Sitting of 2 April 1998

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

  NAREY INQUIRY
  ordered
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a Report of an inquiry into the escape of a prisoner from HM Prison Maze on 10th December and the shooting of a prisoner on 27th December 1997. —[Mr. Betts.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The President of the Board of Trade was asked—

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Home Robertson: If she will make a statement on the availability and price of ultra-low-sulphur diesel at urban and rural retail sites. [35973]
  The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I expect the availability of ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel to increase following the changes in the relative levels of excise duty between that fuel and conventional diesel that were announced in the Budget recently. The price at which the product is sold is a matter for the retailers.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The new incentive in the Budget for drivers to use ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel should have been good news. Is my hon. Friend aware that there was less rejoicing in my constituency than there might have been because the fuel is not available for sale anywhere in East Lothian? I understand that virtually all of it is imported and that very little gets as far as Scotland. Will my hon. Friend take the oil companies firmly by the throat at the earliest opportunity and tell them to stop discriminating against consumers in rural areas in general, and Scotland in particular, and to ensure that this excellent product is available on forecourts throughout the country?
  Mr. Battle: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. Ultra-low-sulphur diesel is known as city diesel fuel and is available from supermarkets—the main retailers at the moment—in towns and cities. I accept what my hon. Friend says about rural areas. If the differential is not a sufficient incentive to produce a positive bias in favour of providing the fuel, I shall push the matter further. I know that the Scottish Office recently undertook a study of rural petrol stations, and the report is expected in May. Let us
  1396
  hope that that is another means of taking the measure forward in Scotland as well, since it will have a positive environmental impact.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Levitt: When she last met the chairman of the Low Pay Commission. [35975]
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last met Professor George Bain, chairman of the Low Pay Commission, on 11 February 1998.
  Mr. Levitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, there are 4,500 families on family credit, and that throughout the east midlands, no fewer than 87,000 people are working for a rate of £2.50 an hour or less? Is he further aware that the national minimum wage will work to improve the welfare of those families? Does he agree that any softening of the line on the national minimum wage from the Leader of the Opposition—even if not from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—is welcome, even though, coming from the party which abolished the wages councils, it will be regarded with incredulity?
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the main reasons why the activities of the Low Pay Commission are so welcome is that they give us an opportunity to implement what is a major manifesto promise at an early stage. It is interesting that, since the weekend, the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), has remained silent for once. He has not yet given a commitment to support his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition by ditching his opposition to the minimum wage and accepting that now, without any doubt, the policy is overwhelmingly supported throughout Britain—and seemingly also within the Conservative party.
  Mr. Fabricant: Before the Minister begins his normal high-pitched tirade, may I say that I have always felt that a minimum wage is no bad thing in terms of protecting the least able in our society? Why does he not accept the model which exists in the United States, about which the Prime Minister has repeatedly spoken with much affection? In the United States of America, the national minimum wage varies by region, and people are exempt on grounds of youth or if they work in certain industries, such as tourism. What does the chairman of the Low Pay Commission have to say about what the minimum wage should be in Northern Ireland, as compared with the south-east of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. McCartney: I will do a deal with the hon. Gentleman: if he does not mention my accent, I will not mention his hair.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It's not his hair.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, "It's not his hair," but I would not be so cruel as to suggest that. The hon. Gentleman is trying

  1397
  hard to defend the indefensible, but the British people want the national minimum wage to meet the needs of the low paid. That is why the Low Pay Commission will make its recommendations by the end of May and why, soon afterwards, the Government will implement the national minimum wage.
  Mr. Boswell: Every time Conservative Members identified a difficulty with the minimum wage in Committee, the Minister of State referred the matter to the Low Pay Commission. Will he now defer consideration of the Bill in Committee in another place until the Low Pay Commission has reported next month, when it will be clear to everyone whether, as usual, he has been rolled over and has had to accept a compromise figure of, for example, £3.60 per hour?
  Mr. McCartney: I am a difficult person to roll over—although once I start rolling, it is hard to stop me. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. We have made it clear that, in implementing the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, we will return to the House with secondary legislation, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—at each stage, the House can debate and take a view on implementation of the minimum wage.

  Competitiveness
  Jacqui Smith: If she will make a statement on the impact of the Chancellor's Budget measures on the competitiveness of British companies. [35977]
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Budget will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of British companies. Business needs economic stability, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a key theme of his Budget statement. The Budget also contained a number of practical measures to promote competitiveness through long-term investment and enterprise, such as further cuts in corporation tax rates, the abolition of advance corporation tax and the reform of capital gains tax. The Budget will also encourage work and create a fairer society.
  Jacqui Smith: I recognise the challenges that British business faces as a result of the high value of the pound, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the clear differences between the Government and an opportunistic and inconsistent Opposition are shown in their respective approaches to the issue? The Opposition are proposing short-term panic measures, with little economic rationale or consistency, whereas the Government have, in the Budget, reduced corporate tax, reformed the tax system and cut regulatory burdens, all of which will improve the long-term competitiveness and success of British business.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. She identifies a major theme of the Chancellor's approach and of the policies that he has already implemented. Unlike the Conservative party, we do not merely talk about the long-term national interest; we act to secure it.
  Mr. Breed: There has been much concentration on the problems that exporting companies face as a result of
  1398
  the current value of the pound, but have the Government considered the problems of companies that are competing against imported products, which are now obviously much cheaper? Such companies find themselves at an extreme disadvantage.
  Mrs. Beckett: We take account of all aspects of the impact of the level of sterling. The hon. Gentleman will know that we believe that we should strive to make the exchange rate not only stable but competitive. He will also be aware that it is not easy in the short term for Governments to influence these things. It is right, however, to take measures to create long-term stability, and that is what we are doing.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend initiate discussions not only in her Department and with the Chancellor, but in Cabinet, about the strength of sterling, which has become Britain's primary economic problem? Does she recall that between 1979 and 1981, when the pound became a petrol currency, 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry were lost as a result of its overvaluation? Moreover, between 1989 and 1992, the pound was valued in the exchange rate mechanism at DM2.95, which was not competitive and produced a second recession. Now that the pound is valued at DM3, Britain is again not competitive. That is a vital problem—we cannot achieve economic stability when sterling is at this level.
  Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and he is entirely right to draw attention to the Conservative party's record. Manufacturing output has risen, on the latest figures, despite the difficulties that he identifies.
  Mr. Redwood: Has the President of the Board of Trade now read the Budget documentation, which shows that the corporation tax changes will cost British business £4.6 billion more—not a cut, but an increase—over the lifetime of this Parliament? Has she seen that the national insurance changes mean a big increase in the cost of employing anyone other than those on low pay? Does she not realise that that is taxation by stealth, and taxation of jobs? Does she not see that it is taking money away from companies that desperately need it for research and development and for investment for more jobs at a time of unprecedented pressure on manufacturing?
  Mrs. Beckett: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about companies needing money for investment and research, which is why the Government are taking steps to give them incentives to support both investment and research and development, which is more than the previous Government did.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I had looked at the Red Book and the figures for the changes in corporation tax over the lifetime of this Parliament. He must be well aware that, while the changes in corporation tax will have an impact in the short term, in the long term there will be a substantial reduction in payments of corporation tax, of the order—from memory—of £2 billion a year. That is why the Budget's overall impact has been so warmly welcomed by business.
  Mr. Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know how widely British businesses, and especially those who are

  1399
  engaged in innovation and investment with universities, have welcomed many of the measures in the Budget. Will she continue the pressure from her Department to get a deal similar to the overseas development deal, whereby if individuals or companies put money into university research they get a partnership, in the form of a tax bonus or some tax back, that will encourage the vital growth of innovation that links private sector business with our excellent university research capacity?
  Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend plays a huge role in promoting British manufacturing and research and development. He will be aware of the many steps that the Government are taking to encourage industry, and people in the science and engineering base in universities and beyond, to work together, including the announcement of the university challenge programme in the Budget. I entirely share the view that that is important and will promote Britain's long-term competitiveness. I assure him that we shall continue to act in that way.
  Mr. Baldry: What assessment she has made of the impact of the value of sterling on the competitiveness of United Kingdom exports. [35978]
  Mrs. Beckett: The Government understand the difficulties that exporters face as a result of the level of sterling, but competitiveness depends on a range of factors. The Budget introduced several measures to create a tax system that promotes entrepreneurship and long-term investment. My Department is working in partnership with business to address other issues central to the competitiveness of British industry.
  Mr. Baldry: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that many hon. Members will have received a briefing today from the aluminium industry, representing companies such as Alcan in Banbury, which says:
  "Many exporting companies are now at or beyond the point of zero margin, a situation compounded by the fact that some traditional Far East markets have disappeared completely. Increases in interest rates continue to exacerbate the situation"?
  It is hardly surprising that yesterday's Financial Times found that the west midlands is a heartland on the brink of recession. The Birmingham chamber of commerce reports that exports from Birmingham companies are still at "dangerously low levels". [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am surprised that Labour Members—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The latest report from the Modernisation Committee allows hon. Members to quote, so the hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order.
  Mr. Baldry: I am sorry that Labour Members are so apathetic about what is happening in Birmingham and what its chamber of commerce reports: that while the pound stays so strong, exporting companies in Birmingham and the west midlands will remain on the brink of recession. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that this country is not driven into recession because of the Chancellor's unwillingness to take any action on the level of the pound?
  Mrs. Beckett: I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman and, of course, I have considerable contacts, though I have not seen the Alcan report to which he
  1400
  referred. Of course we understand the concerns expressed in many parts of the country, although, as I pointed out, manufacturing output has just risen again. It is interesting that he and other Conservative Members express such concern about the level of sterling and its impact on manufacturers. Where was he when, under the previous Government, sterling reached levels that it has not yet reached today when the then Chancellor was shadowing the deutschmark? Where was he when interest rates rose to 15 per cent.? Clearly, he was not on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether we can get to know exactly what the Tory policy is on the pound. They seem to be gradually coming round to the view that they want a weak pound. I would like to know from my right hon. Friend what are the values of a weak pound. The Tories devalued after black Wednesday, 16 September 1992, when they lost £10 billion in an afternoon, and never went near a betting shop. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sent for a radio to find out what was happening outside on the stock exchange. The Prime Minister locked himself in the lavatory. I do not want to go back to those days. Will my right hon. Friend say what are the values of a weak, devalued, Tory pound?
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes some powerful points with his customary verve. I feel entirely unable to answer on behalf of the Conservative party. We gave the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) the opportunity in a debate only a few days ago to say what the Conservatives' policy was and what they proposed should happen. I had the distinct impression, from what he did not say, that their policy was to put up taxes, which he is perhaps unwilling to admit. We are well aware that the Conservative party had no answer for these issues in government any more than it has in opposition. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, 70 per cent. of the increase in the value of sterling, about which Conservative Members now complain, took place under their Government before the general election.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: As a Member who at the time publicly opposed the policy of shadowing the deutschmark and joining the exchange rate mechanism, may I ask the right hon. Lady if she would have a quiet word with her esteemed colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer and explain to him, as I tried to do in the early days of this Parliament, that if control of fiscal policy is separated from that of monetary policy by putting fiscal policy under elected politicians and monetary policy under appointees, whether economists or bankers, the invariable and inevitable result must be higher interest rates and lower taxes than would otherwise be the case? The ultimate price for that is paid in manufacturing and unemployment levels.
  Mrs. Beckett: I respect the hon. Gentleman's record in drawing those concerns to the attention of his colleagues, but he talked of record interest rate levels. We are not remotely near the levels—
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Not yet.
  Mrs. Beckett: Not yet? We are at less than half the level of interest rates under the previous Government.

  1401
  On whether such a course inevitably leads to lower taxes, I have too much respect for the hon. Gentleman's ability and experience not to know that he is perfectly aware that fiscal measures can encompass more than taxation. Indeed, I recall that, over many years, he has called for fiscal measures to tighten public expenditure. I believe that not even he is complaining about the tightness of public expenditure or the management of the fiscal stance under this Government.
  Mr. Winnick: The value of the pound is rather high and is undoubtedly causing difficulties, not least in the west midlands, and my right hon. Friend will no doubt take that very much into consideration, but do the Government need any lectures from the Conservative party, during whose 18 years in office 2.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost, not least in the west midlands? Surely they are the last people to lecture us on job losses.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. The difficulties in the west midlands under the previous Government, of which he rightly reminds us, arose as a result of deliberate Government policy in seeking to drive up the level of sterling and keep it high. We saw exchange rates, interest rates and job losses then that we are not seeing today.
  Mr. Redwood: The Government tell us that they are creating a stable and competitive exchange rate. [HON. MEMBERS: "What's your policy?"] I will tell hon. Members our policy: promote savings, do not tax them. That is what the Government need to do at the moment. Yet so far under the Labour Government sterling has risen by 11 per cent. against the deutschmark and by more against other important European and Asian currencies. The pound is clearly uncompetitive at those levels, as any industrialist will tell the right hon Lady. So will she tell us what today's policy is? Is it to make the pound stable at those uncompetitive levels or does she wish to make it competitive by getting it down from those levels? How does she intend to do either? The truth is that it is out of control and the Government are destroying manufacturing as a result.
  Mrs. Beckett: I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has the gall to carry on like that when he knows perfectly well that he was a member of a Government who drove interest rates to levels twice those that we see now and saw sterling, as a deliberate act of Government policy, at levels above those that we see now. Yes, our policy is to promote long-term stability and to have in that long term a stable but competitive pound. Long-term interest rates, as a result of what the Government are doing, are lower than short-term interest rates. That is a clear sign that we are going in the right direction. The record of the Conservative party on these matters is absolutely catastrophic and it is extraordinary that it has the gall to raise it.

  Small and Medium-sized Companies
  Mr. Darvill: What measures her Department has taken to encourage small and medium-sized companies to expand their export business. [35979]
  The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): My noble Friend the Minister for Trade, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)—and I launched, on 25 March, a new package of measures to help smaller companies to export. These included export explorer, aimed at helping new and inexperienced exporters to break into European markets, and a new internet-based service for matching overseas customers with British suppliers.
  Mr. Darvill: Does my hon. Friend agree that those measures show that her Department is working in partnership with business to influence competitiveness, unlike the previous Government, who constantly failed to listen to business and rode roughshod over its concerns?
  Mrs. Roche: Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for his remarks. We wanted to add to the many excellent small and medium-sized firms that have a good export record new firms which could benefit from some targeted assistance. The proposals have gone down extremely well. We are determined to pursue them. We believe that they will add to the competitiveness of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Given that small and medium-sized companies are sensitive to movements in the pound, does the Minister recognise that in fact Governments do have some influence on the pound—first by giving a guide to the market that there is a measured timetable for entry into the single currency and, secondly, by indicating that if there is a single monetary policy, whether within the United Kingdom or within the European Union, greater emphasis needs to be put on management of the fiscal balance, especially incentives to save? That is available to Her Majesty's Government.
  Mrs. Roche: I note what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Of course, he was a Minister—indeed, a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry—in the previous Government. He was equally responsible for the record of the previous Government, who went from boom to bust and then back again. What the hon. Gentleman has just espoused is clearly not the position of his Front-Bench colleagues. That is presumably why he left the Front-Bench team. May I again say, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said, that we are planning for the long term. What small firms want to know above all is where they will be not only tomorrow but in the next six months. That is what his Government failed to do and we are determined to deliver it.
  Mr. Pike: Do not small and medium-sized firms increasingly want to be involved in the export business and to employ more people? One of their worries is that, as a result of the previous Government's record, we are not able to go into the single European currency. They are worried about what will happen when the euro is introduced and we are not able fully to influence exchange rates because we are outside it.
  Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend makes some good points. The previous Government's astonishing lack of preparation let down British businesses. This Administration have gone in, picked up the pieces,

  1403
  and made sure that we put practical measures in place. What is important is that we concentrate on our small and medium enterprises and provide them with a targeted focus. It was the Conservatives' failure on small businesses that drove them to vote for this Government last May.
  Mrs. Gillan: The Minister needs to face reality and understand that even her best-intended efforts are failing, because the Government are making it increasingly difficult for small firms to expand their exports. Has she had time to look at the NatWest quarterly survey, which shows that more small firms expect to cut employment in the first quarter of 1998 than to increase it? Has she read this week's Office World survey, which shows that the performance of small firms has slowed at a record rate during the last quarter; that small firms have experienced a reduction in turnover on a scale not seen since the survey began in 1994; that manufacturing is down by 15 per cent.; that 60 per cent. of companies report no growth or a decline in orders; and that Labour's support has fallen to its lowest level since November 1994? Is it not obvious that the honeymoon between small businesses and the Labour party is now over and that the Government are proving disastrous for small businesses?
  Mrs. Roche: I noticed that, in the list of purported facts the hon. Lady quotes, she did not mention the Office World survey figure that showed that the party that enjoyed the greatest support among small businesses was the Labour party—she seems to have forgotten that. Can that be the reason why, not so long ago, the hon. Lady told The Sunday Times that the Conservative party had lost the small business vote and that, because the Conservatives had got it wrong last time, people would be seeing few policies from her? The Labour party is absolutely determined to help small and medium businesses, which is why we have taken all the measures we have.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Drew: If she will make a statement on progress towards implementing a national minimum wage. [35980]
  Mr. Ian McCartney: The Government are making excellent progress towards introducing a statutory national minimum wage for the first time in the United Kingdom during this Session of Parliament. The National Minimum Wage Bill had its Second Reading in another place on Monday 23 March.
  Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. Does he accept that the national minimum wage is widely welcomed in Stroud, especially by those decent businesses that aim to pay a fair wage, in marked contrast to those rogue employers who exploit their employees? Does he also accept that those decent businesses find their natural home in the Labour party, unlike those rogues and exploiters who gain solace only in the Conservative party?
  Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who have campaigned long and hard for the introduction of a national minimum wage. In the south-west, 90,000 people
  1404
  earn less than £2.50; and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), 1,300 families are so poor at the end of the week because of low pay that they have to rely on in-work benefits to survive. That is why at the last election the British people, in droves, supported the Labour party pledge to introduce, as a matter of urgency, a national minimum wage. I repeat the question asked of the Conservative Front Benchers: why have they not, in connection with any of the questions asked about low pay, come to the Dispatch Box and supported their own leader's decision to do a U-turn and support the national minimum wage?
  Mr. Prior: Does the Minister expect the national minimum wage to increase jobs or reduce them?
  Mr. McCartney: The national minimum wage, set at a proper level, will be a job creator, not a job loser. During the period in which the national minimum wage was introduced and uprated, the United States has created more than 11 million new jobs. There is no evidence whatever that an appropriately set minimum wage will cost jobs, but it will give low-paid workers an opportunity to purchase goods and services that they cannot currently afford. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any country in the world where a national minimum wage for hairdressers has stopped that country's people having a haircut? It is absolute nonsense to suggest that people will lose out by the introduction of a national minimum wage.

  Industrial Relations
  Barbara Follett: What steps her Department is taking to promote co-operation between employers and employees in the workplace. [35983]
  Mr. Ian McCartney: The Government are committed to decent, minimum standards of employment for all, underpinned by partnership at work. That is the best route to competitiveness.
  Barbara Follett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that recent initiatives by large employers such as British Aerospace and Tesco to improve workplace co-operation show that the present Government, unlike the Conservative party, are in touch with the needs of British business?
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I join her in congratulating businesses on those initiatives. I also congratulate my hon. Friend because I understand that, this morning, her daughter Kim had a baby girl of 6 lb 9 oz. As a grandfather, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend, and I shall send her a bottle of best Californian red, called Redwood. It is very drinkable, unlike the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is not very eatable.
  The Government are absolutely committed to the principles and concepts of partnership in the workplace. Employees deserve to be treated fairly in the workplace, whether or not they are in a union. Joint efforts between management and employees to develop the business are the best way forward for British industry. That is why, overwhelmingly, in Britain, good business thrives where

  1405
  businesses treat their staff appropriately. I add as a footnote that 88 per cent. of top companies in Britain recognise trade unions.
  Mr. Chidgey: In the context of the Minister's last remark, does he recall the Labour party manifesto pledge that trade union recognition would be a legal right where a majority of the relevant work force voted in favour? I am sure that the whole House would be grateful if he would take the opportunity to define for us what he means by "relevant".
  Mr. McCartney: We gave a commitment at the general election, and we will honour it. Discussions taking place between the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry will produce, in the first half of this year, a White Paper, leading to legislation to introduce recognition in the workplace. That measure will be a major achievement in co-operation between both sides of industry.
  I repeat that the purpose of the Government's drive for fairness and minimum standards in the workplace is to introduce a new culture in Britain: a culture of partnership. The "Fairness at Work" White Paper will be a major component in driving that policy.
  Mr. O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the surest ways of ending co-operation and partnership is to facilitate derecognition of trade unions? Therefore, will he do all that he can in the forthcoming weeks to ensure that firms with very few employees will still be able to enjoy the full fruits of trade union membership?
  Mr. McCartney: The Government's policy is clear. We want to ensure that, in the workplace, individuals have the right, not only to join a union, but to enjoy the opportunities for that union to represent them in the workplace. The "Fairness at Work" White Paper will provide an opportunity to make it clear how that fits into the Government's strategy and policy on trade unions. It is also true that we want to encourage, throughout industry, partnership arrangements that bring workers, trade unions and employers together, to develop their enterprise and make it successful. My hon. Friend can rest assured, therefore, that the Government support and promote the interests of people in the workplace, and the idea that those interests should be represented by trade unions.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Given that, this week, on a visit to an employment centre in Penryn in Cornwall, the Education and Employment Select Committee found that there were virtually no jobs on offer at a rate of more than £3.50 an hour, does the Minister accept that, unless the minimum wage is set at a much lower figure than that, in areas such as Cornwall there will not be so many employees in the workplace?
  Mr. McCartney: There is another hon. Member who disagrees with his leader. The hon. Gentleman wants to introduce wage cuts in the workplace. The Low Pay Commission has visited every region in the United Kingdom—Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the south-west—has taken evidence and, at the end of May, will set out its recommendations. Hon. Members can rest assured that, when the commission produces those
  1406
  recommendations, I believe that British employers will accept them overwhelmingly and will move quickly to implement a successful national minimum wage.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: If she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards encouraging research and development in British companies. [35984]
  Mr. Battle: The Government recognise, and publicly acknowledge, the importance of encouraging research and development as an absolutely vital component of innovation and improved competitiveness.
  Mr. Cunningham: What responses has my hon. Friend received, first, from industry and, secondly, from universities regarding research and development? The previous Government decimated the west midlands. Several hon. Members led deputations to former Tory Ministers to discuss that matter, but we received no response. As a result, some highly paid engineers in the west midlands became shelf-stackers at Sainsbury's.
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. From day one, we have worked to strengthen investment in United Kingdom research and development and to build a partnership with industry and academia. We have invested in measures such as the joint research equipment initiative. We have pushed forward the foresight link awards, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the university challenge in the Budget. Those measures have been welcomed by industry and by universities as a way of turning the corner and reversing the cuts in research and development that were made by the previous Administration.
  Mr. Gibb: How does the Minister believe that raising the employers' national insurance contribution rate from 10 per cent. to 12.2 per cent., as announced in the Budget, will help companies that are engaged in research and development?
  Mr. Battle: I am amazed by Opposition Members: they suffer from permanent amnesia. The Conservative Government cut research and development. Their figures show that there was a 6 per cent. reduction in Government spending on R and D and a 3 per cent. reduction in business spending on R and D under the previous Administration. Our measures will strengthen industry. We will encourage business to look to the longer term and to invest in research as a means of achieving a long-term future. Our fiscal measures go some way to underpinning that, which is why they were warmly welcomed.

  Domestic Accidents
  Audrey Wise: What steps she is taking to ensure that publicity is given to the dangers to pre-school children of burns and scalds in the kitchen. [35985]
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): On 24 February, the Department of Trade and Industry launched its safety awareness campaign to alert parents to the hazard of burns

  1407
  and scalds in the home. Some 3,500 pre-school children are injured and end up in hospital every year as a result of such accidents. The campaign involved distributing 2 million safety leaflets and screening four television advertisements to illustrate the hazards.
  Audrey Wise: I thank my hon. Friend for launching that campaign. I know that he shares my concern about the safety of small children. He is undoubtedly aware that some of the nastiest accidents occur when small children pull pans off cookers. Is my hon. Friend also aware that it is possible to buy pan guards to stop that happening? However, those pan guards are sold as separate add-ons of which most people are totally unaware. Will my hon. Friend ask manufacturers to include integral pan guards in new cooker designs or attempt to get pan guards accepted as a British standard? Does he agree that manufacturers should accept more responsibility for the safety of their products?
  Mr. Griffiths: The House, and indeed the country, will be grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that specific problem and drawing it to the attention of parents, grandparents and others who are responsible for children in the kitchen. I shall certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns are reflected in the Government's policy and are communicated firmly to all those responsible for manufacturing and distributing cookers.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister accept that, if he spent a little less time writing questions for his hon. Friends to ask, he might be able to write better answers for himself?
  Mr. Griffiths: I would have found the hon. Gentleman much more convincing if I had not seen the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pass him a note at the beginning of Question Time prompting him to ask that ridiculous question.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Some of the nastiest burns arise from firework accidents. Has my hon. Friend any plans to build on the highly effective campaign—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry—we have not moved to the bonfire; we are still in the kitchen.

  Innovation
  Mr. Purchase: If she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards encouraging innovation in British companies. [35987]
  Mr. Battle: Innovation is the key to competitiveness, and businesses need to innovate if they are to succeed.
  Mr. Purchase: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the previous Administration's wilful neglect of our science base, we none the less continue with important work in the scientific field? Does he also agree that British firms have traditionally been rather poor at innovation, with good ideas being sold abroad in order to get the innovation on to the market? Will he assure the House that much of the red tape introduced by the Conservatives for grant qualification purposes will be swept away by the
  1408
  Government, in order to give an incentive to our firms to get the products that we so splendidly discover and develop on to the market in good time?
  Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has for all his years in the House championed the cause of manufacturing and engineering. Not only will we remove barriers; we will positively promote innovation. That is why we are promoting the millennium products initiative and the foresight link initiative. Across the road in Horseguards parade there is an exhibition, Powerhouse::UK, which sets out the innovative products and processes that will lead us through to the 21st century. There are innovations in engineering, biotechnology and communications. It is a showhouse of what can be achieved with positive support.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Clearly, the Government are strongly of the view that innovation and research and development are essential to the future success and competitiveness of British manufacturing industry. Is it not true, however, that to innovate and to undertake research and development requires money? Frequently, manufacturing industry needs to borrow money to undertake innovation, research and development. Currently, the level of interest rates in the United Kingdom is not particularly helpful to the future success of manufacturing industry or its competitiveness. What measures can the Board of Trade take to mitigate the effects of the high level of interest rates, to ensure that what the House wants—the success of manufacturing industry—can be fully achieved?
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman, too, has a record of campaigning for manufacturing industry. Of course the interest rates are worrying. However, the information is patchy. A report by the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply this morning states that manufacturers have continued to defy the ravages of a strong pound, so it is not true that all is lost. We will continue to promote innovation and underpin it with fiscal measures.
  The consultation document "Innovating for the future—investing in research and development innovation" is of paramount importance to find new partnerships and new ways to ensure that companies invest in the longer term. Some companies such as pharmaceuticals do, but we have a long way to go with many other companies to ensure that they move forward into the 21st century.
  Mr. Reed: Does my hon. Friend agree that British innovation has too often led to manufacturing success for other countries? I thank him and his Front-Bench colleagues who have visited Loughborough university in recent months. I issue an invitation to those who have not yet made it to Loughborough to see the excellent innovation work that is going on. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making available £50 million-worth of innovation money, which I know from my discussions with Loughborough university was greatly welcomed? It will lead to more job creation from small innovative ideas that have worldwide links. Two companies that Ministers have already visited in my constituency have created 150 jobs from two simple ideas.

  1409
  That is how we shall create jobs for this country. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me again in a visit to Loughborough university.
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I welcome his invitation. It is good to hear that the university challenge scheme and other such measures are already working through. The initiatives that we are taking will have a positive effect.
  Mr. Stunell: Does the Minister recognise that innovation is difficult for companies that face the random effects of the anti-dumping textile levy? A company in my constituency, Strines Textiles, is facing 100 job losses, not innovation, as a result of the levy. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will be strongly behind Strines Textiles' fight to get this temporary levy lifted as soon as possible so as to protect jobs in my constituency?
  Mr. Battle: We fought hard and consistently on the measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers and we shall continue to do so to ensure that our industries are not unfairly priced out of the market. We have a consistent line on these matters. We have registered our objections and we shall continue to do so where unfair trading occurs.

  Consumer Credit
  Dr. Vis: What plans she has to consult consumer groups about reforms to consumer credit legislation. [35988]
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I issued consultation documents in February and March to, among others, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
  Dr. Vis: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that millions of people throughout the country are grateful to the Government for the work that they are doing on consumer protection after 18 years of virtual absence of such protection? Will my hon. Friend comment on what he might have in mind concerning mortgages, especially with regard to non-status lenders?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the policies that we are pursuing. As for non-status lenders, we are increasing the financial limits that are governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from £15,000 to £25,000 to ensure that many more people are offered the protection of the Act, including those who may be subject to the worst mis-selling practices of the mortgage companies at the lower end of the market.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is aware from work that we did together during the previous Parliament on a cross-party campaign of my long-standing involvement in consumer credit issues. Will he confirm that in the reforms that he is talking about there will be a concentration on promoting best practice, and that the Government will ensure that praise is given to those major financial institutions that have managed to promote the
  1410
  use of plain English in documents for consumers while staying within the sometimes necessarily complex provisions of consumer credit legislation?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am obviously grateful for all the support that we have for plain English and for ensuring that unfair contracts are not allowed to be foisted on consumers. I welcome the action that the Office of Fair Trading took specifically on unfair contracts in respect of one company that was peddling mortgages in a way that was found not to meet the highest standards that the House would expect.

  EU Presidency
  Mr. Geraint Davies: If she will make a statement on the priority her Department attaches to promoting competitiveness in Europe during the British presidency of the European Union. [35989]
  Mrs. Beckett: European competitiveness is a key DTI priority for the UK presidency, just as it is in our policies within the UK. On 11 March, I addressed a debate in the European Parliament on this issue, and next month, when I chair the Industry Council, we shall be having the first full debate on European competitiveness, including how industry and Government can work together. A particularly important feature of our approach to competitiveness is the improvement and completion of the single market.
  Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that exchange rates largely link to external factors in Europe, Asia and Japan, and that the proportion of exporters that are showing a dip in sales is the same as the proportion that are showing lower input costs in terms of raw materials? Does my right hon. Friend agree that about a third of manufacturers serving the domestic market are in boom? Does she agree also that exporters would be best advised to focus on higher productivity and better product differentiation, and then to focus on the home market? In no circumstances should we expose the wider economy to the risk of inflation because of the short-term pain of some exporters.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify that the overall position is much more complicated than the Conservatives seek to pretend. He is also right that our consistent advice to manufacturers and others has been that Britain's long-term competitiveness lies in the pursuit of quality and high added value rather than in simply attempting to compete on price. On all these issues our message has been consistent, and it has been of assistance to people in dealing with the present circumstances with the level of sterling.
  Mr. Garnier: What does the President of the Board of Trade consider to be the pound's optimum level against the deutschmark to promote competitiveness?
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that anyone would attempt to answer such a theoretical question. I simply remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that neither sterling nor interest rates are yet at the level that they reached under the previous Government, which was the result of a deliberate act of policy.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question about competitiveness among Europe's

  1411
  airline operators? Can she give an assurance that British Airways, with its new cut-price operation, will not be allowed to drive existing cut-price airline operators out of business? Clearly, that would not be in the public interest.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am always cautious about being drawn into comment on competition issues in the House. The Government have not only advocated and pursued a policy of strong and fair competition but will continue to do so.
  Madam Speaker: Sir Teddy Taylor.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree—
  Madam Speaker: Sir Teddy, I am calling you for Question 18.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is Question 17.
  Madam Speaker: You have Question 18. Either you want to put it or you do not.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Question 18. Yes, that is me.

