", one must ask oneself whether the heads of government are not to be congratulated on being able to agree a joint communique at all. Therefore, is this merely a papering over of the cracks or is there real substance behind it? Shall we really be able to look forward to action of the kind we have been advocating, which certainly the Prime Minister seems to have taken to heart, at least in part?
In that context, it was instructive that the French and British Prime Ministers occasionally, in their comments, appeared to have been at entirely different conferences. M. Jospin hailed it as a triumph for what he called a social Europe in which there would be more stated interventionism to create jobs. That is rather different from the rhetoric we heard from the Leader of the House this afternoon. Do the British Government retain a veto on social and employment affairs to prevent the kind of ideas which M. Jospin appears to be proposing? If the answer is anything but an unqualified "yes", the prospects for jobs in this country can only be damaged.

763
Is it not also the case that we should agree with the German Chancellor on one matter; his remark that,
"a patented recipe does not exist for everyone"?
I was glad to have the comfort of those words given the news we heard this morning; namely, that the independent council of economic advisers in Germany—the so-called five wise men—has warned that German unemployment may well pass 5 million this winter. I am sure that the Leader of the House will remember that the previous government scrupulously resisted the European model of more regulation and European Union interference in employment policy. We were criticised for that from the Benches opposite but the results entirely vindicate our stand. After all, our unemployment levels are lower than those of all our major European partners. Youth unemployment is falling at a rate that the Government's loftily named welfare to work programme never envisaged, long before government measures have come into effect. Small businesses are being formed and are expanding at a rate which would be the envy of most of our competitors. In fact, they are the envy of most of our competitors if newspaper reports are correct about the number of French businesses and individuals coming to settle in this country. One might think that even the Prime Minister, who so enthusiastically attacked each and every one of our measures in government, might have had the spirit to defend that British model without equivocation, instead of talking in—what has become a rather hackneyed phrase in my party—the third way.
What is that third way? It sounds like a stale rhetorical device, a path between laissez-faire economics and old-style intervention and protectionism. It smacks of the worst excesses of the mixed economy of the 1970s, cloaking policies which are pernicious in their effects with anodyne declarations against sin and in favour of motherhood.
It is true that the Prime Minister makes a nod in the direction of flexibility and deregulation, and we must welcome that. But the reality of the past five years is that experience has shown that the British route of deregulation is the best way to job creation and that the European route of regulation is a job destroyer. Therefore, I can see why the Prime Minister talks of businesses being able to respond to new conditions. I can see that very clearly. But then why does he shackle them with the social chapter that need never have been signed in the first place?
I can see why the Prime Minister talks of nurturing the small business sector. We are all in favour of that. But if so, why is he planning to hit many in that sector with a minimum wage and the working time directive? Equally, I can see why he talks of tackling structural unemployment. In that case, having inherited an economy which was the best job creator in Europe, why is he planning to tie Britain into a Europe-wide employment model?
Once more, I fear that there is a huge disparity between government words and deeds on the ground. For all we have heard today, is not the reality that all the actions the Government have taken since May will
764
make it more difficult for people to find jobs and keep them and for small businesses to expand? We have shown already that competition and free markets in a strong legislative framework are what create jobs, not a spurious middle way which looks to corporatist and centralised solutions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, from these Benches we also welcome the Statement. We consider that the concentration by the recent meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg on unemployment was a big step forward and to the extent that that was due to the initiatives of the British Government, we congratulate them.
Of course this will be an extremely difficult area, given the different approaches in the different countries. But the fact that they were prepared to come together and devote a whole Council meeting to the subject is highly laudable. It is important also that there will be a firm follow-up; that guidelines are to be agreed by the end of this year; and that individual government action plans must be prepared in time for the Cardiff Council meeting in June. Will there be adequate opportunity, when the British national action plan is prepared, for that to be debated fully in this House before the Cardiff meeting takes place? It is important that the Government should be aware of parliamentary opinion on the subject?
I turn to the detail of the Statement. Flexibility is obviously an extremely important issue. There is the UK flexible model as opposed to the continental social model, and it is contended in the document that somehow we have started to achieve a marriage between the two. How serious are the intentions of other countries in making themselves responsive to market changes? The British press at any rate was somewhat critical. One does not necessarily need to go by what the press says but it was felt generally that there was not very much progress in that direction. What about social charges? Was that subject tackled? Was there any response from the other countries that that is something which they regard as having to be urgently attended to?
On the role of the SMEs, it is satisfactory that more attention will be paid to small and medium sized firms and that certain measures backed up with financial support will be adopted. However, bearing in mind the enormous number of such firms throughout the European Union, the sums which are talked about are fairly small. Will it be open to individual member countries, if they so wish, to add to those resources in their own action plans?
On structural unemployment, again the measures which are contemplated are highly desirable but all would require additional resources. As I understand it, those resources will be made available by reallocating existing Community resources. Will that be sufficient for this important purpose? Taken all together, this is an important step forward. We very much welcome it. We look forward to the publication of the guidelines and in particular to the UK action plan.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful for much of the response. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, gave

765
a pretty unqualified welcome to what was achieved. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, did not give an unqualified welcome. I have some sympathy for him. He was not quite sure whether to say, "Yes, it is absolutely splendid and it is all due to us" or "They have not really achieved anything". I say respectfully to the noble Viscount that it is difficult to run the two together. Of course, we are not pretending that this is anything greater than it is. However, it is the first European summit that has been devoted to employment. It is the first time that member states have committed themselves to something substantial and positive and have committed themselves to action as opposed to rhetoric. Further, it is the first time in my experience—I had some limited experience in dealing with these matters when I was in the Commission—that there has been some cash on the table, modest though it is.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked whether 450 million ecu would be sufficient. I do not know. Of course, it is not sufficient to create jobs throughout the whole of the Community but it is enough to start. It is also an important step that the European Investment Bank is making no fewer than 1 billion ecu available over three years. Whether that will be sufficient I cannot say. What is important is that not only have a framework and guidelines been agreed but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, there is a mechanism for following that up. I know as well as anyone in this House that all too often European Councils have emerged with forms of words which on the face of it look reasonable but little has happened afterwards. That is true not only of the European Council but of Councils of Ministers too. The test will be whether member states take this measure seriously. All I can say to the House is that on the evidence of this European Council they are taking it seriously. They all agreed to it after a period of bargaining and there is a follow-up procedure. Action plans must be drawn up. These will be public in the sense that each member state's action plan will be available to the others and they will be discussed at the European Council next June.
The proof of this particular pudding will be how many people in employment will be capable of eating it. However, some time will have to pass before that is evident. I hope that I do not claim too much for the measure. The noble Viscount asked me a large number of questions about policy in Germany and in France and whether the French Prime Minister was accurate in his description of the Council, or whether the British Prime Minister or Chancellor Kohl, were accurate in their descriptions. He will know that countries tend to meet at European level and then issue their own press statements. I am not responsible for what M. Jospin says, nor Chancellor Kohl nor Sig. Prodi, nor, I am happy to say, for what any of them say. It seems to me that what is important is what they agreed to. It is that which we have and it is that which will be helpful in the long run.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the attitude of Ministers to the minimum wage? What is the attitude of the Government now to the minimum wage? There is nothing said about it in the Statement. Apparently
766
nothing was agreed to and yet this is an important issue which we discussed in the House long before the election. We always said that it would make for unemployment and that it was not useful for small businesses. The Labour Party always took an opposite view. Can the noble Lord explain where we have got to now?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Labour Party fought an election in favour of a minimum wage. It was elected as a government in favour of a minimum wage. It is still in favour of a minimum wage and has started the procedure for implementing a minimum wage. The Minimum Wage Commission is set up and it will consider the appropriate level of that minimum wage.
I wish to deal with a point which is perhaps implicit in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Of course the European Council did not consider issues such as a minimum wage for workers in the United Kingdom; that is not part of its remit. It considered the extent to which action in common, based upon a commonality of guidelines—if I can put it that way—could be taken and how far individual countries could go along that particular road and make a dent in the unemployment figures. That is what this measure is about. One should neither elevate it to a position above its importance nor—I say this with great respect to the other side—should one downgrade it to a position that it clearly does not deserve. It comprises a number of useful steps in the right direction in which I think Europe and this country should go.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the nearly quarter century that I have had the honour of being a Member of your Lordships' House I have never heard the report of an international gathering, particularly that relating to the European Community, that contains so much waffle and so little substance. It seems to me to have been assumed by all those concerned at the conference that unemployment essentially was the fault of the people who were unemployed and that somehow the onus was strictly upon them to reach that standard of qualification which would ultimately—there is no date fixed—lead to their being absorbed into industry and into various services. I see that I have the agreement of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, as he nodded. However, I point out to him that he himself assumes that the figure of unemployment in the United Kingdom bears no relationship to the figures that have been published which relate, in the main, to claimant unemployment, whereas the quarterly survey that is carried out reveals authentically that unemployment in the United Kingdom amounts to 2,800,000, and in all probability is somewhere nearer 4 million. What is offered by the Community at large in the conference that has taken place apart from a lot of pious platitudes that reveal no resolve whatever to solve the problems of unemployment but merely paper it over and make its existence politically palatable to the citizens of Europe? Surely we require a little better than that.
Will it not immediately be agreed by Her Majesty's Government that no matter what they say at these conferences—which come out with such platitudes

767
—the economic development of the Community is following precisely the rules of Maastricht which lay down precisely the economic and financial policies to be followed, and which have been followed, resulting in an increase from 15 million to 18 million in total unemployment in Europe? Let it not be assumed for one moment that unemployment, even at the existing claimed figure of 1,300,000, which is scandalous, can be maintained concurrently with the statement that we as a country, or Europe as a continent, is following sound economic policies. Sound to whom, my Lords? Sound to the City of London? Sound to the financial interests and the capital interests in Europe at large, and in this country in particular, but which inflict unnecessary unemployment and suffering upon not only the members of the United Kingdom but also the workers in Europe as a whole?
Lord Richard: My Lords, my noble friend says that he has attended this House for 25 years and has never heard a report from an international gathering with so much waffle and so little substance. I have not sat in this House for 25 years. However, during the seven or eight years that I have attended here, I have heard many interventions from my noble friend—and they are many, far more than reports put forward from international conferences. I do not think that even from my noble friend I have heard an intervention which, frankly, was such a travesty of the real situation.
My noble friend began by denying the value of training, as though somehow or other those Governments which took part in this conference were blaming the unemployed because they were not properly trained. No, we are not blaming the unemployed but we are blaming the system which has left them untrained. We are setting up a set of structures which will train them. For many years I have had a basic belief that if you train someone to do a job, on the whole he has a better chance of finding work than if he is untrained. I am bound to say that I was flabbergasted to hear my noble friend advance his argument today.
My noble friend said that nothing was agreed. For the first time in my experience there is money on the table. Cash is available to small and medium-sized enterprises in order for them to try to take on more labour. There is an agreement at European level that all the nations of the Community will advance in the same direction as regards unemployment. Not only that, there is a set of agreed guidelines; an action plan for each country is to be agreed; action plans for each country are to be followed up.
I would have expected that the attack by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington would have been that the conference infringed his sacred principles of subsidiarity and national competence rather than that the European Council had not gone far enough.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those given to the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal. It is refreshing to see
768
co-operation between member states of the European Union after such a long period in which such co-operation was virtually impossible. That co-operation appears to have commended itself in a substantial way to the electors of Winchester—somewhat more than have the nationalist attitudes of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Perhaps I may also say how refreshing it is to see the attempt to reduce non-wage costs and to introduce family friendly policies.
In asking the noble Lord these questions, I should declare an interest as the chairman of the job creation competition programme in the European Union. First, does the noble Lord recognise that skill shortages are re-emerging already in countries like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, where unemployment is falling albeit not so fast as the official figures in both countries suggest? Secondly, at the Job Summit was there discussion of further measures which might be taken to encourage skilled training in the small and medium-sized enterprises to which the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, referred? Finally, with regard to the co-operation principles underlying employment programmes put forward by member states, will the noble Lord confirm that the purpose of the third way was to reduce unemployment without the massive increase in poverty and inequities which unquestionably defaced the record of the previous government?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introductory remarks.
Perhaps I may say a word about skills shortages. Many years ago when I was in Brussels—we were at the height of a major depression—it struck me that the ultimate irony and expression of incompetence on the part of member states would be to emerge from that recession needing skilled labour which was not there. It could only mean that our training policies had failed. Whether there was any specific discussion in relation to training in the SMEs I do not know. I shall inquire. If there is anything I can usefully add, I shall of course tell the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness is right when she describes the third way principle. It is an attempt—I think that it is worth an attempt—to see to what extent one can have all the nations of Europe co-operating in a certain direction without committing themselves over much on one side or the other to a plain and perhaps over-precise statement of economic ideology.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, on reflection, does the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, agree that what has come out of this summit is an agreement that different member states should pursue the reduction of unemployment, which is their common goal, by their own measures; and that there is no need to worry about subsidiarity because it is there? On hearing the statements by the Prime Minister of France to go no further, is it not likely that when the action plans are

769
circulated the French and, let us say, the United Kingdom action plans, will be substantially different? In the light of that, if the noble Lord agrees with me, will there not be something to be said for not having summits? Summit meetings remove from our affairs the Prime Minister who has many serious issues to confront. He cannot benefit from this constant jumping onto aircraft which seems to be a characteristic of modern statesmanship. Would it not be good to have a moratorium on summits for a year or two to see whether in the meantime we and other countries can reach the goal of reducing unemployment—a goal that we all cherish?
Lord Richard: My Lords, as regards the last part of the noble Lord's question, before 1st May of this year I was in favour of almost continual summits, preferably at long distances from the United Kingdom. My attitude on the absence of Prime Ministers from the United Kingdom may have modified slightly since then. However, of course these are important issues. They are important discussions on important subjects.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says that if the countries act according to their own national plan, why bother with a summit? I was trying to think of a phrase which summed up my perception of the issue as opposed to his. The summit seeks to achieve guided co-operation, if I may use a phrase which will appeal to the noble Lord. These proposals are not compulsory. There is an agreement to co-operate for sensible, common aims. There are broad agreements on the guidelines which govern that co-operation. The proposal does not seek to go further than that at this stage. Whether or not one is in favour of being in the European Union, I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with that.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I wonder whether he agrees with me that the reduction in barriers to women entering the job market is not merely teaching them about apple pie and motherhood, as the Leader of the Opposition seems to think. Am I correct in thinking that while our Prime Minister has contributed ideas which, with the new Labour Government, are fresh to European thinking, Britain has also been receptive to ideas developed on the Continent of Europe? Will he confirm in particular that our emphasis on reducing barriers to women and disabled people entering the job market received a warm welcome among our European partners, and that their emphasis on injecting demand into the economy was welcomed by the Prime Minister, as evidenced in investment by the European Investment Bank?
The general emphasis on training as a prerequisite to ensuring that the skills shortages referred to do not become significantly apparent is welcome right across the board. I am sure that there is agreement right across Europe on that important measure.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am in the happy, almost totally unprecedented position of being able to agree with every word that my noble friend has said.
770
It does not happen all that often; but on this occasion, I do. He is quite right. In this area, as in many others, we have ideas, some of which our European partners believe are helpful; they have ideas which, eventually, the British Government believe are helpful.
One is in a slightly reminiscing mood this afternoon. I am not quite sure why. One of the pleasures I receive from examining recent events in Europe is seeing that that terribly modest little proposal of mine, which was rubbished by the previous government for many years—namely, the parental leave directive—is now to be implemented. That is quite a good example of the way in which the Government now approach these matters. My noble friend is quite right.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, an interesting point made by the noble Lord was that some countries have it in mind to reduce VAT in some areas. Will he comment further on that? Will he say which countries have it in mind, and in which areas; and was the United Kingdom among them?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the answer to the final part of the question is no. What I believe happened is that some countries felt that in certain local areas there were small-scale enterprises which would benefit from a reduction in VAT in that specific sector and in that particular country. It had nothing to do with an overall European approach, but was limited to small areas. There was a certain amount of discussion about the matter. It was felt that the approach might be worth exploring, and if one country wanted to include it in its action plan, clearly it would have to be considered in the future. There is no commitment whatsoever on the part of the United Kingdom Government.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if we are wandering down memory lane, perhaps I may say, first, how right the Government are in emphasising the importance of investment in human capital: in educating and improving the training of the labour force. Some of us have been saying that for 30 years or more. There is nothing new about it. Is my noble friend aware that that makes the labour force more employable; it does not make the labour force more employed? Unless I misheard the Statement, it seemed to say that these days no one believes in demand management. I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that if, next year, we follow the lead of the Bank of England, which has already decided that demand is rising too rapidly—and it appears as if the Treasury believes that as well—most of us believe that, if we were then to cut back on demand for other reasons, unemployment would rise, despite everybody's good intentions with respect to the labour force. When my noble friend next meets his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the

771
Exchequer, I hope that he will point out that demand still has a central role to play in determining how many people are employed.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I cannot imagine that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would disagree with somebody so economically literate as my noble friend.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
4.25 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 6.
Lord Wakeham Lord Wakeham moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert ("or
(c) where the public authority is a court or tribunal and the parties to the proceedings before it do not include any public authority.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and 42.
As the Committee will know, it is right for me to declare an interest as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. The commission's job is to protect the legitimate expectation of privacy on the part of individuals—but to do so through self-regulation rather than statutory control.
Let me begin by saying that I have no great problem with the principles of the convention. My problem is not with the principle, but with the method. In short, the detail of the Bill and the consequences of that detail seem to do something which I profoundly do not want to happen; nor I believe do the Government. The Bill as drafted would damage the freedom of the press and badly wound the system of tough and effective self-regulation that we have built up to provide quick remedies without cost for ordinary citizens. It would inevitably introduce a privacy law, despite the Government's stated opposition to one.
As will be clear, I speak not as a lawyer but as a layman. From that standpoint, it seems to me that the first problem arises because of the role of the courts as public authorities enforcing the convention and developing the common law. As I understand it, it will therefore be possible for the courts to use the convention not just in respect of disputes between individuals and public authorities but in disputes between private individuals.
Again, that is contrary, as I understand it, to the Government's previously and clearly stated intentions. Indeed, the White Paper accompanying the publication of the Bill stated that,
"the time has come to enable people to enforce their Convention rights against the State in the British courts".
No mention was made of private individuals or organisations.
In my view the Government were right first time. Incorporation of the convention should not be used to enlarge the remedies available in private disputes. It
772
must be made clear, as the Government have maintained before and since the election, that it is to be used to curb the power of the state.
I have tabled two sets of amendments to clarify that point and to prevent the courts being dragged into disputes which are nothing to do with public authorities. The first set seeks to prevent the courts using the convention to interfere in issues relating to privacy where those are matters between private parties and do not involve the state. I might add that I think the amendment tabled to Clause 9 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—Amendment No. 60—relates to the same point.
My amendment aims to stop the development of a common law of privacy. Such a law could never be as effective as self-regulation in safeguarding the rights of individuals. And such a law would seriously erode the freedom of the press, which has been a pillar of our democracy since the first Bill of Rights in 1689.
It would also be highly damaging to ordinary people—in other words, the great majority of those who from time to time are affected by media intrusion—leaving them without the protection of self-regulation. For most people, going to law to protect their privacy would be a ruinously expensive business which few could afford. They simply would not do it. Given that, as I know from experience of the Press Complaints Commission, very few cases of invasion of privacy are clear-cut, I do not believe that the plan of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for a "no-win, no-fee" system of costs will work in these kinds of cases.
If there is a law of privacy, fashioned by the courts, I fear that the newspapers will simply say to complainants, "Use it". That will be fine for the rich and the powerful, but it will be a remedy out of the reach of ordinary people. Indeed, where there is a problem with intrusion into the privacy of ordinary citizens, a law will simply make it worse than under tough self-regulation, not better.
I fully expect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell me—indeed, he has never sought to make any bones about it—that a judge-made law of privacy is on its way and that it may happen in a year or two anyway as the courts seek to advance, without Parliament's express approval or scrutiny, the law of confidence. With great respect, if I may say so as one who believes in the sovereignty of Parliament and has been Leader of both its Houses, that is no justification. If Parliament wants a law of privacy—which would be a fundamental change in our constitutional balance, to which I am, of course, opposed—it should pass one, not just acquiesce in the courts' creating one without its approval or scrutiny.
My second set of amendments seek to protect the work of the Press Complaints Commission and the system of self-regulation, which could be fatally undermined by this legislation if the PCC were held to be a "public authority" under the terms of the Bill. We need to ensure that the PCC is held not to be a public authority, not just for abstruse points of legal nicety, but because the future of self-regulation depends upon it.
If the PCC's adjudications on matters of privacy could be subject to subsequent action by the courts, my task of seeking to resolve differences, to obtain a public apology where appropriate or, if necessary, to deliver a reprimand to an erring editor would no longer be a practical proposition because the courts would be able to intervene after our work had finished. That would ensure that from day one the newspapers' approach to a complaint of invasion of privacy would be highly cautious and legalistic. The courts may also be able to award monetary compensation. My chances of making self-regulation work for the benefit of ordinary people, and without cost to them, would be minimal.
I had intended to pose a rhetorical question about whether the PCC was a public authority in terms of the Bill in order to demonstrate that uncertainty existed on this point. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows, there was until recently legal opinion from a most distinguished quarter that the PCC was not within the terms of the Bill. However, an article in last week by David Pannick QC asserted, in stark contrast, that the PCC is caught by the definition. In addition, during the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, suggested that this was a matter for the courts to determine.
It would have been unusual to proceed with such uncertainty because it left open an ambiguity which might have the effect of bringing disputes between newspapers and individuals within the scope of the Bill only by virtue of the fact that the PCC was declared a public authority. However, I can now answer my own question—and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for assisting me in this. He wrote to me this morning to confirm that, in his view, the PCC is a public authority within the terms of the Bill. He also confirmed the point that in privacy matters newspapers would be subject to interim as well as final injunctions under its terms. His letter confirms that, despite what had been said to the contrary, newspapers and magazines are within the terms of the legislation. In other words, we have a de facto privacy law on our hands.
In the courteous way that I would expect of him, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seeks to reassure me that a newspaper will not go down to an injunction where there are "solid" public interest grounds, just as when in libel cases a newspaper says it will justify a story. However, the point is that in privacy cases the courts would inevitably err on the side of caution and would not refuse an injunction, despite the fact that a newspaper said that there was a public interest defence. The result would be that all newspapers would be bound by that injunction and it could be years before a full hearing took place. That, in my view, would be an end to investigative journalism.
It may be that these are merely unintended consequences and the Government have not yet had a chance to think through all the implications of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his letter to me. It may be that they should look very carefully at my amendments, which would have the effect of taking the PCC out of the terms of the
774
legislation and of preventing direct action against newspapers. These amendments, after all, simply help the Government to do what they always said they wanted to do: introduce legislation that applies only to public authorities and not to newspapers.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is an old friend for whom I have the highest regard and who, as he said at Second Reading, until May played an important role in establishing and nurturing the work of the Press Complaints Commission as a member of its Appointments Commission. I know that he feels neither that my fears are justified nor that there will be established a convenient law for the rich to avoid publicity or the corrupt to escape the spotlight of investigation. I know he thinks that a free press will be safe in the hands of the judiciary.
I am sure that he will tell us that the courts will interpret these matters in a sensible and reasonable way by giving due weight to Article 10 of the convention on freedom of expression. We may be told—as David Pannick set out in the article I mentioned earlier—that the courts may seek to leave delicate judgments on privacy matters to specialist bodies such as the PCC. All so well and good. But, if the Government agree with those points, they ought not to leave them to the discretion of the courts; and they should not leave the Bill unamended. These are matters too important to be left to chance. After all, we are tampering with the freedom of the press and with self-regulation not just for this moment but for all time to come.
I am grateful, as I said earlier, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for writing to me to clarify these matters and for doing so in a way that convinces me that there is a very serious problem with the Bill. Self-regulation has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years but, as I have often said, it is not perfect. I do not rule out further improvements over time, but that will be much more difficult to negotiate with a press subject for the first time ever to statutory controls and a privacy law.
In my view, judicial interference in matters such as this and the freedom of the press do not mix. I believe that the freedom of a responsible press can only really be safe in the hands of Parliament. The Bill, as the noble and learned Lord's letter to me confirms, takes the matter out of the hands of Parliament and in doing so introduces a back-door privacy law. I do not want that to happen because I believe that the practical effect for the ordinary people of this country who cannot afford the expense of going to law will be less protection, not more. I therefore strongly urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to look at these matters again before it is too late.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 35 and 42 and at the same time to Amendment No. 39, the official Opposition amendment seeking to exclude the press and the broadcasting media from the scope of Clause 7.