  EU Structural Funds
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What assessment she has made of the impact on United Kingdom industry of the changes in European Union structural funds being proposed by the Commission. [35991]
  Mrs. Roche: The Commission's proposals for the structural funds and for other structural and cohesion policies for the years 2000 to 2006 were published on 18 March.
  The Commission has not published its detailed financial plans for individual member states. In any event, structural funds are designed for the purpose of regional regeneration. It will be difficult to assess the specific impact of any changes on industry.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: In thanking the Minister—[Interruption.]
  I had an important question on Question 17, which I was unable to ask.
  Does the Minister accept that, as the average family in Britain—[Interruption.] This is not funny—[Interruption.] It is not. Does the Minister accept that, as the average family in Britain—whether poor or rich; whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat—is paying £5 a week at present towards our net contribution
  1412
  to the EEC, if these changes go ahead, on top of the changes in regional funding, which are damaging to Scotland and many other places, we will have to pay even more? Will she try hard to ensure that the travel-to-work criteria are changed, so that pockets of unemployment in particular areas are not disregarded for grant purposes? Will she accept that the cost of the EEC to jobs and to people in Britain is excessive?
  Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, travel-to-work areas are a matter for state aid and assisted area status, not structural funds. He will be glad to hear that we are concerned, as are all member states, to contain the overall costs of structural funds, and that is what we aim to do with the reforms. However, we are disappointed with the draft regulations that have been published by the Commission. Our aim is to have an outcome that is affordable, durable, simpler and more efficient. We are working very hard indeed for an outcome that is fair to the United Kingdom and all its regions.
  Mr. McCabe: Is not it true that our negotiations have already secured transitional arrangements until 2004? Does my hon. Friend agree that we should treat with scepticism the views of anyone who still believes, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does, that joining the Community was a great disaster, and that the Referendum party could really zoom and be very significant indeed?
  Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our case on transitional periods has already met with some success, but we also want to ensure that those transitional periods are the same length as for objective 1, and we are working hard to achieve that. The Government recognise that our future lies in Europe, our trade is done there, and it is important to the British public and British businesses that we say that and say it loudly.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister assure the House today that, in the regional regeneration of which she spoke, rural areas will not lose out to urban areas, particularly in an area such as Yorkshire and Humberside where South Yorkshire is clearly more densely populated than North Yorkshire, but North Yorkshire also deserves a fair whack of the money?
  Mrs. Roche: I well understand the hon. Lady's interest and experience in these matters. We are working hard with everyone and we have also had extensive discussions with local authorities. We want the United Kingdom to be represented by a united voice. We want outcomes which lead to flexibility, but also to a proper balance between urban and rural areas. That is essential.

Maze Prison (Narey Inquiry)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report of the Narey inquiry into incidents at the Maze prison.
On 10 December, Provisional IRA prisoner Liam Averill escaped from the Maze prison. On the following day, we commissioned an independent inquiry to be undertaken by Martin Narey, the director of regimes in the Prison Service for England and Wales. He was asked to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the escape.
On 27 December, Loyalist Volunteer Force prisoner Billy Wright was killed within the Maze prison. We immediately asked Martin Narey to extend the scope of his inquiry to include the circumstances surrounding the murder.
In addition, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, was asked immediately to bring forward a full inspection of the Maze.
Martin Narey's detailed and comprehensive report is now before the House. I am grateful to him and his team for completing his inquiry so promptly.
Before going on to consider important aspects of the report, I should like to comment on the third serious incident that has occurred in the Maze—the brutal and savage murder of Mr. David Keys, who was found dead in LVF accommodation on the morning of Sunday 15 March.
I very much regret any incident that leads to the loss of life within prison. I am committed to taking all viable steps to prevent a recurrence, but I must be honest and say emphatically that, even with the most rigorous and severe prison regimes, it is impossible for anyone to guarantee that serious incidents will not happen.
Mr. Keys's murder is, of course, the subject of a Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation and an internal investigation by the Prison Service. However, although Martin Narey had the safety of prisoners continually in mind, the murder raises issues that go beyond the scope of the Narey inquiry. I have, therefore, asked Sir David Ramsbotham, whose inspection of the Maze began on Monday 23 March, to look specifically at the way in which the regime at the Maze impacts on the safety of individual prisoners, and to make recommendations.
As a result of information received during the RUC's investigation, the governor has decided to place LVF prisoners under prison rule 32 for the maintenance of good order and discipline. That is not a punishment, but it does mean that prisoners are kept in cell for up to 23 hours of the day and have restricted association and privileges. Even that reasonable measure resulted in threats to staff, and a number of prisoners refusing prison food, in an effort to overturn the governor's decision.
It is important to bear in mind the fact that Mr. Keys applied to be transferred to the Maze in full knowledge of the conditions there. However, in future, remand prisoners will not move immediately to the Maze, but will be held for a longer period in Maghaberry for assessment. That will give the prison authorities more time to be assured about the safety of such a move.
1414
Martin Narey has described very fully the unique difficulties faced by staff and management at the Maze prison. To quote from his report:
"The Maze contains more than 500 paramilitary prisoners, from five different factions, some violently opposed to one another, living in segregated accommodation and enjoying the support of significant communities outside the prison. It is staffed by prison officers who live in the same communities."
Staff at all levels in the Prison Service and their families have been subjected to a campaign of intimidation and attack directed against them. Since the start of the troubles, 29 members of staff have been murdered by paramilitaries. In 1996–97 alone, there were 122 reported threats against staff, and a further 50 officers had to be given special protection. That campaign has been waged against staff in an effort by prisoners and their supporters to impose their will. The campaign continues. Last weekend, there was a live bomb attempt on the home of a female prison officer in Portadown and, in the early hours of Monday morning, a bomb exploded under the car of a retired prison officer living in Carrickfergus.
Given the small size of Northern Ireland and its small prison estate, the dispersal of paramilitary prisoners is not possible. The only prudent option is to hold them in one place. Although the concentration of prisoners has many security advantages, there is a price to be paid. It gives the prisoners the opportunity to take concerted action within the prison, including action against staff.
I know of no other prison that operates under such difficult circumstances, or where staff are under such continual threat and pressure. I share Martin Narey's admiration for those who work at the Maze. Despite the difficulties and dangers, for 14 years until last December, they had contained a difficult population without a single escape.
Martin Narey has also drawn attention to the support that paramilitary prisoners have outside prison. One important consequence of that has been faced by me and my predecessors: the danger that actions taken inside prison, for perfectly sound and defensible penological reasons, may result in disruption and unrest outside prison. Against that background, I am aware that staff and management at the Maze have created conditions of safety and humanity which compare favourably with other prisons in the United Kingdom and beyond, and have been entirely open to impartial observers from outside such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In the aftermath of the escape and the murders, I am required to make decisions about the security of prisons and prisoners. Like all my predecessors, however, I must make decisions that balance the security of custody with the safety of our staff. I must also make decisions that balance the requirements of imprisonment with the wider requirements of public order and public safety.
The Government have already taken significant steps to improve security at the Maze prison. In March 1997, a tunnel was found in H block 7. It was the subject of an inquiry by the previous Government, carried out by John Steele. Following the election of the present Government, we have pursued the implementation of the Steele recommendations. Specifically, morning and evening head counts are being taken; each day, five randomly selected cells per block are being given a fabric check; and full block searches are now a weekly feature.

1415
Material coming from stores is now exchanged on a new-for-old basis, and there is now an accurate picture of the amount and nature of the supplies in the blocks. All prisoners on inter-block movement are being searched.
In addition, a programme of physical security measures has been included in the existing block refurbishment programme. Five blocks have been upgraded to date, and work on the remainder is due for completion by mid-August.
Martin Narey has drawn attention to a number of important lapses in security at the Maze. He has made 59 recommendations that he considers will represent real improvements for staff and prisoners.
As Martin Narey said in his report, changes have already been made. In particular, the governor has taken the initiative to put in place regular random full block searches; regular security checks of H block fences; new arrangements for weekend coverage of staffing shortfalls on visits; new arrangements for searching prisoners on visits and for X-raying parcels; and new arrangements for counting visitors at parties.
Some of the remaining recommendations will be taken forward immediately, now that the report has been published. Other recommendations require some detailed consideration; the necessary project teams are being put in place, for instance, to look at security of the roofs of the buildings and improved processes for dealing with visitors.
Some of the issues to be considered vary in their complexity. However, as an assurance of our determination to act on the recommendations and to tighten security, I undertake to make available to Parliament, in three months' time, a progress report on implementation. In addition, and going beyond the recommendations, we have set up a security audit team, which will begin to work immediately and which will provide the chief executive of the Prison Service with the necessary assurance that changes have been made and are working effectively. That may seem to be a small item, but many changes have been recommended over the years in relation to the Maze, and holding a regular security audit will give us the information to know that the change is taking place.
Finally, I should like to deal with the on-going management of the Maze. Martin Narey has not only recorded a number of lapses in security, but dealt with wider matters to do with the safe and secure running of the prison. Those centre on improving the quality of general management and enhancing staff morale and confidence.
The report suggests that the shortcomings cannot be attributed to individuals, but are the result of a slow, but long-running, deterioration caused by staff fears of the consequences of managing paramilitary prisoners, and by the absence of effective middle management.
The shortcomings have also emerged because there is no easy way of dealing with the Maze and the difficult prisoners it contains. The simple truth, which Martin Narey acknowledges, is that the Maze is different, and the policies operated by successive Governments, which we inherited, have reflected exactly that fact.
I could continue with the status quo, but I consider that unacceptable, or I could turn the clock back at the Maze and reassert the sort of regime that operated during the
1416
1980s. However, in my view, turning the clock back would be at a price within the prison and within the community that no reasonable person would be prepared to pay; certainly, no previous Government have taken a different view.
We recognise the problems, but that is not an excuse for complacency. One irony is that the shortcomings noted by Martin Narey had been noted by the Prison Service long before December of last year, and were beginning to be acted on. They were the reason why Martin Mogg, the most senior governor available within the Northern Ireland Prison Service, together with a new management team, was put in place in October 1997 to take over the running of the Maze. Martin Mogg's appointment is temporary, to ensure the vigorous implementation of the Steele recommendations. I am pleased to note Martin Narey's acknowledgement of the good progress that the team has been making.
However, the fact remains, as Martin Narey has concluded, that
"the challenge of the Maze is greater than that of any other establishment in the United Kingdom".
I regard it as critical, therefore, that we act as quickly as possible on the Narey inquiry's recommendations. I assure the House that we will do so.
Implementing the Narey report in full will be a considerable task for the Northern Ireland Prison Service. However, I am confident that it will meet the challenge, and I am confident that when it receives the report in three months, and with the security audit, the House will see that challenge being met.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: May I thank the Minister of State, the hon. Member of East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), for his courtesy and help in ensuring that I received this report in good time? The Secretary of State's statement is greatly appreciated.
When two prisoners in the custody of the Government are murdered that is a deeply shocking affair, and it is right and proper to have a full and thorough investigation. As the Secretary of State is aware, I would have preferred a full independent inquiry: I asked for that when Wright was murdered at the turn of the year.
As a result of the inquiry and the ensuing publicity, our constituents on the mainland have been surprised and appalled at the regime in the Maze. They were perhaps not aware of the special circumstances of that prison, which have rightly been explained by the Secretary of State and by Mr. Narey. The most particular circumstance is that the prison officers and their families live in the community and are under constant threat. I associate myself with the Secretary of State's remarks about those deeply brave and courageous men and women, who are doing jobs that most of us would not be prepared to do.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Narey report is an interim report? It has made some initial recommendations that, on first glance, the Secretary of State is right to implement. However, more needs to be done. Sir David Ramsbotham, the chief inspector of prisons, is looking into life at the Maze and will report soon. I realise that there may be security implications, but will the Secretary of State publish that report in full if possible? Will she also make a statement to the House shortly after it is published?

1417
The Secretary of State has my absolute assurance, on behalf of the Opposition, that, we are seeking, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, like everyone else, to ensure a better and more productive regime in the Maze. We are not looking for scapegoats or to blame others. We shall assist her to improve the regime in the Maze so that the dreadful murders and other events that have occurred will not be repeated.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I agree with him that the murders were deeply shocking, and no one wants such acts to be repeated.
I was aware that an independent inquiry was the hon. Gentleman's desired outcome. When I decided whether to instigate a report or an inquiry, I considered speed. An inquiry would have taken much longer, and I believed that action should be taken quickly. I also considered decisions by previous Governments. In the past 15 years, during which there were two murders at the Crumlin road gaol, there was no independent inquiry. I decided that the method chosen would allow a thorough investigation with a specific date for completion and recommendations for implementation.
The hon. Gentleman is correct that the report by Sir David Ramsbotham has a wider remit: we widened it after the murder of Mr. Keys. I look forward to the publication of that report in the near future, with, as he rightly said, the proviso that there are no security implications. We also had to take security into account for the Narey report, and I am pleased that we were able to publish it in full. Although Sir David Ramsbotham's report is more extensive, it is the usual inspection, so it would not normally be brought before the House, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have every sympathy with the prison officers of Northern Ireland. Anyone with any knowledge of prisons—military or civilian—in parliamentary democracies knows that accommodations must be made between staff and prisoners; but why are those prisoners allowed to adorn their living quarters with flagrantly offensive murals? Moreover, is it true that they have unhindered access to mobile phones?
Marjorie Mowlam: As my hon. Friend said at the outset, a balance is needed between security and the safety of prison staff, and the necessary judgments must be made to achieve that balance.
The murals are in all the blocks. All the different groups have them on the walls, and—as my hon. Friend knows better than most—they are to be found in the communities as well. Let me put my view succinctly: I believe that the amount of force that would be required to remove them permanently is disproportionate to the extent of the problem. That is the decision we made, and, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware, the murals have been there for many years.
Many allegations are made in the papers about behaviour in the Maze, most of them without foundation. Prisoners are not permitted to have mobile phones. Mobile phones that have been found have been seized, and there
1418
is no evidence to suggest that they are currently being used. Prisoners do, however, have phonecards, and there are telephone boxes on each wing.
Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats also support the publication of the Narey report. Although it will take some time for us to study all 59 recommendations, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept our support for a very challenging and sensitive document.
Can the Secretary of State assure the House that she will seek the views of the prison officers and line managers who will have to implement the proposals? It is crucial that we do not just make statements rightly praising the courage of the prison officers, but ensure that those who must implement the proposals are given the utmost support and consideration.
Prison safety remains a concern, especially after the appalling murder of David Keys. There is currently a 23-hour protective lockdown each day for LVF prisoners. We note what the Secretary of State said about Sir David Ramsbotham's investigation, but does she accept that the sooner that investigation is finished and a statement is made to the House, the sooner we shall be able to get on with the job of satisfying not only the public in Northern Ireland, but the prisoner community?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his party's support. I appreciate that Liberal Democrats will want to examine the 59 recommendations in the report; if they want to make further points after doing so, we shall be happy to consider them.
Question accordingly agreed to. I certainly assure the House that the implementation of the recommendations will rely on sensible discussion and negotiation with staff, line managers and members of the Prison Officers Associations. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), the Minister with responsibility for security, met members of the POA this week in preparation for the publication of the Narey report, and I shall be meeting them next week or the week after to discuss the details.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Ramsbotham report. Of course we want to get it into the public domain as quickly as possible. The one thing that prisons need is stability; uncertainty and a lack of information are not helpful, as in so many other Northern Ireland matters. There was a slight delay in the publication of the Narey report, because we had sought legal advice in order not to inhibit the possibility of criminal prosecutions where they are pending. Similarly, there may be a slight delay in the publication of the Ramsbotham report, but it will be no longer than is absolutely necessary.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: May I first acknowledge the courtesy with which Martin Narey listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and me when we visited him, and may I thank the Secretary of State for giving us a preview of the report so that we were able to read it before coming here?
I am disappointed that the report does not deal with the fundamentals that I think it should have dealt with. Whatever superfluity of words the Secretary of State uses to divert attention from the shameful reality that the

1419
Prison Service in Northern Ireland operates on a prisoner self-regulatory basis, and however euphemistic the language of Martin Narey with his "regrettables" and "unfortunates", there is no escaping the fact that prison management in Northern Ireland falls far short of the justifiable expectation of the predominantly law-abiding society in Northern Ireland.
The Narey report and the Secretary of State's response are little short of a terrorists charter for paramilitaries to continue—[Interruption.] Listen for once. We have to live there. It is a terrorists charter for paramilitaries to continue to impose by violence and the threat of violence a lawless and undemocratic regime, not only inside our prisons but outside, as is admitted in the report.
Is not the Secretary of State's passive acceptance of this state of affairs so pitiful as to suggest that the Northern Ireland Office team is not fit for high office? When will it, after almost a year, begin to govern? When will it resist the bully-boy tactics of terrorists, in the way that the Prime Minister seems to have rejected the bully-boy tactics of Taoiseach Ahern over the past 24 or 48 hours? This is an inadequate response to murder and mayhem in our prisons. We can only hope that, not having had an independent inquiry, we can have something substantial from Sir David Ramsbotham when he carries out his inspection so that we can begin to get rid of the anarchy that pervades our prison system.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He refers to the Prison Service as self-regulatory. I would say that of any prison—my hon. Friend the Minister of State uses that language. Yes, it is self-regulatory, in the sense that there needs to be communication between the prisoners and the prison management and officers, as there is in any prison in the United Kingdom. The only difference in relation to the Maze is the backdrop. There are 500 paramilitary prisoners in one place, and the difference is that those prisoners are willing to consider murdering each other and to consider threatening the lives of prison staff and their families, and they can bring some civil disobedience to the streets of Northern Ireland. Those three conditions do not necessarily apply in other prisons. With that backdrop, there will be what the hon. Gentleman calls self-regulation, but I call co-operation and understanding, which are needed for any prison to function.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Northern Ireland team is not fit for high office. I do not know whether he was referring to the politicians or to the civil servants. If he was referring to the politicians, that is a matter of his view and that is fine. On a difficult issue, Northern Ireland civil servants work very hard and do their utmost in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman's last point was about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. What they were trying to do last night was no different from what we need to do on so many problems in Northern Ireland, which is to seek some kind of accommodation and understanding, and to talk.
Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Lady aware that all who have shared in the responsibility in Northern Ireland will know that the problem of adequately containing the largest group of convicted terrorists in western Europe is challenge enough? Certainly, the House
1420
would join warmly in supporting her tribute to all those working in the Prison Service and the Northern Ireland Office, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) did. Clearly, a balance must be struck in the interests of the wider community and in the interests of security.
While the House will study with great interest the many recommendations in the Narey report, I thought none so important as the emphasis on frequent and random searches, because it is one thing to contain prisoners, but it is quite another if prison officers are being asked to contain armed prisoners.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I agree that a balance needs to be struck and that the overriding issue is the security of the wider community. In that sense, the Prison Service has been doing a good job since the tunnel under the Maze was discovered in March last year, during the previous Government's period in office. The recommendations made then dealt exactly with the points he has raised, and we were working on their implementation in October last year.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend say more about the treatment of remand prisoners? She said in her statement that no remand prisoner would be sent automatically to the Maze, but would be held back for assessment. Given the picture that she has painted of the Maze and its inmates, does she agree that it would be better for all remand prisoners to be sent to prisons other than the Maze—perhaps even on the mainland? Could she say a word or two about the form of the assessment of remand prisoners to ascertain whether they should be sent to the Maze?
Marjorie Mowlam: When my hon. Friend has a chance to look at the details of the report—that is not a criticism; he will not have had a chance to read the whole report—he will see that the treatment of remand prisoners is covered in some detail. There are positive recommendations which, no doubt, we will be able to implement speedily. Remand prisoners are not sent automatically to the Maze. They arrive at Maghaberry and if they ask to be transferred, they are transferred—the choice is left to them. The conditions are written down and given to them. One of the changes that could make a difference would be prisoners being given slightly longer to consider their position. In relation to Mr. Keys, he himself chose to go, sadly.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: While I acknowledge that the Maze is a very different and difficult prison to run, can it not be argued—with the advantage of hindsight—that some well-intended, if mistaken, decisions have been made in the past? Is it not a matter of regret that Mr. Narey has ducked one central issue—that to achieve an acceptable level of security at the Maze, it is essential for prison officers to patrol residential areas as well as search them occasionally, sometimes by prior arrangement with the prisoners?
Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but, not having it at the time, previous Governments have adopted particular policies. Narey is a positive report because it looks to the

1421
future. We could spend the next five or 10 minutes going over the past 15 years, but that would not help us or the hon. Gentleman. We must look at the gradual deterioration in the implementation of some of the regulations, and we must do what both Steele and Narey recommended—to begin to be sure that individual searches, cell searches or unit searches happen on a regular and random basis, and to be sure that the kind of checks that are needed are put in place. The hon. Gentleman and I would agree on that.
Ms Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend accept the support of the majority of hon. Members for the actions that she has outlined to deal with the very difficult situation in the Maze? In particular, I welcome her comments about the security audit. She referred to the delay in the publication of the report. Will she expand on the reasons behind that?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for her opening comments. We were criticised by parts of the press for the delay in publication. There were two reasons for the delay. First, after receiving the report, we wanted to consider it in detail—my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and I wanted to be sure that we could tell the House that we could implement all 59 recommendations. We are now sure that we can, and the security audit and the report in three months will show that we have done so. Secondly—I did not know this before—such reports have to be checked to ensure that no difficulty will be caused to criminal cases being brought against people accused of murder, and it took time for the report to be considered by another Department.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Northern Ireland Prison Service clearly has an extremely difficult job—that is accepted on both sides of the House. Is the Secretary of State aware that people on both sides of the Irish sea—in Northern Ireland and here—are deeply concerned about the regime at the Maze prison, on which the report by Sir David Ramsbotham may, in due course, shed more light? Is not it wrong that she and even my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is no longer in his place, have described as paramilitaries or terrorists people who are, in fact, no more than vicious, brutal criminals, and should be treated as such? The regime that they experience should reflect appropriately the vicious crimes that they have perpetrated.
I share some of the grave concerns expressed by the spokesman for the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), about the current regime. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the regime that operated in the 1980s, which she said was no longer acceptable, should be reconsidered, as it seemed to be rather more effective than the current regime?
Marjorie Mowlam: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, but there is a difference between rhetoric and reality, as those who have served in Labour and Conservative Governments know.
Mr. Harry Barnes: In the long run, will not the serious problems at the Maze be
1422
solved only by successful outcomes of the peace process and the referendum? Is it not the duty of every hon. Member to ensure that the process is pushed forward, so that those problems can be tackled?
Marjorie Mowlam: Yes.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: With the benefit of hindsight, does the right hon. Lady consider that her visit to the Maze at Christmas contributed to good order and discipline in the prison and to a reduction in violence both inside and outside the prison, or does she think that it enhanced the status and authority of convicted criminals and terrorist godfathers?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. No, if I had thought that the visit would have either undermined the rule of law or enhanced the standing of people in the Maze, I would not have made it. I think that it was an extra step towards ensuring what was referred to in the previous question—the backdrop of a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Martin Salter: On a scale of one to 100, where would my right hon. Friend place the recent contribution of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) towards a positive solution to the serious security problems that bedevil Northern Ireland?
Marjorie Mowlam: I do not think that it would be helpful to answer that question.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I have every sympathy with the right hon. Lady in having to deal with this fiendishly difficult problem, but does she agree that it would be sensible to assess the security profile of remand prisoners who choose to go to the Maze? In the case of Mr. David Keys, there was a clear likelihood that he would be under threat. Under such circumstances, do not the Prison Service, the military and the intelligence services have a duty, if necessary, to prevent such prisoners from going to the Maze?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That is done at the moment, and, as a result of the Narey recommendations, the matter will be examined in more detail.
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: As the Maze is in my constituency, I have followed the inquiry with great interest. Having glanced through Mr. Narey's report, I am concerned about getting at the real truth behind Billy Wright's murder and Liam Averill's escape. There are many inadequacies in the report.
I was alarmed to read that, in the course of his inquiry, Mr. Narey met officials from the Irish Government. One wonders what their role is in the management of prisons in Northern Ireland. I was amazed to find that he also met the OCs of all the paramilitary groups in the prison except the INLA. One wonders what their role was.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke of the system of self-regulation in Northern Ireland's prisons. There can be no doubt that that system has contributed to two murders

1423
and one escape in recent weeks; until it is changed, problems will continue and the Secretary of State will continue to say that she cannot guarantee the safety of prisoners. That is most regrettable. Control of the wings in the prisons has been given over to the paramilitary groupings, and that must be reversed.
It is regrettable that no individual or group of individuals has been brought to account for serious breaches of security that not only led to the two murders and the escape but contributed to a serious deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland generally. Will the Secretary of State undertake to review again the management of the Prison Service in Northern Ireland? My constituents cannot have confidence in the service on the basis of the report.
Marjorie Mowlam: I shall answer those points in turn. If it was simply a question of heads rolling, that would be cheap and unrealistic and would not acknowledge the complexities and difficulties that exist in the Maze. There is a question of effective middle management, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is being investigated. The murder of Billy Wright is not covered in the report because it was not in its remit. An RUC investigation is being conducted into exactly that question.
The hon. Gentleman listed some people to whom Mr. Narey talked. He chose whom he talked to, and when people came to him to give evidence I presume that he listened to them. The hon. Gentleman also referred to self-regulation, as he called it, and to the murders that have taken place and why we cannot do better. At the risk of alienating my Scottish, Welsh and English colleagues, let me say that there have been two murders and one escape in the Maze in the past 14 years, while—
Mr. Maginnis: No, in the past month.
Marjorie Mowlam: Well, they may have happened in the past month, but they are the only ones in the past 14 years. In Scotland, there have been six murders in the past 10 years, and in England and Wales there have been 13 in the past six years. I am merely putting the matter in context.

Business of the House
4.13 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I would like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 6 APRIL—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on trade union recognition, followed by a debate on the state of manufacturing industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 7 APRIL—Second Reading of the National Lottery Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 8 APRIL—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
That will be followed in the afternoon by Second Reading of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
The House will then rise for the Easter recess.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Easter recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 APRIL—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Bank of England Bill.
Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 pm.
TUESDAY 21 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.
WEDNESDAY 22 APRIL—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Scotland Bill (first day).
THURSDAY 23 APRIL—Debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 24 April—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 8 April, there will be a debate on convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
I do not anticipate being able to give further information next week about the business for the second week back after the recess, and I therefore do not intend to make a business statement next week unless the provisional business alters or I am able to give information about the week of 27 April. If I do give more information, I will do so on Wednesday of next week.
The House is being asked to take the Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Bill today as new business which was not announced last week. However, I said last week that the Government were looking to take urgent action on the problems that had arisen on the matter. As the official Opposition and, indeed, other parties, have acknowledged the need for the measure, we have been able to get agreement to take it in this unusual way. I am grateful for that, and thank those who helped to facilitate that action.
[Wednesday 8 April:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 13289/97, Convergence of the Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology Sectors. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 155-xiv and HC 155-xxiii (1997–98).]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement, and for giving the House the provisional business for the week after the recess. She knows that several Members have been asking for debates on defence matters, so her announcement of a debate on the Royal Air Force is particularly welcome.
The right hon. Lady knows that we have been pressing for debates on statutory instrument 776 on lone parents and on statutory instrument 655 on nursery education. I hope that she can find time for such debates. Does she agree that it is time that we had a debate on foreign affairs now that we are halfway through the British presidency of the European Union? It would be of great value to the House if one could be arranged.
The right hon. Lady also knows that I have asked for a debate on the national health service in Government time at no fewer than six previous business questions. It is a matter of real concern that the Government continue to be unwilling to debate the NHS in their own time.
It is almost incredible that, although we have had eight statements on health policy, there has been no debate in Government time since the general election 10 months ago. I understand that the right hon. Lady has a great deal of business to cram into our working hours, and that she may not immediately be able to say when she might arrange for such a debate, but I hope that she will at least explain why the Government appear so reluctant to expose their health policies to examination in the House.
Can the right hon. Lady tell the House what precedent there is for the Government's handling of the introduction of national insurance changes in the other place? It appears that an amendment to the Social Security Bill in their Lordships' House has been used to introduce changes that were announced in the Budget, without any opportunity for debate or scrutiny in this House. Again, I understand that she may not be able to answer that point today, but if she cannot, I should be grateful if she could write to me to explain the precedent, and whether there has been an abuse of this House.
Many in the House and beyond will have been surprised to hear the Prime Minister yesterday give the job description of his press secretary as to "attack the Conservatives". I see from today's press briefing from Government sources that the press secretary's terms and conditions of employment have changed since the election. I think that we would all welcome the right hon. Lady's confirmation that that is so, and her reassurance that the House was informed of that change. When was it informed, and by what means?
Does the Leader of the House agree that it might be more open of the Government to re-title the post? If, as the Prime Minister was at pains to emphasise yesterday, Mr. Campbell is a political appointee, it is inappropriate for him to be called the Prime Minister's press secretary. I wonder whether it might be helpful and add to the gaiety of nations if the Press Gallery were to be asked to organise a competition among themselves to suggest a more fitting name.
1426
I hope that, in her reply, the right hon. Lady will not provide us with an analogy with Sir Bernard Ingham, who began his distinguished professional career, as we all know, as an enthusiastic press officer for the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on why the sensitive issues of abortion and euthanasia are being treated differently in the Scotland Bill? The former is being reserved to the Westminster Parliament, and the latter devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Leader of the House may be willing to explain the distinction that the Government are drawing between the two, and whether the Government regard the issue of which Parliament should deal with those issues as one of conscience.
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Lady has raised a number of points, and I shall try to answer them all. I am glad that she welcomes the defence debate. Some of her hon. Friends have been asking for such a debate for some time.
On the question of statutory instruments, the right hon. Lady will know that discussion always continues through the usual channels, and that it is on that basis that we decide where matters should be debated. I accept her request for a foreign affairs debate as legitimate, and I hope that we shall be able to find some time for some more general debates on foreign affairs in the not too distant future, although, as she acknowledges, we have some legislation in the pipeline that we have to deal with.
As for health issues, the right hon. Lady—I suppose that I should be grateful to her—reminded the House that there had been eight statements. That proves the willingness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to find a great deal of time to be accountable to the House.
The right hon. Lady asked for a debate in Government time. I have to remind her of the point that I made a few weeks ago: in the whole of the five years of the previous Parliament, the Conservative Government had only one health debate in Government time. We might be able to manage that. What happened then was that, when we wanted a health debate, we had one in Opposition time. That is one reason why we have Opposition days: they allow the Opposition to choose the debate.
On national insurance charges, it is true that amendments have been made to the Social Security Bill in the Lords. Those amendments must be in order, or they would not be debatable there. Those matters can, of course, be debated in this Chamber when the Bill comes back from the Lords for consideration of Lords amendments.
On the issue of the Prime Minister's official spokesman, I do not think that there is much need to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, except to welcome the right hon. Lady's enthusiasm for the gaiety of nations, as she called it. I am sure that the Press Gallery can and does have a great deal of entertainment making up names for people. I should point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's official spokesman said earlier this week that he hoped that everyone had not had a humour bypass. Perhaps the right hon. Lady has taken that to heart.

1427
As for the Scotland Bill, euthanasia and abortion were dealt with this week, and I have nothing to add to what was said.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anger in Leicester arising from this year's local government revenue settlement, which has led to a reduction in services and a council tax increase of 25 per cent.? Against that backcloth, can she arrange an early debate in the House, so that we can try to influence the Government on the future of local government financing before they make any firm decisions?
Mrs. Taylor: We had debates on the settlements for this year a couple of months ago. My hon. Friend is an experienced Member of Parliament, and I am sure that he will find opportunities to raise the matter, even though I cannot promise him the debate he wants.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches would certainly support a debate on the future of local government finance, which would be of interest to all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
On the subject of statutory instruments, I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 1168.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 911), dated 30th March 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be annulled.]
It deals with statutory instrument 911 on council tax benefit, and has already been endorsed by both the leadership of the Conservative party and my right hon. and hon. Friends. This is a subject that causes considerable concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, so can she the right hon. Lady find time as soon as possible for a debate on that early-day motion?
The right hon. Lady chairs the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, and I know that she is using her best efforts to secure an early date for a debate on its recent reports. Will she redouble those efforts, because there is growing frustration—especially among more recent entrants into the House—at the lack of progress on the recommendations of that Committee? Can we have an early debate and some indication of the timetable for any necessary changes to our Standing Orders that may result?
Finally, last week, I put to the Leader of the House a question that I am afraid I made too specific: I asked whether she was able to give me any indication as to whether the rumours were true that business would be interrupted the following day by a statement on the future of the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission. The right hon. Lady, quite rightly, said that there was no proposal to interrupt business. However, on Friday afternoon, a written answer was slipped out that dealt with precisely that matter.
That is an extremely important issue, and not only for the commissioners and all their staff who have served the nation well. The Rural Development Commission goes back to the days of Lloyd George, and the Countryside Commission has done a great job for the rural areas. They are important agencies, which have done a great job, so to slip out, at the end of Friday afternoon, an important
1428
statement of that sort, with no opportunity for debate, is the worst possible example of the Government having learnt nothing from their predecessors. The previous Government used to do that, but we had hoped better of this Government.
Mrs. Taylor: I have noted that the Liberal Democrats would also like a debate on local government finance. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the statutory instrument, which will obviously be discussed through the usual channels. I have to point out to the Liberal Democrats' spokesman that today is their Opposition day, and, had they wanted to debate local government finance, they could have chosen that topic for today's debate.
It is true that the Modernisation Committee has produced four reports. We have had one full debate on the subject, and I am hoping that we shall be able to have another. We have been able to make further progress this week: yesterday's Bill was debated under a programme motion, which is another step in the right direction.
The hon. Gentleman moved quickly from modernisation to Lloyd George—I am not sure what we should read into that. I am glad that he acknowledged that the reply I gave him last week was accurate. I do not think that the written question was slipped out in any way, and I am glad that I was able to help the hon. Gentleman to obtain a copy of it last Friday. It was not slipped out—indeed, I should not be at all surprised if there had been a press release accompanying it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it ill behoves the Tories to be rabbiting on about having a debate on the subject of the press secretary to the Prime Minister, given the role played by Bernard Ingham, who was press secretary to Tony Benn and then become a complete turncoat and joined Margaret Thatcher? He was responsible for sacking a Cabinet Minister, John Biffen, who at the time was doing a pretty reasonable job as Leader of the House. So I do not think we should take any lessons from the Tories about that.
As for the statement about knocking Ministers' heads together, let me say this to my right hon. Friend. When you decide to accept patronage, a ministerial car and some extra money, you leave the Back Benches, and you leave the freedom of being able to speak your mind as often as you would like to. Collective responsibility provides not only liberties but restrictions. If people want to open their mouth as often as I do, they should come and sit next to me.
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that, when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) opens his mouth, he keeps within the procedures of the House. I have not actually heard him ask a question about what he wants next week, and it is too late now.
Mrs. Taylor: I think my hon. Friend was asking for a debate on the principle of collective responsibility. He outlined that principle so succinctly that there is no need for a debate.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady is aware how fast the crisis in agriculture is growing. That was brought home to me when I heard that the Massey Ferguson factory just

1429
outside my constituency was going on to a three-day week. Perhaps she is not aware that the Welsh Institute of Rural Studies estimates that 7,300 job losses can be attributed to the crisis, or that, at the weekend, Bernard Matthews announced that he was on the point of moving his poultry business to eastern Europe. Will she therefore give Government time for a debate on the impact of the strong pound on agriculture?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not believe that all the problems that the hon. Lady mentioned are the consequence of the strong pound. If she believes they are, she might seek to catch your eye during the debate on manufacturing industry, Madam Speaker, because it obviously has relevance to agriculture.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the backdating of social security benefits? Some harsh limitations have been placed on backdating, in previous legislation by the previous Government and in the Social Security Bill that is passing through another place. The process by which social security claimants must make applications is complex. Sometimes they find themselves going down one road and then having to apply down another road later, perhaps missing out on considerable benefits in the process.
Mrs. Taylor: I believe that we would all sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend makes about the complexities of the system, which is among the issues that we shall always take into account during the review. I cannot, however, guarantee to find time to reopen issues on which the House has taken a decision.
Mr. John Bercow: Notwithstanding the rambling reminiscences of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Leader of the House consider seriously the express wish of Her Majesty's Opposition for a debate on the role of the Prime Minister's press spokesman? Does she agree that the analogy with Mr. Bernard Ingham is supremely inappropriate? Are we not considering a press spokesman who is supposed to offer advice but wishes to take executive decisions, and instructs Ministers what they should and should not do? Does the right hon. Lady agree that, if that is his preferred course, he should cut his salary in half, abandon his job and stand for election to the House?
Mr. Skinner: He is only a baby.
Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend said, the hon. Gentleman is not terribly experienced in the House. He may like to suggest to Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen that, next time they have an Opposition day, they should choose a topic of that kind.
Mr. Brian White: Given that the Government's policy of promoting 60 per cent. of development on brown-field sites will require high-quality construction, given the concerns that have been expressed to Ministers about the warranty system and about the inspection system, and following the reply that she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and
1430
Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) last week, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate about housing standards and the construction of houses in the near future?
Mrs. Taylor: I recall the point being raised last week, and I know that some of my hon. Friends have concerns on that matter. It is impossible to provide Government time for such a debate. Last week, I suggested that it might be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and others to apply for an Adjournment debate. Perhaps I should mention at this point that the Wednesday morning debates are a useful opportunity for many Back Benchers to raise issues of that kind that affect their constituents; my hon. Friend might like to consider trying to catch your eye then, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Lady will be aware that I serve on the Modernisation Select Committee under her distinguished chairmanship. She will also be aware that, from time to time, I am inclined to display an independent tendency. I was most interested to learn earlier this week of the Labour party's extraordinary structure that allows Whips to vote one way on a single-line whip while the rest of the party is on a three-line whip. As I believe in independence in this place, will the right hon. Lady confirm whether the precedent that her Government set on that occasion during the passage of the Scotland Bill could be referred to the Modernisation Select Committee?
Mrs. Taylor: Opposition Whips will always be very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say about whipping and the rules that should apply. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the vote the other night concerning abortion. Abortion has always been a matter of conscience in the Labour party, and there has always been a free vote on that issue. The vote earlier this week was not about abortion, but about devolution and whether abortion should be devolved. Hon. Members who had a problem with their conscience were allowed, with the permission of the Chief Whip, to seek to exercise their principles.
Mr. John Cryer: Could we have a debate in the near future about British sport? It has declined markedly in the past 20 years, partly because of the previous Government's destruction of local authority facilities and partly due to their destruction of industrial areas. Those areas provided room to play cricket and for, boxing, rugby and other sports. The problem of de-listing has also resurfaced, with Rupert Murdoch trying to get his grubby little fingers on every sporting event from the five nations rugby tournament to the national tiddlywinks championships.
If the Tories are so keen to debate the national health service, perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider holding that debate during Easter week. Plenty of Labour Members would attend, but I do not think that many of the gutless Opposition Members would be here.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend did not cover everything, but he had a good go. I understand why many people are concerned about the future of sport in this country, given some of the things that have happened in the past couple of decades. I am sure that my hon. Friend

1431
welcomed the Government's announcement about the sale of playing fields, and the extra action that we have taken to assist in that respect.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is considering the recommendations regarding listed sports events. I think that my hon. Friend knows that, under the Broadcasting Act 1996, the Secretary of State is solely responsible for the list of protected events. He is taking significant steps to consult hon. Members—some of whom have been to see my right hon. Friend about the matter—and he intends to listen carefully to their advice. I am sure that all hon. Members have their own views about this issue, and my right hon. Friend is willing to listen to them. On that basis, I hope that he will reach the right decisions.
My hon. Friend suggests having a debate on the national health service during Easter week instead of the recess. I understand the pressure for extra parliamentary time, and the difficulties involved in fitting everything into the parliamentary programme. However, I believe that hon. Members are entitled to a recess—not least because some of them wish to work in their constituencies.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady find time in the near future for a debate on the wider issue of civil service independence? That independence is highly respected and valued, not only by civil servants but by the British people whom they serve. That debate is necessitated not just by the Prime Minister's extraordinary statement yesterday that Alastair Campbell is a creature of new Labour, but by the recent sacking of several public information officers who were unwilling to embrace enthusiastically the new Labour manifesto. It is a serious point that should be discussed on the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Taylor: The independence of the civil service is an important principle. Some Opposition Members find it difficult to understand that civil servants do not represent their viewpoint. There was an attempt under the previous Government to make sure that the Government viewpoint was put, and some Opposition Members think that that viewpoint should continue, regardless of which Government are in power. Independence means exactly that: the civil service serves the Government of the day. In case the hon. Gentleman had not noticed, his party lost the last election.
Mr. David Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the death by explosion a few days ago at the age of about 200 of the Leicestershire deep mining industry, when the ventilation shaft at the Asfordby colliery was blown up by RJB Mining? Will she find time in an already crowded timetable to investigate the corrupt privatisation of the British coal industry? That has led to the loss of collieries like Asfordby, which has one third of Britain's clean coal reserves—1,000 million tonnes. Those have been for ever sterilised by that explosion.
Eight hundred million pounds of taxpayers' money has been invested in a project that could have secured the role of coal in power generation. Could my right hon. Friend find time to investigate why that pit was lost, in a carnival atmosphere generated by Richard Budge?
Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, in view of the impact of
1432
that decision on his constituents. He is aware of the pressures on parliamentary time, and will understand why I cannot give him the debate he seeks. Perhaps he will consider the possibility of getting an Adjournment debate, or of contributing to next Wednesday's debate.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: First, may I support what the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) said about the importance of listed sports events? In the light of the confirmation given by the Leader of the House that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is listening on the issue, can we have an early debate after the Easter recess in Government time? The matter concerns many hon. Members of all parties, and many of us have already written to the Secretary of State about it.
Secondly, may I return briefly to the debate earlier this week, and the issue of the exception from reserved powers in relation to abortion? In the light of the right hon. Lady's earlier answer, in which she suggested that permission was given to two Government Whips to vote against the Government on the matter, it is extraordinary that many of her other colleagues were not informed that it was regarded by their Chief Whip as a free vote. In The Scotsman today, one Labour Member is reported to have said that he is livid about the matter, and others have complained that at no time were they told that it was a free vote on a matter of conscience.
Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said about the issue of abortion. The vote was about devolution, but there were some hon. Members who saw it as a conscience issue, and they sought the authorisation of the Chief Whip to vote as they did. That is the end of the matter.
On listed events, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is, as I said, trying to get the opinion of the House, and to allow hon. Members to tell him what their priorities are. I cannot promise an early debate on the matter, but if hon. Members take up my right hon. Friend's offer to listen to their views, they can make their views known in that way. It is questions to my right hon. Friend on the Monday that we return from the Easter recess.
Mr. Derek Twigg: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a number of weeks have passed since the publication of the report on the scrutiny of evidence about the Hillsborough disaster, and she will know that I have asked many times for a debate. Can she tell us whether we are close to finding time for one, and can she confirm that it is hoped that that debate will take place between Easter and Whit?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has raised this serious matter several times. I have expressed my sympathy with him in his desire for a debate, so that the families affected by that disaster can feel that every aspect has been discussed. I cannot give a date for such a debate today, but I am hopeful that we shall have a debate between Easter and Whitsun. He asked whether we were close to a debate, and that is as far as I can go at this stage: I believe that it might be possible to get a debate between Easter and Whitsun.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate on farming in

1433
Government time as speedily as possible? The farming community is concerned that the Government do not appreciate the seriousness of the situation in the countryside.
The right hon. Lady will recall that one of the first actions of the Government was to abolish the regional panels. Those were panels of farmers and others, which used to give advice to Ministers on what was happening in different parts of the countryside. Those have gone, so Ministers no longer have that line of communication.
The fanning community will be surprised to learn that the Minister of Agriculture is to spend much of the Easter recess travelling through China. They would prefer him to travel through the United Kingdom to discover the state of British farming. Please may we have an early debate on the state of farming in the UK?
Mrs. TaylorThe hon. Gentleman says that Ministers do not have a full appreciation of problems. I reject that entirely. Perhaps Conservative Members do not have a full appreciation of the significant steps that have been taken by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues at MAFF, not least the extra aid to livestock producers and the agreement by the Agriculture Council on 16 March to lift the export ban on beef from Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues take matters very seriously, and they are entitled to some recognition of the progress that they have made.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Last October, we learned that the Lord Chancellor had decided not to proceed with a judicial appointments commission as set out in the 1994 Labour party policy document "Access to Justice". The Lord Chancellor said, however, that he would report to Parliament annually on the exercise of his powers to appoint judges. I recall him saying that it was his intention to present a report to Parliament in April.
1434
Given the importance of the issue and the reservations expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the appointment of judges, is there not a powerful case for allocating time later this month to debate that report?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend, who has raised other requests at business questions, knows the pressure on time. I will consider what he said, but I cannot promise him a debate. It is questions to the relevant Minister on the Tuesday after we return from the Easter recess.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Leader of the House realise that the inadequacy of her answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) makes it all the more necessary that, in her capacity as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, she should explain to the House next week how the Government's attitude towards whipping practices allows a three-line whip to be put on a vote, which hon. Members are not allowed to break, but which two Whips are allowed to break? How can she seriously maintain that Whips alone wanted to exercise their conscience, and that other hon. Members had the opportunity but chose not to do so?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to what I said earlier; nor can he be aware of the remit of the Modernisation Committee, which has nothing to do with the whipping in the House.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend do what she can to ensure that a copy of the Clarke Tilt report on the British film industry is placed in the Library and the Vote Office? That was promised a week ago, and it still has not happened.
Mrs. Taylor: I shall look into the matter, and try to remedy the situation.

Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY—SECOND PART]
Opposition Day

  International Arms Trade
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
  That this House, mindful of the conclusions of the Scott Report, commends Her Majesty's Government for its efforts to obtain agreement for a European Union Code of Conduct on the arms trade; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that any such code sets high common standards governing arms exports for all Member States, and, in particular, to insist that export guidelines are transparent, unambiguous and pay due regard to human rights.
  A debate on the international arms trade is particularly timely today, for three distinct and important reasons. First, it is approximately two years since the publication of the Scott report. Secondly, only a few weeks ago, Britain was ready to go to war, if necessary, to eliminate Saddam Hussein's programmes of weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, the Government are currently engaged, with the support, I hope, of all right-minded Members, in efforts to obtain an effective European code of conduct on the arms trade.
  Mention of the Scott report allows us to remind ourselves of one or two features of that event. It is worth reminding ourselves that the central conclusion of the Scott report was that the Conservative Government deliberately failed to inform Parliament of Government policy on arms sales to Iraq. They survived the debate on the Scott report by one vote—as a result of persuading three Democratic Unionist Members to stay away and twisting the arm of Mr. Rupert Allason. One might think that that is hardly an expression of overall confidence in the House.
  More than any episode, the arms-to-Iraq affair exposed the Tory Government for what they were. When the Leader of the Opposition goes on a circuit of the spa towns of Edwardian England saying to the collected membership of his party that the trouble was that the party allowed itself to be perceived as arrogant, the truth is that it was not perception but reality. The Conservative party was arrogant, and the Scott report underlined the extent of that arrogance and the degree of cynicism with which the Conservative Government regarded their responsibilities to Parliament.
  In The Observer on 18 February 1996—about two years ago—the conclusion was reached that
  "Britain helped to give Iraq the machine tools and the technology to wage nuclear and chemical warfare."
  We now know that Britain did more than that. There is now clear and credible evidence that Britain laid the foundations for not only the nuclear and chemical programmes but the biological weapons programme that was being pursued in Iraq. It was Iraq's possession of those weapons and anxiety about the threat of their use, or of their actual use, that was the cause of the United Kingdom's being willing to deploy armed forces in the Gulf and, if necessary, to put the lives of those men and women at risk to prevent Saddam Hussein from utilising these programmes.
  1436
  Some of the details of the biological weapons programme are now well known. We know, for example, that British and Swiss companies exported to Iraq large quantities of the growth media in which biological weapons are cultivated. Between 1987 and 1988, 39 tonnes of growth media were exported by two companies. That was enough for Iraq to produce four tonnes of deadly bacteria. Exports of the media in such large quantities are highly unusual. Indeed, sales of growth media for sound medical reasons are usually counted in pounds and not tonnes.
  In addition, Britain trained many of the key Iraqi scientists. The covert biological weapons research programme was directed by General Amer Saadi, who obtained a masters degree in chemistry from Oxford university, and Rihab Taha, who had a doctorate in microbiology from East Anglia university. The procurement of supplies was controlled by one Ahmed Murthada, a British-trained engineer who led Iraqi research into the warfare uses of ricin, a toxin that derives from castor beans.
  We know that British support was not confined to training or the supply of ancillary materials. There is now evidence to show that there is an irresistible inference that some of the anthrax that Iraq obtained as the foundation of its programme originated in Britain. It has emerged that Iraq obtained much of its anthrax supply from a United States company—the American Type Culture Collection, which is known as ATCC—with a base in Rockville, Maryland.
  Between 1985 and 1989, Iraq obtained at least 21 strains of anthrax from ATCC and about 15 other class III pathogens, the bacteria that pose an extreme risk to human health. It has not been reported that many of the anthrax strains were British. Extensive American investigative journalism has revealed that they had been sold to ATCC, notwithstanding the fact that the company was well known to be re-exporting pathogens without restraint, not least to Iraq.
  It was pretty easy to obtain pathogens from ATCC in the 1980s. It was necessary to submit a written request on headed notepaper from a credible but not necessarily reputable institution—[HON. MEMBERS: "The House of Commons?"'] Those who suggest House of Commons paper are perhaps doing us less than justice. It was necessary to agree to responsibility for the receipt, handling, storage and use of the material, and then demonstrate in a short telephone conversation that one was scientifically literate. For the payment of a $78 fee, one could have access to deadly material. No more was required. It could hardly have been easier.
  I have asked the Government recently in written questions whether any pathogens were exported direct to Iraq. I expected to receive confirmation that they were not, but in a written answer I have been told that the Department of Trade and Industry says that it has no way of telling whether any anthrax or other pathogens were exported direct to Iraq. Apparently no records are kept of destinations.
  The DTI indicated that the remaining records of applications—there are records of applications but not of destinations—for licences to export to Iraq were in the Scott report. I doubt whether you will stay awake through the long hours of the night poring through the appendices to the Scott report, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you do it

  1437
  will be unhelpful and unrewarding. The appendices shed no light on any possible export of pathogens to Iraq. However, they raise other concerns about chemical weapons.
  In the mid to late 1980s, Iraq made numerous attempts to purchase special chemicals from the United Kingdom, many of which are known as precursors—the vital ingredients for chemical weapons. Many of the export applications were blocked, but some were not.
  In 1985, Iraq was able to import small quantities of chloroethanol and potassium fluoride, precursors for up to six different nerve gases. In 1989, an application was received for a licence to export phosphorus trichloride—a precursor to yet more nerve gas—but there is no record of whether that application was approved or refused. As far as we know, subsequent orders for these and other chemicals were refused, but the records attached to the Scott report are full of gaps. We have no way of knowing which chemicals were sold to Iraq or, more particularly, to what use they were put.
  Recent events when UK forces were deployed to the Gulf—when their lives might have been at risk—show the price being paid for the failures of the Conservative Government in these matters. The country is entitled to say that we need protection against a recurrence. I think that the best protection against recurrence is domestic parliamentary scrutiny.
  When the Foreign Secretary made his coruscating speech on the Scott report, one sentence summed up the strength and determination of what he had to say. He said:
  "Secrecy made this scandal possible."—[Official Report, 26 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 605.]
  The damage caused by secrecy has been acknowledged by the Government in their White Paper on freedom of information, which was published at the end of last year. The opening line reads:
  "Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance … and defective decision-making."
  A little later, on page 18, it states:
  "Commercial confidentiality must not be used as a cloak to deny the public right to know."
  There is no reason in principle why Parliament should not exercise scrutiny over arms exports, or exports of dual-use technologies. It happens elsewhere. There is a system to that effect in Sweden—one of the most successful arms manufacturing countries. Commercial confidence does not appear to be breached.
  If we can have parliamentary scrutiny of Government communications headquarters and the intelligence services, as we now have by a Committee whose members are drawn from both Houses of Parliament, surely we can have scrutiny of defence and defence-related equipment without any prejudice to the national interest.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman's flow. I agree with his point about parliamentary scrutiny. Does he accept that such scrutiny should also extend to information held by the UN weapons inspectorate in Iraq which, it is understood, has considerable knowledge of the individual companies that have, often in breach of the
  1438
  sanctions policy, exported chemical and biological material and weaponry to Iraq—yet it has maintained silence under the cloak of commercial confidentiality?
  Mr. Campbell: I certainly agree with that. The hon. Gentleman and I were both in the House when the Scott report was published and discussed. He will recall that my attitude to these matters is similar to his. Transparency is the best protection against such abuse.
  To be effective in these matters, Governments cannot act alone. That is why our motion commends the proposal for a European code of conduct on the arms trade, and in particular the Government on their efforts to secure such an agreement during their presidency of the European Union.
  The stated objective of the code is to
  "strengthen the exchange of information relevant to the export of conventional arms with the aim of setting high common standards for arms exports from all EU member states."
  Those are laudable objectives but, unhappily, there is a gap between the present text and what I believe to be the essential standards that are required for an effective code. The preamble to the code states that member states are
  "committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry".
  I do not dispute that for a moment, but in a code of conduct of this kind there should surely be a balance, or an acknowledgement, that the security of all of us in the European Union depends on the protection of human rights, the rule of law and economic and social development, and that a strong defence industry should serve those aims.
  The code also proposes measures for the exchange of information and consultation. It provides that member states have to notify one another when they refuse export licences, but gives no details of the information that has to be notified, or indeed the time frame in which it should take place. To be effective, notification must surely include the type of equipment refused a licence and the prospective destination and end user, and the information should be circulated in a prescribed period.
  There is a more fundamental and serious omission—there is no provision in the code for countries to notify other countries of licences that are granted. The code requires a country to intimate if it is refused a licence, but there is no obligation to intimate if it has granted a licence. That provision should lie at the heart of a code with such laudable objectives.
  The code also proposes export guidelines, but these are ambiguous and leave too much room for subjective interpretation. If there is any ambiguity about whether a prospective military export breaks the guidelines, there should be a presumption that the export will be denied. In the case of ambiguity, the only possible conclusion to reach is that that export should not be entitled to take place.
  There are eight guidelines in the code. I shall address three in particular. The signatories bind themselves to take into account human rights and not to export equipment that might be used for internal repression. However, there is a qualification to that obligation. Indeed, it constitutes a loophole. It allows the export of repressive equipment
  "if the end-use is judged to be legitimate, such as protection of members of the security forces from violence".

  1439
  Every state that has ever been guilty of repression will seize on that as a justification. If ever there were part of the code that defeated the code's objectives, it surely lies in that qualification.
  Another guideline relates to regional security—there are references to regional security in the code—but the guidelines should be strengthened so that they state explicitly that arms exports will be denied where a proposed sale might have a destabilising effect on a region.
  The code also talks about development. There should be an express presumption that arms exports will be denied to countries that spend more on the military than on health and education combined. There should be a presumption to deny exports that undermine the objectives of bilateral and multilateral aid.
  There are additional measures that the code should embrace if it is to be effective. The code states that it is the duty of member states to "promote transparency" and the need to "harmonise export licensing procedures" is mentioned. Again, those are laudable objectives to which no one could object, but unhappily there are no measures to ensure that they are realised.
  Parliamentary scrutiny, to which I have referred in a domestic context, should be embedded in a code that applies to member states of the European Union. All member states should be obliged to produce an annual report to their Parliaments of the arms export licences that have been granted or denied.
  There should be a common system of end-use controls. End use is often the means by which transactions, which on the face of it are legitimate, are rendered illegitimate. These agreements should have the status of legally binding contracts and there should be a follow-up system to check that the end user is the one that was first proposed.
  Brokering should be controlled. Member states should establish a central database of arms brokers. It should not be possible for people to create £100 companies with two £1 shares paid up and set themselves up in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else in the European Union, as arms brokers. If people want to practise that trade, they should be obliged to register so that we may know precisely who, in this dark and rather subterranean world, is active. It was perfectly plain that, throughout his inquiry, Lord Justice Scott was often thwarted because of inadequate details of some of the companies that were operating in this area.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. and learned Gentleman called for transparency in these matters. Would that extend to commissions? As he will know, in some arms exports, some 25 per cent. of the value of the export is siphoned off to commissions. That must cause him concern.
  Mr. Campbell: I hope that it would cause all hon. Members concern. There are newer Members to whom the hon. Gentleman's point may have been more expressly directed than those present this afternoon. He is absolutely right. Transparency in these matters is essential.
  The Council of Ministers of the European Union should review annually the code's implementation and make recommendations for its development or alteration. The results of any such review should be reported to national Parliaments and to the European Parliament for debate.
  1440
  European Union states are among the leading arms exporters in the world. In 1996, they had 40 per cent. of the world market in arms exports. That entitles us to say that they have a special responsibility to promote restraint and transparency in the transfer of conventional arms and technologies for military use. The aim of setting high common standards for arms exports from all EU member states is one to which I hope all hon. Members find it easy to subscribe.
  In our recent history we have seen the consequence of the indiscriminate export of defence and defence-related equipment. Nothing would cause the public more concern, apprehension and even anxiety than the knowledge that there might be a repeat of the circumstances that obtained during the Gulf war—that British forces might find themselves on the wrong end of equipment or of materials, the ability to manufacture which had been provided in a profligate and wholly unrestrained way by the previous Government.
  I commend the code as a common EU action that is entirely worth while and much more likely to be effective on a collective rather than an individual basis. The Government deserve the support of the House in their efforts to ensure that such a code is effective and meets the laudable and praiseworthy objectives set out in its preamble.
  5.10 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I am not sure whether I have been damned with faint praise or praised with faint damns, but I strongly welcome the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for his courtesy in making me aware of one part of his speech to which I otherwise would not have been able to respond.
  Clearly, the Government do not oppose the motion. We welcome the Liberal Democrats' support for our work on the EU code of conduct for arms exports. The proposals which we and the French have tabled will set genuinely high common standards for exports from all EU member states. In so doing, they represent a break from anything that has existed in this area in the past.
  Let me set the EU code of conduct on arms sales in a wider context. It is an important measure but it is only one part of the story which the Government have to tell on the regulation of strategic exports. When the Government came to power we were determined to add an ethical dimension to British foreign policy. That, inevitably, has implications across the range of international relations, from greater readiness to raise human rights in bilateral dialogue to support for ethical trading standards.
  When talking about ethical trading standards, it is inevitable that they should apply specifically to arms exports. The hon. and learned Gentleman was right when he said that we do not recoil from the idea that we have a strong defence industry. The industry's recent export performance, which has increased under the Government's tight export regime, is one of Britain's success stories. The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates the United Kingdom's share of global arms exports in 1997 to be 22 per cent. of the global total, about half as much again as that of France and second only to that of the United States.
  That is a tribute to the competitiveness of British industry. But it gives us—a point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman—a particular duty to manage arms