775
Amendments Nos. 32 and 35 seek to replace the broad definition of "public authority" in Clause 6(3) by a narrow definition that would effectively exclude a wide range of persons exercising functions of a public nature from the obligation to comply with convention rights. For example, they would exclude the Independent Television Commission, the Video Recordings Authority, the Radio Authority, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Press Complaints Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority. Those are all bodies, whether public or private in the technical sense, which perform functions of a public nature. They are all subject to judicial review as public authorities, as, for example, is the City Takeover Panel.
I agree with David Pannick QC. Though I have not had the benefit of sight of the Lord Chancellor's letter, I agree with him also that there can be no doubt that the Press Complaints Commission would not only be judicially reviewable but also a public authority for which the United Kingdom would be nationally responsible under the convention if it unnecessarily restricted free speech.
The United Kingdom is responsible under Article 10 of the convention if any one of those public authorities exercises its regulatory powers in breach of the right to free speech under Article 10 or, for that matter, if it purports to determine someone's civil rights or obligations without a fair hearing in breach of Article 6. I say that all those bodies exercising public functions are excluded by the amendment because (a) they are not a "court or tribunal" in the words of Amendment No. 32 and (b) they do not,
"confer a legally enforceable right or duty on another person",
in the words of Amendment No. 35.
In spite of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, I do not understand the mischief that this amendment seeks to remove from the Bill in respect of all those public authorities. It is surely essential that any person for whose breach of the convention the UK would be internationally responsible should be within the scope of Clause 6. The amendment will simply create a mismatch between our international obligations and domestic implementation.
I should add that it is in the interests of those regulatory bodies—including the PCC—exercising public functions to be subject to the court's supervisory jurisdiction by way of judicial review because they are protected by safeguards built into that supervisory jurisdiction, including the need to seek leave to apply against them for judicial review, fairly strict time limits, the limited scope for discovery and the discretionary nature of remedies. As regards Amendment No. 42, I am mystified by the proposed exclusion of Clause 6(5) since that serves the important purpose of making it clear that a person is not a public authority by virtue of Clause 6(3)(c) if the nature of the act is private.
Those may seem technical points. Perhaps I may now turn to the thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and with it the amendment tabled in the name of the official Opposition which seeks to exclude
776
altogether from the scope of the duty to comply with convention rights the press and the broadcasting media. What is therefore contemplated by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and those standing in the name of the Opposition is that the press and broadcasting media should be able to enjoy the benefit of the right to free speech guaranteed by Article 10 but that they should not be under any legal obligation to respect the right to personal privacy guaranteed by Article 8.
Among other things, those amendments fly in the face of the Broadcasting Act 1996 sponsored by Mr. Major's government, Section 107 of which imposed a duty on the Broadcasting Standards Commission to draw up a code giving guidance as to the principles to be observed and the practices to be followed by the broadcasting media in connection with the avoidance of the unwarranted infringement of privacy.
Only today the Broadcasting Standards Commission, wisely and effectively chaired by Lady Howe, published a new code on fairness and privacy for broadcasters. The code sets out important basic principles which provide a useful ethical framework. It requires that any infringement of privacy must be justified by an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information. That includes revealing and detecting crime or disreputable behaviour; protecting public health or safety; exposing misleading claims or disclosing significant rather than insignificant incompetence in public office. The code also stresses that the means of obtaining the information must be proportionate to the matter under investigation.
The code seeks to balance two competing public interests—the citizen's basic right to freedom of information and expression and the responsibility of journalists and broadcasters not to infringe the citizen's right to personal privacy without good reason. As Lady Howe points out, there is considerable virtue in the electronic and print media setting standards. She expresses the hope and belief that the Press Complaints Commission will be onside in the same way. Her code—that of the Broadcasting Standards Commission—refers to the vulnerability of children and makes it clear that children do not lose the right of privacy because of the fame or notoriety of their parents or events in their school.
I find it a bit surprising, especially in the light of the public furore surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, that both the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the official Opposition seek to remove the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, the broadcasters and I dare say the Video Recordings Authority and the Press Complaints Commission from the obligation to respect both the right to free expression and the right to personal privacy.
As regards the exclusion of the independent press, that is unnecessary because a newspaper organisation could not properly be regarded as a public authority within the meaning of Clause 6(3)(c). The effect of the Bill on a newspaper is much more subtle and indirect. It is clear from the Strasbourg case law that there are

777
circumstances in which Article 8 of the convention imposes a positive obligation on the state to ensure that personal privacy is respected vis-a-vis private persons as well as public authorities.
Under Clause 6(3) a public authority includes a court. Under Clause 13(1) a person may rely on a convention right without prejudice to any other right or freedom conferred on him under any other law. Clause 13(2) makes it clear that Sections 7 to 9 will not affect the right of any person to make any claim or bring any proceedings which he could make or bring apart from those sections.
I have no doubt that even if these amendments were to be accepted, our courts would develop a common law right to respect for personal privacy in an appropriate case overruling the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kaye v. Robertson. There are already strong dicta to that effect by senior judges in their judicial and extra-judicial capacities. Happily, nothing in the Bill prevents them from developing the common law (see Clause 13(2)), nor does anything in the Bill prevent the courts from having regard to the convention, including Article 8, in proceedings other than those brought under Sections 7 to 9.
I believe that the press has nothing to fear in the development of a common law right of personal privacy whether under this Bill or at common law. I agree with my colleague David Pannick QC, who wrote a very useful article in The Times last week, that where the Press Complaints Commission, with suitably enhanced powers, exercises those powers fairly and reasonably in accordance with Articles 8 and 10, the courts will not intervene but will respect the broad discretionary powers of the PCC. The problem is that the PCC does not have the power to grant effective remedies for infringements of personal privacy, including a power to order the payment of compensation. If the press wishes to avoid unnecessary litigation, this Bill would be a spur to reform because it would be well advised to empower the PCC, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, to grant that crucial remedy.
As regards the threat of interlocutory injunctions to restrain publications of infringements of personal privacy, our courts will surely take account of the Strasbourg case law emphasising that prior restraints on publication are a draconian interference with free speech requiring a compelling justification based on strict necessity. Where there is a reasonable prospect of there being a genuine public interest defence, no sensible judge would grant an interlocutory injunction preventing publication and thereby creating a breach by the courts of Article 10 of the convention.
I should add for good measure that I have read exaggerated suggestions in, I believe, the Mail on Sunday, indicating that in France and Germany privacy protection hampers the role of the free press in investigating and uncovering information about government and other malpractices. I have checked both with the president of the German Constitutional Court, Professor Doctor Jutta Limbach, and with Roger Errera, a distinguished member of the French Conseil d'Etat and former chairman of the Media Commission
778
established by President Mitterand. In Germany, as under the convention, the right to free speech is usually paramount. In France, defamation law is much more favourable to the press than in this country because as the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, there are wide public interest defences and the awards for damages are small. I should also observe that even in the United States, the country of the First Amendment, there is ample protection of personal privacy under state statutes and American common law.
I have had the privilege of acting on behalf of newspapers and broadcasters in challenging many unnecessary restraints on free speech imposed by the English laws of contempt, copyright, defamation, the protection of confidential information, contracts, and so on. In all those cases I have relied on Article 10 of the convention, whether in Strasbourg, or in this country, or in Hong Kong. I doubt whether any other English advocate has made as much practical use of Article 10 in promoting the effective protection of the right to free speech. However, that right is not absolute. The unfairness of these amendments is that they would give the press rights against public authorities while seeking to create immunities where the press acts in breach of its responsibilities to the individual citizen. I devoutly hope that they will be withdrawn.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may speak briefly to the amendments put down in the name of my noble friend Lord Wakeham. I start by mentioning Amendment No. 39, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend. First, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that I was not going to press it; secondly, it was therefore not necessary for him to address it at quite such length; and, thirdly, if I was going to press it, or even move it, it would be the Government's response I would be listening to and not necessarily the noble Lord's.
My noble friend Lord Wakeham explained in some detail what was behind his amendment. It was a fear that the Government were seeking to introduce a privacy law through the back door by means of the Bill. We have considerable sympathy for the approach he adopted. There might be or there might not be arguments for or against a privacy law. But if there were to be a privacy law, my noble friend was quite right to make it clear that it is something Parliament itself should hammer out and should go through in considerable detail by means of legislation rather than leaving it to the courts to develop as they wish. For that reason we share his fear that one of the effects of the clause would be to bring in a privacy law by the back door.
I do not know my noble friend's intentions about the amendment either at this stage or at a later stage of the Bill. But I have to say that, if he wanted to test the opinion of the House on this or another occasion, we would certainly be offering our support from these Benches.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may deal briefly with the question of definitions. "Public authority" is not defined in the convention and there is

779
no definition in Article 8. It has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in a series of case law decisions under a system where there is no binding precedent. There are few of those decisions—I say this subject to correction—where the public authority is not an authority set up by the parliament of one of the signatory states which renders services, or sometimes goods, to the public. I am not seeking to substitute a definition. I am only concerned with what is going to happen with this Bill, which is a domestic Bill.
"Public authority" is defined in Clause 6(3)(c) as,
"any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said—I usually agree with him, whether or not it is convenient to do so—that what is a public authority is a matter for the decision of the court in each particular case. I think he is right. That is not in this context a satisfactory or certain way of importing a law of privacy by the back door. For that reason alone I would be disposed to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, but there are other reasons too which my noble friend has put forward which I hope will attract the support of the Committee.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may make a brief intervention in the debate which has been, on most parts of the Bill, obviously and quite properly dominated by voices from the legal profession. I speak as someone who in a turgid part of my youth was a tabloid journalist. I also speak as someone who has had some part in various aspects of the media. It may be helpful to have just one voice from that quarter. I do not wish in any way to detract from the tremendous contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has made to upgrading the standards of the media in saying that I think there is a genuine problem here. The problem is one that can only be met by a balance between Articles 8 and 10—the two sets of principles: those protecting privacy and those protecting the freedom of the media. Both sets of principles are crucial in a democratic society.
It is at least arguable that the balance may have gone a little far from Article 10 to Article 8. In other words, we are not now sufficiently recognising the real public reaction to intrusions on privacy. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in an article in the Daily Mail a few days ago, pointed out that in a recent poll 91 per cent. of the public indicated that they thought there should be greater protection of privacy. That is very much the public mood. It was, as my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said, affected very much by what was seen by many as something of a feeding frenzy over the whole of the news concerning the death of the Princess of Wales. One sees spreading strongly throughout decent public opinion a sense that the intrusions have gone too far.
Perhaps I may give one of a common set of examples which anyone who has been in public life knows very well. I refer to the intrusion into the lives of the children and families of people in public life. All of us who have been in public life recognise that we need thick skins
780
and that we ought not to whinge and complain about attacks in the press on ourselves. But it is of a very different order of both pain and unfairness when such intrusions are directed against one's spouse, one's children or one's parents. I speak as someone who, in respect of my parents and my children, has suffered from such intrusions, to the great distress of people not able to defend or protect themselves. Indeed, I speak perhaps more lightly as someone who found a press photographer sitting in a drugs cupboard of the Middlesex Hospital at seven o'clock in the morning at a time when I had broken my leg and he wished to take a photograph of me, presumably in some state of agony. We have to bear in mind that there is a tendency for the press—I refer to the press much more than to television or radio—to take to the outer limits of what is possible the endless pursuit of ratings and circulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has made out a strong case and has made a great contribution to the Press Complaints Commission. However, as my noble friend Lord Lester pointed out, the sanctions against misbehaviour are still very slight indeed. The issue of what sanctions might be taken is very important. In my view, the single greatest danger to the freedom of the press, which I care about as much as any other Member of the House, comes from growing public repudiation of what they regard as adequate standards. It would be a protection for the press to be faced with trying to strike a balance between Articles 8 and 10—the genuine right to privacy as compared with the absolute necessity of having the freedom of expression.
One of the consequences of this matter is to drive out of public life altogether some of the best people that noble Lords and, speaking personally, I myself know. They refuse to run for Parliament, they refuse to be considered as Ministers and they refuse to enter politics because, out of their own decency, they are not prepared to put their friends and relatives at such risk. That is a consideration which anyone who cares about democracy must take into account.
5 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Iam encouraged by what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has just said. I also wish to put in a word as a layman. I have listened carefully to the debate and tried to understand some of the legal points, but I do not understand them all. It seems to me that there is another principle here apart from the privacy of the individual on the one hand and the freedom of the press on the other. Both of them are important. As I understand it, an attempt has been made to keep a balance in the drafting of this Bill.
But there is a third principle which has not been mentioned this afternoon, as far as I can make out, and that is the principle of accountability. If there is a criticism of the press which I believe is generally held at the moment, it is that while everybody in a democratic society is accountable, it seems to laymen—I have no objection to the course that the press are pursuing in general because they have done a wonderful job—that there is no accountability except to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I have every admiration for him,

781
but I do not believe when one matches that against the accountability that Parliament has or that which the lower courts have to the higher courts, it begins to measure in the balance.
If I thought that there was a greater degree of accountability in the press, I would be more impressed with the argument. Until that accountability is held in balance—as I understand it, the impression is that the Bill has been drafted in such a way that it is held in balance and that there is a proper balance between the right to privacy and the freedom of the press—I do not feel convinced and I would not be able to support the noble Lord.
Lord Wilberforce: The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has rendered a very valuable service in drawing attention to the difficulties which exist in the convention at the present time. He speaks with his great expertise and experience as regards the press. So far the debate has tended to concentrate on that aspect of the matter. I do not believe that we ought to allow the debate and discussion on the Bill to be completely hijacked by questions which are no doubt of great interest, but which relate to the press, the newspapers and the media. There are other aspects in the convention of great importance to which we have to have regard. I am personally more concerned with them and I propose to address my remarks to them.
My concern relates to the relation and difference between public authorities on the one hand and private persons on the other. There is nothing between the Government and myself, or between them and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, on that matter. It has been made perfectly clear by the noble and learned Lord in his speech at Second Reading and also by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his winding up speech on that occasion, that the Bill is aimed entirely at public authorities and not at private individuals. It is not meant to introduce a tort of privacy. As regards matters relating to the press, they are to be left to self-regulation and others to the common law.
There are certain difficulties in that regard which exist in the Bill. As the noble Lord has said, his amendment covers the same ground as that which I have attempted to cover in Amendment No. 60. Indeed, if I had come earlier this morning I would have agreed to my amendment being grouped with Amendment No. 32. They cover the same ground and deal with the same problem, but in a slightly different technical way.
The problem is simply this. It is perfectly true that Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill deal only with public authorities and not with private persons: indeed, nothing in the Bill deals with private persons. The problem arises when one turns to the courts. It is said in Clause 6 that a court is to be treated as a public authority. The noble Lord deals with the problem I am now discussing by taking courts out of that definition in cases where only private litigants are involved.
There is a problem. A case is brought in court between an aggrieved person and a person who is not a public authority. At the moment I am not discussing whether any particular person is or is not a public
782
authority. That is a problem to one side which we shall come to later. We assume that he or she is not a public authority. A remedy is asked for or an injunction of some kind against the private person. It may be a journalist or a paparazzo (if that is the right singular) or against any other wrongdoer. If the claim is based on the convention the court ought to say that there is nothing wrong under it because the convention only makes it unlawful to act in that particular way if one is a public authority. The case should be thrown out.
But there may be cases where an attempt is made to carry the dispute further and to say, "You, the court, have acted incompatibly with the convention"—those are the vague words that are used—if one either has or has not granted a particular remedy. I am very anxious to ensure that there is such a case that courts are not exposed to further proceedings against them for acting unlawfully and incompatibly with the convention.
Of course, we know that damages cannot be given against the court. Clause 9 states that one has to go by way of appeal or judicial review. The wording of the noble Lord's Amendment No. 32 does nothing more than to say that in such a case the court is not to be treated as a public authority and that remedies are not to be granted against it as if it were a public authority. There is nothing in that which is contrary to the spirit of the Bill or which prevents the common law and the courts from developing a law of privacy. I am not afraid of that at all and in that I differ rather from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. There is nothing to prevent the issue of privacy being developed at common law or the courts acting in a perfectly normal way, with appeals and so forth, so long as they are justified.
In so far as proceedings are based on this Bill, I am only concerned that, under the convention, in cases where private persons are concerned, there should not be a whole chain of judicial reviews, appeals and so forth on the ground that the court has acted incompatibly with the convention. I am perfectly happy to support the noble Lord's amendment. I repeat that it does not deal specifically with the press, but with a general problem of public versus private. My amendment comes to the same thing. I take no position whatsoever on the enlarged or more specialised dispute so far as it relates to the press.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I shall be very grateful if he can answer one question arising from his very important speech. Clause 13(2) specifically reserves the right to rely on the convention in cases where a person is not seeking a right against a public authority. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, will remember a case in which he gave the leading speech. I believe it was called Baron Cawley's case and it was some years ago. He referred to the convention as a source of public policy in deciding whether a restrictive covenant based on religious exclusion in a will between private persons was or was not against public policy.
From what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said, I am not clear whether he is seeking to prevent the convention from being relied on in ordinary private law proceedings, say, involving the

783
contours of the law of libel or whether a restrictive covenant in a will is against public policy. I am therefore quarrelling with Clause 13(2).
Lord Wilberforce: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who as usual has raised a very relevant point. Clause 13 has already been discussed and does nothing more than say that you may rely on a convention right without prejudice to any other right. I am perfectly happy to leave intact—I thought that I had made it clear that I wished to leave intact—any right of anybody to go under the common law. If they are going under the common law, they are faced with the perfectly normal position that there is in existence an international convention to which one must have regard and if any statute is involved, it has to be interpreted. I would certainly not wish to exclude the courts from relying on interpreting any law which exists consistent with the convention, as is stated in Clause 2. I do not see any difficulty relating between actions under the convention and actions not under the convention. I want only to ensure, in so far as an action is brought under the convention relying on Clauses 6, 7 and 8, that a court is not to be treated as liable to proceedings under the convention by a private individual.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the Committee that it is neither necessary nor right to go down the road proposed in these amendments.
We believe that it is right as a matter of principle that organisations which are, on a reasonable view and as decided by the courts, exercising a public function should be so treated under the Bill and should have the duty, alongside other organisations having public functions, to act compatibly with the convention rights in respect of those functions. That means (among other things) that, in doing what they do, they should pay due regard to Article 8 (on privacy) as well as to Article 10 (on freedom of expression, which includes also the freedom of the press).
We also believe that it is right as a matter of principle for the courts to have the duty of acting compatibly with the convention not only in cases involving other public authorities but also in developing the common law in deciding cases between individuals. Why should they not? In preparing this Bill, we have taken the view that it is the other course, that of excluding convention considerations altogether from cases between individuals, which would have to be justified. We do not think that that would be justifiable; nor, indeed, do we think it would be practicable. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, recognised, the courts already bring convention considerations to bear and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so in developing the common law and that they have the support of the noble and learned Lord in making that use of the convention. Clause 3 requires the courts to interpret legislation compatibly with the convention rights and to the fullest extent possible in all cases coming before them.
784
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, properly referred to my letter to him of this morning. I think it preferable, and for the assistance of the Committee since it has already been referred to, that I should read it out in full. The first paragraph refers to the relevant paragraph from counsel's opinion, with which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, supplied me, and after referring to that, my letter states:
"I have been giving further thought to whether the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is a 'public authority' under the Human Rights Bill.
The authorities which [counsel] cites are not, as I said, precisely in point because they are judicial review cases. But I do agree that they show a disposition on the part of the Courts to regard the PCC as a 'public authority'. On reconsideration, therefore, of the relevant provision of the Bill: is the PCC a 'person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature'? (Clause 6 (3)(c)). I now tend to think that … the press might well be held to be a 'function of a public nature', so that the PCC would be a 'public authority' under the Human Rights Act.
I do, however, think that, for the reasons I gave when we met, this possibility is an opportunity, not a burden, for the PCC. The opportunity is that the courts would look to the PCC as the pre-eminently appropriate public authority to deliver effective self-regulation, fairly balancing Articles 8 and 10. The Courts. therefore, would only themselves intervene if self-regulation did not adequately secure compliance with the Convention.
I repeat that when the press has solid grounds, in the public interest, for publication, even where an individual's privacy is invaded, it will not go down to interim injunctions: in just the same way as it does not go down to injunctions, in libel cases, when it says that it will justify.
I look forward to the debate in Committee on Monday".
I want to tackle the concerns of the press directly. They are essentially twofold. First, will the courts develop a law of privacy, and, secondly, is the PCC itself to be regarded as a public authority which should act consistently with the convention? First, as I have often said, the judges are pen-poised, regardless of incorporation of the convention, to develop a right to privacy to be protected by the common law. This is not me saying so; they have said so. It must be emphasised that the judges are free to develop the common law in their own independent judicial sphere. What I say positively is that it will be a better law if the judges develop it after incorporation because they will have regard to Articles 8 and 10, giving Article 10 its due high value, which the strenuous efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in the courts of this country and of elsewhere have contributed to ensuring that it enjoys.
I believe it to be well recognised, including by the press, that Parliament, if invited to do so, might well pass a tougher statute outlawing invasion of privacy than the judges are likely to develop having regard to Articles 8 and 10, balancing them and giving each its due value and giving Article 10 its due high value. I would respectfully suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, had his tongue somewhere in his cheek when he said that he would have preferred the Government to introduce a privacy statute, although, of course, he would have opposed it in principle. This Bill does not impose any statutory controls on the press by a back-door privacy law. I remind the noble Lord,