  1441
  exports responsibly. We need to ensure that arms exports are in line with UK interests and that jobs and prosperity, although important, are not bought at the cost of human rights abuses or international instability.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Scott report which partly inspired the Government's policy. There can be no doubt that that report revealed a scandal at the heart of the previous Government. I hope that, with time, that will become the common framework within which Britain judges the matter.
  We are also aware that that was not the only scandal at the time. There were other areas in which arms exports were at best lax and at worst simply unacceptable. We were, and are, determined to ensure that the situation described by the Scott report does not happen again.
  In February 1997, on the first anniversary of the Scott report's publication, the then Labour Opposition committed themselves to a range of measures designed to achieve that. In our election manifesto we said that we would not permit the sale of arms to regimes which might use them for internal repression or international aggression.
  On taking office, one of the Government's first foreign policy priorities was to put that commitment into practice. We initiated a review of the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms and dual-use goods. In July last year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the outcome of that, which was that the new criteria would give full weight to the UK's economic, commercial and financial interests. The Government are keenly aware of those.
  The defence industry is a strategic part of the UK's economic base. It supports more than 400,000 jobs. Its ability to export is crucial to the viability of the defence industry and to the preservation of those benefits. Defence exports help the national balance of payments and reduce the unit cost of equipment for UK forces. They can also contribute to security and stability by helping to strengthen bilateral and collective defence relationships.
  But the criteria—this is the important point about balance—also deliver in full on earlier commitments by stating that licences will be refused where there is a clearly identifiable risk that proposed exports might be used for internal repression, aggressively against another country, or to assert by force a territorial claim. Those are important changes in previous criteria and an important step forward in ensuring that Britain can claim to be staking out a position that balances national interest in terms of jobs and defence with national interest in terms of the promotion of human rights.
  On the same day that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the new criteria for arms exports, he also announced another important step forward—a ban on the export or trans-shipment from the UK of weapons of torture, including such choice items as electric-shock batons and shields, stun guns, gang chains, leg irons, shackles and electric-shock belts. There is clear evidence that such equipment has been used to inflict torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on our fellow citizens in the world. Thus, another of our pre-election commitments was fulfilled by my right hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: A firm in my constituency was involved in the sale of weapons of
  1442
  torture, allowing their manufacture to go on in Mexico while the paperwork was done in Britain. How might the Government be able to tackle such a problem?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises a genuinely important point. As with the EU code of practice on conventional arms exports, we are trying initially to work towards a European framework for the banning of sales and exports of weapons of torture, but it is our ambition to internationalise those processes. My hon. Friend may be more aware than I am of the state of legal proceedings in the case to which she refers. I do not know what stage it has reached in the Scottish judicial process, but such prosecutions should have the support of the House. We are considering ways of preventing third-country traffic and the use by British firms of offshore activities as a means of avoiding the impact of British legislation. My hon. Friend will probably recognise that there are serious legal difficulties in enacting such a frame of reference, but she raises an important point.
  Similarly, the Labour Government quickly delivered on their commitment to ban the export of anti-personnel land mines. Britain was among the first to sign the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel land mines internationally. As soon as the parliamentary schedule allows, we aim to introduce legislation that will allow us to ratify the convention.
  Having spoken of national controls, I now want to turn to the reasons why the EU code of conduct represents a significant step forward. I note the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but he will appreciate that, in trying to break new ground and internationalise a process for the first time, inevitably we have to work at a pace that is acceptable to all our partners and allies.
  Our primary concern was to make sure that national action would not prevent certain regimes from acquiring certain equipment, as we experienced when Britain was undercut by other countries. That would do our own industry a disservice but, more importantly, it does a fundamental disservice to the human rights values in the national code of conduct. Our intention to work for a European code was another of our February 1997 policy pledges and it was reconfirmed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he announced the new criteria.
  Progress has been excellent. We started off by talking to the French. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred to the size of the European market, which accounts for some 40 per cent. of global exports. However, Britain and France account for some 80 per cent. of European exports. As nearly one third of global exports are from Britain and France, the House will understand the logic of beginning the process by talking to the French.
  We have received enthusiastic responses from the rest of our European partners and that has been important in generating the will to take the process forward. We have been able to agree on a joint draft text with the French, and it is now being circulated among our other European partners. It is still our aim to achieve agreement during the United Kingdom presidency.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I am delighted that the code of practice has received a positive

  1443
  response from other European Union countries and I congratulate the Government on promoting it. However, certain loopholes have been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), among others. Even if the code is signed, will my hon. Friend, together with our European partners, ensure that there will be an on-going process so that those and any future loopholes can be closed?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the specific point to which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend referred, but we do not believe that it is a loophole as we find it acceptable to provide protection for security forces. However, the sale of certain equipment is acceptable only when it does not infringe the more important criterion that the equipment is not used for the purpose of internal repression. We do not believe that internal repression should be permitted to pursue what might be described as legitimate security operations. We take the opposite view—that legitimate security operations should not take place if they involve internal repression. Our national criteria upon which the European code is based allow for no such loopholes. We shall always look at the form of words and the practice to see whether improvements are required, but it is not our view that there is such a loophole.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that my hon. Friend has reached this point. Does he believe that the EU code, when it is fully operational, will prevent Britain from selling arms to Turkey? After all, we provide 10 per cent. of Turkey's armaments. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Turkish army is waging a civil war against the Kurdish people in eastern Turkey and that the most appalling violations of human rights are taking place using equipment manufactured and sold by Britain and almost every other EU country? Does he accept that an arms embargo on Turkey would have a dramatic effect on improving human rights there?
  Mr. Lloyd: Neither the national code nor the European code introduces the concept of arms embargoes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, arms embargoes apply to certain countries. For example, the United Nations Security Council recently announced a global ban on arms sales to the former Yugoslavia.
  The EU code would not provide a blanket ban. However, it would make our national framework operate on an EU-wide basis that would prevent the sale of arms to any country that fell foul of the criteria in respect of internal repression or external aggression. That is a test which, properly brought to bear, has a material impact on the sale of arms. It already has an impact on the way in which Britain has been conducting such affairs internationally and it will have the same impact at a European level.
  The code that will operate at a European level is an elaboration of the common criteria agreed in 1991 and 1992, in line with UK national criteria that are already well defined and well understood. It is also designed to prevent undercutting—the specific point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. It includes a consultation mechanism providing for partners to circulate to other partners information about denials of export licences and requires a partner to consult the denying partner before deciding whether to issue an
  1444
  export licence for essentially the same goods to the same client. That will bring pressure to bear to prevent undercutting in arms sales that has allowed would-be purchasers to shop around. It gives European defence sales new and increased strength.
  Agreement on the code will be a major step forward in the effective international regulation of arms exports. The consultation mechanism that we have proposed breaks significant new ground. Never before has such a mechanism been applied to conventional arms exports and the Government deserve credit for initiating work on the code and pursuing it so vigorously.
  Agreement on the code, however, is not the be all and end all. Many complex issues such as strengthening end-use controls cannot adequately be addressed in a document such as the code. We are continuing to work on them at national level as it is important that we get our national framework right. They arise out of the Scott inquiry and, as the House knows, we have not yet received its final report. We want to take those matters forward in international forums. No one is pretending that an EU code of conduct is the final wisdom. We want to internationalise all the processes in which we are engaged and include such issues as end-use control in that European framework. When we have experience of how the code works in practice, we shall to consider what further measures are needed to improve its operation.
  We are continuing to work on issues wider than the European framework. A good example is what we are doing in respect of the Wassenaar arrangement on export controls for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies. That international framework has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the promotion of responsibility and transparency in transfers of arms and dual-use equipment.
  The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of efforts to develop the Wassenaar arrangement so that it can fulfil its potential. We continue to press for an expansion of the reporting categories for conventional arms transfers and we have volunteered to notify export licences denied on grounds of regional stability. Regional stability is an important criterion. It is a totally open reporting system and, in one case, we have already made such information available. We have played a leading role in work on what makes transfers destabilising. As a result, we have firmly established the United Kingdom as one of the most constructive and active players within the Wassenaar arrangement.
  The United Kingdom remains determined to strengthen the UN register of conventional arms. That is not an easy process; last year, the UN panel of experts produced a disappointing report, although we endorsed it because we wanted to build on the consensus. The United Kingdom will continue to work individually and with European Union partners to persuade more countries to contribute to the register and to broaden the categories of weapons covered.
  The biggest issue on which we want to make progress is illicit trafficking, especially in small arms and light weapons, which were the dominant weapons in virtually all the 49 large-scale conflicts that took place in 1995—the most recent reference point. It is estimated that over 55 per cent. of small arms are traded illicitly, and are often recirculated from one conflict to another. In southern

  1445
  Africa in particular, there is no doubt that weapons were passed from one country to another and used in different conflicts at great human cost.
  Graca Machel, widow of the former President of Mozambique, has campaigned on a range of issues, especially illicit arms. She recently told me that the effects of the glut of cheap, easily available small arms have been devastating, not only on her country, but throughout huge parts of the African continent and worldwide.
  We are determined to play a role in the fight against small arms proliferation and illicit trafficking, and during our presidency of the EU we have taken forward vigorously work under the EU programme to combat illicit trafficking in conventional arms. The programme could achieve progress for the world.
  In February, Britain hosted an international conference on the problems of arms trafficking within and into the EU. The United Kingdom believes that, outside the EU, the programme should focus initially on southern Africa. In May, the Department for International Development will fund a seminar in South Africa that will be run by Saferworld, a British non-governmental organisation, in co-operation with a South African NGO. It should identify practical ways of helping affected regions and, we hope, produce project ideas for funding by donors.
  We are also supporting work outside the EU programme. We have previously expressed support for the work of the Government of Mali to secure a moratorium on the import, export and production of light weapons in the Sahara-Sahel region, and are putting money into the project.
  At a conference in Oslo yesterday, £300,000 was pledged on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to the United Nations Development Programme project to co-ordinate and assist security development for the implementation of the moratorium once it is agreed. Those are practical steps.
  The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife spoke about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes. The House was rapt in its attention to recent events, and there can be no doubt about the British Government's present commitment to ensure that the UN inspection system works. We demand the destruction of Iraq's capacity to deliver weapons of mass destruction of any kind—nuclear, biological or chemical.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to ask how those programmes came about. He asked about a number of issues, but I cannot give him answers because events took place under the previous Government—we are as tied as Scott was in pursuing them. We must ensure that we move to a regime that stops such events happening again and staining the honour of this nation. That can be achieved in a number of ways—for example, by examining controls of dual-use technology. I shall look carefully into the transfer of equipment to the American Type Culture Collection. We have made inquiries, but I hope that he will forgive me for saying that there was not enough time to provide a substantive answer. We will look into the matter.
  The control of dual-use technology is an important and difficult issue, but although national controls are important, we can do better. The Government are
  1446
  determined to make progress on a convention for biological weapons; it would mirror the convention for chemical weapons, which allows for challenge inspection, and could provide a framework within which biological weapons production would be controlled in the same way as chemical weapons production and would ensure that it could not take place. We are working on it, and already have agreement at EU level. We are determined to pursue the matter as far as we can and to bring to the world the benefits of a convention that would ban biological weapons.
  I have discussed the matter with the Indian Government through their high commission, and we shall take every opportunity to move the agenda forward to rid the world of these vile chemical and biological weapons.
  The handling of defence exports raises difficult questions for foreign, industrial and defence policy. Inevitably, passions are aroused, and there is controversy. Striking the right balance between protecting the United Kingdom's prosperity and ensuring that British exports can be used only for legitimate purposes is important to the Government, who have given a clear commitment that their foreign policy is based on humanitarian principles.
  Britain can be proud of the record that we are establishing. I have outlined a record of achievement and of progress in significant areas on which we are building the basis for a much more rational and much more acceptable frame of reference for arms controls. The story, across the board, is of commitments achieved or in hand, and of progress and responsible management of our exports in line with the United Kingdom's interests.
  There was a significant break with the past when the Government took power, and I hope that hon. Members will endorse it.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. David Faber: I, too, congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on raising this matter. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down every avenue, but I shall agree with him later in my speech on loopholes in the European code of conduct.
  I shall continue the quotation from which the hon. and learned Member derived one line. The first paragraph of the declaration that forms part of the draft code of conduct states:
  "EU member states are committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry which is a strategic part of their industrial base as well as their defence effort. They recognise that defence exports can contribute to international stability by strengthening bilateral and collective defence relationships in accordance with the inherent right of self defence recognised by the UN Charter."
  I endorse those views.
  Article 51 of the UN charter clearly states the right of all nations to self-defence, and Conservative Members respect the right of other countries, as sovereign states, to protect their independence and exercise their right to self-defence. That is why I believe that a properly regulated arms trade is entirely legitimate. The responsible exporting of defence equipment to our friends and to our allies makes an important contribution to world peace and stability. It deters the expansionist aspirations of unfriendly and aggressive regimes.
  As we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and the Minister, the latest instance of the need for defence equipment was during the recent

  1447
  United Nations operation, which was reinforced so well by British forces in the Gulf and elsewhere, to secure Saddam Hussein's agreement over weapons inspections in Iraq. Hon. Members saw only a few weeks ago the impressive range of military technologies that is at the disposal of our troops in the Gulf. It is a tribute to them and to the British defence industry that they were and remain so well prepared for military action.
  Britain's defence industry is a success story. It is the second largest exporter in the world—second only to the United States. It takes the largest world market share of any British industry, and supports more than 415,000 jobs, 140,000 of which are directly dependent on defence exports.
  The industry is the biggest contributor from exports to the Treasury—70 per cent. of defence production is for the export market.
  In 1995, against stiff competition, the United Kingdom won export contracts worth some £5 billion, and in 1997 the figure rose to £5.5 billion, a record of which we can be justly proud. The value of our exports means that the cost of equipment for UK forces is reduced, and that the nation's essential technology base is secured. Most of the equipment supplied to Britain's armed forces comes from Britain's defence industry. The Ministry of Defence has estimated that British arms exports save it £300 million a year on what it needs to buy.
  That is the constructive view of the Ministry of Defence, but we sometimes wonder whether it is also the view of the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office. When the Foreign Secretary came to power, he initially tried to improve his standing in his party by refusing a couple of small export licences to Indonesia: a decision which apparently infuriated the President of the Board of Trade. Other Foreign Office attempts to restrict arms exports to Indonesia have been stopped by the Ministry of Defence. As a result, the Foreign Secretary has understandably directed his efforts towards Europe, and much has been made of his efforts to persuade our European partners to sign up to the code of conduct.
  What does the Ministry of Defence make of these machinations at the Foreign Office? I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), has had to leave the Chamber, because it would have been interesting to hear from him. Only last month, the MOD issued a press release boasting of a 10 per cent. increase in Britain's arms exports, and published a Green Paper, "Defence Diversification: Getting the most out of defence technology", which contained proposals for a defence diversification agency. Has the Foreign Secretary had a chance to read it? Paragraph 3 states:
  "The Government said in its election manifesto: 'We support a strong UK defence industry, which is a strategic part of our industrial base as well as our defence effort."'
  The Opposition agree with that. The Green Paper also states that the Government
  "believes in a strong defence against the new security challenges that face this country and its Allies in the post-Cold War world".
  We agree with that, too. It says that whatever changes emerge as a result of the strategic defence review,
  "one underlying reality is that a strong defence will continue to require a strong defence industry."
  1448
  Paragraph 5 states:
  "This country derives great benefits from a healthy defence industry—not only from being able to meet most of the equipment requirements of our own armed forces from domestic sources, but also from the wider industrial benefits including the economic and employment advantages that derive from the export of defence equipment."
  The Minister of State touched on that at the end of his speech. I understand that that is also the view of the recognised organisations within the trade union movement.
  Paragraph 10 of the Green Paper states:
  "However, it is widely recognised that the defence industries of Europe must restructure if they are to meet the fiercely competitive challenge posed by the very large corporations that have already formed as a result of a series of mergers of US defence contractors. The impact of this process on the UK defence industry is yet to be seen, but our defence industry is highly competitive and is in a strong position to play a leading role in the restructuring process."
  The Government are right to be concerned. While we have 25 per cent. of the current world market, the United States, with an industry 10 times the size of ours, already has 38 per cent., and that is before it has begun to flex its muscles in the export market, having always relied heavily on its internal market.
  What role does the Foreign Secretary envisage his ethical foreign policy will play in helping the Ministry of Defence and the defence industry to meet the growing competitive challenge from abroad? The Green Paper says that one of the roles of the new defence diversification agency will be to encourage
  "companies active in servicing defence needs … to exploit potential new opportunities for their products and technologies in the UK and overseas military and civil markets."
  I hope that the Foreign Secretary will do what he can to achieve that aim.
  The Green Paper contains six half-page reports describing the success that arms manufacturers and the MOD's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency have had applying military technology to civilian uses. In fact, the entire Green Paper is one big advertisement for Britain's defence industry.
  There is, therefore, conclusive proof that the Ministry of Defence has largely ignored the Foreign Secretary's push for a so-called ethical foreign policy, and that he has little influence in the Government and especially in Departments that should be working closely together on Foreign Office-related business. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), tut-tuts, but an article in The Spectator informed us last week that
  "George Robertson has gone completely native at Defence. He talks about 'his boys', and Robin Cook doesn't have a clue what's going on half the time, because the Foreign Office only knows what the MoD chooses to tell it."
  This may be a good moment to mention the £2 billion arms deal that the Government are planning with South Africa, which we read about at the weekend. It is primarily for submarines, but is part of a wider arms deal involving aircraft, frigates, tanks and helicopters. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have agreed to repay the purchase price of the submarines—some £200 million—as "industrial participation"? Is that not a clear example of an arms-for-trade deal such as the Foreign Secretary opposed vociferously when he was in

  1449
  opposition? Is this the same Foreign Secretary who said that aid or trade should never again become entangled with arms sales?
  The Green Paper says that, within the new criteria to be used in considering arms export licence applications,
  "the responsible export of defence equipment will continue to bring benefit to the British economy."
  In fact, little could be further from the truth. In reality, the Government have failed to process hundreds of export licence applications from British companies that are responding to perfectly legitimate orders from abroad, at a time when the Government's defence export service predicts that international demand will decline by 15 per cent. in the next two years. That is bad news for British business, most notably the defence industry.
  The Select Committee on Defence heard only yesterday that the industry is gravely concerned that the policy reviews have created a backlog that is resulting in delays of up to nine months in some cases. That could allow foreign competitors to steal business that would otherwise have gone to British companies.
  Export licences to export strategic goods are issued by the President of the Board of Trade: the export control organisation in the Department of Trade and Industry is the licensing authority. They are issued under part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order, otherwise known as the "military list". The ECO either deals with applications direct or circulates them to other Departments with an interest—most notably, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or the Department for International Development.
  I shall give the House an idea of the number of applications involved. Between 3 May 1997 and 6 March 1998, 6,918 applications were circulated to the Foreign Office, 8,673 to the Ministry of Defence and just 783 to the Department for International Development. That is a great number of potential orders for British manufacturers on which a great number of British jobs depend.
  In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 25 March, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry confirmed that, on 6 February 1998, 1,586 applications were outstanding, some going back to 1 September 1998. The ECO measures its performance against two stated aims: to provide a substantive response to applications that are circulated to other Departments within 20 working days, and to provide a response within 10 working days to those that are dealt with internally by the DTI.
  When the Government took office on 1 May, the ECO was successfully hitting those targets. A remarkable 97 per cent. of non-circulated applications were dealt with within the 10-day period, and 69 per cent. of circulated applications were dealt with within 20 days. Since the Government came to power, and particularly since the DTI has had to consider the criteria set out by the Foreign Secretary on 28 July, that record has plummeted. By 6 February—which is the end of the last four-week period for which the DTI has been able to give me figures—the success rate for non-circulated cases had fallen from 97 to 61 per cent., and for circulated applications from 69 to 52 per cent. In the previous month, the latter figure had been as low as 41 per cent.
  1450
  That is a disgrace. It represents an administrative logjam of scandalous proportions, and is a kick in the teeth for exporters already under pressure from the high level of the pound, as presided over by the Government. That is not the fault of those working in the Departments, but they have been thrown into a state of administrative confusion by the so-called ethical dimension of the Foreign Secretary's new policy.
  The greatest irony is that, according to the little evidence we have, there is no noticeable rise in the number of applications that have been turned down in that period. For all the Government's rhetoric, there has been virtually no change in the number of applications being refused since 1 May. It is not surprising that the Government refuse to publish the figures on the number of licences that have been refused. The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry was only too happy to publish figures of licences refused by the previous Government up to 1 May, but from now on, she tells us, rather grandly,
  "the Government will report annually on the state of strategic export controls and their application since 2 May."—[Official Report, 12 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 722.]
  We can be sure that actual figures will be noticeable by their omission.
  When I asked the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development how many applications they had recommended for refusal, I received a standard reply from all three, which included the sentence:
  "The advice that is given by these departments to DTI falls into the category of internal discussion and advice, the disclosure of which would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion and which is being withheld under exemption number 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 27 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 310–11.]
  How very convenient. So much for open government.
  Slowly but surely, anecdotal evidence is being replaced by hard facts, as increasing numbers of companies find that they are missing out on legitimate orders. The Minister may recall the case raised recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, involving a British company that lost an order to its competitors in Scandinavia for the supply of blue helmets to UNHCR personnel in Kabul. That firm has received no further approaches for equipment from the UNHCR.
  Perhaps the Minister can confirm that a small company was approached to supply four machine guns to a Spanish shipyard, which were in turn to be fitted to four patrol boats and then to be sold to the Colombian navy to fight the drug barons in that country. That involved a thorny ethical decision, to be sure; but did not the Minister refuse the application, only to be overruled by the Foreign Secretary?
  How ironic it is that, only last night, the Foreign Secretary made a welcome statement about resources for mine clearance. The money is certainly welcome, but it would appear that United Kingdom companies will not be allowed to participate in the mine clearance campaign. Recently, because of the inordinate time that it took to process its application, one of the leading mine-clearing device producers in the country lost a substantial order for mine-clearing equipment to its principal Scandinavian competitor. More ironically still, its competitors in Sweden and Finland do not even have to apply for such a licence, as the machinery is dealt with under the heading of agricultural machinery. So much for a level playing field throughout Europe.

  1451
  On the issue of licensing, I am sorry that the Minister was not able to enlighten us about when the promised White Paper—which we hope will lead to primary legislation to reform the 1939 legislation—will be published. There is clearly a will in the DTI to proceed with such legislation as soon as possible, but I believe that the Minister himself recently confirmed that there would be no legislation in the current Session. It would be helpful to have an indication of the timing.
  Let me now deal with the proposed EU code of conduct, of which the Minister gave details. It was constantly referred to by the Foreign Secretary when his party was in opposition, and, as we have heard, is now a central plank of the Government's EU presidency. As has been said, we already have eight EU common criteria for arms exports, the first seven of which were agreed at the Luxembourg Council in June 1991; the eighth was added at Lisbon in 1992. The previous Government were instrumental in drawing them up, and always supported them.
  Some say that the criteria are too lax. At the risk of delaying the House, let me remind hon. Members of some of their contents. They refer to:

  "The respect of human rights in the country of final destination.

  The internal situation in the country of final destination, as a function of the existence of tensions of internal armed conflicts.

  The preservation of regional peace, security and stability.

  The national security of the member states …

  The behaviour of the buyer country with regard to the international community, as regards in particular its attitude to terrorism, the nature of its alliances, and respect for international law.

  The existence of a risk that the equipment will be diverted within the buyer country or re-exported under undesirable conditions."

  Those criteria are clear and forceful; the only way in which to improve them is to introduce a means of enforcement. We now have a new United Kingdom code, and we are to have a new European code as well. The Minister recently referred to developing the EU criteria, and today he described the new code as an elaboration of them.
  In a written answer on 2 February, and again today, the hon. Gentleman made much of the so-called "no undercut" mechanism. Having read the draft code carefully, however, I must disagree with him, and agree strongly with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. At the beginning of my speech, I quoted the first paragraph of the declaration by EU member states. Opposition Members heartily support the Government's commitment to a strong defence industry, and to countries' right to self-defence, but many outside the House must be bitterly disappointed, having been given the impression by the Government that the code would sound the death knell of the European defence industry.
  The draft code is considerably weaker than the Minister has suggested when it comes to undercutting. The relevant part of paragraph D of the declaration states:
  "Before any member state grants a licence which has been denied by another member state for an essentially identical transaction within the last three years it will first consult the member State which issued the denial. If following consultations the member State nevertheless decides to grant a licence, it will notify the member State issuing the original denial giving a detailed explanation of its reasoning."
  1452
  Although the code is supposed to introduce a common standard in the assessment of whether an arms export order should be processed, there is nothing in it to compel member states not to take up contracts previously turned down by others.
  If a member state decides to undercut another, there will be a confidential bilateral meeting between those concerned. If the undercutting state decides to go ahead with the export contract, all it will have to do is confirm to the other state its reasons for so doing. Such a statement would remain confidential between the states concerned. Clearly, once a fellow member state has informed its partners of a decision to refuse a licence, it must then trust to the integrity of its partners. That is in stark contrast to what the Foreign Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 10 February at Question Time. He said:
  "I assure the hon. Gentleman that if any country proposed to take up a contract that we had denied, we would pursue the matter through all 14 member states."—[Official Report, 10 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 127]
  We might well do that, but there is no provision in the draft EU code for other states in Europe to do likewise. Indeed—ironically—if undercutting becomes commonplace, member states are less likely to turn down arms contracts in the first place.
  No one doubts the integrity of our partners, but different countries have different priorities for their defence trade and national interests. France's defence industry is heavily state-subsidised, and we should bear in mind the fact that almost universal public condemnation of its decision to carry out nuclear tests did not stop it doing so.
  As well as issues of transparency and lack of ambiguity—rightly mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife—the Liberal Democrat motion refers to human rights. As I said earlier, that issue featured strongly both in the last Government's guidelines and in the common criteria agreed in Luxembourg and Lisbon. The draft EU code, however, is ambiguous at best, and at worst weak. Paragraph 2 is full of caveats concerning internal repression. I will not repeat the section already mentioned by the Minister, but a later section states:
  "In some cases, the use of force by a government within its own borders does not constitute internal repression. The use of such force by governments is legitimate in some cases, e.g. to preserve law and order against terrorists or other criminals. However force may only be used in accordance with international human rights standards."
  That is undoubtedly true, but, whether the Minister likes it or not, it is a loophole in what the Government claim they are trying to achieve.
  Most astonishingly of all, the next section states:
  "The attitude of recipient states towards relevant human rights instruments should also be taken into account although non-adherence should not preclude countries from receiving arms."
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government should not fight terrorism, or is he saying that, if they do, they should have no recourse to international law? In either case, the Government disagree fundamentally with the position of Her Majesty's Opposition.
  Mr. Faber: Of course I am not saying that; I am saying exactly the opposite. I entirely agree that, in many

  1453
  instances, it is necessary to sell such arms. As the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife pointed out, many countries have traditionally used that as an excuse, and will continue to do so. However, there is no instrument in the draft code of conduct to enforce the code, as such. Contrary to what the Minister says, it does not represent a step forward in terms of enforcement from the EU common criteria agreed in Luxembourg and Lisbon. The final statement that
  "non-adherence should not preclude countries from receiving arms"
  strikes me as an open invitation to many countries to use the excuse available to them.
  I and, I am sure, the House look forward to the Foreign Secretary's report, which is due in the summer, on the impact of his policy on arms exports. I hope that it contains an apology to the hundreds of contractors whose exports have been stalled in the past few months, and I hope that he remembers to mention the exports to South Africa and Indonesia that he has approved. I hope that the Government and the Foreign Office, in particular, will give serious thought to a sensible balance between support for our own industry and the crucial need, agreed by all hon. Members, to uphold basic human rights throughout the world.
  5.59 pm
  Ms Tess Kingham: In debating the international arms trade, it is important not to engage in sterile discussions about profit and loss statements, balance sheets and technicalities. We should consider not the recipients of arms—the military—but the civilians—the ordinary women, men and children who are most touched by the arms trade. Some 84 per cent. of all casualties are civilians, and they are the people on whom I should like the debate to focus.
  I should make it clear at once that I am not a pacifist. I believe in a country's legitimate right to self-defence, and I have no difficulty with countries purchasing arms for such use. The area in which my constituency is situated relies greatly on the defence industry. I stress "defence industry". Before being elected to Parliament, I worked for 10 years for international aid agencies. Much of the work centred on areas in conflict, and I witnessed, or was told about, weapons that were sold by European countries and used not for defence but to wreak havoc and terror on civilian populations.
  With War on Want in Mozambique, I saw people with their noses and lips cut off by the Renamo rebels who had shot, raped and looted, using weapons that had been supplied through South Africa and Europe. With Oxfam in El Salvador, I spoke to survivors of the Rio Sul Lempa massacre. That was a horrendous atrocity in which more than 200 women, children and old men, with nowhere to flee, were massacred on the banks of a river. I am told that, on that day, the water ran red. The El Salvador army was implicated in that massacre, and the previous British Government had given it military assistance. I was ashamed. European countries have continued to supply arms to Morocco, which illegally occupied Western Sahara in 1974 and used napalm on its people, attracting the condemnation of the international court and a UN resolution against the occupation. Those experiences motivated me to become involved in politics and today's debate is close to my heart.
  1454
  I am well aware of the role of European countries and their arms export policies in conflicts such as those that I have outlined. In my work before I came to Parliament, I came to realise that, as the Minister has said, small arms do much damage throughout the world and cause much instability. The small arms industry is not of major economic significance to Europe. It has a low value and few jobs depend on it, but small arms cause devastation. I was in Albania for last year's elections, and at that time a rifle could be bought for $15. The proliferation of small arms makes that country volatile. I have recently returned from Rwanda. During the outbreak of genocide in 1994, people were killed with machetes and hoes but small arms were used to corral people, to contain them, before they were killed. It was mechanised, systematic murder.
  It is estimated that 6,500 people a week are killed by small arms, and I welcome the Minister's statement about their control. There is no doubt that the irresponsible sale of arms to unscrupulous regimes costs civilian lives. It also takes a vast amount of public money to clear up the mess that is left by conflicts. There are currently more than 30 conflicts in the world, and the resulting damage consumes billions in international aid, and the donors include Britain. Such money is used for emergency relief, post-conflict reconstruction and peacekeeping. In 1995, the estimated cost of that was £2 billion.
  There is no doubt that stricter controls on arms transfers are long overdue. That is why I am proud to be a Labour Member. My Government took action on this issue soon after they came to power. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced an ethical code for arms sales in July, just two months after Labour came to power. Our new ethical code is to staunch the flow of weapons to countries that use them for internal repression or external aggression. The Government are also committed to an EU code of conduct on arms transfers. The Minister outlined much of that code, which I welcome, but I want to make sure that it has teeth. I am reassured by the Minister's statement, but several areas must be addressed and tightened up if the code is to have an impact.
  The first issue is parliamentary scrutiny. As we have heard, the Scott report concluded that, if exports to Iraq had been subject to such scrutiny, they would not have been approved. European Union countries should produce annual reports on arms sales, and we should press for a comprehensive EU register of arms.
  Ms Julia Drown: Should annual reports cover just strategic arms exports or should they cover all arms exports? Furthermore, in examining such annual reports, should we not assess the whole cost of arms, including public investment in research and matters such as export credits and offsets, because the absence of such costs makes arms and defence appear much cheaper than they are?
  Ms Kingham: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. Annual reports should be comprehensive, but I am sure that the Minister will respond to that. Perhaps we should look at those matters in more detail. I should like to see such reports and a register of arms being debated in the House, but Parliament should at least be notified of proposed exports to sensitive countries. As we have heard, that happens in Sweden and it does not seem to cause much difficulty in the parliamentary process there. Perhaps the matter could be investigated under freedom of information proposals.

  1455
  The second area of major concern relates to end use and brokering. There is a major loophole and an urgent need for arms brokers to be subjected to national and European Union scrutiny. EU countries could establish a central database of arms brokers with all proposed transactions subject to licensing. The EU should also have a common system of legally binding procedures on end use. There are too many loopholes, some of which are to be found in the Channel Islands, and they must be closed.
  Many arms deals by companies and individuals in the EU involve the transfer of arms via third countries. The weapons never pass through the EU. In 1994, the company Mil Tec in the Isle of Man sent arms from Israel and Albania to Rwanda. That was in defiance of a UN arms embargo and those weapons were used at a time of genocide when up to 1 million people were butchered. There was blatant contravention of the embargo. There must be an EU agreement on a standard mechanism for implementing EU, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and United Nations arms embargoes because, at the moment, there is no such mechanism.
  Much of the small arms trade is conducted outside the EU. The Minister has spoken about illegal trade so I need not cover that ground again. I was encouraged by his statements on that issue. I hope that the Government will press hard for an international code of conduct on arms transfers and that they will support the Arias initiative. We should also use our persuasive powers on countries that wish to join the EU or to enter into formal agreements with it so that they are responsible in their legal arms exports and will clamp down on the many illegal arms sales in their territories, especially those of small arms. The UK is the second major exporter of arms. We have already taken the lead in Europe by pushing for an EU code of conduct on arms, which I fully support.
  With the memory of the victims of conflict whom I have seen and spoken to over the years ever fresh in my mind, I sincerely hope and believe that the new Labour Government will address the concerns that I have raised today. A strong and bold code of conduct on arms transfers will leave a legacy of hope and peace for millions around the world whose lives are blighted by the fear of conflict. As we enter a new millennium, I can think of nothing more appropriate or worth while for the Government to do.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: I start by congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on the characteristically lucid and precise way in which he opened the debate on a subject which, for too many years, has been dark and shadowy in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. I agree entirely with him that we can and must recognise the change in attitude on the part of the British Government on the issues since the change in regime last May.
  I join my hon. and learned Friend in paying tribute to the Foreign Secretary in coming forward with an ethical foreign policy—a worthwhile initiative, which will be judged over time by what it is able to achieve. The initiative was welcome and it struck a different tone and headed in a different direction from that to which we had become accustomed under the previous regime.
  Government Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), can bring to the subject not only personal knowledge, but a different point of view
  1456
  from those we have seen and heard from Government Back Benchers when the Conservatives were in power. A combination of the initiative on the part of the Foreign Secretary and Back Benchers with a different perspective will, over time, bring about a significant change from what we have seen in the past.
  My hon. and learned Friend said that it was now two years since the Scott report was published and debated in this House. Anyone who was there that afternoon will recall clearly the drama of the occasion, and the fact that the Foreign Secretary—who was then in the Opposition—and my hon. and learned Friend had, I think, three hours in which to digest several volumes. None the less, they were able to pinpoint some key facts which, after two years, have not been treated as seriously as they should have been. I wish to refer to the matter of accountability to this House—a matter that I hope that the new Government and the Leader of the House will address. We must make changes to ensure that such things can never happen again.
  For the benefit of those who were not here, and as a reminder to those who were, let me say that particular condemnation fell on the head of the former right hon. Member for Bristol, West, William Waldegrave, who was found by Scott and the inquiry to have wilfully misled this House. In particular, it was said that letters that he had written did not seem "to correspond with reality". His claim that the answers he had been giving to questions and in letters and public statements, in which he denied that any change in the Government policy's towards arms exports had taken place, was
  "so plainly inapposite as to be incapable of being sustained by serious argument."
  This was
  "misleading to anyone who does not know the substance of the decision."
  I recognise fully that Ministers in this Government are not likely to find themselves engaging in the same sort of activities, but it is a point of procedural and constitutional necessity that changes must be made to prevent any member of any Government ever getting involved in that sort of concealment and subterfuge.
  As Members of Parliament, we depend on certain things, such as straight answers to parliamentary questions. Occasionally, one does not put the right question and one may not receive an informative answer, but one expects a straight answer. It was found that
  "answers to PQs, in both Houses of Parliament, failed to inform Parliament of the current state of Government policy … This failure was deliberate and was an inevitable result of the agreement between the three junior Ministers"
  who had set out on a policy of concealing from both Houses of Parliament the truth about what had been going on. There was specific condemnation of what they had done. The giving of answers to parliamentary questions, the report said,
  "is not simply a part of the game … played for the benefit of and under unexpressed rules understood by the Parliamentary players. The answers are also an important medium by which information about government and its activities is made available to the public. It is to be noticed that the respects in which the answers to the PQs about Government policy on defence exports to Iraq were inadequate and misleading were also respects in which some of the letters written in response to correspondence from members of the public were inadequate and misleading."

  1457
  The report concluded:
  "In the circumstances, the Government statements made in 1989 and 1990 about policy on defence exports to Iraq consistently failed … to comply with the standard set by paragraph 27 of the Questions of Procedure for Ministers and, more important, failed to discharge the obligations imposed by the constitutional principle of Ministerial accountability."
  That was a damning condemnation of the previous Government and members of it who, acting in deliberate and wilful collusion, had concealed from the House the details of what they were doing.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend is performing a helpful and important function for the House. Does he share my disappointment that, apart from a political eunuch—a Whip who cannot speak, or even listen to this attack—there is not a single Conservative Member in the Chamber? Is there some way that we can be sure that those very important lessons for the Conservative party are taken back to those who should be listening?
  Mr. Harvey: I agree that it is shocking, but by no means surprising, that there are precious few Conservatives here to defend the record of the previous Government, but I hope that we shall be able to channel back to them the opinion of the House on their performance at that time.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife is known to have been a sportsman of some note, and it was characteristically sporting of him not to lay about the Conservative party because he felt that it was not here to answer. I shall show no such restraint. I have bitter recollections of a number of campaigns in which I have engaged over time on those matters which seem to bear out precisely the account of the Conservatives' activities that the Scott report highlighted.
  I have been involved for some time in the campaign to prevent the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia. I listened with some astonishment to the words of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) on this point. [Interruption.] I welcome the hon. Gentleman's return to the Chamber. It was astonishing that he condemned the Government for the export of arms to Indonesia since the election last year. While I would not wish to query the validity of what he said, had I been wearing spectacles, I would have wiped them to check who was speaking. It was almost as astonishing as listening to Conservatives lambast the appointment of councillors to quangos or listening to the Conservatives' environment team complain about the construction of houses in the countryside—a policy that they started.
  Mr. Faber: It is probably not the hon. Gentleman's glasses which need wiping—perhaps he needs to turn up his hearing aid. I pointed out that, when in opposition—with the notable exception of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who took a more pragmatic view—the Labour party was vigorously opposed to arms sales to Indonesia. Since they came to power, the Government have changed their mind and have endorsed the very same sales—presumably because they have access to the same information and security advice at the Foreign Office as we had when we were in government.
  Mr. Harvey: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but two wrongs do not make a right. The new Government
  1458
  are wrong to have sanctioned those sales of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia, and any other sales that have taken place. They have argued that the contractual position bequeathed to them by the Conservative party meant that it would have been extremely expensive to cancel the sales, but I still say that they should have done it.
  The hon. Member for Westbury looked at the international competitive market in arms and argued that, if we did not get stuck in to make sure that we got our share, others would take the market away. That is exactly the same argument used centuries ago about slavery—we could not possibly afford to get out of the slave trade because others would take the market.
  Sale of weapons to Indonesia cannot be justified. Under the Conservative Government, I attended meetings between representatives of Tapol, the campaign for human rights in Indonesia and East Timor, and Ministers from various Departments. The discussions were, frankly, farcical—despite being shown photographs of tanks that had been built in the midlands being used to quell crowds with Hawk aircraft flying overhead, Ministers argued that arms exported from Britain had not been used directly to suppress the citizens of Indonesia. Water cannon from this country have been used for the same purpose.
  I could barely believe the discussions—the Ministers seemed supremely indifferent about whether it could be proven that British arms had been used. I believe that the fact that the regime was capable of such acts, and willing to use arms no matter where they had come from, renders Indonesia a market in which we should not be interested and to which we should not make any endeavour to sell.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Is it not precisely such issues that cause so much concern about loopholes? The use of water cannon or armoured cars for crowd control could be justified on the ground of security force self-defence, which would enable such sales to continue.
  Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend is right. Such arguments can be constructed precisely to justify the circumstances that I have been describing. I echo the appeal of other hon. Members that the Government closely consider that point, perhaps giving the legitimate use of self-defence argument an alternative form of expression.
  In reflecting on the record of the previous Government, one cannot help but recall the Pergau dam saga, in which the confusion between aid, trade and arms sales was exposed most horribly. We must take such issues into account in establishing whether the Government's ethical policy is a success.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does my hon. Friend remember that the decision about the Pergau dam was the subject of a successful application by a non-governmental organisation for judicial review in the High Court? Does that not reflect the bankruptcy of the previous Government's policy?
  Mr. Harvey: It certainly does, and it emphasises the point that Parliament must have an effective means by which to consider those issues. I know that Governments have sometimes felt that some issues are so sensitive and confidential that it is not appropriate or possible for Parliament to discuss them, but I do not believe that that argument should be tolerated in those matters.

  1459
  The Prime Minister has appointed a Committee comprising Members of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise very sensitive issues of national security, so I believe that an equivalent mechanism can and must be found to consider arms sales. Moreover, as has been suggested, there must be detailed reports to Parliament.
  During the previous Parliament, I tried on several occasions, as trade and industry spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, to pursue at oral questions the matter of the export of electric-shock batons. I can still hear the bland responses of Ministers, who said that my questions were irrelevant, impertinent and not a matter of legitimate interest. They claimed that nothing untoward had taken place, and refused to give informative answers or recognise the fact that Britain could in any way be condemned for its part in helping brutal regimes to suppress civilians.
  I also recall that, in the Argentinian conflict, there was considerable evidence that British troops were confronted by enemies bearing arms that had come from the United Kingdom and France—such was the mess into which the previous Government's policies inevitably led us.
  I do not pretend that the Foreign Secretary has set himself an easy task in mapping out an ethical policy. For example, all trading nations are guilty in their attitude towards China, which represents a huge, appetising and lucrative market. All those countries proceed with great caution, not wishing to offend China and imperil their chances of exploiting the future market—
  Mr. Allan: Including newspaper proprietors.
  Mr. Harvey: Most assuredly including newspaper proprietors. By treating the regime in China with kid gloves, we shall make it increasingly difficult to take a stand in the future. Unless we take a strong line at the outset, it will become more and more difficult, as contracts are signed and supply arrangements are made, to intervene.
  When the period between 1979 and 1997 is written about in the history books, many facts that were hidden or misunderstood will begin to emerge. When people in this and other countries tell their stories, it will be not only Mr. William Waldegrave who will stand condemned, but many others, including prominent individuals from the Conservative regime. It will be seen that, for all its proud claims about its achievements, the Conservative party collectively acted in a very untoward way. The House and the public would not have wanted or approved of some of the diplomatic efforts to secure trading advantages for this country. There will be a stain on the Conservative party and this country when the world comes to understand what the previous Government presided over and, in some cases, actively colluded in, and gained profit from.
  I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife on raising this matter. We encourage the new Government in their efforts to build a meaningful ethical policy and in their work on the code of conduct. Serious warnings have been given, which we urge the Government to address. I hope that the message will be taken to the Leader of the House that our procedures need to be reformed, so that the House can, in some way, get to grips with those issues. We must ensure that no Government of any colour can carry on as the previous Government did—there must be a mechanism for preventing what went on then.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on what he said, and on choosing this subject for debate.
  Times have assuredly changed. If such a debate had occurred a year ago, Conservative Ministers would have obfuscated, refused even to consider the human rights implications of arms sales, and become hysterical at any mention of the Scott report and sales of arms to Iraq, Iran or anywhere else.
  I welcome the Government's initiative in stopping the export of weapons of torture, in moving so rapidly to eliminate anti-personnel land mines from the world stage, and in at least making a start down the road to the European Union code of conduct on arms sales. That code rightly mentions human rights, parliamentary scrutiny, end-use control, implementation of embargoes, brokering and legal status, all of which are important issues.
  We should be slightly careful when we talk about controlling what happens to arms sales. I have a vivid memory of 11 September 1973, when British-built planes and Land Rovers and British-made equipment were used by the Chilean army to murder the elected President. All that equipment was sold to democratically elected Governments: the Christian Democrat Government of President Frei before 1970, and the Popular Unity Government of President Allende after that.
  Those weapons would have fitted in with any of the criteria that we have discussed. The Chilean army was not willing to accept the democratic will of its people, and staged a coup that was successful in the sense that it murdered the President and ushered in a reign of terror that lasted for a very long time and cost the lives of very many people.
  We must remember that arms are made to kill people, and if they are used to abuse human rights anywhere in the world, those who have made them and those who have caused them to be made and exported should consider their role carefully.
  Last night, the House of Commons was invaded—in the nicest way possible—by more than 750 people who came to an Amnesty International-sponsored meeting on the situation in Algeria. The meeting was so successful that we had to organise two overflow rooms.
  What is going on in Algeria is absolutely horrific. I do not pretend that an arms embargo on Algeria would solve the whole problem there, but the monumental arms sales have exacerbated the situation. Someone, somewhere along the line, promoted the sale of the weapons that are now being used in probably the most horrific conflict anywhere in the world. The percentage of Algeria's population that has been killed in the present conflict is higher than that of Britain's civilian population killed in the whole of the second world war, from 1939 to 1945.
  On 8 March, we held a memorial meeting, in Committee Room 10, on the 10th anniversary of the chemical bombardment of Halabja. We showed a film, survivors spoke, and people described the continuing loss of life in Halabja as a result of the use of chemical and biological weapons. The film was deeply disturbing. We must recognise that the precursor chemicals that were used to manufacture the weapons, the manufacturing ability, the delivery systems and the aircraft, all came from western Europe.

  1461
  Many Members of Parliament at the time constantly asked questions about those sales and exports, and about the denial that anything was going on. The United Nations inspection team in Iraq apparently knows the identity of all the companies that manufactured and exported fertiliser-making equipment, which much of the offending material was sold as before being used for the foul purposes to which it was put.
  A veil of secrecy is being used to protect those companies and the people who work for them, but I am not sure that they should be protected. The people of Halabja were not protected: they are still dying, and the pollution continues. The least that we can do is to give what support we can to humanitarian and medical agencies that are trying to get help there to deal with the cancers and the many deaths from other causes.
  Arms exports to Nigeria have gone on for a long time, despite the endless military coups, the abuse of democracy and the execution—more like state murder—of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni activists. The United Nations seems none the less to condone and support Nigeria in a quasi-peacekeeping role elsewhere. We should be careful. The weapons embargo on Nigeria is important, but so is Nigeria's recognition, or lack of it, of human rights.
  I have in front of me a picture with the caption "Butcher of Jakarta comes to London", inviting people to a protest rally this weekend. President Suharto is visiting Britain at the moment. I have before me an Amnesty International report on East Timor, where 200,000 people have been killed.
  Time after time, when hon. Members raised the issue of the sale of Hawk aircraft, anti-personnel weaponry and other equipment, Tory Ministers told us that they were being used not for internal repression but for external defence. Where is the external threat to Indonesia? Suharto bought the weapons to continue the illegal occupation of East Timor. I am disappointed that the new Government cancelled only some of the export orders for Indonesia that were in train at the time of the general election.
  The imposition of a total arms embargo on Indonesia would make a significant difference, but above all it would be seen as a signal to those who have lost friends and relatives in East Timor and are being overflown and bombed by Hawk aircraft that somebody, somewhere in the world, cares about them. It is all very well applauding Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo and awarding them prizes, but if we carry on selling arms to the regime, what is it all for? They want not awards but peace and self-determination.
  The situation in Turkey has not been good since the coup in 1980. There is brutal repression of trade unions and human rights organisations, with imprisonment and executions. A major conflict is taking place in Kurdistan, with aerial surveillance, bombardment, the rasing of villages and constant incursions into northern Iraq by the Turkish army.
  Human rights abuses in Turkey are well documented, and, indeed, legion. The least we can do is examine the criteria that we apparently support on the sale of weaponry to other countries, and measure Turkey's record against them. Where are the democratic controls,
  1462
  the parliamentary scrutiny, the respect for human rights? Where is the right of the Kurdish people to self-expression, let alone self-determination?
  We are keen on banning arms sales to some countries because we are worried about human rights, but we seem perfectly happy, for other geopolitical or commercial reasons, to sell arms to other countries with an equally appalling record. For example, Saudi Arabia is a major purchaser of British arms and equipment, but there is not much discussion about it, even in the media, because we do not want to upset the oil barons of the middle east.
  If we are to follow an ethical foreign policy, we must look in the long run at the whole industrial base of the arms trade. In promoting his ethical foreign policy immediately after the general election, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary probably understood very well that there would be tensions among the arms industry, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and others.
  The policy enabled those of us who are passionate in the interests of human rights at least to raise the subject, and that is important in itself, but I would prefer it if we could aim for the longer-term objective of ensuring that we have a proper arms conversion agency, to allow the brilliance and skill of those who manufacture weapons of mass destruction, high-quality aircraft and other military equipment to be put to use manufacturing goods for the benefit rather than the destruction of humankind.
  We could not achieve a transfer of that entire manufacturing base overnight, but we have to start somewhere.
  Ms Drown: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some tension in the House, because there is much agreement today about the need for an ethical arms trade policy, but, when another debate comes up about jobs, hon. Members will defend jobs in the arms industry in their constituencies? Does he agree that, as a strong part of the new Government's developing policy, the first part of money released through defence diversification should go back into the areas concerned, so that the skilled people there can find jobs in more constructive areas of employment?
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend reads my mind. What brilliance; no one else can. Her point is important. I do not seek to make enemies or to criticise people who work in the arms industry. That is not my purpose, or that of anyone else concerned about human rights. I am concerned that a diversification agency should reduce Britain's dependence on arms manufacture and export. It must invest so that, instead of the market madness of the Tory Government, we examine rationally how to reduce the volume and value of the arms industry and its exports, and put the money into socially useful products.
  The subsidy to the arms industry is enormous. About £5,000 per job is subsidised every year. The subsidy on exports is more than £300 million a year. The Export Credits Guarantee Department's exposure on arms exports is vast. Following the collapse of the south-east Asian tiger economies, I understand that £800 million is still unpaid by Indonesia. The figure is duplicated in many other countries.
  The British taxpayer is to be asked to pay for the weapons that are going to be used to kill people in Indonesia and many other places. It is a ludicrous business

  1463
  to depend on. If we are concerned about human rights, we cannot at the same time promote arms exports knowing full well that Governments such as Suharto's will use them against the poor people of East Timor and many other places.
  Since the second world war, conflicts have arisen all over the globe. They were sometimes cold war conflicts by proxy, sometimes demands for self-determination, and often arguments about oil and natural resources. The common thread is that, in every one of those conflicts, in which 40 million people have died since 1945, someone along the line has made a great deal of money from the export of the weapons that helped to fuel them.
  What always sticks in my mind is visiting a scrap metal yard in northern Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war. I walked around and saw the manufacturer's labels on the shell casings and aircraft remains, and thought of all the money made all over the world from that appalling and useless conflict in which 500,000 people on each side were killed. We pay that price in our conscience, but other people pay it with their lives as a result of the arms export industry and the competition of arms dealers around the world. Why not instead look ahead to something a bit bolder than the diversification agency proposed in the Green Paper, to a time when the skill and brilliance involved in producing arms produces goods that benefit humankind rather than killing it?
  6.42 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: It has been an interesting debate, but Her Majesty's Opposition are conspicuous by their absence. Earlier, they challenged the Leader of the House to give them time for debates on defence and foreign policy, but they cannot be bothered to turn up to a debate on the international arms trade. A plague on them.
  Mr. Faber: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dr. Tonge: No, I will not, because I have very little time. The hon. Gentleman took more than enough time.
  We had a detailed response from the Minister. There were a lot of words, but they must be matched by action. I urge him to more action and a few less words. I agree with the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) that there was a lot of rhetoric, and that nothing much seems to have changed yet. We shall see.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), and, of course, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) brought passion to the debate. We heard about the effects of the international arms trade.
  We live in an unstable world, because the end of the cold war left us with a paradox. There is less threat, but also less peace. Of the major armed conflicts in the world today, not one is a classic war of one state against another. Typically, wars today are violent, and ethnically or religiously oriented. Almost all are in poor countries. For those embroiled in such conflicts, the dominant threat is not nuclear arsenals but small arms controlled by warlords, as so aptly noted by the hon. Member for Gloucester.
  Civilians suffer 90 per cent. of casualties, of whom more than 40 per cent. are children, as the hon. Member for Gloucester and I saw illustrated vividly in Rwanda—
  1464
  something we will never forget. Such violence, ethnic cleansing and mass rape undermine the values on which depend human relationships and respect for human rights. A little bit passion in the debate would have been appreciated.
  As civilised nations with human rights, we call on the world to do something. However, those called upon to do something are the men and women in the military who once protected us from a single threat. I am grateful for that, as one of the generation that was protected and given a good life as a consequence. They are now called on for peacekeeping, and, more often, peace enforcement.
  I hope that the defence review—which, it was promised, would be policy-led—reflects the strategic change, while recognising the continuing need for a well-equipped military. The hon. Member for Westbury was very hot on the importance of a strong defence industry.
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: The hon. Lady mentioned the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber). Does she agree that speeches such as his make the Government's position very difficult, in an area which is already difficult? There was no support from Conservative Members for an ethical foreign policy. The Opposition said virtually nothing about human rights.
  Dr. Tonge: I agree. I remind the hon. Member for Westbury that a strong defence industry that is good for the economy comes at the expense of the lives of women and children and the torture of people all over the world. In the next century, that cost must be taken into account.
  Mr. Faber: Does the hon. Lady accept that most of my quotations in defence of the British defence industry were from last month's Government Green Paper?
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, but I stick to what I said about his remarks.
  If we are to promote an ethical foreign policy, it must be backed by a code of conduct for arms sales, as ably argued by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). My first major concern is the matter of licences not being granted if there is a risk of arms being used for internal repression.
  I still have no idea who or what decides what internal repression is. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain it. Baroness Chalker spoke in terms similar to the Government's about internal repression, but still licences are granted. Not much has changed. Since 1 May, there have been 22 to Indonesia, 16 to Kenya, 86 to Turkey, two to Algeria, and so on. That is why full parliamentary scrutiny of arms sales in advance is imperative.
  Arms broking was also mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and the hon. Member for Gloucester. It is essential that all EU residents and registered companies comply with the European policy on arms exports. We must stop the scandal of brokerage. The hon. Member for Gloucester told us about the scandal in Rwanda and Mil Tec's involvement. The issue must be cleared up and included in the policy.
  On the subject of scrutiny in Parliament, I ask the Minister to consider carefully Sir Richard Scott's suggestion of a standing interdepartmental committee.

  1465
  The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible at the same time for promoting and for restricting exports. The Scott report questioned whether the DTI should continue to be the licensing authority when the material reasons for refusing export licences were usually the preserve of other Departments such as the Department for International Development.
  A standing committee would facilitate communication between the DTI, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, and concerns could be raised. It would enable parliamentarians to scrutinise sensitive export licences in advance.
  Several hon. Members mentioned annual reports, but they allow only retrospective debate after the exports have been licensed. In Sweden, a parliamentary committee scrutinises proposed exports to countries of concern in advance. Even the United States—the largest arms exporter—has a system of prior notification. As three former distinguished members of the armed forces said in a letter to The Times recently, Britain must have a more restrictive and transparent arms policy at the same time as it supports our armed forces and promotes an ethical foreign policy.
  This year is the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. It is an opportunity for a global effort to work towards the new world order that western leaders declared after the end of the cold war, but which has evaded us. The horrors of recent years have proved that peace will not come by rhetoric alone. We are approaching a new century. As we led in the fight against dictators and repression in this century, Britain, along with her allies, must promote humanitarian principles and codes of conduct in the next. In a world of less threat, less peace, we must work for peace.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: With the leave of the House. This has been a fascinating debate in many ways. I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) about the need for passion. I have just returned from Sierra Leone. I shall say this dispassionately, because if I say it emotionally it will be almost an abuse of emotion.
  I saw pictures that almost defied description of the torture that had been meted out to the victims of the former junta. People had been beheaded or had their limbs torn off. I met survivors of torture. That is what war and brutality are all about, and that is, among other reasons, why we have to introduce ethical standards into all our debates on foreign policy and our relationship with our fellow human beings in this world.
  The hon. Member for Richmond Park called for fewer words and more action. Perhaps she will forgive me for saying that a considerable amount of action is being taken. I shall give her some instances.
  Even this debate about arms sales has to be put into the wider context of a world that moves away from the perception of conflict as the norm towards conflict prevention as a more rational way of going forward. Picking up the pieces after a conflict is always incredibly expensive and inefficient and can never recompense the
  1466
  victims. In various areas, the Government are making progress, and in some areas we are doing precisely what I have described.
  The hon. Lady described rape as an act of war. The Government are working hard to establish an international criminal court. Among the things that we want such a court to do is to accept that rape as a tactic of war will be seen as a war crime.
  Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister accept that rape is an act of genocide, not only of war?
  Mr. Lloyd: We are in danger of getting into a battle of semantics rather than a battle of practicalities. We want to ensure that the crime of rape as an act of war is penalised through the international criminal court and seen for what it is—an act of atrocious violation.
  Those are practical steps forward. We are doing work in The Hague and in Arusha, where an international tribunal on events in Rwanda is being held. We are giving practical support to ensure that those two tribunals are able to provide a framework within which justice is seen to be part of the process of reconciliation. We are taking steps in Africa, where Britain is undertaking active training in peacekeeping to prevent the outbreak of conflict. We are taking part at the level of the United Nations in efforts to move things forward in a practical way to build a capacity to stop conflict breaking out. Those are practical steps, and they are important.
  Britain ought to be proud that we are at the forefront of practical steps, and that we are part of moving this world on. The hon. Member for Richmond Park is right: passion is necessary in defence of the rights of those who get little by way of defence elsewhere, but it is in that context that we are making real and tangible progress in the context of arms sales. I have already explained to the House the practical steps that we are taking on illicit arms trafficking and international registration. Those are practical steps.
  The European Union code of conduct is a practical step. It brings our European allies on board in a process that they have never previously undertaken collectively. Again, that is progress. That is why, sadly, the speech of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) was so sad and so churlish. After a new leader of the Conservative party has been elected and after time for reflection, it would have been enough to say, "We are genuinely sorry. What the previous Government did was an outrage. It was a disgrace and a stain on this nation." That would have been a sensible speech.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): He did not vote for the new leader.
  Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps we have an old Tory here—proud of Scott, proud of the Pergau dam scandal, proud of all those stains on our national honour, which are now being washed away because Britain does not want that any more.
  The hon. Member for Westbury talked about delays. When the Labour Government came to power, they inherited a system in which the previous Government did not care about arms sales, had no proper control system and asked no questions. Ministers took no decisions except the decision to sell.

  1467
  Inevitably, when a new Government come to power determined to break with that past, the system creaks under the strain. We have had to rebuild the system. We have had to work with the very competent officials who are now making the system work. Yes, we inherited a system that produced delays. We are now getting those delays out of the system, but the responsibility falls on the previous Government. That is widely understood in the industry, which recognises that the balance is now being got right.
  It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Westbury wants us to apply a system in which the delays would not occur. He wants us to go back to the system in which everything went through, and we let whatever was put to us pass by; in which there was no control. We are not prepared to do that, because we must have better standards of practice.
  Mr. Faber: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me—
  Mr. Faber: The hon. Gentleman referred to me.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman referred to me in his speech, and he will forgive me if we cannot always give way on that basis.
  The hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind whose side he is on. Is he on the side of an arms sales policy that balances out national interest—of course—and jobs—of course—but recognises that recourse to the words of respect for human rights is not enough and that it must be put it into practice? That is what is happening under the Labour Government, and what we did not see under the previous Government.
  Several hon. Members referred to Mil Tec. Mil Tec was itself something of a scandal, because the previous Government failed to include the Isle of Man in the legislation that brought the UN embargo into effect. That was astonishing, but lax, as was so much that was done by the previous Government. We are simply not prepared to operate according to those standards.
  This has been an important debate. It is the first to concentrate on how we get the balance right. The Government are happy for the debate to have taken place, and we congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). We believe that Parliament has a right to be involved in the process, and today Parliament has taken part. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Westbury, speaking on behalf of the main Opposition party, failed to take part in the process of parliamentary scrutiny.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, mindful of the conclusions of the Scott Report, commends Her Majesty's Government for its efforts to obtain agreement for a European Union Code of Conduct on the arms trade; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that any such code sets high common standards governing arms exports for all Member States, and, in particular, to insist that export guidelines are transparent, unambiguous and pay due regard to human rights.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.59 pm
  The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am grateful for the agreement that has been reached through the usual channels to allow time for this very short but very important Bill to be debated. Many right hon. and hon. Members present tonight have been in the Chamber long enough this week, so we shall try to dispatch the business as quickly as possible.
  The importance of the matters the Bill addresses cannot easily be overstated. As a result of a procedural irregularity, which has only recently come to light, a large number of summary prosecutions and previous convictions dating back to 1981 have been called into question. As of 27 March, the Crown had already been forced to abandon 71 cases. Many more are in the pipeline. The situation has already attracted widespread public attention and the purpose of the Bill is to put matters right as quickly as possible.
  The difficulties the Bill is designed to address emerged as a result of recent judgments of the High Court of Justiciary in the cases of Mackay and Milligan. Taken together, those judgments make it clear that a summary court has no power to hold an intermediate diet if the trial diet has to be postponed for any reason. It follows that any order made at such a diet is a nullity, including the decision to fix a new date for trial, and that any subsequent proceedings, including a conviction and sentence, may themselves become fundamentally null.
  Before considering the implications of the High Court decision, it may be helpful to hon. Members if I take a moment to explain, as briefly as possible, the background to it. Intermediate diets were first introduced into summary procedure in 1981 by virtue of section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which enabled, but did not require, the court to fix a diet, known as an intermediate diet, in respect of a case that was going to trial.
  The purpose of the intermediate diet was to ascertain whether the parties were ready for trial and the accused still intended to plead not guilty—and therefore to ensure, so far as possible, that cases did not have to be adjourned on the day. Such last-minute adjournments are not only expensive and disruptive to court business; they cause a great deal of inconvenience to witnesses who have been summoned to court in the expectation of the trial going ahead. After their introduction in 1981, it appears that intermediate diets had comparatively little success and most courts gradually stopped holding them routinely.
  However, in the early 1990s, following consultation and pilots in a number of sheriff courts, it was concluded that, with minor procedural changes, intermediate diets had the potential to be more productive in anticipating and avoiding the need for adjournment on the day of trial. Accordingly, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 contained provisions enabling the court to make inquiries