785
Lord Henley, that the previous government promised a White Paper on privacy, a promise which they did not deliver.
I would not agree with any proposition that the courts as public authorities will be obliged to fashion a law on privacy because of the terms of the Bill. That is simply not so. If it were so, whenever a law cannot be found either in the statute book or as a rule of common law to protect a convention right, the courts would in effect be obliged to legislate by way of judicial decision and to make one. That is not the true position. If it were—in my view, it is not—the courts would also have in effect to legislate where Parliament had acted, but incompatibly with the convention. Let us suppose that an Act of Parliament provides for detention on suspicion of drug trafficking but that the legislation goes too far and conflicts with Article 5. The court would so hold and would make a declaration of incompatibility. The scheme of the Bill is that Parliament may act to remedy a failure where the judges cannot.
In my opinion, the court is not obliged to remedy the failure by legislating via the common law either where a convention right is infringed by incompatible legislation or where, because of the absence of legislation—say, privacy legislation—a convention right is left unprotected. In my view, the courts may not act as legislators and grant new remedies for infringement of convention rights unless the common law itself enables them to develop new rights or remedies. I believe that the true view is that the courts will be able to adapt and develop the common law by relying on existing domestic principles in the laws of trespass, nuisance, copyright, confidence and the like, to fashion a common law right to privacy. That was more or less what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said in an important public lecture. They may have regard to the convention in developing the common law, as they do today and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, says it is right that they should.
The experience of continental countries shows that their cautious development of privacy law has been based on domestic law, case by case, although they have also had regard to the convention. I repeat my view that any privacy law developed by the judges will be a better law after incorporation of the convention because the judges will have to balance and have regard to Articles 10 and 8, giving Article 10 its due high value. What I have said is in accord with European jurisprudence. In Winer v. United Kingdom in 1986 the European Commission on Human Rights concluded that because of Article 10 it did not consider that the absence of an actionable right to privacy under English law was a lack of respect for the applicant's private life.
I believe that effective self-regulation is the way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was good enough to acknowledge that as a member for some years of the Appointments Commission to the Press Complaints Commission I had assisted in self-regulation and its governance. The PCC should embrace and welcome the possibility that it may come to be regarded as a public authority under the Bill and expected to deliver convention rights. A beefed-up PCC, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, suggests, perhaps with the
786
power to award compensation in appropriate cases—a power that the PCC lacks today—could become the general arbitrator in practice in these cases provided it did its job strongly and well.
The courts may well develop a law of privacy, not because the Government require them to do so but because they will be exercising their freedom to do so in their own independent sphere. But if there were effective self-regulation a law of privacy developed by the judges would hardly ever have to be invoked against the press.
It is wrong for noble Lords to allow this debate to focus exclusively upon a privacy law that applies only to the media. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that the right to privacy is a basic human right. That right can be infringed by a neighbour, an intrusive commercial agency, private investigators, the police and all manner of other people. The little man needs protection against these bodies. It is primarily these malpractices without a shred of public interest to justify them that will be in the sights of the courts if they move to develop a right to privacy as part of the common law. A well regulated press which is essential to a free society has nothing to fear and everything to gain.
I tend to believe that the important function of the PCC to adjudicate on complaints from the public about the press may well be held to be a function of a public nature, so that, as I said in my letter, the PCC might well be held to be a public authority under the Human Rights Bill. But I believe that this is an opportunity, not a burden on the PCC. The opportunity is that the courts would look to the PCC as the pre-eminently appropriate public authority to deliver effective self-regulation fairly balancing Articles 8 and 10. The courts therefore would have to intervene only if self-regulation did not adequately secure compliance with the convention. The message for the press is plain: strengthen self-regulation and strengthen the PCC under its eminent chairmanship.
I do not believe that the courts will grant temporary injunctions where there are solid grounds for the press to maintain that they have public interest grounds to publish something, just as the courts do not restrain libels where the press intends to justify them. I say to the press that its salvation as it sees it can be in its own hands.
The noble Lord has rendered an important service to the House in tabling the amendment. It raises important issues which deserve time to be devoted to them, as has happened, for them to be fully ventilated and discussed. I have given as full a response as I am able to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. I am sure that he and the interests he represents will consider carefully what I have said, just as I will consider carefully what he and other noble Lords have said. I do not close the door to any proposal. The noble Lord, together with some of his colleagues, has had one meeting with me already. He knows that my door is open for further discussion. But I believe—I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has said on this subject—that the door is really open to the PCC, which the noble Lord chairs, to strengthen self-regulation so that the courts will be satisfied in all cases concerning the press that effective remedies are

787
provided by the PCC and they amount to compliance by the United Kingdom with its obligations under the convention without any need for intervention.
For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wakeham:I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his substantial reply. It must be studied carefully, and that I shall certainly do. In a debate of this kind one tends to clutch at contributions from non-lawyers. I very much agreed with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, although he did not intend to speak in support of my amendment. I am not here to speak for the press. I am independent of the press. I am concerned to secure an effective remedy for all the people who complain to me, 95 per cent. of whom are ordinary citizens of this country, not celebrities or famous people with large resources. I am concerned about the invasion of their privacy. Further, I am concerned that the remedies which may be inadequate at the moment under self-regulation will disappear and will be replaced by legal remedies which these people will be in no position to invoke because of the thousands of pounds it will cost to take newspapers to court.
However, the noble and learned Lord has made a number of substantial points and I should like to study them carefully. I very much appreciate his kind offer not necessarily to visit him again but to leave open the door. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, leave out line 7 and insert ("or tribunal").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 34 is a technical amendment which removes the reference in Clause 6(3)(b) to a tribunal:
"which exercises functions in relation to legal proceedings".
This qualification is, on reflection, unnecessary because Clause 21(1) defines the meaning of "tribunal" for the Bill generally as:
"any tribunal in which legal proceedings may be brought".
The effect is that Clause 6(3) as amended will refer simply to "a court or tribunal" as included within the meaning of "public authority", and "tribunal" will attract the definition in Clause 21(1). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—("(c) a local authority,

(d) the police,

(e) immigration officers, and

(f) prisons,").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 38, 40 and 44. I do not wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 44 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but I shall say a few words about Amendment No. 40 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young.
Before we broke for the Statement to be repeated earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal I asked for a brief explanation of the definition of a public authority. We can return to that matter with this group of amendments. For my part, these are very much probing amendments because I seek reassurances and explanations, in particular explanations of the Pepper v. Hart sort, from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he comes to respond.
The noble and learned Lord will see that Amendment No. 36 takes words from the White Paper. We have done that in order to elicit further advice and information from the noble and learned Lord as to what he means by "public authority".
I am still somewhat confused. I hope that I am beginning to see what the clause provides but I do not understand how that will be interpreted. As the noble and learned Lord explained, government departments are included in the definition. That is straightforward and I understand that. He then gave the example of Railtrack, a private body exercising public functions. We now hear that as a body the Press Complaints Commission could be included. As the noble and learned Lord will see from Amendment No. 40 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, there are concerns as to whether religious organisations, denominations or Churches could be included. Again, we seek further advice from the noble and learned Lord in that regard. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has seen correspondence from the Christian Institute, because that organisation certainly has some concerns that it may be included as a public authority when exercising certain functions.
The purpose behind the amendments is to probe a little further as to what is meant by a public authority and where the line is to be drawn. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to explain that in as simple language as possible so that lawyers and non-lawyers in the Chamber can understand and get a clear grip of the Government's intention behind the words that we see in Clause 6. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): In proposing this amendment, I should point out that if it were to be agreed to, I should be unable to call Amendment No. 37 because of pre-emption.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Amendment No. 38, which is in my name, has been grouped with Amendment No. 36. I agree respectfully that in the context of this Bill there must be a definition of a public authority. It has been extremely widely construed in different contexts by the courts in various cases.

789
Before I speak to my amendment, perhaps I may say that earlier I rather rudely associated my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor with Mephistopheles. Having heard his recent masterly speech on the last amendment, I feel rather ashamed of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that in framing his amendment he has used the words of the White Paper. I claim to have done even better because I have taken the definition of a public authority from two Bills, both of which were Bills of a Labour Government. They were race relations Acts and were therefore in the very sphere of human rights, with which this Committee is concerned.
My general aim in supporting this Bill has been to try to strengthen it to make sure that we really are bringing home convention rights. The definition which I proffer, which, as I say, is taken from race relations Acts, states,
"any person concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public (whether for payment or otherwise) of any goods. facilities or services".
There is another advantage in that formula; namely, that it has been subject to considerable explanation and interpretation in the courts. I hope that it will be acceptable to my noble and learned friend and that he will not revert to his mephistophelean role.
Baroness Young: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 40. I have two reasons for tabling the amendment. The first is to follow from what my noble friend Lord Henley said and to probe further in relation to the definition of a public authority.
Unlike almost every Member of the Committee taking part in the debate, I am a lay person and I think it important that one should try to understand what the Bill means. To that end, I looked carefully again at the White Paper which of course, in the second part of it, goes into considerable detail about the definition of a public authority, although it states:
"The definition of what constitutes a public authority is in wide terms".
I notice that the point about the definition of a public authority was raised by a number of noble Lords on Second Reading. I much regret that I could not be here on that occasion. However, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who is in his place, raised that issue, as did the noble and learned Lords, Lord Donaldson of Lymington and Lord Wilberforce. Therefore, there is concern about the definition.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said in replying to one of the earlier debates this afternoon. If I understood him correctly, he said that one definition could be recognised quite easily and put in laymen's terms—although I may not he right, I would say that it is an authority set up by statute which one can understand as a public authority. I find it more difficult to understand that a privatised industry is a public authority. It rather reminds me of the kind of essay that I was once asked to write as an undergraduate in philosophy. But I have no doubt that there is an explanation for that. But on the face of it it is quite a difficult argument to accept.
790
I do not quite understand the definition given either in the Bill or in the White Paper. But there are many people who think, for example, that the Church of England is a public authority; that in certain cases, charities are public authorities. If that is the case—and it would be helpful to know whether it is—it could lead to decisions of the Church being challenged in the courts under the convention. That might involve a judicial review. Instances which have been put to me include who can and who cannot marry in church, who can or cannot be a godparent. It has even been suggested to me that a PCC which decided that it did not want to have a woman priest would be falling foul of all that, and could not decide that that was what it wanted.
In regard to a charity, let us take, for instance, a hospice dealing with terminally ill adults or children. Let us suppose it is partly government funded. Does that make it a public authority, and should it be obliged to accept, for instance, information about voluntary euthanasia? Those are not entirely imaginary issues. They are the kind of issues that could confront ordinary people trying to go about their business as they have to from day to day.
Let us look again at a Church school. Religious denominations, and Churches generally, have a freedom today to employ certain staff who adhere to a particular faith. Under this arrangement could employment rights be developed so that there could be conflicts with regard to employing a practising homosexual who might be able to claim that he was being discriminated against if he were sacked from the staff of a Church school or not employed in the first place?
The whole issue raises areas where there could be a conflict of rights: the right of the freedom of the individual; the rights of the organisation (its religious convictions). I am not clear which right takes precedence. Whether it is the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who is to reply to the debate, I should be glad to hear whether the Church of England is a public authority or, indeed, whether any religious organisation is a public authority; whether a hospice or a charity is a public authority; or whether a school with a religious foundation or a trustee is a public authority. Those are the organisations which I have put down in my amendment.
In the charity world an enormous number of organisations are partly publicly and partly privately funded. Are they thought to be public authorities? What about those which are entirely privately funded? Is the argument that if it is a private organisation which at times exercises a public function, it is a public authority, and who knows?
If I understood the argument correctly, we need not worry about any of that, because there is a second definition. If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said in relation to a public authority that there are those who understand what a public authority is. He said there are those who have part of their functions as a public authority. Perhaps he will explain the matter further, but how does one know whether part of one's functions is public unless that is defined somewhere? If a matter is subject to litigation it

791
is to be interpreted by the judges. I hope that he will forgive me if I have misunderstood him, but I think that he said that this was all against a background of changing social conditions.
That is worrying, because the convention is drawn in general terms. People now think differently from how they thought 50 years ago. For all I know, in 30 years' time they will think differently again. The matter is open to all sorts of interpretations. I do not understand how many organisations will enjoy the kind of freedom to act as they do now under the Bill. I should be most grateful for an explanation.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps in this brief moment between lawyers I may press her on something she said about which I am a little confused. Is not the EOC already able to intervene in an organisation that, for example, refuses employment to someone on grounds of race, sexual orientation, or whatever it may be? I am not clear what new matters the European convention would bring to this beyond what the EOC, the CRE and other such bodies can already do.
My other question relates to Churches. Could she say what happens, for example, in the case of a voluntary aided school? In a sense it is clearly a public authority. It is part of the public system of education, but it may stem from a religious foundation. What would be the consequence therefore in dividing the responsibility of schools were the amendment to be accepted?
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: Voluntary aided schools form one of the groups about which I was speaking. As I understand it, those schools have considerable freedom to select on religious grounds. A Catholic school would want a Catholic head. I am not clear whether that right would remain under all of this. That is one of the points that must be cleared up. I am not a lawyer. I cannot pretend to interpret what is happening. I am merely asking the questions. These are serious questions. A governor is someone like myself trying to cope with something which is complicated.
Of course I recognise equal opportunities and other similar legislation, but the points about which I was thinking related to the Church. Let us take marriage, for instance. Is the Church allowed to say that it will not, as it were, "marry" a homosexual couple? That is the kind of thing that the Church should be able to decide. Will that be allowed? Can the Church be overruled because it is a public authority? There are many cases—I have mentioned just a few—where there could be difficulties, and a conflict of rights might arise: the rights of the homosexual as opposed to the rights of the Church. I do not know which would have dominance. This is a real point. I am seeking clarity on this matter, particularly with regard to what constitutes a public authority.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is a totally fair point. I do not know. I do not suppose many lawyers know. It all stems from "family". When the convention was
792
drafted, the concept of the "family" was different from what it is today. The concept of the "family" is different as between different states. It is a different concept among members of the same state. If one now has this homosexual business—I do not understand it and I do not think many people do—and one has, say, a pair of lesbians who are living together in perfect amity and have done so for a long time, I do not suppose that they are a family, but I do not know. If they have some sort of insemination and have a child, does that make them a family? If they adopt a child, does that make them a family? I am not asking these questions to be tiresome, but just to support my noble friend, because I do not really have a clue as to what the answer to all this is.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We are now dealing with an important set of amendments. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 40 and make one or two introductory remarks before I turn to each of them. The drafters of the Bill have wisely included a broad, inclusive definition of what constitutes a public authority. They have done so because it is only possible on a case-by-case basis, looking at the particular body, the nature of the functions and the circumstances in which they are discharged, for the courts to come to a conclusion as to whether the activity falls on the side of a public function.
It is not a new problem. Indeed, the courts have been seeking to distinguish between those bodies that are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts in judicial review and those which are not for a number of years. By now, they have developed clear and coherent criteria of a general kind to decide which side of the line a particular body comes within. Therefore, I entirely agree with the need for a broad and inclusive definition rather than some kind of exhaustive list.
One noble Lord referred to the problem of privatised industries. It is clear from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights that, where a body that is private in form is performing a function that would otherwise be performed by a public authority, there would be international liability if that body does not comply properly with the convention. Perhaps we can imagine, for example, the privatisation of the Prison Service. It would be unthinkable if a body which was private in form but public in function could escape liability under the convention.
Lord Henley: As a matter of interest, can the noble Lord say whether that would mean that in a former Communist state, where everything was in the public sector, everything would therefore be a former public sector body, whether or not we would consider it to be totally private?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Even in a Communist state there are individual human beings who do things to each other without doing so in public clothing. Therefore, even in a Marxist totalitarian state it would not be the case that everything that was done by individuals would fall within the scope of the convention or the international covenant.

793
I was seeking to explain that my understanding is that in drawing the line between what is and what is not a public authority, the courts have developed clear principles in the context of judicial review in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In doing so, they have held, for example, that the functions of the Chief Rabbi acting in interpreting Rabbinical law fall plainly outside the scope of judicial review. Similarly—and we discussed this on the first day of Committee on 18th November in connection with another amendment—it is quite clear that the decisions of the Synod, or those of the bishops of the Catholic Church, or, indeed, those of any other church organisation or body, would not normally fall within the scope of a public authority.
The problem about homosexual couples, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is just the problem. I wonder whether the noble Lord can help us in that respect. How do we define the problem that he has just demonstrated? It is a difficult one.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The question to be asked is whether the functions performed by the person concerned are or are not functions of a public nature. That is exactly the same kind of question as arises all the time under Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and its counterpart under the Scots rules for judicial review. One has the broad question raised which has to be answered by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, raised the problem as to whether a ban on marrying homosexual couples would incur liability on a Church body which failed to do so. My answer would be that the Church body would not itself be liable. If the UK were to prevent marriages or the recognition of permanent unions of homosexual couples, that might or might not give rise to liability under Article 8 of the convention on the international plane. But in my opinion the Church itself would not be liable as a public authority.
I turn now to the specific amendments. Amendment No. 36 would create a yawning chasm between what is required by the convention and what would be done by the Bill. Under the amendment the only public authorities obliged to comply with convention rights would be local authorities, the police, immigration officers and the Prison Service. There can be no justification for excluding central government, a Scottish parliament, a Welsh senate, regional authorities and the wide range of government, quasi-government and other bodies performing public functions.
I turn now to Amendment No. 38 tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. This amendment seeks to borrow the language of Section 29 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in defining public authorities and public functions. The snag in that respect is that such statutory language was interpreted by a majority decision of the House of Lords in Re Atnin [1983] 2AC 818 as confined to so-called "marketplace" activities. It would, therefore, have the reverse effect of what is intended by the noble and
794
learned Lord. As interpreted—in my respectful opinion wrongly but, nevertheless, it represents the law of the land—by a majority of the Law Lords (the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and, I believe, Lord Salmon dissenting), that language would have the very opposite effect in that it would have the result of using language which is only concerned with the marketplace, as being so held by the Law Lords, to define what is a public authority.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to immunise from the duty to comply with convention rights religious organisations, hospices, voluntary-aided religious schools and religious charities. To the extent that any of those bodies were to exercise their powers in breach of convention rights, and to do so in a way that was characterised as a public function, it is hard to see why they should be immune from liability. Having said that, I find it difficult to conceive of circumstances in which any of those bodies would be directly liable as a public authority, with the possible exception of those in charge of voluntary-aided schools, if, for example—and this would be inconceivable—they were to exclude people of a particular colour or race and interfere with Article 2 of the first protocol to the convention, read with Article 14, in a context where there was no domestic remedy, which in fact there is.
However, I should have thought that even in respect of those bodies such matters can be safely left to the courts to consider in the light of Strasbourg case law and the facts of the case. I do not know of any decision that has been made by the courts in this country about what is a public authority which has created any difficult problem. Therefore, to sum up, I consider that the broad inclusive definition marches properly with the courts' functions. For the reasons that I have given, I believe that any attempt to be exhaustive and to be entirely prescriptive would be a mistake.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: I shall speak to Amendment No. 40 in support of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, especially as regards her plea for clarity and definition. I very much regret that our timetable in this Chamber has given the Church of England very little time to scrutinise the legislation. However, some anxiety was expressed in that other place—the General Synod—this afternoon on the matter. We shall try to continue to do so.
I should like, in particular, to raise the point about the fast-track procedure. If a Minister believes that there is a conflict between the decisions of the General Synod, which are in legislative form—the law of the land—and the convention, he or she can amend the measures of the General Synod by order. The measures of the Synod are passed by Parliament. But in this case a Minister will be able to amend Synodical legislation by order without consulting the Synod. I believe that we shall find this unacceptable and shall want to continue to scrutinise the legislation in its further stages.
I assure the Committee of the determination, certainly of the established Church, to improve its procedures on accountability. I am myself a member of a working party that is seeking to revise the ecclesiastical jurisdiction measure of 1963 which has been found in

795
practice to be an unwieldy measure. We are trying to improve the whole process of accountability and discipline of the clergy. But having said that, I make the practical point that there is a necessity surely to avoid legislation that becomes unworkable because of lack of finance. This is where Churches differ from other public bodies, many of which can draw upon taxes to create the necessary machinery for dealing with the kind of procedures envisaged in the convention. However, the finances of Churches are almost entirely voluntary. The people in the pew would finance the very procedures by which they could make complaints. That may not work well in practice. I support the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for greater clarity and definition.
6 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have listened to the discussion carefully as a lay person who does not know an enormous amount about the subject. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his reply make it plain to the Committee how a body knows, under the Bill, whether it is liable to be caught by Clause 6 or not? That is the critical question: how a body which is not easily understood to be a public authority knows whether the Bill applies to it or not.
The Lord Chancellor: I am rightly reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that lay people are entitled to understand Acts of Parliament. I entirely agree. I am mindful of the Shavian maxim that professions are a conspiracy against the laity. Therefore I shall endeavour not to participate in that conspiracy but to make matters as clear as I can.
I am urged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, not to don my mephistophelean hat. The problem is that the noble and learned Lord regards me as Mephistopheles whenever I do not accept an amendment moved by him. As the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, there is a distinction between amendments which challenge the basic scheme and the structure of the Bill—which, if you believe in the basic scheme and the structure of the Bill, you will not accept—and amendments which one must consider with an open mind if, without doing violence to the basic scheme of the Bill, they offer collateral improvements. As regards the Government being willing to consider an amendment that was moved before this group as a possible collateral improvement, that was readily accepted by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn.
The point about the Bill is that it has a coherent intellectual structure. It rests upon giving the strongest jurisdiction possible to the judges to interpret Acts of Parliament so as to make them, whenever possible, compatible with the convention. But then the Bill reflects the decision that when a court is unable to do that and make a declaration of incompatibility the Bill does not embrace the doctrine of implied repeal—which it could have done—and allow the courts to strike down Acts of Parliament; it goes down the route of a declaration of incompatibility which then leaves Parliament free, a sovereign Parliament which must decide whether to pass a remedial order or indeed a full
796
amending Bill. That is part of the central scheme of the Bill, as also is the definition of public authority which I shall endeavour to explain.
Clause 6(1) states,
"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with one or more of the Convention rights".
There are some bodies which are obviously public authorities such as the police, the courts, government departments and prisons. They are obviously public authorities under Clause 6(1). However, under Clause 6(3)(c) the term "public authority" includes,
"any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to abstain from asking herself the question: is this a public authority just looking at the body in the round? That is what Clause 6(1) invites us to do. However, Clause 6(3)(c) asks whether the body in question has certain functions—not all—which are functions of a public nature. If it has any functions of a public nature, it qualifies as a public authority. However, it is certain acts by public authorities which this Bill makes unlawful. In Clause 6(5) the Bill provides:
"In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(c) if the nature of the act is private".
Therefore Railtrack, as a public utility, obviously qualifies as a public authority because some of its functions, for example its functions in relation to safety on the railway, qualify it as a public authority. However, acts carried out in its capacity as a private property developer would no doubt be held by the courts to be of a private nature and therefore not caught by the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right: we took a policy decision to avoid a list. I am appreciative that he supports our not having gone down the route of an exhaustive list. The disadvantage of a list is precisely the one identified by the noble Lord; namely, that it would be easy to regard it as exhaustive or to suggest that any non-listed body could be a public authority only if it was sufficiently analogous in its essential characteristics to a body that had qualified in the list. There are obvious public authorities—I have mentioned some—which are covered in relation to the whole of their functions by Clause 6(1). Then there are some bodies some of whose functions are public and some private. If there are some public functions the body qualifies as a public authority but not in respect of acts which are of a private nature. Those statutory principles will have to be applied case by case by the courts when issues arise. We think that it is far better to have a principle rather than a list which would be regarded as exhaustive.
On Amendment No. 40, 1 see no objection to the proposition that if any of the bodies listed exercise public functions they are caught by the convention save in relation to acts by them which are of a private nature. For example, I should have thought that the Church would have welcomed being bound by Article 8 which provides that,
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence".

797
I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to read the convention. Article 9 provides that,
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance".
Paragraph 2 provides that,
"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall he subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
The first and true effect of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in the place of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would be to remove paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of Clause 6. The result would be that it would fall to the courts to decide what was or was not a public authority for the purpose of the Bill in accordance with subsection (1) of the clause. However, for good measure the noble Lord threw in examples of bodies that he would be content to see treated as public authorities. As he acknowledged, he has drawn those examples on a selective basis from those mentioned in the White Paper. Next, however, the noble Lord offered the Committee some examples of organisations which he thinks should definitely be excluded from being regarded as public authorities. In fact once subsection (3) of the clause is deleted or replaced, the probability of the courts regarding organisations of this kind as public authorities becomes remote.
While the amendments in the name of Opposition spokesmen would restrict the application of the Bill, the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would extend it. He would include any person supplying goods or services to the public. The convention, I suppose, would catch window cleaners, jobbing joiners, the girl who keeps the window cleaner's accounts and the boy who delivers the flyers from the local restaurant. I think that that is far too broad.
The juxtaposition of the amendments whose effects point in opposite directions encourages me to believe that we have the balance right in Clause 6 as it stands. I suggest to the Committee that both sets of amendments should be resisted.
What we have sought to do in Clause 6 is to set out a principle: first, that the effects of Clauses 6 to 8 should apply in the first place to bodies which are quite plainly public authorities such as government departments; and, secondly, to other bodies whose functions include functions of a public nature, and therefore the focus should be on their functions and not on their nature as an authority. In the latter case the provisions of the Bill would not apply to the private acts of the bodies in question.
That is the principled approach that we have chosen. Another approach would have been to draw up lists of the bodies to which the Bill did or did not apply. But we rejected that approach as a matter of principle. In particular, there would be the difficulty of compiling such a list, the arguments about it, and the difficulty at the end of the day of preserving any coherent rationale
798
in such a list. The debate that we have had today strengthens me in the view that it was right as a matter of principle to go for a principle and not a list.
Against that background, there is not a great deal more that I wish to say about the particular cases cited. What is most obvious is that the lists could scarcely end where the Opposition have suggested that they might. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said: that the amendments are put down primarily to probe. We agree of course that local authorities, the police, and so on, will be subject to the Bill. Any expression such as "public authority" is bound to cover them. But it is equally obvious that the list produced in the amendment does not delineate all the obligations that we have under the European convention which we seek to make justiciable by means of the Bill in our own courts. As to the bodies which noble Lords opposite would wish specifically to exclude, I think that they would be the first to agree, at any rate in private, that it would be extremely difficult to justify excluding those bodies, however worthy they are, and not others. Some of them I do not doubt carry out some functions which are functions of a public nature. It is possible that others do not. But we see no reason why bodies which carry out functions of a public nature should not be amenable to the convention rights as interpreted and applied by our own courts as they are already indirectly in Strasbourg unless, as I said, the nature of the act complained of is of a private nature.
Whatever interpretation might he applied to the expressions "public authority" and "public functions", I doubt whether anyone would go as far as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. His amendment would shift the boundary an enormous distance at a single stroke. It does not need a Mephistopheles to see that. I cannot see any rationale in a society such as ours for regarding the fact of supplying goods or services as qualifying people to be treated as on a par with public bodies, or other organisations of at least a semi-public nature having regard to certain of their functions which will be of a public nature. It would be the smallest step from there, and perhaps more honest, to give the convention full horizontal effect, as it is sometimes called—that is, to regard the convention as applying to private individuals as well as to public authorities. I sense that the noble and learned Lord might not be too averse to that. But we think that that would be a step too far in a Bill which, I repeat, is designed to allow the convention rights to be invoked in this country by people who would have already a case in Strasbourg. I therefore respectfully suggest to those who moved the amendments to consider withdrawing them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may respectfully ask whether it is right that the answer to the right reverend Prelate would be yes, assuredly, from what the noble and learned Lord said: the decision, guidance, or whatever it may be from synod would attract the fast-track procedure, but only if it is a private act. In the context of the administration of synod, how can one

799
differentiate between a private and general act? On that I would need the assistance of the right reverend Prelate. It is pretty finely drawn stuff, is it not?
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: I greatly regret that I am not comforted by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He seems to have rather deliberately left out the question of religious freedom. I am concerned that a very strict, rather totalitarian view of "public" is endangering the freedom of choice of very large numbers of people in this country who see, as part of their democratic freedom, the freedom to have their children educated in a particular type of school without so-called public rights being used against that very basic freedom.
At Second Reading I was glad to speak on behalf of the Churches very much in favour of the Human Rights Bill. But if a sense of rights is being introduced in this total kind of way, at the expense of the choice of individual families, then something very serious is being lost. Church schools in my diocese welcome in considerable numbers children of other faiths. That is seen as a freedom that we respect in their case. I hope that we shall resist any infringement, on this very delicate matter, of the religious nurture of the young in our country.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, I wonder whether he is aware that the European Convention on Human rights is a charter of religious tolerance and freedom, and has been so interpreted consistently by the European Court of Human Rights in upholding pluralism and religious freedom: for example, in refusing to extend the law of blasphemy in this country to protect other faiths in a way that would be an engine of intolerance, according to the European Human Rights Commission; and in refusing persistently to permit the taxation of churches in other countries, and in other ways showing a complete respect for, as I say, religious tolerance and freedom, including the freedom of the Church of England in this country.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: That point has not been explicitly spelt out, in the way that the noble Lord has done, by the Government. That is what I seek.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may intervene before the right reverend Prelate sits down. He will see in Article 2 of the First Protocol—I speak as a former Education Secretary—a precise commitment to the right of parents to decide, within the limits of national resources, the kind of education they wish their children to have. Recalling my own period as Secretary of State—I believe that the same holds good today—one of the things underpinning the right of parents in Britain to choose a church school for their children's education if they so wish is precisely the European Convention on Human rights. The right reverend Prelate might well feel reassured rather than the opposite.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I still seek some assistance on the distinction and how it is drawn—even
800
an illustration—from the noble and learned Lord between a general act and a private act by the Synod. One will invoke the fast-track procedure; the other will not. I merely seek some help.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure whether the right reverend Prelate was in the Chamber when I read out Article 9 of the convention. I was at pains to emphasise that the convention guarantees religious freedom and entitles anyone, either alone or in community with others, in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. If any words of mine are necessary to add to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, it is well known that the European Court is highly respectful of Article 9. The Court does treat it as a charter for religious tolerance. I doubt whether the right reverend Prelate, were he to study the decisions of the Court under the article would find much, if anything, with which to quarrel.
I shall not be drawn into two particular responses to very particular questions. One of the dangers of Pepper v. Hart is that if one becomes drawn in that way, what one says can be too readily cited in the courts for a particular interpretation of the Bill. Pepper v. Hart does not come free of risk.
If a court were to uphold that a religious organisation, denomination or Church, in celebrating marriage, was exercising a public function, what on earth would be wrong with that? If a court were to hold that a hospice, because it provided a medical service, was exercising a public function, what on earth would be wrong with that? Is it not also perfectly true that schools, although underpinned by a religious foundation or a trust deed, may well be carrying out public functions? If we take, for example, a charity whose charitable aims include the advancement of a religion, the answer must depend upon the nature of the functions of the charity. For example, charities that operate, let us say, in the area of homelessness, no doubt do exercise public functions. The NSPCC, for example, exercises statutory functions which are of a public nature, although it is a charity. We believe that the principles of the Bill are right and that the courts will come to answers in which the public will have confidence.
Baroness Young: In reaction to my particular amendment, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very full and lengthy reply. I do not believe that there is any dispute at all about what he gave as his first definition of a public authority. We all understand that; there cannot be any argument about it. It is an authority set up by statute, such as a local authority.
His second definition of a public authority is the one which causes me, and I believe the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter and the other right reverend Prelate, some concern. It defines the body in question as having certain functions of a public nature.
Indeed, I was not really encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He said that the whole matter was defined on a case-by-case basis and that it was not a new problem. But in a sense the Bill before

801
us does create a new situation, so the situation is not precisely as it was before. The noble Lord went on to say—I shall read his remarks very carefully in Hansard—that the courts have developed certain clear principles and, for example, the functions of the Chief Rabbi or the Synod of the Church of England would not normally fall within the scope of the Bill. That does not really help us, because we do not know when a function would normally fall within the scope of the Bill and when it would not.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he had considered the provision of a list but had turned down the idea because of the complexities. Obviously, bodies that were not included in the list would feel that they were outside it but might in fact be included in the terms of the provision. The noble and learned Lord, with respect, has not quite answered my question about the sort of problems that could arise. It is not a question of whether the Church can marry somebody and whether that is a public function; it is a question of whether the Church has the right to say to a homosexual couple who "wish to marry", "I am not going to do it". That is the sort of issue to which I refer. Adoption is another example. Could a religious-based adoption agency which refused to recommend a placement with a homosexual or lesbian couple find itself in court? It ought to know.
Questions arise in regard to charities—for example, the hospice dealing with the organisation for euthanasia. I do not raise these matters as mere debating points. They actually worry quite a lot of people. We have not received an answer as to what the situation would be. I shall read very carefully what was said before considering whether to return to the matter on Report. It would perhaps be helpful to have some definitions, for instance, of "a family". The noble and learned Lord shakes his head. I am not writing the Bill. There will be many situations on which the Bill is not clear: people are concerned. This is new legislation. I do not believe that I have had a full answer to my question. I shall not press my amendment today but I shall look very carefully at what was said and consider whether to return to the matter on Report.
6.30 p.m.
LordHenley: Before I withdraw my amendment, and by implication the other amendments, perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord for being distinctly non-mephistophelean this afternoon. We have seen the sunny side, the angelic side, of his nature and he has given us a relatively full explanation of Clause 6, which is what we were seeking in putting down these amendments.
Some of my confusion is disappearing but at the same time my alarm is increasing with regard to the extent of the definition of "public authority", certainly as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his party. We shall need to look much more closely, not only at the definition of "public authority" but also at the exact meaning of "functions of a public nature" in Clause 6(3)(c).
802
I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord finds himself in a very pleasant position. On the one hand, he sees us trying to limit the scope of the clause; on the other hand, he sees the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, trying to increase its remit. I know from experience how very pleasant it is to put the argument, "On the one hand," "On the other hand," and then to say, "We have taken the middle road". It is not a very central part of the road that the noble and learned Lord occupies, as we see it. We see the definition as far too wide. As my noble friend Lady Young said, we must look carefully at the very full response the noble and learned Lord gave to the amendments, for which I thank him, and perhaps come back to the matter at a later stage.
I accept the noble and learned Lord's arguments in their entirety as regards the exhaustive-list approach. I do not believe that one could approach the matter in that way because lists never can be exhaustive, however hard one tries. Obviously, the noble and learned Lord took some time to take my amendments to pieces fairly carefully. There was no need to do that because they were merely probing amendments. We shall try to come forward with other amendments at a later stage of the Bill to limit to some extent the width of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 9, after ("any") insert ("natural or legal").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a relatively minor amendment compared to those we discussed earlier today. I hope that it will be viewed by the Government as an amendment which does not offer any form of violence to the scheme of the Bill as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has carefully and painstakingly explained it to us.
While I fully accept what has been said about the problems associated with having an exhaustive list, it nevertheless may be valuable to set it clear on the face of the Bill that in Clause 6(3)(c) the person or persons to whom reference is made can be either natural or legal persons. When one looks at the convention rights set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill, one sees that in Article 1 of the First Protocol, on page 17 of the Bill, there is reference to "every natural or legal person", making it clear that both categories are protected when it comes to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. That contrasts with the provisions of the convention itself which, when dealing with, for example, the right to liberty and security in Article 5, restricts itself to the use of the word "person". I therefore hope that the Government will be persuaded of the merit of looking at this matter when they reconsider the terms of Clause 6. I beg to move.
Lord William of Mostyn: I am most grateful for that explanation. We have looked at the matter in the context of the schedule and the terms of the convention article to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, referred. We believe that the present draft of

803
the Bill achieves what the noble and learned Lord wishes to achieve since Clause 6(3)(c) refers to "any person". Unlike the situation when one looks at the drafting of Article 1, the term is well known as a term of art in our law. It is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 and is relied upon throughout the statute book as including any person or body of persons corporate or unincorporate. I suggest that that is clearly wide enough to cover the natural or legal person to which the amendment refers. I hope that that short explanation is of assistance to the noble and learned Lord. We believe that the Bill fully accommodates what he wishes to achieve.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, which I fully understand and accept. I hope that lay people who will increasingly be looking at the Bill will do likewise. In the light of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("and
(d) any person concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public (whether for payment or otherwise) of any goods, facilities or services").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was discussed in the grouping with Amendment No. 36. I should like to say a word about what the noble and learned Lord said about it.
I paid earlier a well merited and genuine tribute to the intellectual power which has gone into the Bill and which has promoted and secured its cohesion. But the noble and learned Lord, like other artists before him, has, I am afraid, fallen in love with his own creation. It is the Pygmalion syndrome. When we who are supporters of the Bill suggest that perhaps so elaborate a hairstyle is not required in every circumstance and that, for example, when dealing with preceding legislation, a plainer style, which is well known to part of our law, might be acceptable, the noble and learned Lord merely says, "That does not fit in with our scheme, and that is an end of it." I am afraid that I cannot accept that. We shall have to return to the clause at a later stage. It was criticised from all parts of the House by supporters of the Bill—by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington.
The noble and learned Lord said that my amendment would extend to people like window cleaners, the restaurant or the church on the corner, and so on. That is arguable, but by no means certain. Bu if those people fall within the definition of the Race Relations Act, why should they not be encompassed by the Human Rights Bill?
However, this is not the time to argue further. I am afraid that my noble and learned friend has once again clothed himself in flames and decided to send this amendment to the nether regions.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert ("or the Lord Advocate or Attorney General exercising their roles as independent public prosecutors").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment raises the important issue of the intended effect of the Bill on the decisions taken by the Attorney-General and those who work under his supervision and by the Lord Advocate in their roles as independent public prosecutors. I accept at the outset that the role of the Attorney-General in England is not identical to that of the Lord Advocate in Scotland. However, I felt it appropriate to raise the roles of both Law Officers, though my specific concern, for reasons upon which I shall elaborate, is with the role of the Lord Advocate, his Crown counsel and procurators fiscal in Scotland.
It is clear from the discussion that has taken place in the Committee this afternoon that both the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate fall within the definition of "public authority" as set out in Clause 6(3) of the Bill. I also accept, as I am sure the Committee accepts, that at all times those acting as independent public prosecutors will wish to follow, in the course of taking the decisions with which they are charged, all of the principles to be set out in the convention and the protocols to which the United Kingdom is bound and seek to respect the convention rights as they are defined in the Bill.
The question which arises and on which I seek guidance from the Minister is this. Is it intended that the decisions taken by or on behalf of the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate as to whether to prosecute in a specific case, and, if there is to be a prosecution, on which charges, should be open to review by the courts on the basis that a specific decision is incompatible with one or more convention rights? In other words, the issue I seek to address is the issue of jurisdiction. Is it intended that the courts, whether it be the civil or the criminal courts, should have jurisdiction to entertain such an application, whether at the instance of the person who has been prosecuted or at the instance of a victim of a person who may have been arrested by the police but against whom no criminal proceedings are to take place?
It is not difficult to imagine an argument being evolved that a decision taken as to whether to prosecute has in some way breached, or been taken in a way which is incompatible with, the convention rights as defined in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said on the first day of Committee, some arguments advanced in legal proceedings are more meritorious than others. It is not difficult to imagine the argument being conceived. What I wish to address is not the merits of such an application but the issue of whether the courts should have jurisdiction to entertain such an application.
I understand, though I shall be guided by English lawyers in this matter, that in limited circumstances the High Court in England will entertain judicial review proceedings against the decision of the independent prosecutor. That principle has been established certainly in relation to cases involving the prosecution of juveniles where it is possible for the person bringing

805
the proceedings to demonstrate that the DPP decision to prosecute has been contrary to settled prosecution policy.
In Scotland the position is different. I am unaware of any case in which either the High Court of Justiciary or the Court of Session has entertained proceedings which have sought judicially to review the decision of the Lord Advocate or a procurator fiscal either to initiate criminal proceedings or to refrain from doing so. The principle which applies is well established and was famously described by the then Lord Justice General, Lord Justice General Clyde, in the case of M'Bain v. Crichton in 1961. He said this:
"In this country [Scotland] he [the Lord Advocate] is the recognised prosecutor in the public interest. It is for him, in the exercise of his responsible office, to decide whether he will prosecute in the public interest and at the public expense, and under our constitutional practice this decision is a matter for him, and for him alone. No one can compel him to give his reasons, nor order him to concur in a private prosecution. The basic principle of our system of criminal administration in Scotland is to submit the question of whether there is to he a public prosecution to the impartial and skilled investigation of the Lord Advocate and his department, and the decision whether or not to prosecute is exclusively within his discretion".
The Lord Justice General went on to say:
"it is utterly inconsistent with such a system that the Courts should examine, as it was suggested it would be proper or competent for us to do, the reasons which have affected the Lord Advocate in deciding how to exercise his discretion, and it would be still more absurd for this Court to proceed to review their soundness".
That principle was recognised not long ago during the holding of the Cullen inquiry into the Dunblane tragedy, where it was felt appropriate that the procurators fiscal who had been involved in dealing with police reports relating to Thomas Hamilton should give evidence before Lord Cullen. They did so. But Lord Cullen respected the principle that it would be inappropriate to review the soundness of the decisions which the individual procurators fiscal had reached.
It is important, with any form of constitutional Bill, that this Chamber examines with great care what may be the unintended consequences of legislation being brought forward with a wide measure of support, as it is suggested this Bill has. What I seek to have clarified, particularly in relation to Scotland but also in relation to England, is the issue of jurisdiction; namely, whether the courts could confidently review those decisions I described as against the convention rights set out in the schedule to the Bill. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I should like to add a few words to what the noble and learned Lord said in order to focus on what I see as a relatively narrow but important point raised by his amendment. The point is rather more narrow than the terms of his amendment suggest.
There is a considerable field of both investigation and prosecution practice which is currently subject to review under the common law by the law of Scotland, on which I am best qualified to speak. To take one recent and indeed welcome example, in a case called McLeod, which is well known to the noble and learned Lord the
806
Lord Advocate, the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland referred to a larger court for further examination the question of whether the prosecutor was obliged by Article 6(1) of the convention to disclose all material evidence for or against the accused. It took the view that these decisions were of great importance and required proper consideration of the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
I mention that because I would not like it to be thought that the court—I speak against the background of having served as chairman of the court on these issues for a number of years—was not aware of the importance of these issues and anxious to develop the jurisprudence under the common law. The point to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, however, is, as I have said, a very narrow one as to whether it is right for the court to tell the Lord Advocate whether he should prosecute or not prosecute in a particular case, and, if so, on what charges he should or should not prosecute.
There is, to add further background to the point, certainly jurisdiction to the effect that if the Lord Advocate decides to prosecute, he may be told that his prosecution is bad because it is oppressive; he may be told that it is too late; he may be told that the charges which he brings are incompetent or the wording is irrelevant. It is the narrow point of decision taking as to whether or not to prosecute that is at issue. The reason, I suspect, why the court has always in the past held back from giving directions on these matters is that it has always in the past taken the view that these questions raise difficult issues of policy which are best decided by the Lord Advocate and on which the court is really not well placed to express a view.
The issue for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, if he is to reply, is whether the law should be changed on this matter. If it is to be changed, it raises one other important point on which perhaps I should dwell at least for a moment. If a prosecution has been brought—if a decision has been taken—and the matter is then in the criminal field, there is plenty of jurisprudence in Scotland which identifies the court to which the matter can be brought; that is, the High Court of Justiciary. If there are no proceedings and a decision is being asked for as to whether the Lord Advocate ought to prosecute, there seems to me to be an open question as to whether that is a matter to be brought by way of judicial review in the Court of Session.
I do not need to emphasise the importance of the choice from the point of view of Scottish practice, because there is no appeal to the House of Lords from decisions of the High Court of Justiciary whereas there is an appeal from decisions of the Court of Session in matters of judicial review. I confess that it is not clear to me from the present wording of the Bill whether, if these matters are to be subject to review, it is clearly decided that they should be taken under review only in the High Court of Justiciary, which I would venture to suggest was the proper court for it. If that is to be the decision, it may well be that some indication in primary legislation should be given.

807
I make these observations really more to emphasise the importance of the amendment which the noble and learned Lord has suggested rather than to develop his theme in any further detail.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: No English common lawyer has any business in this debate except, if I may, to reflect on two matters which may be helpful. I recall that there was a decision of the House of Lords in the case of Lennon where Lord Diplock indicated that in a case of criminal libel—or it may have been blasphemous libel—it was incumbent on the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecuting authorities to have regard to the convention so as to ensure that in exercising the prosecutorial discretion there would be no unnecessary infringement of the right to free speech. So there, in an English appeal, the House of Lords in its judicial capacity recognised that there is an international obligation on prosecuting authorities to have regard to the convention.
I also recall—I am not sure whether it was in the interstate case of Ireland v. United Kingdom—developing an argument before the European Court of Human Rights with regard to prosecutorial discretion that if, for example, the prosecuting authorities in this country were to exercise their discretion in an arbitrary and racially discriminatory way or based on the religion of particular people—prosecuting some but not others because of their colour or race—English judicial review would certainly provide an effective remedy in that context as well.
hope that those two observations are of some help in resolving this problem.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment would explicitly exclude the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General in their role as independent public prosecutors from the definition of a public authority in Clause 6(3)(c). It would therefore not be unlawful for them, if these amendments were passed, to act in a way which was incompatible with the convention rights. I have derived assistance from the contributions to the debate of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lord Hope of Craighead, and of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I undertake to write to those who have spoken in support of the amendment elaborating what I now say.
It is of the first importance to distinguish clearly between judicial review and unlawful action under the convention. They are two different things. So far as I am aware, the Bill does not affect the ordinary law of judicial review. What it does do, however, is make it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with one or more of the convention rights. That is set out in Clause 6(1).
In England, certainly today, decisions not to prosecute are reviewable. The test would be whether no reasonable prosecutor could have abstained from prosecuting. I do not see in principle why that should not apply to a decision to prosecute where no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. I would also agree with the noble
808
Lord, Lord Lester, that a decision to prosecute only those who were black but not those who were white would be perverse and judicially reviewable. That, however, is not what is touched by the Bill. I am not aware of—and no noble and learned Lord has drawn my attention to—any provision of the convention which a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute might be said to infringe. So, as at present advised, I do not see how a prosecutor—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The example I had in mind was the right to liberty under Article 5 of the convention. Perhaps I may give, as an example, internment without trial, which was the subject matter of the Irish state case where I had the honour to represent the United Kingdom Government. A discriminatory use of internment without trial would plainly breach Article 5 and a decision to arrest and detain with a view to prosecution might breach Article 6 read with Articles 5 and 14. That is the risk that could arise since people would then find themselves facing criminal charges on a discriminatory basis. Some such argument might be mounted in relation to the discretion of the prosecutor. The example I have given of Article 10, where the prosecution related to free speech, was why Lord Diplock considered that the prosecutor needed to have regard to the convention in that context.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord refers to Article 5. I should have thought that internment or detention was not a matter of prosecutorial decision and therefore would fall outside Article 5. As at present advised, I am not persuaded that a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is caught by the convention or by any provision of the convention. But I shall look at that with greater care.
I can see that certain provisions of Article 6 and in particular those in paragraph (3) which confer certain minimum rights on persons charged with a criminal offence could be infringed by a prosecutor. So I am not saying that it appears to me that prosecutors are free of any duties under the convention. But for the present I do not see how a decision whether to prosecute would be caught by any particular provision of the convention. But I shall look at it and write to the noble and learned Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment.
In developing our proposals in Clause 6 we have opted for a wide-ranging definition of public authority. We have created a correspondingly wide liability. That is because we want to provide as much protection as possible for the rights of individuals against the misuse of power by the state within the framework of a Bill which preserves parliamentary sovereignty.
As a matter of principle it is plain that a prosecuting authority is a public authority and that it is right that it should abstain from acting in a way which is incompatible with one or more of the convention rights, but if it does so act, then it acts unlawfully.
Given the central role played in our criminal justice by independent public prosecutors, it would create a significant gap in the protection provided by the Bill if they were not subject to Clause 6. I do not see why they