  1469
  into the state of preparedness of the parties. It also empowered the Secretary of State by order to make the holding of intermediate diets mandatory in prescribed courts. That power has been exercised from April 1996 onwards, so that almost all summary courts, with the exception of a few of the smaller ones, are now required to hold intermediate diets before trial.
  There is no doubt that the introduction of mandatory intermediate diets has resulted in a considerable increase in the number of cases disposed of without the need for a trial diet. In 1993–94, for example, 3,177 summary cases were disposed of by a plea of guilty at an intermediate diet. Three years later, in 1996–97, that figure had increased fourfold, to 13,583.
  However, a widespread practice developed of fixing a further intermediate diet in cases where the trial diet had to be adjourned until a later date, in order to ascertain whether the case would go ahead on the new date. The purpose of these further intermediate diets was exactly the same as the initial diet, which was to determine whether the parties were ready for trial and therefore to avoid last-minute adjournments, if at all possible. That is the practice that has now been held to be invalid by the High Court's recent judgments.
  In Mackay, the appellants appealed against the competency of proceedings on the ground that no intermediate diet had been fixed when their trial was further adjourned. That appeal was dismissed, but in doing so the High Court concluded that there was no statutory basis for intermediate diets to be held before any adjourned trial diet. In the light of the court's opinion in that case, which was handed down on 19 November 1997, the Crown took the view that further such diets should no longer be fixed, although some sheriffs continued to fix them.
  Following Mackay, pleas as to the competency of summary proceedings were taken in a large number of cases around the country. A number of sheriffs raised the same issue themselves and, in order to clarify the situation, the Crown appealed against the decision of a sheriff in one such case, which resulted in the case of Milligan coming before the Appeal Court. On 12 March, the court held that a summary court had no power to make an order at what was described in Mackay as an "unintended" intermediate diet and that any such order was a nullity. It followed that the proceedings themselves became fundamentally null where the adjourned trial diet did not proceed on the date originally fixed.
  I should emphasise that, to the best of my knowledge, no case has yet come to court in which a person has sought to have his or her conviction quashed in a case in which proceedings have been completed, but the same issues could well arise. The decision therefore raises a real possibility that persons convicted and sentenced at trial diets that were fixed at an invalid intermediate diet would be able to have their convictions and sentences quashed. In that event, those concerned might seek compensation—for example, where they had been imprisoned or disqualified from driving—the return of any fines they had paid and their criminal record to be expunged. In current cases, the Crown would have to consider instituting fresh proceedings, which might themselves be the subject of challenge.
  1470
  Although no precise figures can be given of the number of cases involved, the Crown Office estimates that about 1,000 current cases are likely to be affected. Several thousand completed cases may be involved as well. Although the cases involved are those dealt with under summary procedure, which generally involves less serious offences, they are also likely to include persons who have received custodial sentences for violence, indecency, housebreaking and drugs offences and custody and disqualification for offences involving dangerous, disqualified or drunk driving.
  If the Government took no action to address what appear to be the likely consequences of the High Court's decision, I have no doubt that the effect on both the criminal justice system and public confidence in Scottish criminal justice would be extremely severe. There would be considerable additional delays, expense, uncertainty and in a very real sense injustice. That is why we have brought forward the Bill today, with the agreement of the Opposition parties.
  We have concluded that the best remedy is to amend the provisions relating to intermediate diets in section 148 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to make it explicitly clear that courts may fix an intermediate diet at any time, whether before, on or after any date assigned as a trial diet. That provides the courts with the discretion they always thought they had to fix an intermediate diet when a trial diet is adjourned to a later date. That is the effect of clause 1(1)(a) and (b). Clause 1(2) provides that the amendment shall operate retrospectively, and clause 1(3) applies the same amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, which preceded the 1995 Act.
  Parliament is rightly reluctant to resort to retrospective legislation, unless a compelling case can be made out for doing so, because of the obvious potential for unfairness and oppression. There is no such unfairness or oppression in this instance, so I believe that this is one of the very rare cases in which it is both necessary and appropriate that legislation should have retrospective effect. The holding of an intermediate diet where a trial diet had been adjourned, which is what has been found to be invalid, involved no prejudice of any kind to the accused. Indeed, in many cases the additional intermediate diet which, it now appears, rendered the subsequent proceedings invalid, will have been fixed on the application of the defence.
  Intermediate diets were introduced as long ago as 1981 and have operated ever since to the benefit of all parties, with no suggestion being raised until now as to the validity of such diets in certain circumstances. It would surely be absurd if Parliament did not legislate to cure what is no more than a technical procedural irregularity that caused no prejudice of any kind to the accused, with the result that a large number of cases had to be abandoned or reopened.
  The Bill is vital to the proper administration of criminal justice in Scotland. Without it there is a risk of severe damage being done to public confidence in the system of justice and the prospects of substantial resources having to be expended in dealing with cases that, apart from a purely technical irregularity which the High Court found to be fatal, are otherwise entirely sound. I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram>: This is an unusual situation because this is a question not only of emergency legislation, but of retrospective legislation. Although we want this business to be concluded swiftly, I think it right that we show that we have tested it against the criteria that emergency legislation and retrospective legislation should be tested against. After all, emergency legislation bypasses the normal tests and democratic restraints that the House and the other place can exercise, and it should be used only in exceptional circumstances; there is a natural democratic presumption against retrospective legislation.
  I believe that the tests are severe and precise. It must be seen that the legislation is strictly necessary and, significantly, that it does not cause injustice or unfairness after the event.
  As the Minister said, a number of cases—I think he said 70 or 80—have been deserted or abandoned because of this situation. There are also 1,000 cases hanging around, waiting to be tried, and thousands of cases—the number is unquantifiable—could be affected retrospectively if the Bill were not passed.
  I am grateful to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for consulting us, not only generally on the issue, but on the terms of the Bill and for being prepared to accept certain suggestions made by us to, I believe, make the Bill more effective. I also place on the record my gratitude to Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, a former Lord Advocate, who I readily accept has helped me to find my way through this procedural minefield in a way that might otherwise not have been possible, and who has enabled me to apply the tests that I have set out and to say tonight that I believe that they are met.
  There are two areas: current cases and cases that have gone before. For current cases, the practical consequences of not changing the law are as follows. The Crown would be unable to seek convictions in cases in which more than one intermediate diet had taken place. Any orders made at such further intermediate diets would be incompetent. Such orders would include not only procedural decisions, such as the adjournment of trials; warrants for apprehension granted at such diets would also be affected. In such cases, the Crown would have no alternative but to abandon the proceedings. In certain instances, it might be possible to raise fresh proceedings, but in others the case would be time-barred. There may be other current cases in which a conviction has taken place, but the accused has not yet been sentenced or the days for making an appeal have not yet expired. In such cases, also, unless the law is changed, the conviction will fall.
  On those grounds, to protect current cases, there is an obvious need to move with urgency. That is why I am satisfied that the tests for emergency legislation are met in this instance.
  Obviously, the more sensitive question is whether the Bill should have retrospective effect. In my view, such legislation is justified only in the rarest of instances. Having very carefully considered all the issues involved, I believe that the circumstances justify the Bill having retrospective effect. That is necessary to protect some current cases, which will be affected by the problem that has arisen. It may also be necessary to protect an unquantifiable number of completed cases, dating back to
  1472
  1981, in which convictions have been returned in proceedings in which more than one intermediate diet has taken place.
  Since intermediate diets were introduced, sheriffs, procurators fiscal and defence lawyers have proceeded on the basis that it has been competent to hold more than one intermediate diet. That was the position before the holding of intermediate diets became mandatory, and that remained the position until the decision in Mackay, which the Minister mentioned.
  Much more important, it should be remembered that the problem that has arisen relates to the competency of pre-trial procedure rather than the rules of procedure regulating the conduct of trials or questions relating to the admissibility or sufficiency of evidence at such trials. If the law is changed retrospectively, therefore, no question can arise of any accused being able to argue that the change has prevented him from arguing that he has suffered any substantive interference in his right to a fair trial. That is an important test.
  The worst that an accused could complain of is that he has been inconvenienced by requiring to attend court more often than might have been the case and, I think in a few instances, that he has been remanded in custody, pending trial, for failing to attend a second or subsequent intermediate diet that, in the light of Mackay, ought not to have taken place. However, in the few instances in which the accused has ended up in custody, he would have done so only because he disobeyed an order of the sheriff to attend a specified diet, and in such circumstances it would be difficult to argue that any great injustice had arisen.
  In those circumstances, I believe that it is necessary to balance the public interest and the interests of any accused that may be affected. I believe that, when that is done in the light of the circumstances, the balance tilts firmly in favour of allowing the Bill to proceed with retrospective effect. It would be most unsatisfactory if current prosecutions were to founder, or past convictions were to be quashed, as a consequence of a procedural irregularity of a nature that has only recently, and totally unexpectedly, been identified, in the circumstances that the Minister set out.
  On the basis of those exceptional circumstances, on behalf of the Opposition, I am prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill and to see it pass through all its stages as speedily as possible.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I suppose that, technically, I should declare an interest as an occasionally practising member of the Faculty of Advocates, although, until now, my interest in the intermediate diet has been somewhat peripheral and I do not believe that I have ever attended one, even in a professional capacity.
  Like every lawyer, I find retrospective legislation repugnant. That is why I consistently voted against legislation the purpose of which was to allow the prosecution of alleged war criminals many years after some of them had first come to the United Kingdom. Leaving aside questions of principle, looking at the matter pragmatically, it seems to me that my opposition to that legislation has proved more sound than even I thought at the time.

  1473
  However, in this case, cogent arguments exist to justify both emergency and retrospective legislation, so I can adopt much of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I am prepared to give the Bill a fair wind, for two reasons. First, it creates no crime that did not previously exist; secondly, it constitutes no extension of the jurisdiction of the court. Had either of those principles been offended against, my position might have been different. However, in the light of what has been said by the Minister on behalf of the Government, it seems to me that the Bill should pass speedily through the House, because it is in the interests of justice that it should do so.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I have a fellow feeling with the Minister of State to be among such luminaries—adornments—of the Scottish legal system. I do not know whether we are Daniel in the lion's den or have fallen among thieves, but perhaps we should be careful about how much expertise we both claim with so much talented advice available to us.
  I shall not detain the House except to say that I support the remarks made on behalf of the Opposition parties. Obviously, retrospective legislation is extremely undesirable, but in this case the case has been made. In fact, in this case the Government had no alternative but to introduce the Bill. For that reason, the Scottish National party will join other Opposition parties in supporting the Bill.
  I want to pursue with the Minister a point that I have been pursuing with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that the legal advice available to the Government is that there is little chance of an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, basically because, for the reasons that have been given by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), it is difficult to substantiate an argument that a person has been prejudiced as a result of the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman did mention that people may have been detained in custody, albeit as a result of their own actions, as a result of the procedures that, currently, are regarded as irregular.
  The Government have received from their lawyers advice to the effect that, because of the circumstances of the case, the European Court is unlikely to rule in favour of any person who goes before it pursuing such a claim. However, there have been circumstances—in relation to the fishing industry, for example—where Government lawyers have been extremely confident about their advice to the then Government before the European Court but were then sorely disappointed when judgments came in on the other basis.
  Although I accept that the Bill is necessary, that there is no alternative, and that the retrospection is necessary—however undesirable it may be—I want to ask whether there is any possibility of a Treasury indemnity for the Scottish Administration of a new Parliament, established next year. I would not like there to be the possibility—
  1474
  however remote—that the Scottish Parliament may be presented with an unquantifiable legal bill as a result of cases that may be pursued. I accept that that may be a remote possibility. If it is, there should be no difficulty presenting such an indemnity as it is unlikely to cost the Treasury any money. I know that the Secretary of State has considered the point and that the Minister has had an opportunity to do likewise. I should like to pursue that point while giving general support to the Bill and the arguments about why it is necessary.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. McLeish: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
  I thank the Opposition for adopting a very constructive and thoughtful approach. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) identified the important principles behind the Bill and outlined the criteria that have been satisfied—at least in his eyes. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for his support.
  I shall deal briefly with the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who had the courtesy to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of an indemnity for the Scottish Parliament in the event of its having to meet financial liabilities as a result of the problems that have arisen in relation to intermediate diets. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is concerned that either the domestic courts or the European Court of Human Rights might find the retrospective nature of this legislation unlawful, leaving the way open for convictions to be quashed and resulting in entitlement to
  I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have taken careful legal advice and, on the basis of that advice, we are totally satisfied that the retrospective provisions of the Bill are entirely consistent with both domestic and European law. I would not otherwise commend it to the House. From the perspective of the Scottish Parliament, the position would be far worse if the legislation were not enacted. While I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable point, it is a hypothetical one. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not envisage any unquantifiable liability ending up with the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament. The most important consideration this evening is to move forward with the Bill in order to ensure that the liabilities to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not end up with the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McFall.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  Swale Crossing
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the chance to put the case for the second crossing of the Swale. I have placed copies of this speech on two of my local constituency websites: Swale chamber of commerce, www.fenet.co.uk/swale; and Swale borough council, www.swale.gov.uk.
  I am sorry that it is not possible to show a video of the current problems with the bridge or even colour slides in the Chamber tonight. I hope that one day this will be a Chamber of the 20th century of which we may be proud. In the meantime, I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister this evening. I hope that he will watch—and persuade the whole transport team to watch—the video depicting the problems with the bridge. It was made by Ray Featherstone, the youth leader of Sheerness county youth centre, with the help of local youngsters on the Isle of Sheppey a few years ago.
  When I was parliamentary spokesperson for the new constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 1996, I was asked by Councillor Dennis Grover whether I could arrange a meeting on behalf of the Sheppey Industry Association with the then shadow Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). I duly did so. The day before we were due to meet her in the House, she was transferred to what was then Overseas Development. I called Dennis to tell him that the meeting was off because my right hon. Friend had been moved to Overseas Development. As quick as a flash, he responded, "That's all right. The island has a better chance with her there—after all, we've been overseas for 1,000 years."
  Although Great Britain is an island, there are people in our country who share a different understanding of the word "island". They are the people who live on Mull, Skye, the Isle of Wight, or, in my case, the Isle of Sheppey. They call themselves "islanders" because, for 1,000 years or more, they have been detached from mainland Britain. Islanders possess a different view of life and increasingly, because the islands have suffered greater hardships in terms of employment opportunities, health care, education and housing, they feel that they have been unloved and left out in the cold because no one in government understands their unique problems.
  Our legal offshore islands suffer, at a micro level, all the problems of the United Kingdom mainland—but they suffer them at a level that is much more personal and debilitating. For instance, in the community of Leysdown on the east end of the Isle of Sheppey, where I recently conducted a Saturday surgery, it costs the population of 1,060 £4.20 return to go to the nearest shopping centre in the town of Sheerness. The bus runs once an hour and stops at 6 pm. The nearest accident and emergency unit is at Medway hospital on the mainland, which is only 20 miles away. As that hospital's A and E record is not what we would wish, many people travel to the A and E unit at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, which is only 32 miles away and is currently facing closure. Our new Sheppey community hospital has been delayed and delayed and delayed.
  1476
  Worse still, if plans to close the magistrates courts in both Sheerness and Sittingbourne go ahead, it will cost citizens £6.80 to go to Chatham, or more to go to Maidstone magistrates court. They will have to travel across the bridge every time. Public transport currently takes more than three hours to get from Leysdown to Chatham—and longer to get to Maidstone—but it does not necessarily run at a convenient time when cases may be heard, and there is a considerable cost to the individual. Those problems have been compounded by the bridge. Nevertheless, they have been borne with some stoicism for generations, not just by the people of Leysdown, but by the people of Warden Bay, Eastchurch, Minster, Halfway, Queenborough, Bluetown and Sheerness.
  The 1991 census gave the population of the island as 35,500, and today it is close to 40,000. The population almost doubles at weekends—especially when the clocks go forward—as many Londoners travel to Sheppey to visit their caravans at the east end of the island. The traffic is constantly delayed by the bridge.
  Thirty-eight years ago yesterday, the then Conservative Government closed the naval dockyard at Sheerness, which caused unemployment on a scale never before experienced in our community. It broke up our community. Long-term unemployment continues to be a huge problem on the island, and stands at 23.8 per cent.—one of the highest levels in the south-east of England. Today, the port, under the ownership of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, is thankfully booming. It is the fifth biggest port in the United Kingdom and is perfectly placed to serve continental Europe—if we could only sort out the bridge.
  Two years ago, the port was in competition with other United Kingdom and continental ports for a huge contract with a car importer. The port already imports cars for Citroen, Mazda, Volkswagen, Peugeot, Hyundai and Chrysler. The deal was done in that hands were shaken on it. The port management was chuffed as it had again proved the excellence of the port. Twenty minutes or so later, the car importer phoned from his car cancelling the contract—he was caught in an horrendous tailback of traffic as a result of the bridge being up.
  The current bridge is a single-span lifting bridge. At the time of the closure of the docks, Percy Wells—our best ever Member of Parliament for the old constituency of Faversham—had campaigned for 20 years for a new bridge. He had been told by the Admiralty that it had to be a single span, as the other two bridges had previously been. How amazing—just before the bridge was built, the Admiralty left Sheerness. The bridge design was already redundant.
  Every time a small yacht or a small tanker goes through it for pleasure or en route for Ridham dock, the bridge has to go up. In the summer, because it is a concrete bridge, it expands, and it has to be hosed down manually before it will come down again. It might be thought that such a small irritant, causing a waiting time of perhaps 20 to 30 minutes, is not much to shout about in the general scheme of things, but that would be wrong.
  Ridham is expanding. In 1987, there were 442 liftings a year caused by the dock. By 1995, that had risen to 1,034 liftings a year or three a day—an increase of 120 per cent. The bridge was built in 1960 for traffic flows with a design capacity of 13,000 vehicle movements a day. Now the flow is just over 24,000 vehicle

  1477
  movements a day, or 85 per cent. over the design capacity. At the weekends it can double or treble. In April 1997 the Kent county council 12-hour traffic flow recorded 21,063 vehicles, including 3,003 heavy goods vehicles.
  The heavy goods vehicles equate to 14.25 per cent. of all traffic using the bridge and according to a Swale borough council report, there would be serious problems for the port, should the HGV traffic continue. We hope that it will continue, because Railtrack wants to make Sheerness a nodal point for rail freight, linking the port ultimately through the channel tunnel to Europe. That would not only create more jobs for Sheerness, but substantially increase the HGV traffic over the bridge.
  As public transport declines—it cannot get any worse for us on the island—more and more people have to consider the car as the only way of getting around, notwithstanding the helpful changes in the Budget for rural transport. Over the past three years the problems relating to the bridge have been compounded by the new A249 dual carriageway, as well as a series of awful accidents on the bridge itself and either side of it, leading to delays of up to 10 hours and queues of 12 miles or more.
  The Conservative Government, in their wisdom, decided that the solution to the bridge was to build the new A249 first. The A249 connects the M2 motorway to a roundabout, which in itself has caused unnecessary accidents because it is so poorly designed. The roundabout is 200 yd short of a single road leading to the bridge. In other words, 1,750 cars and lorries an hour travel on the new dual carriageway, only to meet a roundabout and then a single track across the bridge, which in the summer goes up eight times a day, but sometimes fails to come down.
  It is not surprising that the group of Tory Ministers responsible for that decision are known as the East Ham group—East Ham being one stop short of Barking on the underground. Of course it had been their intention to build the bridge. Plans had been drawn up and £2 million of public money—our taxpayers' money—was spent on its design before the public inquiry was due to get under way last June.
  The scheme was seriously flawed. It was back to front. It was the island that needed to be connected to the mainland, not the other way round. The islanders' needs should have been addressed first.
  I support the transport review being conducted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, even though it has led to a delay in our bridge, because it is wrong to waste taxpayers' money on schemes that have no Treasury Bills attached to them and which do not fit into a UK-wide transport strategy. Moreover, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who has reversed the previous Government's private finance initiative policy, by not insisting that PFIs take the risk of paying for planning inquiries.
  The results of the current review will be published in July. Whether our bridge goes forward fully funded depends on five criteria: accessibility, safety, economy, environment and integration. On accessibility, safety, economy and integration, I make the score 10 out of 10. I could be biased. On environment, we have had some problems, but all the environment groups have bought into
  1478
  the need for the island to be connected to the mainland. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds must be especially congratulated on seeking a practical solution for the bridge.
  To those like the Council for the Protection of Rural England who want a tunnel, the Highways Agency responded earlier in the week. It stated:
  "A tunnel crossing has been considered in detail but rejected primarily on environmental grounds. You will be aware that the Swale and its surroundings are Special Protection Areas under EU legislation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest under UK legislation and an internationally important Ramsar wetland site. Our proposals are required to have the smallest possible ecological effect on any option considered."
  The Highways Agency went on:
  "In conclusion, the ecological effects of the proposed bridge would be less than those of a tunnel, and it must be borne in mind that it is the ecological aspect of the environment for which the Swale area is protected."
  There is one criterion missing from the list: the Isle of Sheppey's psyche. Such a concept does not fit neatly into the way in which civil servants frame regulations, and cannot easily be understood by Ministers who never visit the island and have no real understanding of it.
  In spite of the existing bridge, the Isle of Sheppey has some world-class businesses—Weidmuller, a family-owned German company in Halfway, is expanding by one third and hopes to open a new extension at the end of June; Abbott Laboratories, a Chicago-based pharmaceutical company listed on Wall street, in Queenborough; and the port of Sheerness, especially its fresh fruit operations and its car imports, as well as Co-Steel from Canada. There are businesses that have aspirations to become world class, such as Danepak, a Danish company, and our own local furniture maker, Regis Ltd.
  In the global economy that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked us to embrace, those industries will not stand: they will fall if the bridge is not built. That would plunge the community into a new economic scenario worse than anything it has ever experienced.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. The second crossing over the Swale is not only important for the good people of the Isle of Sheppey; it is essential for the regeneration of my constituency, the Medway towns and further afield, right down the Thames gateway area. That is reflected in the early-day motion tabled today by Kent and London Members of the Thames gateway group. Does my hon. Friend agree that the crossing is essential not just for Sheppey, but for the wider area of Kent and east London?
  Mr. Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend, and of course I agree with him. One of the problems is that we are running out of space on the mainland of Sittingbourne to develop new factories. We have space on Sheppey, but we have no bridge that works.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to fulfil a pre-election pledge, which apparently emanated from Millbank tower and is frequently quoted in my local papers, that the bridge would be built before the end of the century. I urge the Minister to sign the cheque this evening for the second crossing of the Swale.
  7.37 pm
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on his success in securing the debate. I appreciate that the matter is important not just for him, but for all the people of north-east Kent, those who live and work on the Isle of Sheppey, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) emphasised, others who live in the Medway area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey made a powerful case for a second Swale crossing. As he knows, the Government have embarked on a fundamental review of transport policy. The case for this scheme must be considered in the context of that review. Our objectives are a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. Transport links are a vital part of those aims.
  Good communications, including transport links, are central to the economy and quality of life. However, the backdrop to the fundamental review is a candid recognition that we need a shift in direction. Revised national road traffic forecasts published last autumn show traffic increasing by almost 40 per cent. over the next 20 years. If current policies continue, congestion will get worse, the impact on the environment will be even more severe, and those who have no access to private transport will be even more disadvantaged.
  Therefore, we must develop an integrated transport system that makes the best use of the contribution that each transport mode can make, and ensures that all options are considered on a basis that takes into account from the outset considerations of accessibility, integration, safety, the environment and the economy—factors which my hon. Friend highlighted, because he has taken account of our review, and he knows that those are the criteria by which schemes are being assessed.
  Above all, an integrated transport system must be sustainable. One of the encouraging aspects of what is an ambitious task is the degree of consensus on the need for change. We cannot achieve that in isolation, and we are actively engaging those involved in transport. It is a feature of the policy development work now under way that we are involving a wide range of external advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users. That is the context for the roads review—examining the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister returned from the successful Kyoto summit at the end of last year with a legally binding target for the European Union to reduce greenhouse gases by 8 per cent. The United Kingdom contribution towards this target, which has to be determined by the spring or the summer, is likely to be above the average, but, for CO2 emissions, it is still likely to be somewhat lower than the domestic 20 per cent. reduction aim.
  To meet that target, measures will need to be taken in all sectors of the economy. Under unchanged policies, emissions from transport are projected to rise at a faster rate than any other sector. The Government have signalled their intention to tackle the growth of emissions from the transport sector. A number of measures to reduce
  1480
  CO2 emissions from transport, in addition to the fuel duty strategy, are being considered as part of the integrated transport policy review.
  Against that background, and the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and, thirdly, to provide new infrastructure. I shall briefly cover those options.
  The first option is to make the best use of the existing road network. It is the obvious first choice to make best use of existing infrastructure. It has been provided at substantial cost, and we must optimise that investment. Technologies old and new can help us to make better use of our roads network. They include variable speed limits on, for example, sections of the M5, variable message signs to guide motorists away from congested areas, and the dedicated bus lane on the M4 to Heathrow airport. Those are examples, and I readily accept that none of those options would tackle the problem that my hon. Friend has rightly identified— the difficulty with a bridge that opens, but does not always close, on the link to Sheppey.
  Some of the measures to which I have referred may also bring safety benefits, and we shall need to ensure that those are given proper priority. However, we need to be realistic about the benefits that the various options can bring. I hope that I have made it clear that I recognise their limitations in relation to the circumstances of the case that my hon. Friend has raised.
  The second option is managing demand, to which we must give serious consideration. Managing demand encompasses reducing the need to travel, by land use planning—for example, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged—and, inevitably, the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms. At a local level, many local authorities are exploring, by means of integrated transport packages, how to combine those measures so that mobility is maintained, but the adverse environmental consequences of that mobility are reduced.
  The third option is providing new infrastructure. The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing, but all major new construction is under review. Providing new infrastructure is a difficult option, financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we shall not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative; even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
  There is no substitute for a rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. The second volume of the roads review consultation document, which we published last year, sets out, region by region, the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme inherited from our predecessors. We are carefully examining all the responses, and we expect to publish the outcome of the review later this year.
  The existence of a scheme in the inherited programme is seen as prima facie evidence that there is a transport problem. We sought from our regional consultations a view on whether those are the most important problems or whether others deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from this part of the review: first, a firm short-term investment programme and, secondly,

  1481
  a programme of studies to consider the remaining problems out of which the medium and long-term investment programmes will emerge.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, the A249 trunk road provides the only road link between the Kent mainland and the Isle of Sheppey, with its important deep-water port at Sheerness. The single-carriageway road is heavily trafficked, and the Swale has to be crossed on the lifting road-rail Kingsferry bridge, which is raised to shipping several times a day. Long queues often form, and traffic can be delayed, which is of considerable concern for a variety of reasons. Individuals are inconvenienced and, as my hon. Friend has suggested, investors may be deterred from investing because of concern about congestion. The emergency services and the region's national health trust, whose nearest accident and emergency hospital is located off the isle, are also concerned.
  The prospects for Sheppey's commercial and industrial development are significantly hampered by the current poor access arrangements for the isle. The Government recognise that.
  The second Swale crossing scheme has been proposed to improve the reliability of access to and from the isle for the benefit of local residents and businesses, and to provide a second emergency access. The scheme would provide a fixed-bridge crossing with a 29 m clearance for shipping. It would improve a 5 km section of the trunk road route up to Queenborough. I note that implementing the scheme would complete the programme of improvements from the M2 to the port of Sheerness. My hon. Friend rightly said that the rest of the programme had been put in place, but that that crucial element had been left behind by the previous Government.
  The Swale and surrounding areas are recognised nationally and internationally as important sites for birds and their habitats. My hon. Friend has rightly and fairly mentioned the potential environmental difficulties that might arise from the proposed scheme. Great care will need to be taken to minimise the impact of the scheme on these important ecological sites. The project will allow intended developments such as the Thames gateway project to help to generate employment, enhancing the commercial prospects of the isle. The cost of the scheme
  1482
  is estimated at £79 million, which includes the cost of preparing and supervising the project, but excludes value added tax.
  The Government office for the south east held three day-long seminars last autumn as part of our consultation process on integrated transport. A seminar in Ashford on 14 October considered transport corridors in the east of the region, including links with Sheppey.
  Strong representations were made in support of the second Swale crossing scheme, and there was a clear consensus among delegates that the scheme should be given high priority. That view has also been strongly reflected in the written contributions that we have received about the scheme. My hon. Friend has been diligent in pressing the case for the scheme, and has been in regular correspondence with my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, who is responsible for roads policy within the Department.
  I recognise the importance of a second Swale crossing scheme for the local community, and I take this opportunity to assure my hon. Friend that we shall be taking all these views, as well as the points that he and others have made, fully into account in the current review.
  Developing a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society is a huge challenge. Through the work now under way on trunk roads, we want to achieve a robust short-term programme and a system for planning future investment in the road network—whether by measures to make better use of the existing network, or by providing new infrastructure—that is fair and seen to be fair, and which addresses transport problems squarely in the context of an integrated strategy.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these important transport issues to the attention of the House. I know that he has been consistent in his advocacy of the proposed second Swale crossing, and I am sure that he will continue to press the case for this project in the months ahead. However, I am sure that he will also appreciate that, until we have completed our review, we cannot say what conclusions we shall reach on the proposed Swale crossing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Travelcards
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the future of London Transport travelcards, with particular reference to full-time students; and if he will make a statement. [35522]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government have received a number of representations about the future of the London Transport Travelcard, including some from the University of London Union, which were specifically about discount schemes for full-time students. I understand that a recent trial revealed that, while a discount scheme would be workable, it would only be partly self-funding. In the light of this, London Transport (LT) were not sufficiently persuaded of the benefits to proceed.

  Fares and ticketing, including student tickets, are the statutory responsibility of London Transport. On 4 January 1998, LT introduced a new ticket, providing a 30% discount for all 16 and 17 year olds on period LT cards, which can be used on Underground, LT Buses and Docklands Light Railway services.

  Railway Maintenance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what safety procedures are required during railway line maintenance; and what measures are taken to ensure that they are enforced. [35540]

  Dr. Strang
  All those involved in the maintenance of the railway throughout Great Britain must comply with their obligations under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994 and the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994. Work on Railtrack's network must comply with the requirements of their Rule Book and the Railway Standards (the provisions of which are mandatory on Railtrack PLC and its contractors by virtue of Railtrack's Railway Safety Case and related contractual arrangements).

  Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate are responsible for enforcing legal requirements relating to health and safety on the railways, including the detailed requirements of the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994.

  Road Traffic (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of future growth in road traffic within the Greater London area. [36583]
  594
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Forecasts using the Department's strategic multi-modal transport model, known as "LTS", suggest that traffic volumes in the peak periods will be around 15% higher by 2011 within the Greater London area. For the inter-peak period, traffic is estimated to grow by 20%. These forecasts take no account of policies that will follow the Government's forthcoming White Paper on Integrated Transport.

  A3, Hindhead
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding traffic congestion on the A3 at Hindhead; and if he will make a statement. [36579]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  During the course of the Government's Roads Review consultation, we received over 60 written responses about Hindhead issues. I also responded to an adjournment debate on 19 January 1998 about the A3 at Hindhead and two Parliamentary Questions on the same subject.

  The Government's strategic review into highway improvement schemes presently taking place is aimed at determining the role which roads will play in an integrated transport policy, and developing a strategy which will address the problems of congestion and pollution and improve the environment in which we live. The conclusions of the review will be announced later this year.

  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cars pass through the single carriageway stretch of the A3 at Hindhead per day, in each direction. [36577]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Michael Mates, dated 2 April 1998:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson has asked me to reply to your recent question about the A3 at Hindhead.
  Recent traffic flow figures recorded at the A3/A287 signal controlled junction in Hindhead show that over an average week day about 13,600 vehicles travelled on the northbound approach to the junction and about 12,800 on the southbound approach.
  The Highways Agency is aware of the problems in Hindhead, particularly on the approaches to the signal controlled junction between the A3 and A287. For the short term we are actively seeking ways of improving the performance of the signals in conjunction with Surrey County Council and the Transport Research Laboratory, with the aim of increasing flows through the junction.

  Planning Applications (Crown Land)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the(a) benefits and (b) disadvantages of giving local planning authorities the power to determine planning applications on Crown land when the land for development (i) is in the Green Belt, (ii) is in a designated area of outstanding natural beauty and (iii) would conflict with policies in adopted structure or local plans; and if he will make a statement. [37029]
  595
  Mr. Raynsford
  This Government believe that it is usually most appropriate for local planning authorities to determine planning applications, whether such applications come from the Crown or from any other body. That is why we shall remove the Crown's immunity from statutory planning controls as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  In the mean time, the Secretary of State, when determining disputes which arise when a local planning authority objects to a notice of proposed development issued by a Crown body in accordance with the provisions of DOE Circular 18/84, will continue to have regard to the adopted local plan, and such other matters as the need to protect the green belt and other areas of outstanding natural beauty. Applications for planning permission under s299 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which the Crown may be required to make to local planning authorities will continue to be determined in the usual way.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Northern Ireland will be included within the remit of his Department's research project into how driving instructors are(a) trained and (b) tested. [36813]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The operation of the register of Approved Driving Instructors in Northern Ireland has not been included in terms of the research project we have recently commissioned. However, the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency will, I understand, look closely at whether the study's findings could be applied in Northern Ireland. The research project will be completed in 2000.

  Agenda 21
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which have produced local Agenda 21 strategies. [37214]

  Angela Eagle
  We have been working closely with the Local Government Association (LGA) to encourage all local authorities in England to produce and review their Local Agenda 21 strategies by 2000 to meet the Prime Minister's target. When launching in January with the Prime Minister, the joint document showing why and how to produce such strategies, the Chairman of the LGA asked all authorities to send him a copy of their first or revised strategy by 15 December 2000. We believe it is right for the LGA rather than central Government to take the lead in monitoring the production of such strategies and encouraging the sharing of good practice.

  Waste Disposal
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what communications his Department has had with Cheshire County Council about the future of 3C Waste. [37080]

  Angela Eagle
  My department has had no recent correspondence with Cheshire about their Local Authority Waste Disposal Company (LAWDC) 3C Waste. Cheshire completed divestment of their waste disposal facilities and functions to 3C on 1 February 1993. 3C is still 100 per cent. owned by the County Council but I596
  understand that they are considering transferring it to private sector ownership. This is entirely compatible with current legislation.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what communications his Department has had with Cheshire County Council about local waste disposal policy. [37082]

  Angela Eagle
  Officials in my department commented on Cheshire's draft Waste Local Plan in November last year. It appeared to conform with the most recent statement of Government policy on waste management, the 1995 White Paper Making Waste Work. The Council are now considering these and others' comments. I understand that the Deposit Waste Local Plan will be published later this year. A six week public consultation period and a public local inquiry chaired by a independent inspector will follow as normal.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy towards(a) incineration, (b) landraising and (c) landfill, as a method of waste disposal. [37083]

  Angela Eagle
  This Government are aiming for more sustainable waste management with high standards of environmental protection. Incineration with energy recovery is, in principle, and in accordance with the waste management hierarchy, preferable to landfilling (including landraising). However, which option is employed for a particular waste stream and in a particular area depends on the Best Practicable Environmental Option.

  On 13 January 1998, Official Report, column 160, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced a review of sustainable waste management policies which will culminate in a statutory waste strategy. A consultation paper will be issued in May.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what communications his Department has had with North West local authorities about options for future waste disposal in the Mersey Belt; and if he will make a statement. [37084]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government Office for the North West have asked local authorities through the North West Regional Association (Regional Planning Conference) to provide a report on the facilities for the disposal of waste in the North West Region. According to RPG13, the region should seek to provide a network of waste management facilities located, wherever possible, in close proximity to the source of the arisings and that these should be identified in Development Plans. The NWRA are preparing the report and will forward it to the Regional Office in due course.

  In addition, officials from the Government Office for the North West regularly attend Local Authority Recycling Officers forums and the North West Central Region recycling forum, to discuss waste and recycling issues with officers from all of the authorities in the area.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what health and safety regulations apply to landfill sites. [37151]
  597
  Angela Eagle
  Health and safety regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 generally apply to landfill sites where there is employment. Regulations place duties on employers, the self-employed, and others, in relation to the management of health and safety and risks arising from, for example machinery, processes and work activities. The application of specific regulations made under that Act will depend on the nature of the work activity.

  In addition, the following legislation, which has some health and safety impact, may also apply: the Environment Protection Act 1990; the Fire Precautions Act 1971; and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, if pesticides are used.

  Drinking Water Quality
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 13 February 1998,Official Report, column 419, concerning lead in water, what steps he will take to encourage the removal of potential lead contamination stemming from the pipework within a property. [37228]

  Angela Eagle
  Lead pipework within a house is the responsibility of the owner. We want to be able to take informed decisions on whether they need to replace their lead pipes and on what other action they can take to reduce exposure to lead.

  Unroadworthy Vehicles
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives are being pursued to reduce the number of vehicles that are not legally roadworthy used on Welsh roads. [37055]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are two main elements to the enforcement of vehicle roadworthiness in Wales, as in the rest of Great Britain. Almost all vehicles are required to pass an annual roadworthiness test to confirm that key safety and environmental standards are met. Vehicles are also subject to random enforcement checks by examiners from the Department's Vehicle Inspectorate and the police. The Inspectorate prohibits the use of vehicles found not to comply with construction and use or lighting requirements until the defects have been rectified (almost 15 per cent. of vehicles checked during 1996–97 in the South Wales Area were given prohibitions). The police assist the Inspectorate but also carry out enforcement under their own initiatives.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what instruction or guidance his Department has given to the Housing Corporation on the attribution by housing associations of service charges to(a) tenants in service accommodation and (b) other tenants. [37115]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]: Under Section 36(3) of the Housing Act 1996, draft guidance prepared by the Housing Corporation on the management of housing accommodation by registered social landlords (mostly housing associations) is approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions before being
  598
  issued by the Corporation. Under Section 36(2) of the Act, guidance may include the principles upon which rents should be determined.

  Following consultation, my right hon. Friend approved management guidance issued by the Housing Corporation in December 1997 which included guidance on rents and service charges. This advises registered social landlords that they should endeavour to charge rents that are below equivalent market rent levels, are affordable to those in low paid employment and that do not increase each year by more than the guideline limit of the increase in the Retail Price Index plus 1 per cent.

  I have asked the Housing Corporation to contact the hon. Member to answer any specific concerns about service charges.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets he proposes to set for the Planning Inspectorate Agency for the financial year 1998–99. [37604]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have today set new performance targets for the Planning Inspectorate Agency under which it will be expected to achieve significantly improved handling times for its work whilst preserving the impartiality and quality for which it is deservedly highly respected, and whilst seeking also to improve efficiency. The targets are as follows:

  Timeliness

  (a) 80% of all planning appeals decided by written representations to be determined in 18 weeks;

  (b) 80% of all planning appeals decided by hearings to be determined in 24 weeks;

  (c) 80% of all planning appeals decided by inquiries to be determined in 36 weeks;

  (d) to provide an Inspector for local plan inquiries in at least 80% of cases on the date requested by a local authority provided that the objection period has ended and at least 6 months' notice has been given;

  (e) to deliver 90% of Inspectors' reports on local plan inquiries to local authorities according to timescales agreed under service agreements.

  Financial

  (a) Unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £839;

  (b) recover 80% of receipts due within 8 weeks of invoice date.

  Efficiency
  Generate a 3% efficiency improvement in the use of running costs compared with 1997–98.

  Quality
  To satisfy the Advisory Panel on Standards, and thus the Secretaries of State, annually and following rigorous monitoring that the quality of the Inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard, with 99% of its casework free from justified complaint.

  Information and Guidance
  To carry out a customer survey of public satisfaction with the Inspectorate's handling of planning appeals dealt with by the written representations procedure.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will publish policy guidance on policy appraisal and the environment. [37719]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are determined to ensure that environmental issues are considered in the development of all Government policies to deliver an improved and lasting quality of life. Today, we publish new guidance to remind policy makers when and how to consider potential environmental impacts as part of the appraisal of specific policies and programmes. The guidance reminds staff of the need to incorporate environmental considerations into policy appraisals where the impact on the environment might be significant, and to set out the steps that ought to be taken in doing so.

  I am placing copies of the guidance in the Library.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which projects, not related to the year 2000 compliance problem, are being(a) restricted and (b) terminated in order to free information technology resources. [37484]

  Angela Eagle
  For DETR Central, priority projects have been identified, including existing commitments for projects already under-way and provision for Y2000 compliance work. Other projects require further work before needing an allocation of resources, but we may be able to accommodate these in the IT Investment Programme later in the year. At this early stage in the year, no projects have been specifically restricted or terminated. The IT investment programmes in the Department's Agencies are also in this position.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what health consequences, expressed in terms of numbers of mesotheliomas or lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers per million persons exposed, are assumed to result from occupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos at airborne fibre concentrations of (i) 0.6, (ii) 0.5 and (iii) 0.3 fibres/millilitre for 40 hours per working week for 20 years; and if he will make a statement; [36744]

  (2) what health consequences, expressed in terms of numbers of mesotheliomas or lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers per million persons exposed, are assumed to result from environmental exposure to chrysotile asbestos at airborne fibre concentrations of (i) 0.01, (ii) 0.001 and (iii) 0.0001 fibres/millilitre for 140 hours per week for (a) 10, (b) 20 and (c) 40 years; and if he will make a statement. [36745]

  Angela Eagle
  Whilst the risks to health of white asbestos are scientifically established, there is considerable quantitative uncertainty about the health consequences of exposure to chrysotile asbestos. This is illustrated by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) estimates shown in the following tables, based on two key occupational cohorts: the Quebec chrysotile mines, and 600
  an asbestos textile plant in Carolina. The estimates are extrapolated from observations made at very much higher exposure levels.

  Average lifetime risk of lung cancer per million men exposed to chrysotile

  Duration of exposure (years)

  Cohort study used to estimate risk

  Exposure scenario

  Textiles

  Mining

  Per week

  10.00

  500.00

  25.00

  140 hours per week at 0.01 f/ml

  20.00

  1,000.00

  50.00

  at 0.01 f/ml

  40.00

  1,750.00

  90.00

  40 hours per week at 0.6 f/ml

  20.00

  17,500.00

  850.00

  Average lifetime risk of mesothelioma per million men exposed to chrysotile

  Duration of exposure (years)

  Cohort study used to estimate risk

  Exposure scenario

  Textiles

  Mining

  Per week

  10.00

  35.00

  6.00

  140 hours per week at 0.01 f/ml

  20.00

  55.00

  8.00

  at 0.01 f/ml

  40.00

  60.00

  9.00

  40 hours per week at 0.6 f/ml at 0.6 f/ml

  20.00

  900.00

  125.00

  The risks are average estimates from working populations with a mixture of smokers and non-smokers. Smoking does not affect the risks for mesothelioma but smokers are estimated to have a 50 per cent. higher risk of lung cancer than shown in the table and non-smokers a risk about ten times lower. Based on past smoking patterns, women's average risk will be about half the average male risk.

  Risks at exposure concentrations other than those shown can be estimated pro-rata, although this may be an overestimate at very low exposures.

  The environmental risk from asbestos has been examined in a report commissioned by Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions from the Medical Research Council's Institute for Environmental Health—'Fibrous Materials in the Environment'. The report identifies background ambient levels of respirable asbestos fibres may range from 0.000001 to 0.0001 f/ml. Most indoor air concentrations of asbestos are below 0.0002 f/ml which rises to around 0.0005 f/ml in buildings which contain asbestos in good condition. At these low levels of exposure, there is no significant risk of mesothelioma or lung cancer. Cigarette smoking remains the major cause of cancer.

  I am pleased that Health and Safety Commission (HSC) will be issuing a consultative document on asbestos within the next four weeks proposing a wide range of additional legislation to protect workers. The current occupational exposure control limit for chrysotile is 0.5 f/ml (averaged over any continuous four hour period) and HSC propose

  601
  to lower this limit to 0.3 f/ml and to impose duties on employers to ensure that exposure is controlled as far below this level as is reasonably practicable.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account the decision not to implement a total ban on the importation and use, or re-use, of chrysotile asbestos took of the relative risks to health associated with chrysotile asbestos and possible substitutes; and if he will make a statement. [36746]

  Angela Eagle
  The decision of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) to delay consultation on further restrictions on the use of chrysotile asbestos was taken in the light of an interim opinion by a European Commission Scientific Committee. This Committee concluded that insufficient evidence had been provided to justify a conclusion that substitute fibres are safer than chrysotile. The Government's resolve to pursue further necessary restrictions on chrysotile asbestos remains. HSC is expediting the presentation of further scientific justification for the use of substitutes to the European Commission.

  IT Staff
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the current shortfall in established information technology staff, consultant and contractor support posts within his Department; and if he will list the posts by grade indicating for each post how long it has been vacant and when it is expected to be filled. [37485]

  Angela Eagle
  For DETR Central, there are currently no IT posts which are unfilled, this is primarily because the merger of DOE and DOT has enabled some economies of scale in IT staff.

  Most of the work involved in the development of new information systems is undertaken by commissioning IT consultancy services. We are beginning to see some signs of the industry having some difficulty in responding to the demand.

  The Department's Agencies report two vacancies in total. The Vehicle Inspectorate have had one Executive Officer (EO) vacancy for three months which will be filled in May. The Planning Inspectorate have had one EO vacancy for two months which will be filled in June.

  Special Waste Regulations
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the Special Waste Regulations 1996. [37720]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Special Waste Regulations, which came into force on 1 September 1996, implement the EC Hazardous Waste Directive (91/689/EEC) which covers the most difficult and dangerous wastes. The Regulations provide for movements of hazardous ("special") waste to be pre-notified to the Environment Agencies and to be tracked through a system of consignment notes.

  With some 18 months having elapsed since these Regulations came into force, it is clear that some fine-tuning is desirable, in the light of operational experience by the Environment Agencies and of representations from industry. My Department, the
  602
  Scottish Office and the Welsh Office have therefore today issued a public consultation paper proposing a number of changes to the Regulations. These include certain relaxations to the procedures under which multiple loads can be moved for a single fee, designed to assist small businesses, including those involved in recycling lead acid batteries; minor changes to the format of the consignment note to assist monitoring and enforcement; and technical changes to ensure that island communities are not penalised by the fees system.

  We are also proposing a small number of adjustments to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1056, as amended) aimed at encouraging the recovery/recycling of waste, particularly waste affected by the revised definition of 'Special waste' contained in the 1996 Special Waste Regulations.

  I have placed copies of the consultation paper and association draft Regulatory Appraisal in the libraries of both Houses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport Governing Bodies
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, by individual governing body, the grant-in-aid made available by the Great Britain Sports Council to governing bodies of sport for the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. [34265]

  Mr. Banks
  Information on funding for governing bodies, paid by the then GB Sports Council in 1994–95 and 1995–96 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Similar information for 1992–93 and 1993–94 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, information on funding by sport for these years has also been placed in the House Libraries.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the budgeted figure for expenditure under acceptances of works of art as property in lieu of inheritance tax for(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [36773]

  Mr. Fisher
  Under the arrangements announced in the Spring Budget, no acceptances in lieu will in future require expenditure by the Department. Instead, the Revenue will forgo taxes without seeking reimbursement from the Secretary of State.

  At present we are aware of about £52 million of offers which are fairly advanced in the pipeline. However, the level of acceptances depends on whether offering estates wish to maintain that offer, whether Ministers agree to acceptance and whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue accept the offered property in lieu of the capital taxes applying. Therefore this figure can be only a very broad approximation and it is difficult to give a reliable estimate of how amounts might fall into any single financial year.

  Performing Arts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the contribution of the performing arts to inward tourism into the United Kingdom. [36852]

  Mr. Fisher
  The performing arts in the United Kingdom are of outstanding quality, and are undoubtedly an important incentive for overseas visitors to visit the United Kingdom. In a recent survey of overseas leisure visitors to Britain, 18 per cent. of those sampled cited the performing arts as a stimulus to visit.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made towards achieving equality of opportunity in the Civil Service. [37893]

  Dr. David Clark
  I have today published two reports on equal opportunities in the Civil Service:Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service—A Progress Report 1995–97 and Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service. Data Summary 1997. Copies of both reports have been placed in the libraries of the House and will be made available on the Internet.

  Against a background of falling Civil Service numbers, progress continues to be made in this important area. For example, at HEO level, the representation of women has increased to nearly 30 per cent., from 28 per cent. in 1996; ethnic minority representation at first management level, Executive Officer, has risen to 4.8 per cent. from 4.4 per cent. in 1996; and the proportion of staff with disabilities now stands at 3.8 per cent.

  However, the reports counsel against complacency. They show that women are still under-represented at middle and senior management levels. Ethnic minority and disabled staff are still predominately concentrated in junior grades.

  To help increase the representation of these groups at all levels in the Service, the Progress Report recommends that Departments and Agencies concentrate on the following key areas: organisational commitment; action plans; monitoring and mainstreaming.

DEFENCE

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce ethnic monitoring in the reserve forces. [38100]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department is fully committed to promoting within the Armed Forces an environment which is free from harassment and racial discrimination. As part of our efforts to further that commitment, we have decided to begin monitoring the ethnic origin of members of the reserve forces. Monitoring began on 1 April, and will cover all those who are in service, and all those who join the reserve forces in future. Altogether, we expect 604
  around 68,000 members of the reserve forces to be included in the survey. The Services are writing to units and individuals to invite them to take a full part in it.

  The initiative we are taking underlines the commitment that the Armed Forces have made to ensure equal opportunities irrespective of race. The methodology we shall follow for monitoring the reserves is based closely on that which is already in use for the regular Armed Forces. The statistical information derived from monitoring will allow the reserve force managers to analyse recruitment, wastage and other trends; and it will enable them to develop and pursue policies which ensure that racial discrimination of any kind is eradicated from the reserves.

  The reserve forces involved are principally those which recruit directly from civilian life. Specifically they are: the Royal Naval Reserve; the Royal Marines Reserve; the Territorial Army; the Royal Auxiliary Air Force; the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (Training); the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (University Air Squadron); and volunteers to the Royal Air Force Reserve.

  Because our reserves are recruited locally, and because many of them serve part time, we do not expect the first statistics from the survey to be available until towards the end of this year. Thereafter, the information will be available quarterly.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines exist for the monitoring of ethnic minority personnel in the armed forces; and what steps are in place to ensure that monitoring practices are continually updated. [36839]

  Dr. Reid
  On 25 March 1998, the MOD and Commission for Racial Equality signed a Partnership Agreement, which ensures that we shall continue to work together with them for a further five years to promote racial equality practices throughout the Services. Effective Ethnic monitoring is a key part of the Agreement to ensure that no policies or practices in the Services are racially discriminatory. We are determined that the quality of our ethnic monitoring of applicants, entrants and in-Service personnel continues to be improved. As well as looking at current and future analysis for emerging trends, and ensuring that sufficient resources are put into making any necessary changes, we will be looking more closely at areas such as performance across all ethnic groups and career progression as more information becomes available.

  A copy of the relevant extracts have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for the Chief Executive of the Army Technical Support Agency for 1998–99. [38102]

  Dr. Reid
  The Chief Executive of the Army Technical Support Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 1998–99.

  1. To influence equipment design by obtaining formal tasking from Project Managers/Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) Managers in influencing equipment design in at least 80% of appropriate ILS projects.

  605

  2. To recommend a 10% gross cost saving in Advanced Order Spares purchasing for appropriate non-ILS projects without reducing the equipment sustainability or availability.

  3. To provide a complete and accurate answer to 92% of ad hoc inquiries within 2 working days.

  4. To dispatch new and reprinted technical publications within the period from receipt of demand as follows:

  a. For priority demands, 90% within 5 working days.

  b. For routine demands, 90% within 24 working days.

  5. To complete 90% of Operational projects and 75% of Priority A projects before the agreed target date.

  6. To satisfy 90% of customers when undertaking technical projects.

  7. To provide a considered response to 90% of Equipment Failure Report (or equivalent) submissions within 10 working days from receipt.

  Cadet Forces
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average(a) numbers of pupils involved in and (b) cost of the Combined Cadet Force per school in the last year for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the percentage of a year's intake which goes on to join the regular forces. [36695]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: In FY 1996–97, 241 schools had contingents of the Combined Cadet Forces established within their premises, with 39,716 pupils who were cadets. Producing an average CCF pupil to school ratio could, however, be misleading since the size of individual contingents varies significantly.

  In the same period, the Ministry of Defence allocated £6.2M to these schools in support of the Combined Cadet Forces. I regret that my Department keeps no separate records detailing the overall costs attributable to individual schools. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Whilst my Department sets no annual recruiting targets for schools, the percentage of officer entrants into the Regular Forces during FY 1996/97, who had previously been members of the Combined Cadet Forces, were: Royal Navy 26.03%, Army 49%, Royal Air Force 26.45%. From a total intake of 18,737 ratings/soldiers/ airmen into the Regular Forces in FY 1996/97, 280 had former service in the CCF.

  Trident
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what legal advice he has obtained on whether the UK would be in contravention of the Non- Proliferation Treaty if it were to replace or upgrade Trident warheads; [36586]

  (2) if he has sought legal advice on whether the UK would be in contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty if it were to replace or upgrade Trident warheads. [36585]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There is nothing in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to prevent the recognised nuclear powers taking steps to ensure the effectiveness of their nuclear forces. The UK has, however, no current requirement or plans for any upgrade or improvement to the Trident warhead or missile.

  Guardsmen Wright and Fisher
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Mark Wright and James Fisher, currently serving life imprisonment(a) have been dismissed from the British Army and (b) receive wages or other payments from the British Army; and whether his Department has provided transport assistance to their families travelling to visit them in prison. [37239]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]: Guardsmen Fisher and Wright have not been dismissed from the Army. They are not, however, entitled to any pay during the term of their imprisonment. The families of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright have their flights to Northern Ireland paid for by the Scots Guards own charitable funds but the Department does provide transport to and from the Maghaberry Prison.

  Pesticides (Mental Health)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what action he is taking to assess the work of Ron Davies of Rydon House acute psychiatric unit in Taunton, on the effects on mental health of exposure to pesticides. [36811]

  Dr. Reid
  I have instructed my officials to assess the implications of the work of Dr. Davies when it is published in an appropriately peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal. We have not yet seen the results of his research and continue to await publication with interest.

  Dartmoor Ranges
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the figures contained in his letter of 20 March to the hon. Member for Totnes, relating to live firing on Dartmoor ranges. [37065]

  Mr. Spellar
  The advertised and actual number of days on which Army firing took place on the range areas of Dartmoor Training Areas for the year ending 31 December was as follows:

  Range

  Advertised

  Actual

  Okehampton

  81

  44

  Willsworthy

  129

  85

  Mervivale

  148

  98

  British Beef
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries from which the supply of(a) beef and (b) sheepmeat were sourced for each year that the NAAFI held the Ministry of Defence's public-funded messing contract. [28348]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 February 1998, c. 67]: I regret the answer given was incorrect because some information is held by NAAFI although not by individual years. They have advised that approximately 30 per cent. of beef by volume was sourced from the UK with some 70 per cent. from overseas mainly from Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, New Zealand and Australia. All lamb was sourced from overseas with approximately 70 per cent. of volume coming from New Zealand.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Freemasonry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will introduce the rules for disclosure of Masonic membership of persons involved in the criminal justice administration of England and Wales proposed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Northern Ireland criminal justice administration; and if she will introduce similar rules relating to membership of the (i) Orange Order and (ii) other similar organisations. [31621]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 27 February 1998]: I shall give very careful consideration as to the applicability to Northern Ireland of the recommendations in the Home Affairs Select Committee's report, "Freemasonry in the Police and Judiciary".

  Belfast International Airport
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will investigate the reasons why written terms of reference were not provided to the valuers for the privatisation valuation assignment on Belfast International Airport. [37162]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The sale of Belfast International Airport was the subject of a Public Accounts Committee hearing in December 1997. Matters relating to the valuation of Belfast International Airport were addressed at that hearing. The Government cannot comment on the sale until the Committee has reported.

  Mobile Phones
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will restrict the number of mobile phone base stations that can be mounted on one(a) mast, (b) building and (c) other structures. [37098]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No. There are no plans to use planning controls to restrict the number of base stations in this way. The sharing of masts etc., reduces the overall numbers required, and their impact on the environment.

  Security Measures
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals she has for changes in security measures, including emergency legislation, following a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. [37667]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  A sub-committee of the multi-party talks discussed the desire for a return to normality in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. The Government laid before the Parties a paper which set out our determination to return Northern Ireland to a situation where the police can resume normal policing duties, the Army can return to barracks and the need for emergency legislation is removed.

  Others have a part to play in ensuring all in Northern Ireland can live in peace without fear of threat or violence from paramilitary groups. The Government are keen to reduce the impact of security but not until it is safe to do so. A copy of the paper, entitled "Responding to a
  608
  changing security situation—the Government's Approach" has now been placed in the Library of the House.

  Handguns
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for reforming the firearms legislation in Northern Ireland for the control of handguns. [37889]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have recently concluded a review of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 which was instigated by the previous Government in November 1995.

  The purpose of the review was to take a fresh look at the law to see whether it was relevant, effective and proportionate to today's conditions. It has been a wide-ranging examination with no topic excluded. The principal objectives were to maintain rigorous safety standards and sustain public confidence in the authorities' ability to enforce the law effectively while recognising the reasonable expectations of the responsible shooting community and firearms trade. I believe that the proposals for legislative reform which I am publishing today for wider consultation will meet those objectives. Copies of the Consultation Paper have been made available in the libraries of both Houses.

  On the particular issue of handgun controls, I have studied carefully the various recommendations made by Lord Cullen in his report into the terrible events at Dunblane, published in 1996. Although his Tribunal did not inquire into the control of firearms in Northern Ireland, it was only right that I should consider whether his Report contained any important lessons for the Province. I believe it does and my findings are explained at length in the Consultation Paper.

  After much thought, I am not persuaded of the need to prohibit the possession and use of target handguns in Northern Ireland. Nor do I believe it would be appropriate to prohibit the possession of handguns licensed by the Chief Constable, for the personal protection of those individuals under threat of attack and their families. I realise that my decision may disappoint some people who feel strongly, as do I, about firearms control and safeguarding the public. But I would ask them and others to consider carefully the far-reaching proposals for improving firearms safety and making the law more effective which I am publishing today, and let me have their views thereon.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Family Law Act
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to implement Part II of the Family Law Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [37939]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government remain committed to implementing Part II of The Family Law Act 1996. A very extensive series of pilots testing a number of different models of information meetings will operate until at least March 1999. It would be wrong to anticipate
  609
  the results of these pilots. Given the timetable for the pilots, and the inevitable time that will be needed to establish a comprehensive system once a preferred model of information meeting is decided upon, it would be safe to assume that the Lord Chancellor will be unable to implement Part II until at least the end of 1999 or even early in the year 2000.

  Judgments (Enforcement)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the impact of measures set out in COM (97) 609 on domestic law. [37002]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Commission's document COM (97) 609 contributes to work being carried on in the Council to make it easier for individuals and companies to enforce any Member State's civil judgments in any other Member State. The Government broadly support the principles underlying the Commission's proposed measures in part 1 of its document. If implemented, they would necessitate changes to the Brussels Convention of 1968 and the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. Part 2 of the communication is intended to prompt debate on wider questions relating to the enforcement of judgments in the European Union, but it contains no legislative proposals. The Government will be submitting their comments before the 30 April deadline.

  County Courts
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which county courts are under review for closure. [36594]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has agreed to public consultation on the proposed closure of Camborne and Redruth, Evesham, Hemel Hempstead, Poole and Shrewsbury county courts. Following public consultation I and the Lord Chancellor are currently considering whether to approve the closure of Holywell and Rochdale county courts. Managers in the Court Service are constantly reviewing the viability of the court network in the light of changing business needs and workload trends. Other courts may therefore be proposed for closure in the future.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those county towns in England which do not have county courts. [36595]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following county administrative centres do not have a county court within the town: Matlock, Dorchester and Northallerton.

SCOTLAND

  Hospitals
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds will be provided following the redevelopments at(a) Law Hospital and (b) Hairmyres Hospital. [36728]
  610
  Mr. Galbraith
  Law Hospital will have 613 in-patient beds (of which 336 will be acute beds) and 56 places for day surgery. Hairmyres Hospital will have 364 in-patient beds (all acute) plus 52 day surgery places.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the increase in travel time from East Kilbride to hospital in the case of an obstetric emergency following the transfer of services from Bellshill Hospital to Law Hospital. [36719]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The increased time requirement for emergency travel is estimated to be between 2–5 minutes on average. The Scottish Ambulance Service have also agreed that rapid access to specialist medical cover will be available 24 hours a day if emergencies arise.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of refurbishing and redeveloping(a) Law and (b) Hairmyres hospitals. [36727]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Neither hospital is suitable for refurbishment. The estimated construction costs for the new build Law and Hairmyres hospitals are £85 million and £67.5 million respectively.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about a potential increase in morbidity as a result of the relocation of obstetric services from Bellshill to Law Hospital. [36720]

  Mr. Galbraith
  None. However, Lanarkshire Health Board have received representations on this issue from individual obstetricians, paediatricians and midwives from Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust. The Board believe there is no reason to predict any increase in morbidity arising from the relocation of obstetric services.

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the limitations on the height of the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary as a result of discoveries during the surveying undertaken there; [36722]

  (2) if the site of the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary is undermined by old mine workings. [36724]

  Mr. Galbraith
  No limitations on the height of the new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh are required as a result of discoveries during surveying undertaken there. There is, however, a 3 storey height limit imposed upon the development by the planning authorities to protect sight lines from various vantage points around the site. The site of the new Royal Infirmary is not undermined by old mine workings.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the costs of building the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. [36726]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The New Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh is being provided through the Private Finance Initiative and it is estimated that the capital cost of the building at current prices is £188.5m.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the cost of the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary on primary health care funding in Edinburgh and the Lothians. [36723]
  611
  Mr. Galbraith
  The planned configuration of acute hospitals, including the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, in Edinburgh and the Lothians will result in an additional £10m per annum being invested in primary care and community services to improve the range and quality of services.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds are currently planned for the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. [36725]

  Mr. Galbraith
  869.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan; [36642]

  (2) on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [36660]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Departments in September last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". My right hon. Friend is considering its recommendations.

  Midwives
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many trusts and health boards in Scotland have implemented the recommendation by the Management Executive of the Scottish Office that midwives should be placed on a minimum of Grade F of the clinical grading structure. [37225]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Current NHS in Scotland Management Executive guidance issued as NHS MEL (1995) 81 requires that"where the nurse clinical grading structure is used and a midwife has a defined caseload of women to whom he/she gives the full range of midwifery care the grades 'F' or 'G' will normally be appropriate".

  It is for employers to determine the appropriate grading in the light of local circumstances.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that the grading of midwives in Scotland is in line with that in other parts of the United Kingdom. [37224]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Comparable guidance taking account of the Scottish perspective was issued in Scotland in 1995 as NHS MEL (1995) 81.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many midwives in Scotland are currently employed on Grade D of the clinical grading structure. [37226]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There were 6 qualified midwives employed in the NHS in Scotland on Grade D at 30 September 1997, the latest date for which information is available centrally.
  612

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the Review into Eye Transplantation and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; and if he will make a statement. [37895]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Sir William Stewart submitted his report to me and my hon. Friends the Health Ministers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland on 27 February. I am grateful to him for the hard work he and his team put into the Report and for the conclusions he reached. I have placed a copy of the Report in the Library.