809
should be exempted. I do not see why public prosecutors should not be required to act in a way which is compatible with the convention in just the same way as the courts themselves and investigators such as the police are required to act compatibly.
I oppose this amendment on its own terms. In my view, it would be subversive of the rule of law to provide that independent public prosecutors should be above the convention when no other public body is so placed. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate do not desire to be above the convention. In my view it would be bizarre if they were above it, while, in the case of the Attorney-General, the body for which he is responsible—namely, the Crown Prosecution Service—must comply with the convention. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment in its own terns but on the narrow issue of whether a decision to prosecute could arguably be said to infringe any convention rights, I shall consider it and write to the noble and learned Lords.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that he will appreciate that the amendment was tabled to probe the Government's position on this issue. In moving the amendment I did not for a moment begin to suggest that either the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate would desire to be above the convention or that in their prosecutorial work they would in any way wish to ignore any of the convention rights.
Clearly, there is a difference in practice between the law of England and the law of Scotland on this issue. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will appreciate and accept that one would not wish, in Scotland at least, to admit the possibility of either the High Court or the Court of Session reviewing decisions of the type I have described and those of the nature on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, focused in his contribution lest the practice be expanded into undesirable fields.
However, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for undertaking to write further about this matter. No doubt he will be assisted in framing his letter by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and others. Having received the letter, I shall reflect, consult with others whom I know are interested in this issue and possibly return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (5) and insert
("(5) A private body, which sometimes exercises functions of a public nature, shall not because of subsection (3) be regarded as a public body in respect of an act which is private in nature.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is supported by the Law Reform Committee of the Bar Council and by the Criminal Bar Association. It proposes a different form of wording for Clause 6(5). As Members of the
810
Committee have been told in the course of the debate this afternoon, Clause 6(3) gives a wide and non-exclusive definition to "public authority". But Clause 6(5), as drafted, has caused concern because it may be construed as removing from the protection to be given by the Bill public bodies when they are engaged in activities which may be classified as private. For example, employment relationships are not usually classified as public in nature.
This amendment is intended to make it clear that public bodies must comply with the Human Rights Bill, when it is enacted, in all their actions, including the treatment of their employees. For example, if that treatment involves an interference with the private life of an employee or a restriction on an employee's freedom of expression, it is suggested that such treatment should not be taken outside the protection of the Bill.
Clause 6(5), as presently drafted, may also give rise to uncertainty about its application to public servants who act outside the scope of their authority. An example is the notorious case of Makanjuola v. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner where the plaintiff was indecently assaulted by a police officer who had gained entry to her home by showing his warrant card. Under Clause 6(5) such an action might be said to be private rather than public. Therefore, there is a risk that the more seriously a public official misbehaves, the less likely that the victim will have the protection of the Bill. This amendment is intended to try to limit the exclusions in the Bill to truly private functions.
At an earlier stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he felt that the balance in Clause 6 was right. I would not argue in general with that proposition. This amendment is intended to achieve a small measure of fine tuning. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support this amendment. It is mainly a matter of drafting. I do not believe that there is much difference in substance between what is proposed in the amendment and what is already in Clause 3(2)(c) and in Clause 6(5) as presently drafted. But that subsection does not give enough information, whereas this amendment amplifies the position and is well worthy of consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand that this is a probing amendment, but what I am concerned to elucidate is whether it proceeds on the basis of a misunderstanding about the way in which Clause 6 works. Interpreting Clause 6(3)(c) as applying to all public authorities, even obvious ones, they already qualify as public authorities under Clause 6(1), with the result that government departments, for example, would not be bound by the convention in respect of their private acts. Of course, once a body qualifies as a public authority under Clause 6(1), if any of its acts are incompatible with one or more of the convention rights, it acts unlawfully.
The noble Lord has explained the reasoning behind his amendment. Essentially it is intended to ensure that public authorities must comply with Clause 6 in relation to all their acts, including those which might be regarded

811
as private in nature, such as those relating to employment matters, while exempting private bodies with some public functions from Clause 6 in relation to their private acts. With respect, I think that the noble Lord may have misunderstood how Clause 6 in its current form is intended to work in relation to public authorities. I hope that my explanation will persuade him that his amendment is not necessary.
For the purposes of this amendment, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I repeat and perhaps amplify some of the observations that I made pursuant to an invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I give a better explanation. Clause 6(1) refers to a "public authority" without defining the term. In many cases it will be obvious to the courts that they are dealing with a public authority. In respect of government departments, for example, or police officers, or prison officers, or immigration officers, or local authorities, there can be no doubt that the body in question is a public authority. Any clear case of that kind comes in under Clause 6(1); and it is then unlawful for the authority to act in a way which is incompatible with one or more of the convention rights. In such cases, the prohibition applies in respect of all their acts, public and private. There is no exemption for private acts such as is conferred by Clause 6(5) in relation to Clause 6(3)(c).
Clause 6(3)(c) provides further assistance on the meaning of public authority. It provides that "public authority" includes,
"any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
That provision is there to include bodies which are not manifestly public authorities, but some of whose functions only are of a public nature. It is relevant to cases where the courts are not sure whether they are looking at a public authority in the full-blooded Clause 6(1) sense with regard to those bodies which fall into the grey area between public and private. The Bill reflects the decision to include as "public authorities" bodies which have some public functions and some private functions.
Perhaps I may give an example that I have cited previously. Railtrack would fall into that category because it exercises public functions in its role as a safety regulator, but it is acting privately in its role as a property developer. A private security company would be exercising public functions in relation to the management of a contracted-out prison but would be acting privately when, for example, guarding commercial premises. Doctors in general practice would be public authorities in relation to their National Health Service functions, but not in relation to their private patients.
The effect of Clause 6(5) read with Clause 6(3)(c) is that all the acts of bodies with mixed functions are subject to the prohibition in Clause 6(1) unless— I emphasise this—in relation to a particular act, the nature of which is private.
Clause 6 accordingly distinguishes between obvious public authorities, all of whose acts are subject to Clause 6, and bodies with mixed functions which are caught in relation to their public acts but not their private acts. In so far as the noble Lord is concerned with obvious
812
public authorities such as those I have described, Clause 6 already does the job which his amendment is designed to do. In so far as he is concerned with bodies in the second category, I would contend that it is right to exempt from Clause 6 their private acts. In relation to employment matters, for example, I do not see a distinction between a private security company which has a contracted-out prison in its portfolio and one which does not. There is no reason to make the first company liable under Clause 6 in respect of its private acts and the second one not liable simply because the first company is also responsible for the management of a prison. As far as acts of a private nature are concerned, the two private security companies are indistinguishable; nor do I see a distinction in this area between Railtrack and other property developers or between doctors with NHS patients and those without.
Returning to the noble Lord's amendment, I do not believe that its actual effect—or its intended effect—differs significantly, if at all, from the effect of the provisions currently in the Bill. I do not see any real difference between,
"any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature",
as in Clause 6(3)(c), and
"A private body. which sometimes exercises functions of a public nature",
as in the amendment. Both of them refer to an entity which has mixed public and private functions. Both of them feed into the exemption for private acts in Clause 6(5). As I have explained, it may be that the Government and the noble Lord are aiming at the same target. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: Iam most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his support—albeit on the basis that I was seeking only to improve the form of the Bill rather than its substance in any material way.
I am most grateful also to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his full and careful explanation of his reading of the way in which Clause 6 is intended to work. There are, indeed, certain grey areas, caused in particular by the interaction of the phraseology concerned with bodies whether public or private and with activities of a public or private nature. This is not something to be pressed further this evening, but I shall wish to reflect upon the amendment and, if more refined provisions can be produced at a later stage, I reserve the right to do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 17, leave out from second ("act) to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: Clause 6(6) as presently drafted excludes a failure to legislate from the omissions which could give rise to a remedy under the Bill, thus it may be interpreted as inhibiting the courts from making declarations in situations in which the absence of legislation violates the convention. The convention

813
requires that any necessary interference with convention rights must be regulated and defined by law with sufficient precision and clarity as, for example, was the case in the telephone tapping case of Malone where the absence of a statutory regime led to the finding of a violation of Article 8 of the convention.
The purpose of the amendment is to explore whether and to what extent it is right for a government—for any government—to drag their heels in introducing legislation necessary to bring the United Kingdom into compliance with the convention. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I support this amendment. In addition to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, Clause 6(6) may have serious implications for the victims of crime. Strasbourg case law recognises that under certain circumstances the state is under an obligation to legislate so as to prohibit the infringement of convention rights by private individuals. Typically, the infringement will involve the commission of a criminal offence against a victim. Thus, in the case of X. and Y v. The Netherlands it was the failure of Dutch law to criminalise sexual abuse of a mentally handicapped 16 year-old which resulted in a violation of Article 8. Similarly, in the recent case of A. v. United Kingdom it was the failure of the UK to legislate so as to prohibit the abusive beating of a child by a parent which was found by the Commission to involve a violation of Article 3.
The courts may in certain circumstances be able to bridge such gaps by the development of common law rules, as the House of Lords did when it interpreted the offence of rape so as to include rape within the marriage. But by expressly excluding a failure to legislate from the acts that can give rise to a violation, Clause 6(6) may inhibit the ability of the courts to develop positive protection in this area. This would increase the risk of further adverse rulings in Strasbourg.
Lord Renton: I am very puzzled by subsection (6). If one refers to subsection (1), one is dealing with incompatibility on the part of a public authority in the way that it does its work with a convention right. But I cannot understand how a mere negative failure to introduce a proposal for legislation or to make primary legislation can be incompatible with the convention. It appears that we are getting into the area of non-events which are irrelevant.
I am also puzzled by the last two words of subsection (6). What is a remedial order? That is not a parliamentary phrase that I have ever heard. It may be a parliamentary way of describing an act of some kind, but I am not familiar with it. I believe that noble Lords will be helped if they can be told what "remedial order" means in this context.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I hope that my noble friend Lord Meston and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will forgive me for not being enthusiastic about this amendment for a reason that I can explain briefly. I was once guilty of a constitutional solecism in The Queen v. Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte
814
Equal Opportunities Commission. In that case relief was sought against Mr. Michael Howard (then Secretary of State for Employment) for his failure to introduce legislation amending the employment protection legislation so as to remove indirect sex discrimination against women. Reliance was placed on directly effective provisions of European Community law.
It was pointed out both in the House of Lords and the lower courts that one could not seek that kind of direct relief without invading the prerogative and privileges of Parliament as an institution, and there would be clashes between the law of Parliament and the law of the courts if one sought what was tantamount to an order against the Secretary of State for failing to introduce legislation into Parliament. Instead, what the Law Lords did was in a way more aggressive. They disapplied the legislation and displaced the inconsistent provisions. They could do that because Section 2 of the European Communities Act so required.
I am a reluctant convert to the proposition in this Bill that the courts should not have the power to strike down legislation or interfere with parliamentary sovereignty. It therefore seems to me to be sensible to include Clause 6(6) as the logical consequence of that decision so as to prevent the kind of challenge that I have endeavoured to summarise for the reasons that I have given.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord has explained that the purpose of his amendment is to ensure that the courts are not inhibited from making a declaration of incompatibility when the case before them turns on the absence of legislation rather than on a specific provision of legislation which is said to be incompatible with the convention rights. His particular concern is with cases where a public authority interferes with a convention right in an area which is not regulated by law. I shall try to explain that the Bill provides a remedy for the individual in the kind of case that has prompted this amendment and that the amendment has an effect which is inconsistent with one of the fundamental principles on which the Bill is based.
If a person believes that his convention rights have been violated as a result of action by a public authority which is not governed by legislation the right course is for him to bring legal proceedings against the authority under Clause 7 of the Bill or to rely on his convention rights in any other legal proceedings to which he and the authority are a party. If the court finds in his favour it will be able to grant whatever remedy is within its jurisdiction and appears just and appropriate. The fact that there is no specific legislation for the court to declare incompatible with the convention does not affect the ability of the person concerned to obtain a remedy. The absence of legislation entails that there is no legislative warrant for acts in breach of the convention by the public authority. The Minister, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly points out, is protected by Clause 6(6) from any claim that he is in breach by failing to bring forward legislation. That is part of the scheme of the Bill to underpin parliamentary sovereignty.
Further, the purpose of a declaration of incompatibility is to allow the courts to make a public statement that they cannot interpret legislation in a way which is

815
incompatible with the convention rights. It is just not possible to do so. This provides a trigger for the power to make a remedial order in Clause 10. Because the Bill protects public authorities which are acting so as to give effect to primary legislation, even if the action is incompatible with the convention rights, there is nothing that the courts can do to provide a remedy to the person affected by their actions. That is why the power to make a declaration of incompatibility is needed in these cases. There is no corresponding need to make a declaration of incompatibility in cases where the problem is an absence of legislation, because there is nothing to stop the courts providing a remedy in those cases. There is no legislative bar or block on the courts doing so. On the contrary.
I therefore believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right not to be enthusiastic about this amendment. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary and would have undesirable consequences if it were accepted.
Clause 6(6) exempts from Clause 6 a failure by a public authority to,
"introduce in, or lay before, Parliament a proposal for legislation; or make any primary legislation or remedial order".
This amendment would remove that exemption so that a failure by a public authority to do one of those things would be capable of being challenged in the courts on the grounds that it was unlawful because it was incompatible with one or more of the convention rights.
In effect—and I believe this to be the compelling argument against the amendment—it would make a decision not to enact primary legislation justiciable before the courts. That would be inconsistent with a fundamental precept of our constitutional arrangements; namely, that the courts do not interfere with the proceedings of Parliament. In short, the Bill is designed to preserve parliamentary sovereignty and this amendment would encroach upon that.
As to the examples which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave, in those cases, the Government would of course consider whether to make a legislative response to any decision of the Strasbourg court. I should add also that judges do, in their judgments from time to time, draw attention to the need for Parliament to consider legislative change and after the passage of this Bill they will remain as free to do that as they have always been and have felt themselves free to do.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Meston, replies perhaps I may say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has gone a long way towards filling the gaps in my mind. However, he has not dealt with the question which I asked him to deal with in relation to the words "remedial order". It would seem that a remedial order means an order made by a court of law. Bearing in mind that earlier we were talking about parliament and legislation, for the sake of clarity should we not make it clear that that refers to a remedial order by a court of law?
The Lord Chancellor: "Remedial order" is an order of the kind defined in Clause 11.
Lord Meston: Dealing with the "remedial order" point, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has spotted a drafting
816
defect in the Bill which has irritated me in the sense that Clause 11 refers for the first time to a definition of a remedial order, or a partial definition of it when in fact it covers Clause 10. It would be much more helpful to have somewhere in Clause 10 the phrase "remedial order" introduced for the first time. But that is a drafting point rather than anything else.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for his assistance in supporting this amendment. I am comforted by the explanation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which suggests that it will be no defence to proceedings brought under the convention to say that there is no appropriate legislation. That is a substantial answer to the point raised by the amendment.
But I do not accept the proposition that a failure by the Executive to legislate is in any way an infringement of parliamentary sovereignty. Surely it is the absence of any parliamentary activity which is involved and the absence of any parliamentary initiative by the Executive. That is the situation about which I am troubled in this amendment.
Having said that, I am conscious of the fact that a substantial answer has been given by the Government to the point raised in this amendment and that it does not have the support of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I shall not completely scuttle off with my tail between my legs but I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved, That the House be now resumed.— (Lord Haskel.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I ask the Whip until what time it is proposed that we should sit this evening? In asking that question, perhaps I may remind him of the Rippon Committee recommendations on the Sittings of the House and also the fact that we have had three introductions and a Statement lasting three-quarters of an hour.
Lord Haskel: I shall respond to that when we return after the Dinner Hour when I shall have had the opportunity to consult the people who are dealing with the Committee stage of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Dounreay Nuclear Establishment) Order 1997
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the order laid before the House on 31st October be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order before the House today seeks your Lordships' approval for an emergency order made on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland to ban fishing for all species of fish and shellfish in an area of water around the Dounreay nuclear establishment.
The order was made on 29th October as a result of the detection of 34 fragments of irradiated fuel by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) during its recent survey of offshore sediments. The survey was an extension to the Atomic Energy Authority's survey programme aimed at establishing the source of particulate contamination detected on the Dounreay foreshore since 1984 and on the public beach at Sandside Bay.
The decision to make this Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) order was based on advice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, (SEPA), which is the regulatory agency and acts as a source of independent advice to the Scottish Office. In providing this advice, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has carefully considered the information currently available. It has taken into account the contamination of seabed sediments by fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel extending for at least 1 kilometre laterally along the coast from the Dounreay main site outfall. On the basis of that information, the Scottish Environment Protection agency requested a restriction on the harvesting of seafood around the area as a precautionary measure.
The order therefore prohibits the taking of all species of fish and shellfish within a 2 kilometre area of water around the main outfall pipe of the Dounreay nuclear establishment, again as recommended by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I must emphasise that our aim in taking the action is to ensure effective protection of public health.
I am advised, on the current information available, that the risk to public health is likely to be very low, although there does remain a possibility that fragments of the irradiated nuclear fuel could be taken up by seafood species and subsequently enter the human food chain. If a fragment of this irradiated nuclear fuel was to be ingested, it could result in severe acute radiation effects and significant long term health effects. That is the reason, therefore, that this precautionary measure has been taken. The protection of public safety is of paramount importance.
We are advised by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) that very little commercial fishing takes place in the closed area of water. Some fishing for crabs and lobsters takes place on a seasonal basis. We have been advised also that the closed area may affect the
818
harvesting of a run of wild salmon. It is not yet clear whether this run is within the exclusion zone, and that will need to be examined further.
By acting quickly to protect public health, we also ensure that the good name of the Scottish fisheries industry is protected. The quality of Scottish produce is second to none. In taking action to close the area for fishing as a precautionary measure, we can demonstrate to our trading partners and customers that the safety and quality of our produce is of paramount importance.
I must stress also that at this stage no fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel have been found in fish or shellfish during recent aquatic monitoring programmes in the area carried out on behalf of the Scottish Office by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
Indeed, following the making of the order a request was received from fishermen to recover their catch from the prohibited area. Consent was granted by the Scottish Office and on 4th November this year 69 creels were recovered under the supervision of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Atomic Energy Authority. All the catch, mainly crabs and lobsters, was individually monitored, and no radioactivity was found. The catch was detained for further examination by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Atomic Energy Authority. Some contamination was found adhering to one creel. It consisted of a small piece of black tape, which showed readily detectable levels of radioactivity. Further detailed analysis of the tape is currently under way.
Fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel have been found on the Dounreay foreshore since 1984 at a rate of approximately one per month. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC), in their independent reports, published in May 1995, concluded that the chance of a member of the public encountering a fragment on the beach was considered to be extremely small. The operator has undertaken investigations to find the source of the material. The work was restricted initially to the foreshore. Following an isolated find at Sandside Bay earlier this year, investigations commenced offshore and 34 fragments were found in offshore sediments. Their presence was notified to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency which has made a clear recommendation that interim action is required.
The order is based upon these recent results. The extent of the ban relates to an area of 2 kilometres of the main outfall pipe of Dounreay and reflects the extent necessary to deal with the current situation. The source of the fragments has not yet been identified by the Atomic Energy Authority. Once that is determined a more accurate assessment of the risk will be possible.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has confirmed that it will ask the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to assist it in producing an assessment of the risks from fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel offshore at Dounreay. When the results of that assessment are available, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will reassess its current advice. I am

819
certain that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the National Radiological Protection Board will undertake that work as quickly as possible, but it is likely to take some months.
I must re-emphasise that our aim in taking this action is to safeguard public health. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 31st October be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear and concise explanation of why the order has been brought before us. I realise that in such incidents, as the Minister said, public health is of paramount importance. I note that she confirmed that there had been no evidence of contamination of fishing species in the area. I should like to know who carried out the inspections off the coast at Dounreay.
Is the Minister aware that the order will not affect just the 2 kilometre area about which she talked but the reputation of all fish and shellfish caught throughout northern waters? As the Minister confirmed, it must be emphasised that produce from outside the area has not been found to be contaminated.
I was made aware in the early part of the year that fishing is of prime importance economically in this area. I hope that the Minister will make her right honourable friend aware of that fact, especially as I believe—I should like her to let me know whether or not this is so—there is no compensation available for fishermen as a result of the order. We of course support the order, but we are concerned for the livelihoods of those fishing in northern waters.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his interest and his questions which I shall attempt to answer to his satisfaction. I am sure that if any point remains to be clarified, we can do so by letter. The inspection was carried out by the operator (the UKAEA) which undertook the offshore survey as an extension of the monitoring programme. It is aimed at establishing the route by which the particles have been appearing on the foreshore.
Fragments were detected offshore for the first time during August and September as a result of the survey. SEPA informed the Scottish Office on 23rd October that it advised an interim ban. Obviously there is concern. I confirm that no compensation is available when action is taken to protect food safety because the safety of the food chain is of paramount importance.
The order will be lifted when it is felt safe to do so. It will be reviewed when there has been a further assessment by the National Radiological Protection Board and SEPA. That is likely to take several months. I want to clarify the point, because I notice a questioning look on the face of the noble Earl. It is not the policy to compensate when taking action to ensure food safety. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Summer Time Order 1997
7.48 p.m.
Lord Hoylerose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1997 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 27th October [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Summer Time Order 1997 be approved. The draft order before your Lordships this evening has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and has been approved by affirmative resolution in another place.
As your Lordships will see, the order is uncontentious. It does no more than continue for a further four years—that is, for 1998 to 2001—the existing arrangements for the starting and ending dates of summer time. In line with previous years, summer time will start at 1 a.m. GMT on the last Sunday in March and end at I a.m. GMT on the last Sunday in October. That will mean that summer time will run from 29th March to 25th October in 1998; 28th March to 31st October in 1999; 26th March to 29th October in the year 2000; and 25th March to 28th October in 2001.
These dates are in accordance with the 8th EC Directive on summer time in the European Union. EC directives on summer time are concerned only with setting the start and end dates. Noble Lords will recall that until 1996 the UK and the Republic of Ireland had a derogation from the directive which enabled them to continue to end summer time in October rather than in September, the date preferred by other member states.
For the past two years, however, that derogation has not been required. This follows a decision by our European partners that an October end date would also have advantages for them. That has removed the uncertainty that was caused by the one-month difference among member states in the times that they altered their clocks. Travellers and business, particularly transport operators, have all benefited from this change. I therefore seek the agreement of the House to the continuation of the present arrangements for a further four years. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1997 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 27th October [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hoyle.)
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. When the Summer Time Order was last before the House in 1994, it was then the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who responded for the Opposition. Well, the cast list and the stage directions seem to have changed, for the moment at any rate, but I take the same view as the noble Lord did on that occasion. It is indeed an uncontroversial order and we shall not oppose it.
However, I shall make a brief reference to the issues related to the order, just as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did some three years ago. There are those who would argue that this order does not go far enough—that we should have double summer time so that our

821
trading day would coincide exactly with that of our colleagues in continental Europe. There would be special advantages, in particular for the banking and financial services sectors. We have two out of the top four banking and financial services centres in the EU within the UK, based in London and in Edinburgh.
The issue of double summer time was debated in another place in January 1996, when my honourable friend Mr. Butterfill, introduced the British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill. He pointed out the advantages of aligning our summer time exactly with that of our EU colleagues. He also, in due fairness, pointed out the disadvantages. Noble Lords will be glad to hear that I do not propose to go through that list tonight. However, without using too much of a pun, time does indeed move on. There have been two developments since we last debated the order which may have a bearing upon the issue of summer time.
First, there is the issue of EU expansion. For example, what would be the potential impact of proposals which have already been made for the extension of the EU into eastern European countries which are significantly further east than the current time zone covered by the EC 8th Summer Time Directive? Has the Minister any views about the future effect of EC expansion eastwards upon summer time directives?
The second point is connected to the powers of the Scottish parliament and was brought to my attention during the David Frost television programme yesterday morning when the issue of summer time was raised by Mr. David Frost during his interview with Mr. Richard Branson. Mr. Branson suggested that Scotland might choose to have a different time zone from that adopted in the rest of the UK, if indeed we move to double summer time. That raised in my mind the question of the powers of the Scottish parliament, now that we know that the Government are proposing to create such a body. If this Parliament were at some stage to adopt double summer time—that is, the Westminster Parliament—could a Scottish parliament require single summer time for Scotland? Further, just how desirable or, indeed, sensible might that be? I would be grateful if the Minister could comment upon those points either now or by writing to me in the future. However, as I said earlier, we do not oppose the order.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before I put a question to the Minister, perhaps I may correct the noble Baroness on one point. She suggested that all other European or EC countries are in the same time zone. That is not correct. Greece, the Republic of Ireland and Portugal are in different time zones.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I was trying to convey the fact that such changes might occur. There are countries being brought into the EU which are significantly—and I hope that I used the word "significantly"—further east and in different time zones. The noble Lord was completely right to point out the different situation with regard to Ireland.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Of course, she made an entirely valid point about the countries coming in from further east. It may be
822
worth noting that Portugal carried out an experiment of going on to Central European Time, but the Portuguese people did not like it so the country reverted to UK time, so to speak.
Can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government are negotiating, or proposing to negotiate, with other European governments with a view to coming to some agreement to start summer time in the middle of March rather than at the end of that month every year so as to ensure that Easter always falls upon a date when summer time is in force? I have not given the Minister any notice of that question, but it is a matter worthy of consideration.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was quite right to say that the positions have been reversed on this occasion. Indeed, I have to reply in the way that her noble friend Lady Blatch did on a previous occasion. I should like, first, to deal with the question raised by the noble Baroness; namely, what difference would there be regarding the time zones which new members of the EU might adopt? As has been said, there are already two states—Finland and Greece—which have different time zones from ours. It is a matter for consideration. However, if the noble Baroness requires further information, I am sure that we can communicate with each other on that particular point.
As regards the question of Scotland, I am aware that it has been suggested that the Scottish parliament should be able to decide its own time zone. However, I should point out that different time zones within the UK would have significant effects on transport, business and communication links. We therefore consider that whatever arrangements are in place should apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. It is also wrong to assume that there is a regional split of opinion in relation to the zones. Many in England and Wales favour the status quo, while there are others in Scotland who would support a move to CET.
As regards starting summer time in mid-March, the cold weather does of course continue well into March and onwards. That is one of the reasons why we have always felt that it would be better for us to continue with the present system.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked whether we would be negotiating with other European governments. I shall take advice on that point and write to the noble Lord on the matter. I commend the order to the House.
On Question Motion agreed to.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 p.m. to 8.35 p.m.]

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 7 [Proceedings]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, moves Amendment No. 46, perhaps I may at last say something. The Government Whip kindly said that he would tell us what our bedtime would be when he came back to the Chamber.
Lord Haskel: With the permission of the Committee, the usual channels have consulted and will give a suggested finishing time at 9.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillmoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 4, leave out line 26.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 46, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 and 56. They are designed to remove what I regard as the unnecessarily legalistic restrictions in Clause 7 on the standing needed to apply for judicial review where convention rights are at stake. They are, I hope, in accordance with the Bill's philosophy; namely, that of seeking to confer collateral advantages rather than to undermine the principles of the Bill.
There is a curious anomaly in the Bill as it stands. It is traditionally British in its main principles respecting both the English constitutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the need to provide effective British judicial remedies for breaches of convention rights. The Bill is also British in empowering all our courts and tribunals to interpret and apply the convention rather than to establish a special constitutional court. The Bill is British, too, in requiring our courts to take into account the European jurisprudence from Strasbourg but not to be ruled by it. Yet Clause 7 makes a curious and anomalous departure from this very British scheme. Instead of relying upon the well developed public law concepts—judicial review concepts—of legal standing for judicial review and other proceedings, the Bill imports a test of legal standing derived from the concept of a victim to be used by the European Court of Human Rights in interpreting and applying Article 34 of the convention, as it will be when it is amended by the 11th protocol.
The Notes on Clauses explain that Clause 7(3) provides for the purpose of the sufficient interest test in judicial review proceedings that an applicant can seek judicial review of the act of a public authority on the grounds that the act is unlawful under the Bill,
"only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act".
The Notes on Clauses state,
"This means that the ability to apply for judicial review on convention grounds which is narrower than for judicial review applications otherwise corresponds to the standing or locus test under Article 34 of the convention itself for bringing complaints to the European Court of Human Rights".
The Notes on Clauses do not explain the reasons and perceived mischief that have led the Government to seek deliberately to narrow the well-developed English
824
public law and Scots judicial review concepts of sufficient interest adopted by Parliament and developed by our courts.
Parliament enacted Section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 imposing a jurisdictional requirement of "sufficient interest" for an applicant to apply for judicial review of administrative action. That test of sufficient interest has also been included in Order 53, Rule 3, of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The same applies under the Scottish Rules of Court for judicial review.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is not in his place. I know that he came to this debate with the hope of being able to support the amendment. In their masterly fifth edition of Stanley De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and Professor Jeffrey Jowell QC refer to the generous and sensible approach to legal standing in public law cases taken by courts not only in this country but elsewhere in the Commonwealth. They point out in their book at page 127 that on applications for judicial review, because the requirement of leave in any event acts as a satisfactory filter, the need to have standing should be no more than a convenient general principle to be taken into account by the court when determining the manner in which it should exercise its discretion as to whether to grant leave, and, when leave has been granted, as to whether to grant one of the discretionary remedies available on judicial review.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and Professor Jeffrey Jowell observe that a sufficient interest,
"has to receive a generous interpretation. It has to be treated as a broad and flexible test … A great variety of factors are capable of qualifying as sufficient interest. They are not confined to property or financial or other legal interests. They can include civic (or community), environmental and cultural interests. The interests can be future or contingent … The gravity of the issue which is the subject of the application is a factor taken into account in determining the outcome of questions of standing. The more serious the issue at stake the less significance will be attached to arguments based on the applicant's alleged lack of standing … In deciding what, if any remedy to grant as a matter of discretion, the Court will take into account the extent of the applicant's interest. At this stage different remedies may require a different involvement by the applicant".
These fair, rational and well-modulated principles have worked well in practice. The test of sufficient interest, coupled with the requirement to obtain leave to apply for judicial review, and the courts' other discretionary powers provide sufficient safeguards against any abuse of judicial review by vexatious or interfering busybodies or bodies seeking an actio popularis.
Our courts have wisely interpreted the test of sufficient interest to allow public interest groups, such as the Child Poverty Action Group, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Equal Opportunities Commission, or trade unions to bring cases in their own name on behalf of a class of people who are directly affected by laws and regulations. This has the advantage of enabling all the relevant matters at issue to be determined together and at an early stage in order to

825
clarify whether there has been a misuse of public powers, including an abuse involving a violation of human rights.
I am not aware of any instances of abuse that would justify excluding such public interest proceedings in human rights cases, and I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would give any such examples of abuse in his reply.
Both the Law Commission for England and Wales in its report on judicial review and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his report on Access to Justice welcomed this development of public interest cases, as did the Labour Party's consultation paper Bringing Rights Home. I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues apparently do not do so.
If the Government continue to refuse to establish a human rights commissioner, the subject matter of the next debate, it will be all the more important to ensure that public interest organisations have sufficient standing to pursue challenges to the legality, the fairness or the rationality and proportionality of administrative decisions interfering with convention rights. Under Clause 7 they will not be able to do so unless they can find a John Doe or a Richard Roe to stand as a token victim in the case.
Thus far I have concentrated on the just, reasonable and workable nature of the sufficient interest test, as it has been developed by our courts. I now turn to consider the other side of the coin: the complex and obscure position that will be created if the European convention test of "victim" is imported for cases under Clause 7 of the Bill, but not for other judicial review proceedings. It will then become necessary for our courts to have regard not to our well tried and tested case law on the sufficient interest test, but to a complex body of Strasbourg case law developed for the quite different purpose of interpreting a provision of the convention that will disappear next year when Protocol 11 brings the new court into existence with new procedures.
Article 25 of the present convention as it stands empowers the European Commission of Human Rights to receive petitions from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation of convention rights. Article 34 of the convention as amended by the 1 1 th protocol will come into force next year with a similar victim test for applications to the European Court after the Commission has been abolished. The new European Court will presumably interpret Article 34 in the light of the large and complex body of case law developed by the existing Commission and Court under Article 25.
The Bill deliberately excludes the procedural rules of the European Court of Human Rights which allow third party interventions by bodies such as the Post Office Engineering Union (in Malone), or MIND (in Ashingdane), or the International Press Institute (in Lingens), or Justice (in Monnell v. Morris), or Amnesty International (in the Soering case), or the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission for Human Rights, Liberty, and the Committee on the
826
Administration of Justice (in Brannigan and McBride), or the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (in Open Door and Dublin Well Woman).
It is well established that a public authority such as the EOC has no standing to bring a case as a victim under the convention. What that means is that the EOC, the CRE, the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland or the Official Solicitor will be prevented by Clause 7 from intervening as an amicus curiae, or third party, to represent the wider public interest if they seek to rely on convention rights in any legal proceedings. For example, I was instructed by the EOC many years ago to perform that amicus role in a case called Nasse v. Science Research Council, a case where applicants were seeking discovery of employers' confidential documents for the purpose of proving discrimination cases. I relied before the House of Lords on Article 6 of the convention representing not the individual but the EOC in the wider public interest. Clause 7(1) would now prevent that because the EOC is not a victim. How, I ask myself, can that possibly be in the interests of justice, including the proper interpretation and application of the convention?
The absurdity of that anomaly is highlighted by the fact that, under Clause 5, the Bill gives the Crown the right to intervene where a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility. Yet other public authorities or public interest organisations are to have no such right of third party intervention. I do not see any justification for placing the Government in that uniquely privileged procedural position, depriving the courts of the benefit of other third party interventions. I am not aware that any other European or Commonwealth country has adopted such a narrowly exclusive rule, giving a right to intervene to the Crown and to no other person or body. As I said, such an approach is also not consistent with the rules of the European Court of Human Rights, which allow third party interventions.
Nor does the matter end there. The existing Strasbourg case law on what constitutes a "victim" is, to say the least, not entirely satisfactory. I do not understand why the Government consider that it is better for our courts to have slavishly to adopt that European case law rather than using the well-understood English statutory test of "sufficient interest".
Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick give examples of the case law in their authoritative textbook on the law of the convention (at page 633). In the case of Open Door and Dublin Well Women v. Ireland, which concerned an Irish Supreme Court injunction against the provision of information by the applicant companies concerning abortion facilities outside Ireland, the European Commission and the Court considered that women of child-bearing age could claim to be victims since they belonged to a class of women which might be adversely affected by the restriction. On the other hand, in the case of Leigh, Guardian Newspapers Ltd. and Observer Ltd. v. United Kingdom, the applicants complained of the impact of the majority House of Lords decision in Harriet Harman's case, finding her guilty of contempt of court as a solicitor for allowing the journalist, David Leigh, to inspect confidential documents even though

827
they had been read out in open court. I had the privilege of acting on their behalf and on behalf of Harriet Harman. They claimed that it breached their right to free expression under Article 10. The commission ruled that David Leigh could complain, but not the newspaper companies. As a result, the important issue of access to information by the press was excluded from the case. I doubt whether an English court would have reached such a narrowly restrictive conclusion.
To take another example, in Times Newspapers Ltd. v. United Kingdom, the commission ruled that the newspaper could not claim to be a victim of a breach of free speech under Article 10 in complaining of the unpredictability of jury damages awards in libel cases, because it had not shown that its newspapers had been inhibited from imparting information. An English court might well have reached the same conclusion in that particular case.
However, Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick rightly observe in their textbook that these decisions demonstrate the elasticity of the notion of victim in the Commission's case law as well as the uncertain and shifting boundaries between those directly affected by a particular measure and those remotely affected by it. They also point out that, in view of the development of a concept of indirect victim, the different categories of victimhood often shade into one another. So the Strasbourg case law is not entirely consistent or predictable.
I am indebted to Justice, of whose executive and council I am proud to be a member, and to Liberty, of which I am a long-standing member, for a briefing paper prepared by Peter Duffy QC and Rabinder Singh, two very able and experienced public law advocates℄
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the noble Lord give way? I am much obliged. I have only been in this place for about 18 years, but I have never heard anything like this after dinner. For how long is this going on? The issue is so simple. It has already been explained.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: If the noble Lord will show his customary patience, I shall shortly come to a conclusion.
The authors point out that enacting Clause 7(3) as it stands risks preventing some human rights cases from being brought that ought to be brought in the public interest. Public interest groups face losing standing to raise convention human rights points in circumstances in which otherwise they would have standing, even over fundamental rights points rooted in the common law.
Enacting Clause 7 as it stands would produce discrepancies over standing to bring judicial review proceedings between: (a) purely domestic law cases; (b) domestic law cases under the Human Rights Act; and (c) domestic law cases under directly effective European Community law with a human rights element.
828
Fifteen years ago in the National Federation of Self Employed case, Lord Diplock observed that it would be,
"a grave lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group, like the federation, or even a single public-spirited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped".
But if Clause 7(3) is enacted as it stands, that is what would happen not in ordinary judicial review cases, but where fundamental human rights are at stake. Technical rules, based on the unsatisfactory Strasbourg case law, will be incorporated into English law. It is surely absurd and unworkable to have different tests of standing according to whether the judicial review application is based upon: (i) ordinary common law principles; or (ii) common law principles matching or embodying convention rights; or (iii) directly effective Community law; or (iv) convention rights; or (v) a combination of any of those four grounds. But if Clause 7(3) is enacted as it stands, it will hamper the proper administration of justice, unnecessarily increase the legal costs of judicial review proceedings and create legal uncertainty.
For all those reasons—and I apologise for the length of my remarks—I seek to remove the reference to "victim" at the end of Clause 7(1), together with Clauses 7(3) and 7(4), from the Bill, leaving the issue of standing to the well-established just, reasonable and workable tests of standing used in English public law and Scots judicial review. I very much hope that the Government will think again. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I must point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot, under the pre-emption rule, call Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 inclusive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. I protest against this sheer abuse of this House—at having to listen to these esoteric lectures on law at this hour of night. The issue is totally simple. Our own procedure will safeguard everything that is put in the words of the Bill—"the victim". It is preferable, for the reasons given, to have this amendment than to use the term "the victim". Why we have to be entertained for 20-something minutes with cases from here, there and everywhere totally defeats me, and I protest against it.
Lord Ackner: The wheel has gone full circle. Some 25 years ago I had the privilege of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as a junior allowed by his leader to address me on Spanish law in a commercial case that lasted 15 weeks. Sitting at the back was his father, listening with admiration, against whom I used to appear in the county court. Now, 25 years on, I have had the privilege of hearing him in the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords in Pepper v. Hart, the Spycatcher case and other cases, and I reach here in 1997 the position of being led by the noble Lord on a very important amendment.

829
I brush to one side what seem to me the offensive observations of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. A great deal of work has been put into the noble Lord's remarks. It will read very well in Hansard. It sets out in an irresistible way the strength of the amendment that he has mounted and I support it strongly.
Baroness Amos: I shall be very brief as I appear to be losing my voice. The Bill proposes in Clause 7 to adopt the convention test for "victim" as the standing requirement for parties seeking to rely on the convention against a public authority in judicial review proceedings. The White Paper explains that that means that individuals or organisations will need to show that they have been directly affected.
I welcome the fact that one of the key elements of the Bill is establishing a human rights culture and context in the United Kingdom which will ensure that individuals understand their rights and have access to justice. I am therefore disappointed that public interest organisations appear to be excluded from taking cases in their own name even though that has been established by the courts as a legitimate development in the public interest.
I recall during my years at the Equal Opportunities Commission the importance of the commission having standing to take a case. This will be particularly important during the early stages of incorporation, when there will be a need to clarify the law. A case brought by a group can clarify the law for many people, some of whom may not even know of their rights. A well focused case, brought in good time, may also save public money—for example, multiple legal aid costs. In most cases there clearly will be a victim; but I believe it is important that we do not now go backwards and limit the access to the courts of public interest organisations.
9 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: One of the Bill's great achievements is the way in which it grafts the convention onto the existing legal framework with a bare minimum of changes to the framework itself. While I welcome the adoption of the convention's definition of "victim", there seems to me no reason why that should lead to a modification of any features of the law of judicial review in relation to convention claims. I respectfully suggest that the preferable approach would be to leave untouched the present law concerning what constitutes "a sufficient interest" for the purposes of judicial review and to allow the courts to continue to develop the jurisprudence as to the circumstances when it is in the public interest for a challenge to be heard, even when there is no victim; otherwise in the same case the court will have to refuse to hear a public interest body raising a point about fundamental human rights when it will hear the same body on less fundamental issues.
I give notice that, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not accepted, I shall propose at Report stage an alternative amendment leaving in the reference
830
to "victim" but replacing subsection (3) with a new subsection as follows:
"Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent an applicant from bringing an application for judicial review provided that the court considers that he has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates".
Lord Meston: If the noble Baroness looks at the second Marshalled List she will see that that amendment is already down in my name as Amendment No. 50A. If the matter is to be taken further at Report stage, no doubt we shall have the benefit of supporting each other on it.
The case against enacting Clause 7(3) as presently drafted is compelling; and, if I may say so, in view of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble friend's introduction of the amendment was entirely justified considering the importance of the point which he wished to cover. I join my noble friend in paying tribute to the powerful analysis by Peter Duffy QC and Rabinder Singh.
Amendment No. 50A, which the noble Baroness has already read, proposes that it is preferable that the test of standing for all judicial reviews should be that of sufficient interest but at the same time makes clear that in all human rights cases anyone who would be a victim in Strasbourg terms would have a sufficient interest domestically.
Lord Kingsland: I hope that the knowledge that the Opposition Front Bench support the amendment will not deter the noble Lord, Lord Lester, from pursuing it with vigour.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was not deterred by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway; nor was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, deterred by him. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, however, left the Chamber, as far as I could see, in protest at what he regarded as overly extensive legal anecdotage. For myself, I always enjoy listening to both noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord. They do not appear to have given much pleasure to each other this evening. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has not waited for the pleasure of listening to me; on the other hand, there might not have been much pleasure in that because I oppose the amendment.
The basic point, the critical issue, can be shortly and easily stated. It is whether the judicial review standing test domestically should apply to convention cases as well rather than the Strasbourg victim test, which is perhaps naturally more appropriate when we are bringing convention rights home. The fact that the two tests are not in accord causes the noble Lord, Lord Lester, uncharacteristically, to be hostile to the European test and to favour our domestic judicial review test.
In opposing Amendment No. 46, I beg leave to speak also to Amendments Nos. 50, 50A, 56 and 56A.
The purpose of the Bill is to give greater effect in our domestic law to the convention rights. It is in keeping with this approach that persons should be able to rely

831
on the convention rights before our domestic courts in precisely the same circumstances as they can rely upon them before the Strasbourg institutions. The wording of Clause 7 therefore reflects the terms of the convention, which stipulates that petitions to the European Commission (or to the European Court once the Eleventh Protocol comes into force) will be ruled inadmissible unless the applicant is the victim of the alleged violation.
I acknowledge that a consequence of that approach is that a narrower test will be applied for bringing applications by judicial review on convention grounds than will continue to apply in applications for judicial review on other grounds. But interest groups will still be able to provide assistance to victims who bring cases under the Bill and to bring cases directly where they themselves are victims of an unlawful act.
I also point out that Clause 7, consistent with the position in Strasbourg, also treats as victims those who are faced with the threat of a public authority proposing to act in a way which would be unlawful under Clause 6(1). So potential victims are included. Interest groups will similarly be able to assist potential victims to bring challenges to action which is threatened before it is actually carried out.
My noble friend, Lord Williams of Mostyn, reminded the House, both at Second Reading and on our first Committee day, that I am committed to implementing measures that will improve access to justice, and that I am giving serious consideration to Sir Peter Middleton's proposal that there should be a separate fund for public interest cases, including those involving convention rights.
I said in my speech to the Law Society's annual conference at Cardiff on 18th October that I believed it right to make special arrangements for cases that raise issues of wider public interest and that I intended to consult about the details. I am planning to issue a consultation paper early next year, but my officials have already begun informal discussions with various interest groups. That will of course include those bodies such as the Public Law Project, Justice, Liberty and the Child Poverty Action Group which regularly support applicants in the courts.
I emphasise to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that Clause 13(2) also makes clear that the Bill does not affect the existing ability of anyone with a sufficient interest to seek judicial review of a decision on non-convention grounds. A judicial review test will continue to apply and is in no way interfered with by the Bill. The sole and narrow point is whether the domestic English judicial review test of standing should apply where an application for judicial review is made on grounds other than convention grounds.
Lord Goodhart: Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say what is the position of a public interest group which, having perfectly properly brought proceedings under Clause 13 of the Bill on grounds
832
which do not involve convention rights, then finds that in those same proceedings it is unable to raise issues of convention rights because of Clause 7?
The Lord Chancellor: I shall come to that in a moment. I do not believe, for reasons I shall explain in a moment, that that consequence will follow.
I focus first on the essential and critical point—that is, whether there should be a victim test in relation to a complaint of an unlawful act on convention grounds. Essentially we believe the victim/potential victim test to be right. If there is unlawful action or if unlawful action is threatened, then there will be victims or potential victims who will complain and who will in practice be supported by interest groups. If there are no victims, the issue is probably academic and the courts should not be troubled.
We are right to mirror the law as Strasbourg applies it. I understand that to be generally accepted by Members of the Committee who have spoken in favour of the amendment. But they depart from that because of a greater affection for the English judicial review test than for the Strasbourg victim test in relation to convention cases.
I propose to complete my explanation and then, with my customary good nature, I shall cheerfully give way. But only after I have made the point fully so that Members of the Committee who wish to invite me to agree that there is a defect in my explanation have had the advantage of hearing the whole and not part of what I am saying.
I turn to the point that has been much made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in relation to third party intervention. The European Court of Human Rights rules of procedure allow non-parties such as national and international non-governmental organisations to make written submissions in the form of a brief. There is no reason why any change to primary legislation in this Bill is needed to allow the domestic courts to develop a similar practice in human rights cases, which is the answer to the noble Lord's question on how I would respond to the point that an interest group would have the right to be heard in a judicial review case under the English domestic test but that, if there was not a victim, could the individual interest group be heard on the convention point? So now, in its proper context, I address an answer to that question.
This is a development—that is to say, allowing third parties to intervene and be heard—which has already begun in the higher courts of this country in public law cases. Provisions as to standing are quite different. They determine who can become parties to the proceedings. The standing rule which the Bill proposes in relation to convention cases simpliciter is identical to that operated at Strasbourg; and why not? Is that not right in principle? It would not, however, prevent the acceptance by the courts in this country of non-governmental organisational briefs here any more than it does in Strasbourg.
Your Lordships' House, in its judicial capacity, has recently given leave for non-governmental organisations to intervene and file amicus briefs. It has done that in

833
Queen v. Khan for the benefit of Liberty and it has done that in Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Venables and Thompson for the benefit of Justice. So it appears to me, as at present advised, that the natural position to take is to adopt the victim test as applied by Strasbourg when complaint is made of a denial of convention rights, recognising that our courts will be ready to permit amicus written briefs from non-governmental organisations; that is to say briefs, but not to treat them as full parties.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way. I should like to ask him two questions in order to clarify his helpful and informative speech so far. First, does he agree that one of the disadvantages of the victim test is that it will compel our courts to have to familiarise themselves with a so far unfamiliar and complicated body of case law in Strasbourg, largely developed by the Human Rights Commission, as to what does or does not constitute a direct or indirect victim? Is that not a disadvantage?
Secondly, although he has helpfully indicated his own view that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent third party written interventions—I dare say he would concede oral interventions—will he explain the following point? Clause 7(1)(a) deals with a person who brings proceedings against the authority. I can understand there that he wishes to adopt the victim test. However, Clause 7(1)(b) does not deal with the applicant but anyone who does not bring proceedings and seeks to,
"rely on the Convention right or rights …in any legal proceedings".
Does he agree with me that on its face that would seem to preclude a third party who seeks to rely on the convention—whether it is the EOC for Great Britain, the Official Solicitor instructing an amicus curiae, a trade union, the Child Poverty Action Group, Justice, or Liberty? They are not applicants within Clause 7(1)(a) but within Clause 7(1)(b) they seek to rely on a convention right in legal proceedings; and then we are told in the tailpiece that they can do so only if they are a victim of the unlawful act. Does not that language require an amendment so as to free the third party intervener who wishes to rely on a convention right?
Finally, can the Lord Chancellor please explain why our courts should be in blinkers when the European Court of Human Rights in this context would be unblinkered in being able to deal with the matter?
The Lord Chancellor: I disagree with both the noble Lord's points. First, he says that a disadvantage of the victim test is that this will put the burden on English lawyers and on the English courts of learning about Strasbourg law on victims. The incorporation of the Bill will put a burden on all lawyers and courts to learn a great deal more about Strasbourg jurisprudence. I do not think that there is any particular burden in learning about the victim test that Strasbourg applies, which appears to me to be entirely intelligible and which requires an actual or potential victim and therefore precludes academic cases.
834
Clause 7(1)(b), states:
"A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may—
(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings"—
to my mind that entails a party—
"but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act".
It does not touch a third party who has not ex hypothesi been the victim of the infringement of a convention right. It in no way precludes a third party from making submissions about the implication of convention rights in written briefs if a written brief is invited or accepted by the court, as I believe will happen.
As regards oral interventions by a third party, I dare say that the courts will be equally hospitable to oral interventions provided that they are brief.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his masterly exposition of the situation and for the patience with which he has entertained this whole matter. In the light of his explanation I realise that I was wrong to accept this amendment and support it. I am wholly convinced by the clarity of the exposition. I acknowledge an erstwhile opponent with great pleasure.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As a Scots lawyer I intervene with a certain diffidence in this private conversation between my English colleagues. If it be the case, as I believe it is, that the Scottish courts would not entertain third party interveners in civil proceedings in the same way as the English courts might do, is there not a risk that by leaving this matter to the courts to work out the practice, there may develop a different practice in Scotland from that in England when dealing with the same United Kingdom Bill? If it is the objective of the Bill to bring rights home, is it not correct that they should be as fully brought home in one jurisdiction as in another? It may be that that is a matter on which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to reflect at further length. I do not understand that the Scottish courts would welcome either written or oral submissions from third party interveners as their English brethren do.
The Lord Chancellor: It is no part of the intention of this Bill to alter the standing rules in relation to judicial review in either England or Scotland. It is no part of the intention of this Bill to impose uniformity on the Scottish courts—that is to say, to be uniform with England and Wales—in relation to the rules of practice of the English courts which I have described in permitting third party interventions by way of a written brief. It is part of the intention of this Bill to import the Strasbourg victim test in relation to complaints based solely on denial of convention rights. That appears to us to be right in principle.
Lord Kingsland: The noble and learned Lord may recall an amendment that I proposed earlier to Clause 2(1). It concerned the extent to which decisions

835
of the European Court of Human Rights would be binding on our own courts. The expression used in Clause 2(1) is that,
"A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen under this Act in connection with a Convention Right must take into account any—
(a) judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights".
but not be bound by it.
At the time, the noble and learned Lord spoke about the enriching effect which the decisions of our own courts would have on the substance of the law of the convention. I perfectly understood that argument, although I respectfully disagreed with him. In other words, our own courts are not bound by the decisions of the Strasbourg court on the substance of the law. However, now that we are considering matters of procedure, it seems that the opposite rule applies: whereas we are not bound by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on the substance of the law, we appear to be bound by the system of rules of procedure of the European Court. This strikes me—does it not strike the noble and learned Lord?—as being a somewhat unbalanced approach. I put it to the noble and learned Lord that, if anything, he has got it the wrong way round. If we are to demonstrate flexibility, it ought to be in respect of matters of procedure, not in respect of matters of substance.
The Lord Chancellor: The short answer to that is this: I gave the explanations last time of why we preferred in Clause 2(1) "must take into account" rather than "must be bound by". Our courts must be free to develop human rights jurisprudence by taking into account European judgments and decisions, but they must also be free to distinguish them and to move out in new directions in relation to the whole area of human rights law. However, the victim test defines those who can assert—those who have rights to assert—that their convention rights have been denied; that is to say, European jurisprudence confines complainants to victims, and that has been determined in Europe beyond any possibility of recall. We, therefore, follow that position.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That must be Amendment No. 9, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was speaking. That is only a recollection. I support Amendment No. 9 but, with great respect, I do not think that it has any relevance to our situation today. I wholly support the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this amendment, but I am afraid that I cannot do so on Amendment No. 9.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, not only for what he said about me personally but because it was he who sponsored me for Silk to Lord Elwyn-Jones, who was then the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, it is all the fault of the noble and learned Lord that I became one of Her
836
Majesty's counsel, allegedly learned in the law. I have always remained indebted to the noble and learned Lord for that.
I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I believe that this is the first time in these debates when our Benches and his—and the Government Back Benches and the Cross Benches—have made common cause. The only noble Lord who has spoken in support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is the doubtful supporter, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—"doubtful" not only because he was not here for part of the debate but, more seriously, because he seems to have changed his mind for reasons that I do not yet follow. I should have mentioned at the outset—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If the noble Lord will give way, anybody who has any sense can change their mind in relation to a sensible, tight argument. I preferred the argument of the noble and learned Lord to that of the noble Lord. The noble Lord can have no complaint about that.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I should have mentioned—it was a discourtesy—that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, wished me to say that he was sorry not to be here this evening. However, he supports these amendments both personally and on behalf of Justice.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very full reply. I shall consider carefully what he has said. I hope that he will return the compliment and be willing to consider equally carefully what has been said on all sides of the Chamber in the course of this debate. He is a brilliant Lord Chancellor, but a man of extremely firm views. On this Bill and otherwise I am reminded of the words of Judge Learned Hand speaking in Central Park, New York, on the spirit of liberty just after the war. He said that the spirit of liberty was a spirit that was not too sure that it was right. We hope to be able to convince the Lord Chancellor that perhaps this is one area in which open minds, open doors should apply.
The noble and learned Lord has dealt fully and carefully with my plea for third party interventions; that is, that our courts should be in the same position at least as the European Court of Human Rights—I say that it should be north as well as south of the Border—in being helped by third parties, whether they be public bodies like the EOC or public interest bodies, and that the Crown should not have the sole right of intervention as a third party. Of course, it will not be satisfactory if a different position obtains in different parts of the United Kingdom. We may have to return to that matter.
What the noble and learned Lord has not dealt with are the points that I made about the enormous burdens that will be placed upon the courts when they have different standing principles according to whether it is ordinary judicial review, judicial review with a Community law element and an ECHR element as well or judicial review with a pure ECHR element, and where in the course of litigation the grounds of review alter as

837
the issues become plainer. That will pose grave difficulties not only for the advocates in the case but also the courts. I would be surprised if the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls was not particularly anxious about this. He wished to be here to deal with that practical problem.
We have heard nothing about the mischief about which the Government are concerned. Surely, if the EOC, a trade union, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants or any other public body with a genuine and sufficient interest in the matter wishes to challenge administrative discretion as being incompatible with the convention, it should be entitled to do so without the artificiality of finding a John Doe as a nominal applicant. I do not understand the mischief that the Government are so anxious to deal with that they wish to import the European test of "victim", devised for a different purpose, rather than use our own domestic standing rules. No answer has been provided to these practical problems which will afflict both judges and counsel in cases in ways that I have suggested; nor has there been any explanation as to the mischief that requires this unique importation of a European rule which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been adopted in any other European country or in any other analogous Commonwealth jurisdiction.
I shall reflect carefully upon what the Lord Chancellor has said. I very much hope that at Report stage there will be some reflection of the debate as a whole so that we can come together united. I believe, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—she said this in her remarkable maiden speech last week—that we should try where we can to build on a consensus and not be adversarial. This is an area in which I believe judges and noble Lords generally wish the same standing test to apply in a consistent manner. Having said that, I shall obviously not press the matter this evening and therefore I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: It may be helpful and for the convenience of the Committee if I say that the usual channels have agreed that we shall rise at eleven o'clock or Amendment No. 76, whichever comes first. That shows that I am an incurable optimist, even after eight months as Chief Whip. But we must finish this Bill on Thursday.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Why?
Lord Carter: Because, if a fourth day is needed, it will be in the early hours of Friday morning.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may say a few words in response to that statement by the Government Chief Whip. We shall certainly do our utmost to help the noble Lord in getting as far as we can. I am sure that the noble Lord will have observed that we have moved our amendments quickly and we shall do much the same on Thursday. I certainly do not wish to sit late on Thursday for reasons of my own.
838
However, the noble Lord will accept that this is an extremely important Bill. The noble Lord and I have debated matters late at night on other occasions but whether that is appropriate for the Human Rights Bill is another matter. As I say, we shall give all possible co-operation on Thursday but should we reach a late hour on Thursday, perhaps the noble Lord will give some consideration to allowing us some extra time. It is not as though we have reached the stage at which the noble Lord will find himself next summer when we shall obviously be very short of time. At the moment the Government have quite a lot of time and it would be worth considering, through the usual channels, providing perhaps an extra half day, should that be necessary. As my noble friends have pointed out to me, it is a Bill of constitutional importance.
Lord Carter: I agree that Members of the Committee on the Opposition Front Bench have not exceeded the normal time limits on consideration of their amendments. Equally, the noble Lord will understand my difficulty. We have a programme to get through. We allowed what we thought was plenty of time for this important Bill and we should like, if we possibly can, to finish the Bill on Thursday. The noble Lord would not expect me to give any undertaking regarding further time as that might be an encouragement to your Lordships.
Lord Simon of Glaisdalemoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 4, line 26, after ("only") insert ("(save for the Human Rights Commission established under section (Human Rights Commission) of this Act)").
The noble and learned Lord said: In rising to move this amendment, I express my thanks to the noble Lord the Chip Whip for intervening. I beg to point out that par for the course is 10.30 but we should be thankful for at least small mercies. We are promised that we shall rise at eleven o'clock.
This amendment is a paving amendment, together with Amendment No. 53, for Amendment No. 104 which concerns the establishment of a human rights commission. There is another amendment, Amendment No. 93, dealing with that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Both amendments are based on a brief and recommendation by all the public interest groups which have taken an interest in this Bill. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is closer to them, although it makes some alterations with which I agree. My own amendment makes considerable alterations. They were prepared in the hope of mollifying my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at a time when I thought he might be mollified.
As I say, the amendments are paving amendments for Amendment No. 104. Amendment No. 93 does not appear to be paved with anything except good intentions, like the road to hell where my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor sits clutching his briefs, all of which end with the word "Reject".

839
It would be more agreeable for the Committee were I to leave the main introduction on the subject of the human rights commission, which, as I say, is recommended by all the public interest groups, to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. There is another reason: I was intending to quote a passage from the admirable speech on Second Reading of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in which she cogently set out the case for a commission. As she is in her place, it is preferable that she make her own speech rather than that I try to make it for her. With that introduction, I propose to leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not believe that it is correct that I can be as effective an advocate in favour of the amendments as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but I shall do my best. I shall speak, in particular, to Amendment No. 93 as part of the grouping, because what we are concerned with is not the particular form of the amendment but the principle itself.
Amendment No. 93 is a modest amendment. It gives the Secretary of State the power, and not the duty, to appoint a human rights commissioner. The commissioner may perform any or all of a number of prescribed functions. But his or her primary role would be to provide assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to persons bringing, or proposing to bring, proceedings under the Human Rights Bill, and of course to assist the courts with the proper interpretation and application of this new and important law.
The costs of the office of the commissioner would be comparatively small. If its functions were confined, as my amendments would confine them, I would expect them not to amount to more than £2 million or £3 million a year for the kind of functions that I have in mind. It is imperative that incorporation of the convention enhances effective access to justice, because incorporation will mean that everyone will have to exhaust his or her domestic remedies all the way to this place if necessary. If the right of access to the courts guaranteed by Article 6 of the convention is to be real and effective and not illusory, litigants must not be deterred unnecessarily by the absence of legal aid in advance or by the risks of having to pay the costs of the other side.
It is important also that the courts are assisted in the way that they have been by the EOC, the CRE and the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland—assisted by properly argued cases by an expert human rights commissioner. The need for effective access to justice in relation to the Human Rights Bill was recognised by the Government in their pre-election manifesto Bringing Rights Home. It was stated that after the passage of the Bill it was important to:
"Provide advice and guidance for those who wish to assert their rights, Institute or support individual or public interest cases based on well-researched, well-founded evidence and arguments, Conduct inquiries into particular issues or legal areas, Monitor the operation of the Act, Scrutinise new legislation, Ensure the conformity of EU law with human rights obligations under international treaties".
840
It was envisaged that one way forward would be for the Bill to establish a human rights commission or commissioner to take on some or all of the roles described. I recognise that part of those functions would be performed by a parliamentary Select Committee on human rights in relation to the holding of some inquiries and other matters, not in terms of effective access to justice.
The possibility of a human rights commission or commissioner was also raised in the Joint Labour and Liberal Democrat Consultative Committee on Constitutional Reform. It was there agreed that a human rights commission or commissioner would provide advice and assistance to those seeking the protection of the rights enshrined in the convention and be itself able to bring proceedings to secure effective compliance with the ECHR, whether by judicial review or by representative proceedings on behalf of a number of people. There was an addendum to that report, initialled as I recall by the present Home Secretary and myself, which explained that there should be a human rights commission or commissioner, or similar public body, providing advice and assistance and being able itself to bring proceedings to secure effective compliance with the convention whether by way of judicial review or by representative proceedings on behalf of a number of people.
By my amendment, I merely seek to provide the means whereby those pre-election agreements and the views expressed by a wide variety of public interest bodies can be implemented at some time in the reasonably near future. The amendment envisages a very modestly funded public authority with carefully defined powers to give advice and assistance and bring proceedings in its own name. I am encouraged by the fact that the Government have not closed their minds to the idea of a human rights commissioner or commission. I am also encouraged by the comments made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his important address to the Solicitors' Annual Conference in Cardiff on 18th October when he observed that the civil justice system,
"should be accessible for everyone—not just the very poor and the very rich".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also acknowledged that there are cases where the predicted cost would be disproportionate to the likely benefit to the individual,
"but where it is plainly in the public interest for a particular point of law to be examined, or for a precedent to be established … it would be right to make special arrangements for these cases".
Even in the absence of a human rights commission or commissioner, it would be very welcome if the Government were to adopt the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, regarding legal issues of public importance where the courts should have a discretion to order that such costs be paid out of public funds or to order at the leave stage that an unsuccessful applicant will not have to pay the respondent's costs where the court is satisfied that the proceedings have been brought in the public interest.

841
The key question here is whether the Government are to provide the means to enable effective access to justice to be provided—and I recognise that there may be some kind of special fund which would go some way towards fulfilling that need—and whether there is to be an expert body able to marshall the arguments and the evidence and have authority before the courts in enabling test cases to be properly mounted and argued.
The establishment of a commission or commissioner of the kind suggested has the support of a wide range of human rights and professional organisations, including the Bar Council, Liberty, Justice, the Institute for Public Policy Research, Charter 88, the Data Protection Registrar, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Children Rights Office, and so on. Indeed, the list is long. There are only two arguments that come to my mind against the creation of such a commission. The first is public expense. I have already indicated that I would regard the body that I have in mind as not having access to very large public funds. Secondly, there is the argument that we should wait until we look at the enforcement agencies under the existing anti-discrimination legislation in order to see what should be done about them.
I have been careful in my amendment not in any way to deal with that wider question. It seems to me that it is a wholly separate issue. We certainly need to reform the enforcement of our anti-discrimination legislation. We need to harmonise and make more effective the enforcement procedures under those statutes. Professor B.A. Hepple, myself and other lawyers have prepared papers dealing with that question. But this commissioner is not to have any functions which might involve the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Fair Employment Commission. That is why I have deliberately kept the function narrow.
The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is wider. I certainly support that as an equally powerful model to be put forward. I have not addressed questions about public education or research. I know that my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby wishes to address that wider issue. I am focusing on effective access to justice and helping the courts and tribunals. I suggest that it is as important to have this commissioner as it is to spend money on training for which there are to be ample funds available under the auspices of the Judicial Studies Board. It is vital that there be an authority, a public interest body able to assist in that way.
Lord Renton: I have to say that I am very worried about the prospect of a human rights commissioner as set out in either of these amendments, more especially, if I may say so with deep respect, in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, because it appears there that the commissioner's duties will be mandatory and have to apply in every case. If we look at the wording carefully he is,
"to perform any or all of the following functions".
They are not optional. Later in the amendment he is invited to consider whether the proceedings,
"raise a question of principle of general public importance".
842
There could be conflict there with the views of a court before which the proceedings eventually come.
The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, does not have that defect. It uses the words "where necessary" and that makes it rather less obligatory, but I do not know who will decide whether it is necessary or not.
In any event, as the Government made quite clear on the last but one page of their White Paper, there are various bodies in this country already which have responsibilities for protecting human rights. It seems to me to be overdoing it to give the commissioner the sort of powers that are proposed as well as those bodies having them. I refer in particular to paragraph 3.9 of the White Paper which refers to the impact—that is the impact of a commissioner␁
"on existing bodies concerned with particular aspects of human rights, such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission … and … Disability Rights Commission".
What worries me rather is that if we have the kind of jurisdiction asserted under either of these amendments given to a human rights commissioner, it will not only make the procedure for getting justice done before our courts terribly elaborate but it will actually cause delay. That, I think, is something that we should avoid. Therefore I hope that my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench will not support either of these amendments and I hope that the Government will give good reasons for not doing so.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: In rising to support my noble friend Lord Lester and to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should like to advance some non-lawyers' arguments for a human rights commission in the hope that I can persuade the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to consider again the position that they have now adopted. It is in some contrast to the position that we understood they supported at an earlier stage. However, I fully recognise that they have made it an open possibility that they may return to the issue at a later stage. In supporting my noble friend I seek to persuade them to do so.
First, I believe that the Bill could bring about a significant transformation and modernisation of the British constitution. My profound concern is that, because at present it fails to include within its orbit a proposal for a human rights commissioner or commission, however modest in its original manifestation, I believe that the Government may lose much of the thrust and purpose of the Bill. I trust that my remarks will not be so lengthy as to tire the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I note that he has left the Chamber.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, we are looking at a picture of fragmented and in many ways disassociated organisations, each looking after some aspect of human rights, each one thrust into the picture by the pressures of the constituency that it serves. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, we have had an Equal Opportunities Commission concerned with the rights of women. It was created after the period in which the

843
women's movement grew to power and influence and began to press for such equal opportunities. We have a Commission for Racial Equality. Again it flowed from changes in our society, so that we became gradually a multicultural and multiracial society instead of the relatively homogeneous society that we had been before. We have a data protection commissioner, the result of the technological revolution of electronic saving of information. We have a human rights commission, or in effect a similar body, concerned with Northern Ireland. That flowed directly from seeking to deal with the extreme differences and mutual strains between the communities in that Province. I suspect that we shall soon have a human rights commissioner for Scotland and a human rights commissioner for Wales who may or may not be paid for by the budgets of the parliament and assembly shortly to be established.
However, what we are looking at is an extraordinarily uncoordinated structure of concern for human rights, with wide gaps between the organisations that currently exist. Those gaps may in part be filled by the Bill but they will not be satisfactorily filled if there is no provision for a human rights commissioner or commission. There is no overarching theme. There is no common culture of freedom to be found in this picture. I fear that we may lose a great opportunity created by the Bill—I pay due credit to the Government and to the Lord Chancellor—because of our unwillingness to take the final step. It reminds me of the famous poem about the battle of Bosworth Field:
"For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of a shoe the horse was lost;
For want of a horse the rider was lost;
or want of a rider the battle was lost;
And for want of a battle the kingdom was lost".
I commend that verse by Benjamin Franklin to the Government Front Bench.
Let me briefly explain, "For want of a nail". In his stirring speech at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said (at col. 1308 of the Official Report on 3rd November 1997):
"Every public authority will know that its behaviour, its structures, its conclusions and its executive actions will be subject to this culture",
the culture of human rights. The difficulty is—and I believe that it has been exemplified in this debate—that most public authorities have little understanding of the meaning of the Bill.
Indeed, let me say with due humility that those of us who are not trained lawyers have, time and again, repeated our inability fully to understand the terms of this debate. If that is true of us, who have the great privilege of sitting in this House alongside some of the most distinguished lawyers in the land—not excluding the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn—how much truer it is of the scores of public bodies with which the Bill will deal and interact. I fear that, for failure to train them in what the Bill means, we shall see a great deal of litigation that is unnecessary, expensive, slow, tedious and repetitive.
844
One of the most important changes that a human rights commission could bring about would be a gradual extension of the culture of human rights, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred stirringly in his speech to University College, London, last July, when he spoke about it as "a driving force". He was absolutely right.
I fear that what we may see instead—and I should profoundly regret it, because I believe the Bill to be of the greatest importance—is a piece of legislation that comes to be seen as a lawyers' inside world, a world which excludes those who are not lawyers and, above all, those who are not sufficiently advantaged in their education even to think of understanding the strange professional aberrations of the law.
Therefore, my first point is that I believe the training and education of public bodies is just as important as the establishment of case law. The second point is that, in establishing education and training of public agencies, Her Majesty's Government could save themselves a great deal of money.
Perhaps I may draw a quick analogy. In areas such as industrial safety, we see safety officers established by companies and paid for by companies—in other words, they themselves in a sense own safety legislation and make themselves responsible for it. In the same way. we see increasingly the establishment of, for example, people who own human rights in other countries where human rights are long established. It is striking that in virtually every significant Commonwealth country—from India, with its millions of people and its relatively poor economy, to Canada—in every single case there is a clear responsibility for the education of the people. Indeed, the marvellous phrase used in Indian human rights law is that they must address "illiteracy in human rights". Australia, Canada and New Zealand all have a major function of education. Countries both richer and poorer than ours find that to be of the greatest possible importance.
One other thought about education is that we need to educate children in our schools in the culture not only of rights but of responsibilities. The two go side by side. There is little understanding of what it is to be a British citizen. If we are to move towards a genuine rather than a deferential democracy, our citizens need to have that understanding as a profound first principle.
Thirdly, we live in a profoundly changing society. That is why we need human rights laws. We live in a society that is becoming multi-racial and multi-cultural. We have to protect the rights of all in our society, including many who expect little respect for their position. We live in a society that is increasingly demanding the right to participate—for the characteristic of modern democracies is that their citizens want increasingly to participate. However, if they do not understand that responsibilities go with rights, their participation will be only the beginning of a new disappointment.
We live in a society which is becoming increasingly subject to international norms in areas like the environment, refugees and the protection of the rights of children. A human rights commission would be in a

845
position to make us much more aware of those international norms. If one looks at the extraordinary cost of the tribunal of inquiry into what happened in Clwyd, one can see that it will cost a great deal more to get across the consequences of forgetting the rights of children than to establish a consciousness of the rights of children to begin with.
Finally, the major arguments against a human rights commissioner or commission—I carefully put forward both alternatives for reasons of public expense—are, first, public expense itself. Having been a Minister, I have to say that it is never impossible to find a couple of million pounds. I believe that the preventive effect of paying that money would be more than repaid by the savings I have described already. I would go into detail if the House were not sitting so late in Committee. I shall not attempt to do so but I should be happy to indicate some ways in which I believe this money could be relatively easily found.
Secondly, the argument is that the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality might be in difficulties in their relationship to such a new body. I find that argument unconvincing. They would begin to establish increasingly close working relationships one with the other. In any case, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality has made it plain that he believes that it would be right to have a human rights commission and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has made it clear that she, as a former chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission, believes that a human rights commission or commissioner would be extremely helpful, rather than a negative force, in relation to the Equal Opportunities Commission.
I conclude with this thought. The noble Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated that there would be a joint committee of Parliament. He indicated that the Government are or could be—it is a matter for Parliament, I understand—responsive to such an idea. I believe that it is an excellent proposal. However, I recognise that, if a joint committee of Parliament is to do an effective job in the way that, for example, the European Communities Committee does in both Houses in a rather similar scrutiny exercise—also one of great complexity—considerable sums of money will need to be spent on the expert resources to make it effective. Whether that secretariat is found in clerks within this House and the other place or in a human rights commission, it will involve additional expenditure. I suggest that the great advantage of a human rights commission or commissioner is that it would make human rights open to the public, it would encourage the public to own human rights in a way which would not be exclusive either to Parliament or to the legal profession but should be the beginning of a real and profound change in the democratic ethos and sense of freedom in this country.
Baroness Amos: My support for the creation of a human rights body is well known. Indeed, I made my maiden speech on this subject, so I shall be brief.
846
We currently lack any systematic monitoring, enforcement or promotion of human rights in the United Kingdom. We have bodies such as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Committee for Racial Equality which have some responsibility for the protection of certain human rights, but their coverage is partial. We need a body which will raise public awareness, promote good practice, scrutinise legislation, monitor policy developments and their impact, provide independent advice to Parliament and advise those who feel that their rights have been infringed.
I am particularly keen to see the promotion of an inclusive human rights culture which builds on the diversity of British society. That would be a key role for any human rights body to play. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will make a commitment to the Government leading a consultation process on the options with respect to the creation of a human rights commission.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken on this amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene. I rise to support my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, with whom I have long been associated on the council and executive committee of Justice. I very much regret that on this occasion I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with whom I am in almost complete agreement on most other aspects of the Bill.
Let me put my argument in simple and practical terms. If there is no human rights commission or human rights commissioner, what is to happen to the lay person who believes that his or her convention rights have been breached? They can go to their local citizen's advice bureau, but are unlikely to find anybody there who is sufficiently specialised to be able to give sensible advice. They may go to their local law centre, in the unlikely event that they can find one that operates in their area. They may go to a solicitor, but that will cost money for a totally uncertain future and they will not be able to obtain legal aid.
It would be an enormous help if such a person could go to the human rights commission or commissioner for advice as to their convention rights. And what if they have a serious case for breach of convention rights? It may be that they could agree with a solicitor or barrister a conditional fee agreement. But, in practice, that will not be practicable. Conditional fee agreements work in personal injury cases, but it is extremely unlikely that they can or will work in human rights cases. It would therefore be an enormous help if the victim could go to the human rights commission or commissioner for support in bringing the case before the court or tribunal which can give relief.
I know that problems arise in creating a human rights commission. Should it be a freestanding commission or an umbrella body including underneath it the EOC and CRE? But that is a matter of detail. I know that Rights Brought Home—the White Paper—does not rule out the

847
possibility of a human rights commission. But that is not good enough. A Human Rights Bill without a human rights commission is only half doing the job.
If the Government accept a commitment to a human rights commission, I see no problem in including it in another Bill rather than this one. But, if the Government will not accept a commitment to a human rights commission in principle, that refusal needs to be tested in the debate on this Bill.
Baroness Lockwood: I hope the amendments tonight will be regarded as probing amendments. The principles embodied in them are extremely important and need to be looked at in some detail. I support the concept of an equal rights commission in some form, whether it be limited to this Bill and the areas covered by it or whether it is to be a wider commission embracing the other areas that have already been mentioned, such as sex discrimination, race discrimination and, I hope, discrimination on grounds of disability.
However, I think there are two principles that we need to consider. The first is the importance of giving responsibility to a body to administer and help to enforce the Human Rights Bill. I say that as the first chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which had the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I am very conscious of the important role which that body had in a number of ways in helping individuals to establish their own rights under the law; equally, and perhaps even more importantly, in testing the various sections of the Act so that potential applicants under the Act would be more aware of their own position and of what were their rights; and, just as importantly, in ensuring that those who might inadvertently or advertently contravene the Act would be made aware of the consequences of so doing. In other words, the commission helped to codify the Act by carefully selecting key cases to support and thereby establishing very important case law which was used widely both by individuals and organisations. I do not share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in this respect. I think it is important to have a single body with some responsibility.
That brings me to the second principle, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke, of having a commission which would embrace all human rights and take over the responsibilities of the existing commissions. There is a great deal to be said for that and I think we should give consideration to the noble Baroness's point. I think, too, that we need to consult the existing commissions. Although there is an overlap of responsibilities, they have certain expertise in their own areas which we would not want to lose in a new all-embracing commission. So I feel that there is still a great deal to be discussed in this whole area.
I should like to suggest to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that it would be helpful if he would give his agreement to the principle of having a human rights commission and then for us to have a consultative document on how best that might be achieved so as to maximise the full impact of the new
848
Bill and at the same time to ensure that we do not lose out on any of the existing legislation and the work that the respective commissions are doing.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may briefly give the views of this Front Bench before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to sum up, which I imagine he wishes to do before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, does whatever he intends to do with his amendment.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Renton that I am in considerable agreement with him that we have doubts about the value of setting up a human rights commission or commissioner. I looked carefully at the arguments put forward by the Government in their White Paper. In paragraph 3.9, they state:
"Moreover, the idea of setting up a new human rights body is not universally acclaimed.
Well, I can say "Hear, hear" to that. It is not universally acclaimed. It does not have all-party support or universal support, despite the weight of some of the speeches made to the Committee.
Further, I believe that it was right for the Government to go on to make it clear that more consideration needs to be given as to how a commission would work in relation to the other bodies and to the new arrangements to be established for parliamentary and government scrutiny of human rights issues. Before we set up such a body, it is important that we consider carefully its relationship with the existing Equal Opportunities Commission, with the Commission for Racial Equality and with the Northern Ireland board, whose name I temporarily forget. It should be considered whether those bodies should continue to exist should such a new body come into being.
The third and most telling argument of all is in paragraph 3.10 of the White Paper which states that it is important,
"to justify the additional public expenditure needed to establish and run a new commission.
I have heard Members of the Committee say that it is only £2 million here or there, and what is that between friends. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that anyone in government can always find £2 million. But it is not always that easy. I am pretty cynical about her arguments when she puts forward the idea that money will be saved. I have heard the argument on many occasions that by spending a little here it will save much more money there. I would wish to see considerable evidence before I accepted such arguments. I await with interest to hear what the Government have to say. But for those reasons we on these Benches could not support the idea of a human rights commissioner or a human rights commission.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may give the response of the Government—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I believe that I am entitled now to make my speech in support of the amendment.

849
I hope that I am not interrupting anybody else, except, I am afraid, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, whom I trust will forgive me.
I am most grateful to all those Members of the Committee who have supported the idea of a human rights commission. There is now overwhelming authoritative opinion in favour of it. Of all the interest groups, naturally I attach particular importance to Justice. But they are unanimous that we need a human rights commission. A parliamentary joint or separate committee might be a useful adjunct, but it would be no substitute.
There are two aspects that particularly attract me in addition to the arguments which have been so forcefully and movingly put today. The first is the one that appealed to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and to the two noble Baronesses who have spoken on the government side, namely, that it would be possible to subsume the other bodies such as the racial equality body and the equal opportunities body into a human rights commission. That may well provide substantial economies which would offset any additional expense. Naturally that appeals to me very much.
The second aspect is that the proposition seems to fit in very well with the thinking of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about how to deal with legal aid. I know that there are amendments about that, but I hope that they will not be dealt with tonight. We could take up the idea of my noble and learned friend of a special interest fund and allocate part of it to the human rights commission. That would fit in very well with what we heard of his thinking in his speech at Cardiff and in the speech at Second Reading made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
For all those reasons, I would very much like to press—although not to a Division—the proposal of a human rights commission. I am not wedded to the words of my amendment, nor to those of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I would be fully content if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor were to accept the idea in principle and discuss the details further. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There have been a number of speeches on this important topic so perhaps I may trespass on your Lordships' patience for a little longer than I usually do. Perhaps I may draw the threads together. Amendments Nos. 43, 47 and 49 are linked to the new amendment which has been tabled before Clause 20—I refer to Amendment No. 101 and to the amendment tabled after Clause 3, which is Amendment No. 93.
I want to make the Government's position perfectly plain, as I tried to do at Second Reading. I turn to the White Paper, which states:
"The Government's priority is implementation of its Manifesto commitment to give further effect to the Convention rights in domestic law so that people can enforce those rights in United Kingdom courts … the Government has not closed its mind to the idea of a new Human Rights Commission at some stage in the future in the light of practical experience of the working of the new legislation".
850
We believe that to be a sensible way forward. I do not resile for a moment from what I said at Second Reading, which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was kind enough to cite. I believe that there will be a change in the culture of organisations in this country. That change in culture will be dictated by the passage of this legislation, but it will not require a human rights commission. I would find it difficult to imagine that a large organisation—for instance, a government department or a large commercial organisation—will not have its own internal structures to ensure that its practices are in accordance with new duties.
The noble Baroness referred to changing times and the democratic ethos. I entirely agree. One of the criticisms that is often made of another place is that it is not sufficiently astute to use its own powers. Many would say that the committee structure in another place perhaps needs a transfusion of life and activity. As I said earlier, with the specific authority of the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, we will look on the matter favourably as a government if another place wishes to set up a parliamentary committee on human rights.
For a very long time now, some would say, another place has been somewhat slow in using the full power which the committee system may offer. If another place wished to have a parliamentary committee on human rights, we would expect it to involve the educative function, the dissemination of information to the public and the taking of evidence, including, as the Lord Chancellor specifically said at Second Reading, the taking of evidence all over our country, and not only in London. That is a reflection of the democratic ethos in a society that we believe is changing and ought to change.
We do not wish to bully through a human rights commission without the fullest consultation with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, to name but two. I pay tribute, as we all do, to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who has great experience of the EOC. When she cautions us and says that the principle may be appropriate but that we need the most careful, intricate and informed consultation with those bodies, I respectfully believe her to be right.
As we said in Rights Brought Home, we have not ruled out the idea of a commission for the future. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said about the expression, "£2 million or £3 million being neither here nor there". I know that he will tell me that such sums do not go very far these days—they may not—but they represent vast amounts of money in stringent financial times.
We believe that the right way forward is the one that has been proposed and that we should do our best to get the best possible Bill. If there is to be a parliamentary committee, single or joint, we welcome its involvement in scrutiny first should there be a human rights commission. Secondly, it is very important that we get the nuts and bolts and practicalities right after taking evidence and approaching the matter with care. The constitution and nature of a human rights commission, if there is to be one, is very important. It is extremely important that we get it right first time.

851
We are not ruling out the idea of a human rights commission. We believe that we should have the best possible material available before we decide, first, whether to have one and, secondly, what its terms of reference and proper parameters should be. On that basis, I respectfully ask that noble Lords who have moved this amendment withdraw it.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I do not know whether it is for me or the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to reply. I fancy it is for me. I do so by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and other noble Lords who supported this amendment for their contributions. I repeat that informed opinion is now overwhelmingly in favour of a human rights commission. A parliamentary committee, admirable though it may be, is no substitute. One need look only at the terms of Amendment Nos.93 and 104 to see that the functions recommended are entirely different from those which would concern a parliamentary committee. The two are complementary. I certainly do not discourage the Government from consulting further and wider, except I should like to see them get on with it pretty fast.
I undertook not to press my amendment to a Division. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hillhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.50:
Page 4, line 30, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may express my great gratitude to all who have spoken, particularly the non-lawyers. Not only are they specially qualified by their lack of legal qualifications but they are specially qualified in this debate. I pay great tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I have known her ever since we both gave evidence to the Select Committee on sex discrimination on behalf of the Labour Party. We have known each other since she became the first and most distinguished chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1976. Her role and that of the commission illustrate why one needs a commission at the outset of new legislation, not after the legislation has been tried and tested. She has had a remarkable role in the labour movement and on behalf of women's rights. I pay great tribute to her. We should listen with particular care to what she has to say. The same applies to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who has had enormous experience both of the EOC and in protecting the rights of ethnic minorities. I also mention my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby who I can well remember in the Labour Party, and beyond, fighting this particular case.
I have listened carefully to the arguments of the Minister. I understand and welcome what he says about a parliamentary human rights committee; but that is no substitute for the functions that we have been describing this evening. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to reconsider whether the doctrine of the unripe time—
852
a favourite doctrine of conservatives, whether they are Liberal, Labour or Tory, throughout the ages—is really one upon which he and his colleagues wish to stand.
If we had heard this morning about the plans of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for a special fund for its administration, criteria and use, I should feel slightly more comforted. My position and that of my colleagues is that we have probed this evening but we shall surely return to it on Report. I very much hope by that stage there can be a wider consensus on the matter. Therefore, I shall not proceed with the amendment.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 50A to 54 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 4, line 35, leave out second ("the unlawful") and insert ("that").
The noble Lord said: This is a modest drafting amendment. Clause 7(4) refers twice to "the unlawful act" of a public authority. The effect of this amendment is that on the second occasion, the style would be improved and the sentence more graceful if the words simply read "that act". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 56A not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord President or Lord Justice General").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was tabled, I regret to say, I suspect, having misconstrued the provisions of Clause 7(8). I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for pointing out to me informally where I may have been in error. I am confirmed that I am in error by the provisions of Amendment No. 105, which we shall no doubt reach in the fullness of time.
It may be helpful to those in Scotland who are interested in this matter if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would confirm that the rules which are referred to in subsection (8) are limited to rules in terms of which the Secretary of State would specify which courts in Scotland could entertain proceedings as they are referred to in Clause 7(1)(a). If, at this stage, it is possible to indicate what the Secretary of State has in mind as to the courts, I am sure that would also be of interest. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I intervene to say that I shared the misapprehension of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. I confess that I also thought from the wording of Clause 7(8)(a) that the rules referred to were in relation to the rules as regards what would happen in the court as opposed to the choice of the court. If it is to be the choice of the court, then the Secretary of State is the appropriate person to make those rules; and I should be perfectly content, for my interest, if that point could be clarified.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): I confirm, as I indicated informally to the noble and learned Lord,

853
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, during the break that the reference to the rules in subsection (8) is a reference back to Clause 7(2). The intention is that the Secretary of State would make rules as to which court or tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain claims.
On the other hand, I wish to record that it is entirely appropriate that the head of the judiciary in Scotland, the Lord President or the Lord Justice General, as the case may be, should have responsibility for any procedural rules within the court. I am satisfied that that can be achieved without any special provision in the Bill, under existing powers.
On the other point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, I am afraid that I cannot indicate at this stage what the Secretary of State has in mind.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for confirming, for once, that I am wrong.
The second point that I raised is a matter of some interest, not least in relation to ancillary topics such as legal aid and the provision of the necessary resources for the courts. Perhaps some further thought can be given to that before the later stages of the Bill. Having received the explanation that I expected, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Judicial remedies]:
[Amendment No. 57A not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 5. line 16, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a probing amendment which seeks to invite the Government to consider whether there might be merit in recasting Clause 8 to enable both civil and criminal courts to award damages to any individual who might be able to establish that they have been the victim of an unlawful act.
I readily accept that the suggestion I put forward is a somewhat unusual one, but the concern which has been expressed to me, and which I repeat, is that if the matter is first raised in a criminal court (which would not have power to award such damages), it may be necessary for the individual who has successfully established that he has been the victim of an act which is incompatible with his convention rights to raise a second action at further expense to himself, to others and the court system itself.
I accept that the amendment as framed may be open to some criticism as being technically defective, but the point that it seeks to address should be looked at. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Although no doubt perfectly crafted for civil proceedings, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could have a look at this provision with a view to amending it in a more suitable form as regards criminal proceedings. It
854
would be simply done. It is not a criticism of the drafting; it is just something which appears to have been overlooked. I wonder whether it could be looked at.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I wonder whether one matter could be clarified in the reply to the amendment. As those Members of the Committee who are judges or practical lawyers will know, one cannot obtain compensation under traditional English legal principles for maladministration unless there is misfeasance in public office, unless there is bad faith. However under the European Convention on Human Rights, the position is somewhat different.
It is clear that where a public authority acts in breach of legitimate expectations in a public law context and causes direct damage, there is a right under the convention to compensation. What I am not clear about as regards the structure of Clause 8 as it stands is what happens in, for example, judicial review proceedings, where what is at stake is a public law tort (a government tort) giving rise to direct loss, as distinct from the normal private law tort. That distinction does not normally arise under our legal system as it stands, except, as I say, where there is misfeasance in public office.
If I am right about the position under the European convention—it arises in an Irish case called Pine Valley Developments, where the European court held that there needed to be compensation for breach of legitimate expectations in the planning context—it seems to me that one needs to be clear whether, by means of a Pepper v. Hart statement, or under the wording of Clause 8, the Bill permits the remedy of compensation for what I call public law wrongdoing as distinct from normal private law tort in the context in which the convention would require it.
10.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 8 provides the courts and tribunals with wide powers to grant such relief or remedy which they consider just and appropriate where they find that a public authority has acted unlawfully by virtue of Clause 6(1) of the Bill. Under Clause 8(2),
"damages may be awarded only by a court which has power to award damages, or to order the payment of compensation in civil proceedings".
Under Clause 8(3):
"No award of damages is to be made unless"⁁
and I miss out the intervening words⁁
"the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the person in whose favour it is made".
That is a comprehensive and comprehensible code. However, it is necessary to put down certain limits on what remedies a court or tribunal can provide. Subsection (2), which I have just read, provides one such restriction. It states that,
"damages may be awarded only by a court which has power to award damages … in civil proceedings".
Quite clearly, this means that a criminal court will not be able to award damages for a convention breach, even if it currently has the power to make a compensation order unless it also has the power to award damages in civil proceedings.

855
So as to make the intention plain, it is not the Bill's aim that, for example, the Crown court should be able to make an award of damages where it finds, during the course of a trial, that a violation of a person's convention rights has occurred. We believe that it is appropriate for an individual who considers that his rights have been infringed in such a case to pursue any matter of damages through the civil courts where this type of issue is normally dealt with; in other words, to pursue the matter in the courts that are accustomed to determining whether it is necessary and appropriate to award damages and what the proper amount should be. For that reason, we regard the inclusion of subsection (2) as an entirely proper part of the scheme.
We say that the Crown court, in cases of crime, should not award damages. The remedy that the defendant wants in a criminal court is not to be convicted. We see very considerable practical difficulties about giving a new power to award damages to a criminal court in convention cases. It would seem to me to open up the need for representation in the Crown court to any person whom it might appear in the course of criminal proceedings might be at risk of damages. We believe that that would be potentially disruptive of a criminal trial. Similarly, a magistrates' court is a criminal court and, under the amendment, it could award damages. We believe that it is appropriate that the civil courts, which traditionally make awards of damages, should, alone, be enabled to make awards of damages in these convention cases.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he could deal with the particular question that I raised regarding Clause 8(2). I follow the noble and learned Lord and respectfully agree with him about the position of the criminal courts. However, my question is: what happens with a judicial review court, which is only entitled to grant damages if there is a tort which could give rise to a damages claim in a civil court? The problem I seek to raise is this. What happens under the convention in a judicial review court where the convention requires the payment of damages for what is really the Government tort of breaking the convention—notably, where there is a breach of expectations but that may not be the only example? Will the position be that the damnified applicant has first to go to the judicial review court and then bring a Government tort claim in an ordinary civil court or will he be able to get his remedy under the convention for damages for public law wrongdoing in the judicial review court? I do not expect an answer off the cuff to that question as it has not been thought about, but I should be most grateful if there could be a considered reply in correspondence if that is the convenient way of proceeding. It seems to me to be quite important to sort this out if one can.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am rather naïve about these affairs. Is there such a thing as a government tort for breach of the convention? I have not heard of one. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give us some clarification on that.
The Lord Chancellor: I certainly do not undertake to give the noble Lord an answer to that either extempore or
856
in writing. I have grave reservations about giving legal advice from the Dispatch Box, which of course the noble Lord is well able to give to himself, which will then be transmuted by the doctrine of Pepper v. Hart into what the Government intended as a result of this provision of the Bill. I am very self-restrained about doing that. I am tempted simply to rely upon the answer that in the circumstances to which the noble Lord alludes an award of damages will be made if— I quote from Clause 8(3)—
"the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the person in whose favour it is made".
I feel a moderate degree of confidence that the noble Lord could argue both sides of that question depending upon the client who instructed him.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply which I think I anticipated. However, it will be of interest to those who suggested this was an appropriate issue to raise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Acts of courts and tribunals]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, does not wish to move Amendment No. 60.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 5, line 42, at beginning insert ("Except insofar as is required under Article 5(5) of the Convention.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak briefly. Clause 9(3) provides a general immunity for acts of courts. However, the relationship between this subsection and Article 5(5) of the convention—which the Committee will find on page 14 of the Bill—needs to be addressed. Article 5(5) gives an enforceable right to compensation to those who have been victims of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5. In this respect the United Kingdom has been in breach of Article 5(5) for a long time. Clause 9(3) of the Bill seems to preserve that continuing breach. It should be possible to introduce a scheme of compensation for those who are victims of arrest or detention in breach of the convention without affecting the important personal immunity of judges and magistrates. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment inserts an exception to the general provisions of Clause 9(3) so that damages could not be awarded in proceedings under this Act in respect of any act of a court,
"Except insofar as is required under Article 5(5) of the Convention".
The effect of the amendment would be to enable people to obtain damages in respect of acts of courts which are in contravention of the provisions of Article 5. The Government are aware that Clause 9, as currently drafted, makes no explicit provision for the requirement of Article 5(5) that everyone who has been the victim

857
of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5 shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Clause 8 provides for such an enforceable right to compensation in relation to public authorities generally. Clause 9, as currently drafted, preserves the common law and statutory rules which, broadly speaking, provide that the Crown is not liable in tort in respect of judicial acts and that judges and magistrates acting within their jurisdiction, or outside their jurisdiction if doing so in good faith, are immune from having proceedings brought against them personally.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the Government are alive to the need to make appropriate provisions for the Article 5(5) requirement and are considering how best to give effect to this obligation in relation to courts and tribunals. I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, remains in his place to hear me in my non-Mephistophelean mode. In particular, the Government are considering the interrelationship between that obligation and the existing laws and judicial immunity and Crown liability for the acts and omissions of the courts. The Government are considering possible provisions that may be required at Report stage.
We welcome this opportunity to hear the view of the noble Lord on how best we might give effect to the obligation to provide a right to compensation. The Government will consider more fully the issues which we should take into account in considering how to address this matter. If the noble Lord desires to write to me on the subject, that would be welcome. An amendment on the lines of the one before the Committee now may prove to be the best way of achieving that aim. But it would be preferable, I think, if the complex and delicate issues of judicial immunity and Crown liability for judicial decisions could be considered a little more thoroughly before an amendment is made to this clause; and, perhaps because of the late hour at which this amendment has been taken, we have not had the fuller debate on this issue which we might otherwise have had.
Therefore at present I ask that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment against my undertaking that we shall consider it positively and with care.
Lord Meston: In view of that answer, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I express gratitude that the constant battering of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has produced such flexibility, albeit rather late in the day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord Henley: As regards Amendment No. 63, I suspect that this—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord sits down, are we really going to start a debate on legal aid at almost eleven o'clock')
Lord Henley: I am sympathetic—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I did not hear the answer to my question.
Lord Henley: I was about to give it, if I may. I suspect that it is not for me to answer; it is for the Government Chief Whip. I am sympathetic to what the noble and learned Lord says. I do not think that it is the right time to have a long debate on legal aid. I was not sure that we were to have a long debate on legal aid. I put down the amendment merely by way of a probing amendment in order to ask a number of questions of the Government about the Cardiff speech by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the separate fund for human rights issues, the Green Paper he proposes to bring forward on these matters and about how the legal aid issues will affect both England and Scotland.
As I understand it, I am not now speaking to the amendment. I seek advice at this stage as to whether I can move the amendment on Thursday and address it on that occasion, having given some forewarning of the few brief issues that I wish to pursue. I suspect that the best course is not to move the amendment now.
Lord Carter: In order to help the proceedings of the Committee, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  Sudan
  Sudan
  Japan: UN Convention against Torture
  Japan: UN Convention against Torture
  Former Yugoslavia: Arrest of War Criminals
  Former Yugoslavia: Arrest of War Criminals
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Abidjan Peace Accords and UN Monitors
  Abidjan Peace Accords and UN Monitors
  UN Security Resolution 1132
  UN Security Resolution 1132
  International Criminal Court
  International Criminal Court
  Traffic Islands
  Traffic Islands
  RMC Group plc, "Bowbelle" and "Sand Kite"
  RMC Group plc, "Bowbelle" and "Sand Kite"
  Sports Stadia
  Sports Stadia
  Gulf War: Attributable Benefits for Reservists
  Gulf War: Attributable Benefits for Reservists
  Teacher Training Courses: Fee Remission
  Teacher Training Courses: Fee Remission
  Single Currency: Deficit Penalties
  Single Currency: Deficit Penalties
  Smoking-related Disease: Treatment Cost
  Smoking-related Disease: Treatment Cost
  Prisoners: Suicides
  Prisoners: Suicides
  Cookham Wood Secure Training Centre
  Cookham Wood Secure Training Centre
  Blood Sports
  Blood Sports
  China: Coercive Population Policies
  China: Coercive Population Policies
  World Bank
  World Bank
  Petroleum Coke
  Petroleum Coke
  Agriculture Council, 17–18 November
  Agriculture Council, 17–18 November
  BSE: Moving Annual Total of Cases
  BSE: Moving Annual Total of Cases