  Sir William reviewed the circumstances surrounding the use for transplantation of eye tissue from a donor who was later found to have been suffering from the classic form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. His Report clearly sets out the facts surrounding the occurrence, and makes 18 recommendations covering both specific improvements which should be made to procedures and more general issues arising from the Review. The Government welcome the recommendations and are considering them.

  Scotland Bill
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he or his Ministers authorised a written briefing for the Press on the subject of the debates on the Scotland Bill in Committee on 30 March that was issued prior to those debates; and if he will place a copy of the briefing in the Library. [37505]

  Mr. McLeish
  I briefed the Parliamentary lobby correspondents on 30 March on the background to the debates expected to take place on the last two days of the Committee Stage of the Scotland Bill. I am placing a copy of the written briefing note in the Library.

  Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Crown Office was informed of a problem relating to the statutory basis for Intermediate Diets in Summary Criminal Procedure; and if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence between the Crown Office and offices of the Procurators Fiscal bearing on the case of Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow), 1998 SCCR:790. [37232]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: The Crown Office was informed of the problem when the opinion of the court in Vannet v. Milligan was delivered on 12 March 1998, although it became aware of the potential problem when the decision of the court in Mackay v. Ruxton was delivered.

  Communications between the Crown Office and Procurators Fiscal are confidential. However, on 19 November 1997, when the decision in Mackay v. Ruxton was announced, immediate steps were taken by the Crown to minimise any potential effect arising from it.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of cases affected by the decision in Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow) which have already been determined. [37235]
  613
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: On 19 November 1997, in the case of Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow) 1998 JC 51, the High Court of Justiciary held that in Scotland, the fixing of an intermediate diet when a summary trial was adjourned was not what Parliament intended. In the case of PF (Glasgow) v. Milligan, decided on 12 March 1998, the court held that a Sheriff had no power, at an "unintended" intermediate diet, to adjourn the trial diet and by implication discharge a trial diet already fixed, and that the instance fell if the case was not called on the date originally fixed.

  No cases are directly affected by the decision in Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow) but the Crown Office estimate that around 1,000 current cases are likely to be affected by the subsequent decision of the court in PF (Glasgow) v. Milligan, decided on 12 March 1998. Several thousand concluded cases may be involved as well. However, the precise number of cases which may be affected by the decision in PF (Glasgow) v. Milligan cannot be established without disproportionate costs.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of those cases affected by the decision in Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow) which have already been determined(a) are outside the time limit for appealing by way of Stated Case in terms of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 section 176 and (b) have been affected by undue delay as currently understood where a Bill of Suspension might otherwise be brought; and what action the Crown will take in response to any appeal in respect of those cases. [37236]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: No cases are directly affected by the decision in Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow) but it has been estimated that several thousand cases may be affected by the subsequent decision of the court in the case of PF (Glasgow) v. Milligan, decided on 12 March 1998.

  Any application for stated case must be lodged within seven days of the final determination of the case, although there is provision for the time limit to be extended by the High Court of Justiciary.

  There is no time limit for bringing an appeal by Bill of Suspension, although delay in doing so may result in the appeal being refused on the ground of acquiescence. There is some doubt however whether such delay would be a bar to the bringing of an appeal based on fundamental nullity of the proceedings.

  The Crown will consider the merits of any appeal brought.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many of those cases affected by the decision in Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow) convictions followed upon pleas of guilty. [37237]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: No cases are affected by the decision in Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow) but the Crown Office estimate that up to 1,000 current cases may be affected by the court's subsequent decision in the case of PF (Glasgow) v. Milligan, decided on 12 March 1998. Several thousand concluded cases may be involved as well. However, the precise number of cases which may be affected by the decision in PF (Glasgow) v. Milligan cannot be established without disproportionate
  614
  costs. Accordingly it has not been possible to establish how many of the affected cases involved convictions following upon pleas of guilty.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consequences of the judgments in Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow), 1998, SCCR:790 and PF (Glasgow) v. Milligan, unreported; and if he will list the categories of offence affected by the problem identified in these judgments. [37233]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: The judgments may affect any crime prosecuted on summary complaint, including: assault; sexual crimes; dishonesty; drugs offences; and driving offences including disqualified dangerous and drunk driving.

  The hon. Member will be aware that a Bill was introduced to the House yesterday in order to address the implications of the High Court's judgments.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of cases affected by the decision in Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow) which have not yet been determined in(a) the district courts and (b) the sheriff courts; what percentage involve (i) statutory offences and (ii) common law offences; and in respect of those involving statutory offences, in how many of them is the Crown time-barred from raising fresh complaints. [37234]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: No cases are directly affected by the decision in Mackay v. PF (Linlithgow) but the Crown Office estimate that up to 1,000 current cases may be affected by the court's subsequent decision in the case of PF (Glasgow) v. Milligan, unreported.

  It is not possible however to establish precise figures by reference to court or offence, without disproportionate costs.

  In some cases affected it may be possible for the Crown to bring fresh proceedings. The extent to which the Crown will do so may depend on any time-bar which applies to the individual charges. For the reason given, no figures are available for the number of cases in which the Crown would be time-barred from raising fresh complaints.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Glidewell report on the Crown Prosecution Service is to be published; what is the cost to the CPS of the retention of Crown Communications to represent that service; and if he will make a statement. [37710]

  The Attorney-General
  Sir Iain Glidewell was unable to finalise his report in March as he had hoped. He informs me that he has a small amount of further work to complete but finalisation will be dependent largely on the time taken to complete the necessary consultation.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has explored the use of suitable consultants to assist with internal communications as part of the change management associated with

  615
  implementation of those recommendations of the CPS Review Team which are accepted by the Government. Crown Business Communication Ltd. have been identified as the most suitable but no contract has yet been signed and there is no commitment to any specific expenditure. The extent and value of any work which that company may be asked to undertake will be dependent on decisions to be taken in the light of the report of the CPS review team once it is received.

  Prosecution Terminations
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidance is given to judges for dealing with applications to terminate prosecution cases on the basis that the lapse of time since the alleged offence was such that it would not be possible to have a fair trial. [36942]

  Mr. Hoon
  There has been no such guidance issued to judges.

TREASURY

  Gaming Duty
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was received by the Treasury from taxes and duties on the casino industry in the last year for which figures are available. [36826]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]: The level of revenue in 1997 from Gaming duty was £90 million. Separate figures are not available for other taxes such as VAT and Corporation tax.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the top rate of gaming duty is in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Belgium, (e) the Netherlands and (f) the Republic of Ireland. [36186]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 March 1998]: Gaming Duty is not levied in exactly the same way in each of these countries but information, taken mainly from the latest version of the "Inventory of Taxes levied in the Member States of the European Union" (16th Edition), shows that, at 1 January 1996, the situation was as follows:

  (a) In the United Kingdom, the highest current rate of gaming duty is 33; per cent.

  (b) In France, the takings of gambling clubs and houses are subject to a progressive rate on their annual takings. The rates are not specified, but previous information suggests that the top rate has been 80 per cent.

  (c) In Germany, bets on the results of horse and greyhound races, lotteries, bingo and similar games of chance and football pools are subject to a tax on the amount of the bets or prizes of 16; per cent. Separate information suggests that this has been supplemented by a special casino fee charged at up to 80 per cent. of gross gaming yield.

  (d) In Belgium, the maximum rate on the gross gaming yield is 40 per cent., except in the Flemish community where it is 44 per cent.

  (e) In the Netherlands, a duty of 33; per cent. is levied on all the gross gaming winnings of a casino.

  (f) Casinos are prohibited in the Republic of Ireland.

  Continence Products
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 671, concerning the VAT Tribunal and continence products, if he will list (a) the cases when VAT relief applied and (b) the cases where VAT relief did not apply. [37168]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: The VAT Tribunal in Molnlycke Ltd. examined four contracts. It decided that supplies of continence products under the contracts with Aylesbury Vale Community Health Care Trust and Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust for patients in their own homes were zero-rated. However, it ruled that supplies of those goods for residents under the contract with Westgate House Nursing Home and for the majority of patients of Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust were standard-rated.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 671, concerning the VAT Tribunal decision in respect of continence products, for what reasons he decided to reimpose VAT in each case where the tribunal had ruled that relief should apply. [37169]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: The VAT relief for continence products was used by several NHS Trusts, which entered into contractual arrangements with a third party to gain a tax advantage. As NHS Trusts are funded for the VAT they cannot recover, the tax advantage amounted to double funding. We therefore introduced a change of law to restore the status quo.

  Government Offices
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate a study on the transfer of Government offices from London. [35817]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: There are no plans for such a study. The Government's policy on relocation is not centrally directed. The respective departmental minister will need to evaluate each decision on its merits considering best value for money, operational efficiency, impact on local labour markets and available resources.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in estimating the cost to the Exchequer of the proposed children's tax credit, what was the assumed take-up rate. [36249]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him and the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 1 April 1998, Official Report, column 554.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of extra people who will be persuaded in each year to 2002 to move from dependency on out of work benefits into jobs by the changes in family credit/working families tax credit announced in the Budget. [36367]
  617
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: The Government expect that their programme of tax and benefit reform to make work pay will, like their New Deals, help people move off welfare and into work.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the value of working families tax credit which will be paid direct to non-employed mothers. [36391]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: No such estimate has been made. Couples will have the choice whether the Working Families Tax Credit is paid to the man or the woman.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the extra costs incurred in the introduction of the disabled person's tax credit. [36410]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: Additional annual costs are likely to be £7 million to £10 million by the years 2001/2002. These costs reflect the higher earnings thresholds and lower tapers of the Disabled Person's Tax Credit, as well as the expected increase in recipients.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there will be a childcare tax credit within the disabled person's tax credit. [36411]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: Yes.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the disability working allowance will cease to be paid. [36409]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: When it is replaced by the Disabled Person's Tax Credit in October 1999.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what level the disabled person's tax credit will be paid. [36414]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: The rates at which the Disabled Person's Tax Credit will be paid will be the same as for the Disability Working Allowance (DWA) which it will replace in October 1999. Where it differs is in having higher earnings thresholds of £70 for a single person and £90 for a couple, compared with £57.85 and £77.15 respectively in the DWA; a lower taper of 55 per cent. compared with 70 per cent. for the DWA; and in the childcare credit that replaces the present disregard, which will meet 70 per cent. of childcare costs up to £100 for families with one child and £150 for families with two or more children.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of disabled people expected to benefit from the new disabled person's tax credit. [36415]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: The Disabled Person's Tax Credit will benefit the 14,000 people currently receiving Disability Working Allowance. In addition, we would expect that the changes to the structure of the provision will cause the caseload to increase by a further 10 per cent. to 15 per cent.

  However, we would expect this and the New Deal for disabled people will enable many more sick and disabled people to move into work.
  618
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to introduce the disabled person's tax credit. [36413]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: October 1999.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the expenditure on the(a) working families tax credit, (b) childcare tax credit, (c) disabled persons' tax credit, and (d) other newly introduced tax credits in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01, (iv) 2001–02 and (v) 2002–03; and for each of these years, what is the related reduction in other social security expenditure as a consequence of the introduction of the new tax credits. [36451]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: Estimates of the net Exchequer cost of the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit were given in lines one and five of Table C.l of the Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC620). These estimates take account of the ending of Family Credit. The cost of the childcare tax credit within the WFTC was given in a reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 1 April 1998, Official Report, column 554.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the numbers of(a) new recipients of social security benefits and (b) new recipients of tax credits who were not previously claiming family credit in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01 and (iv) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [36376]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: Estimates of the caseload for the various Social Security benefits will appear in the Department of Social Security's departmental report on 7 April.

  The Government estimate that, in its first full year of operation (2000–01), about 400 thousand more families will be entitled to the Working Families Tax Credit that were entitled to Family Credit.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the additional net costs of the working families tax credit compared to family credit for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [36395]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The relevant factors are the higher withdrawal threshold, the lower taper, the increase in the child tax credits and the increase in the amount of support for childcare provided by the childcare tax credit.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update table 1.2 in the Red Book allowing for the Control Total for public spending to grow at 0.75 per cent. in real terms after 1998–99. [36449]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The information requested for the PSBR, the GGFD and the Current Balance—all based on the 1998 Budget—can be calculated from Section A of table B5 in the Financial Statement and Budget Report and the projections for money GDP contained in table Bl. The effects of Budget

  619
  measures and the effect of forecasting changes are unchanged by the assumption. Therefore, the PSBR in the 1997 Budget can be derived as the residual.

  Public Sector (Current Balance)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cyclically adjusted public sector current balance in cash terms for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01, (d) 2001–02 and (e) 2002–03. [36453]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The information requested can be calculated from the estimates of the cyclically adjusted public sector current balance as a percentage of GDP in table B6 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report and the projections of money GDP in table Bl.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan; [36669]

  (2) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan. [36654]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Departments in September last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". The Treasury is considering how to respond to its recommendations and is currently preparing draft green transport plans.

  Marginal Deduction Rates
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve work incentives by tackling high marginal deduction rates resulting from housing support mechanisms; and if he will make a statement. [36377]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The Budget tackled high marginal reduction rates faced by people receiving Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in two ways. First, it will change disregards so as to remove instances where people could be worse off if they increased their earnings. Second, the Working Families Tax Credit will mean that 50 thousand families will no longer face penal marginal rates as a result of being on both the WFTC taper and Housing Benefit taper. And all people on the Family Credit taper will find that their return from working increases by one half: half a million families will see the return from increase in their earnings rise by one-half.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the planned social security expenditure as a percentage of GDP in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, on the basis of (i) the pre-Budget estimates and (ii) the post Budget estimates, assuming that expenditure on the tax credits introduced in the Budget counts against social security spending; and if he will make a statement. [36394]
  620
  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: Total DSS expenditure in 1996–97 was equivalent to 12 per cent of GDP. Forecasts for DSS expenditure published in the recent Financial Statement and Budget Report for 1997–98 and 1998–99 show that this ratio is expected to fall to 11½ per cent. in both years. The effect on these figures of policies announced in the Budget is negligible.

  Spending plans for future years will be announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the percentage of the total revenue from the windfall tax which will be spent on the New Deal for the young unemployed over the period 1997 to 2002; and if he will make a statement. [36454]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The allocation of the revenue from the windfall tax is set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, March 1998 (House of Commons No 620). Table 3.1: Funding Welfare to Work indicates that, over the period 1997 to 2002, £2.62 billion is allocated to the New Deal for the young unemployed programme. This represents just over 50 per cent. of the £5.2 billion expected revenue from the windfall tax.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account has been taken of recent rulings outlawing the pre-authorisation of financial products by the EU in the Government's proposals for a voluntary benchmarking system of life insurance-based savings products within the ISA. [36800]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The prohibition in the Third Life Directive will not apply since the proposed benchmark standards will be voluntary and will not involve either prior approval or systematic notification of insurance ISAs before they can be marketed. The Treasury will issue a consultation document on benchmarking ISAs in the next few weeks.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the cost to the finance industry of new computer systems required to deal with the new ISA product from April 1999. [36776]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: As stated in Budget Press Release, Inland Revenue 2, published on 17 March, a compliance cost assessment will be published when draft regulations for the new account are issued for consultation around the beginning of May.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to begin consultation on his proposals for reforming company car tax; what form the consultation will take; and if he will make a statement. [37287]

  Dawn Primarolo
  People are invited (Budget 98 Press Release Inland Revenue 6) to send comments to the Inland Revenue on the case for replacing the existing business mileage discounts with discounts for driving
  621
  fewer private miles in company cars. It would be helpful if they could send in initial views by around the end of April. In the light of the views expressed and proposals in the forthcoming Integrated Transport White Paper, we will then decide how to proceed.

  Resuscitation Training Models
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue will be raised by the levying of VAT on resuscitation training models in 1998–99. [36603]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: Resuscitation training models have been subject to the standard rate of VAT since the introduction of the tax in 1973. Customs and Excise are unable to identify separately the VAT yield from these particular goods.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was derived from VAT on resuscitation dummies in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [37268]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The standard-rated status of resuscitation training models has remained unchanged since the introduction of VAT. Customs are unable to identify the VAT yield of these particular goods.

  Fuel Tax (Charities)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt charitable organisations offering door-to-door transport services to people with extra mobility needs, operating under section 19 licences, from fuel tax increases. [36591]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax on road fuel is charged on a broad base with no exemptions for particular user groups or individuals. It would not be appropriate to exempt charitable organisations.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of fuel tax increases on charitable organisations, operating under section 19 licences, offering door-to-door transport services to people with extra mobility needs. [36590]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such assessment of the effect of fuel tax increases on charitable organisations has been made.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the VAT reduction on energy saving materials for use in certain schemes, announced in the Budget, applies to energy efficiency schemes for social housing provided under the Electricity Regulator's Standards of Performance Initiative. [37205]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes. To the extent that 'Standards of Performance' moneys are used, through targeted grant funding schemes, to pay for the installation of certain energy efficiency measures in the homes of the less well off, the relief will apply.

  Environmental Green Book
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral answer from the Financial Secretary of 10 July 1997,Official Report, column 1062, when he
  622
  intends to publish an environmental green book setting out the impact of policy changes contained in the financial Red Book. [36400]

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a green book in respect of the Budget; and if he will make a statement. [36983]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The Financial Statement and Budget Report, released on 17 March, contains an environmental assessment of the Budget measures which will have a significant effect on the environment. The inclusion of the assessment within the Financial Statement and Budget Report demonstrates the Government's commitment to put the environment at the heart of Government policy. The assessment shows that the Budget measures will help to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and improve local air quality.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what actions he will propose to the EU Meeting of Ministers in Birmingham in May to relieve the heavily indebted poor countries of their debt by the year 2000. [37090]

  Mrs. Liddell
  At the G8 summit in Birmingham in May, the Government will promote the speedy and effective implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative along the lines that the Chancellor set out in his Mauritius Mandate statement last September.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the £5 million reporting figure for acceptances of works of art as property in lieu of inheritance tax is subject to the 1984 Gowrie Agreement that no figure should be treated as a limit or a target. [36772]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have not set any limit or target for acceptances in lieu.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to page 78 of the Red Book what estimate he has made of(a)the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions which will result from the reduced VAT rate on the installation of energy saving materials under certain grant schemes and (b) the impact on local air quality. [36857]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Our reduced VAT rate relief for energy saving materials is primarily a social measure, allowing less well-off people to stay warmer. Nevertheless, the measure will have small environmental impact.

  Any estimate of environmental impact is subject to significant margins of uncertainty, but the likely impact is that between about 3,000 and 7,000 tonnes of carbon will be saved each year, assuming that 40,000 extra

  623
  households have basic energy efficiency measures undertaken as a result of this new relief. By the year 2010, the total annual carbon saving will be between about 35,000 tonnes and 80,000 tonnes.

  This measure is not aimed at improving local air quality, but there may be some small benefit as a result of lower fuel consumption. A range of other measures in the Budget will have a much greater impact in terms of local air quality—for example, the duty rises for standard diesel, and vehicle excise duty discounts for clean lorries and buses.

  National Savings
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about National Savings. [37937]

  Mrs. Liddell
  National Savings, which has a key role in helping to fund the Government's borrowing requirements as efficiently as possible, has been carrying out a wide ranging programme to modernise the organisation against a background of a fast-moving and highly competitive retail savings market. This has included the evaluation of a public-private partnership for back office services delivery. After detailed consideration and discussion with those involved, I have today given National Savings Board the authority to proceed to the Invitation To Negotiate stage in the process. From a list of four companies who responded to the Information Memorandum, the two companies who have been shortlisted to the next stage are Siemens and EDS.

  I do not expect to make a decision as to whether to conclude a public-private partnership, and if so with which bidder, until some time later in the year. My decision will be based on value for money and will also bear closely in mind the best interests of customers and of National Savings staff.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the 1998 departmental reports to be published. [37938]

  Mr. Darling
  Publication dates for the 1998 departmental reports will be as follows:

  Friday 3 April

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  Department of Health

  Treasury and Chancellor's smaller Departments

  Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses

  Monday 6 April

  Home Office

  Customs & Excise

  Inland Revenue

  Tuesday 7 April

  Ministry of Defence

  Foreign & Commonwealth Office

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Department for International Development

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions

  624

  Lord Chancellor's and Law Officers' Departments

  Department of Social Security

  Welsh Office

  Northern Ireland

  Cabinet Office

  Thursday 9 April

  Scottish Office.

WALES

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he plans to make for the inspection of Government-funded vocational training and the Careers Service. [37661]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government will shortly be proposing new clauses for the Teaching and Higher Education Bill which would extend the functions of the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (OHMCI) to include inspection of vocational training and the careers service in Wales.

  We wish to make use of OHMCI's reputation for quality and independence to bring to the inspection of Government-funded training the same rigour that applies to education. This is in line with the Government's broader strategy to promote standards of post-16 education and training. OHMCI already carries out inspections of further education colleges in Wales and, given the links between work-based vocational training and that carried out in colleges, it makes sense for the same body to arrange the inspection of both aspects. As for schools and colleges, the purpose of inspection is to raise standards, stimulate the improvement of training delivery, generate more openness and transparency in provision and offer more informed customer choice.

  The extension of OHMCI's remit to cover the careers service would streamline arrangements and end the current arbitrary division of inspection responsibilities between careers education carried out in schools and colleges and the work of the careers service. It is also in line with the Welsh Office's objective of achieving greater rationalisation and co-operation between all education, training and careers providers.

  We envisage a non-statutory framework of inspection implemented in both cases through contracts with the organisations to be inspected; and, if the legislation is enacted, we will be consulting with those involved prior to implementation.

  Lifelong Learning
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his plans for lifelong learning in Wales. [37662]
  625
  Mr. Hain
  We have today published 'Learning Is For Everyone', our Green Paper for Wales on lifelong learning. The Green Paper will invite comment, and stimulate debate, on the Government's challenging agenda for learning post-16 in Wales.

  Unemployment (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) long-term and (ii) young unemployed in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside. [36682]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Number

  1Long-term unemployment

  2Youth unemployment

  Male

  278

  291

  Female

  40

  131

  1 Claimant unemployed for more than 52 weeks

  2 Unemployed claimants under the age of 25

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evidence has been submitted by his Department to the Low Pay Commission; and if he will make a statement. [36461]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government's evidence to the Low Pay Commission was published on 30 January. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of a minimum wage in Wales. [36463]

  Mr. Hain
  The National Minimum Wage will benefit low paid workers and prevent them from being exploited; it will be especially advantageous in Wales where low pay is widespread.

  New Deal (Local Education Authorities)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he expects local education authorities in Wales to participate in the New Deal. [36680]

  Mr. Hain
  Local Education Authorities are actively involved in the New Deal Strategic Partnerships established in all Employment Service Districts in Wales. These partnerships are planning the delivery of the New Deal for young people to meet the needs of local communities and will also have an important role in monitoring its implementation and in identifying and disseminating good practice.

  The Local Education Authorities in Wales have been involved in considering the arrangements for the Full-time Training and Education Option and have been particularly helpful in bringing together the quality providers required to meet the needs of the more disadvantaged New Deal participants.
  626
  This is another example of how the New Deal is an advancement on previous Government schemes— partnership at every level, with each collaborator bringing their own expertise to the table to ensure that our young unemployed people get the high quality opportunities they deserve.

  Housing Development (Brownfield Sites)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many brownfield sites he has identified in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [36527]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy, May 1996, makes clear that it is for local planning authorities to take account of the scope and potential for rehabilitation, conversion, clearance and redevelopment of land in their areas. In particular, local authorities should take account of the contribution reclaimable or reclaimed urban land can make to the overall provision of land for housing. Local authorities are able to identify suitable sites via the development plan process.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was allocated to Wales from the EU's structural funds in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [36460]

  Mr. Hain
  The information is not held in the annualised form requested. However, the overall amount allocated for combined structural fund programmes (ERDF, ESF and, where appropriate, EAGGF and FIFG) in Wales covering the period since 1990 is £793.7 million. The breakdown between the programmes is as follows:

  £ million

  Programme

  Allocation

  1987–91

  Dyfed Gwynedd Powys Integrated Development Operation

  83.2

  1989–91

  Clwyd Integrated Development Operation

  23.6

  Industrial South Wales Integrated Operations Programme

  71.6

  1990–93

  Rechar 1 Programme for Industrial South Wales

  21.7

  1992–93

  Clwyd Operational Programme

  21.8

  Dyfed Gwynedd Powys Operational Programme

  25.7

  Industrial South Wales Operational Programme

  74.1

  Leader 1 Programme

  2.3

  1993

  Konver 11

  0.8

  1993–95

  Retex l2

  0.5

  1994–96

  Industrial South Wales Single Programming Document

  111.5

  627

  £ million

  Programme

  Allocation

  1994–99

  Rural Wales Single Programme Document

  126.9

  Community Initiatives

  Interreg

  9.4

  Konver II

  1.9

  Leader II Programme

  7.3

  Pesca

  0.8

  Rechar II

  17.4

  Resider II

  10.8

  Retex II

  1.9

  SMEs Programme for Wales

  1.6

  Urban Programme

  3.9

  1997–99

  Industrial South Wales Single Programming Document 1997–99

  175

  Total:

  793.7

  1 The grant allocation of some £16 million for Konver funding was made at the UK level. Wales received £0.8 million in grant.

  2 The grant allocation of some £4.4 million for Retex funding was made at the UK level. Wales received £0.5 million in grant.

  In the case of the national ESF Programmes, such as Objective 3 and the Human Resource Community Initiatives, which have either hitherto been, or continue to remain, the sole responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, I have requested the information and will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Football Association of Wales
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to provide public money to support the work of the Football Association of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [36679]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Central Government funding for sport is channelled through the Sports Council for Wales. In 1997–98, the Sports Council's grant to the Football Association of Wales is £48,477. This will increase to £52,727 in 1998–99.

  Football is also benefiting greatly from the National Lottery. Since the Sports Council began distributing funds in 1995, over £1.9 million has been awarded to 26 community-based schemes throughout Wales.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to support the work of the Football Association of Wales Football in the Community Charitable Trust in the future; and if he will make a statement. [36678]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None. Welsh Office support for sport is channelled through the Sports Council for Wales, who are better placed to decide priorities for funding.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial provisions he will make to assist the Football Association of Wales to complete the works required by the Taylor report in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [36676]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Welsh Office has no funds available to complete Taylor-related work in Wales. Wales's three Football League clubs, will, however, be 628
  able to apply to the Football Trust for funding to assist them in implementing the recommendations of the Taylor Report.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what public money was given in 1997–98 and in each of the three previous years to the Football Association of Wales to support the work of the Football Association of Wales Football in the Community Charitable Trust; and if he will make a statement. [36677]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce bursaries for dental students on condition that such students agree to provide NHS services to areas of need for a set period after they have qualified; and if he will make a statement. [36675]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  No. Such an arrangement would be highly speculative and difficult to enforce. The Department continues to make available generous financial support for dentists establishing or expanding practices in areas of need in Wales and 61 grants have already been made.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department will spend on road improvements in Wales during the next year; and if he will make a statement. [37455]

  Mr. Hain
  Plans for expenditure on roads and transport in 1998–99 will be included in the Welsh Office's Departmental Report to be published shortly. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House. Details of the strategy for and role of the Welsh trunk road programme will be included in the report on the Welsh Trunk Roads Review to be published later this year.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 1998,Official Report, column 734, if he will make a statement on the contract let to Gooch and Wagstaff; if it was (a) advertised and (b) let by competitive tender; what part Gooch and Wagstaff played in advising his predecessor on the original lease of Crickhowell House; what is the approximate value of the contract; and which company has been awarded the other contract. [37468]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Gooch & Wagstaff were selected following a limited external competition where 4 specialist firms were invited to submit bids to provide independent professional property advice in respect of the 2 sites shortlisted for the National Assembly for Wales. They were selected because of their specialist knowledge, their previous experience with PFI schemes and their fee structure which offered the best value for money. The value of their contract will depend upon the time spent preparing their report, but is not expected to exceed £25,000.
  629
  Gooch & Wagstaff were previously appointed by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority (WHCSA) in 1991 to advise WHCSA and to negotiate with Grosvenor Waterside the original lease of Crickhowell House.

  In addition to Gooch & Wagstaff, AYH Partnership, Chartered Surveyors have been appointed to review the likely construction costs for both options.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Opinion Research
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent public opinion surveys the Government have carried out into public perceptions of EU membership; what organisation conducted them; how much they cost; how large in each case was the sample size; what was the date of the field work; if he will place a copy of the findings in the Library; and what further surveys he plans to undertake. [25332]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: We commissioned a survey on attitudes to Europe in November 1997. The contract was won by GGC/NOP following a tender process. The cost was between £20,000 and £30,000. The fieldwork was conducted from 12 to 21 December. The sample size was 1,001 people. A copy of the results have been placed in the libraries of the House. There are at present no plans to repeat the survey, though a repeat is not ruled out.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what expenditure has been incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies(a) in 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each; and if he will make a statement. [26660]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  £

  1996–97

  Since 1 May 1997

  Opinion polling

  1,216,000

  326,000 (plus VAT)

  Focus groups

  —

  —

  Other market research

  4,5,630,000

  —

  1 Survey of Canadian attitudes to the UK. For public diplomacy strategy.

  2 Survey of Mexican business attitudes to the UK. For export promotion and inward strategy.

  3 Survey to get a snapshot of attitudes in the UK towards the EU and current EU issues in the context of the UK's EU Presidency.

  4 To assess the coverage and effectiveness of the "UK Today" film series.

  5 To assess the coverage and effectiveness of the London Correspondents Service.

  6 To assess the UK image in India.

  The FCO's agency incurred no expenditure of this type in the periods in question. One FCO NDPB spent £2,056 in 1996–97 and £4,112 (est.) since 1 May 1997 on other market research in the normal course of business.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts for public opinion research his Department has awarded since 630
  1 May; if he will indicate the (a) purpose, (b) cost, (c) value and (d) duration of each contract; and which companies (i) bid for and (ii) were awarded each contract. [28875]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: We have awarded one contract for public opinion research since 1 May 1997. Its purpose was to survey attitudes in the UK towards the EU and current EU issues in the context of the UK's EU Presidency.

  The cost was £26,000 excluding VAT. The results will contribute to the formulation of policy. The contract was for a single round of polling which was carried out between 12 and 21 December 1997.

  Four companies were invited to bid for the research: MORI, RSGB (Research Services of Great Britain) GGC/NOP, (Gould, Greenberg, Carville/National Opinion Poll) and BMRB (British Management Research Bureau). The contract was awarded to GGC/NOP.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that he and his Ministers personally read the letters sent to them by hon. Members on constituency matters. [27671]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It has been my policy and that of other FCO Ministers to read letters from hon. Members on constituency matters and that will remain the case. The exception is visa matters, where aside from particularly sensitive cases, the practice is and has been for replies to be sent by officials.

  People's Europe Project
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the criteria for the issuing of invitations to attend the People's Europe Conference in June; if he will list the(a) organisations and (b) individuals approached to contribute to the Executive Committee; if he will list those invited to speak to date; and what measures are being taken to ensure a balanced variety of viewpoints amongst those participating. [37095]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It is the intention to invite representatives of a wide range of civic society from EU and associated countries, including NGOs, small and medium enterprises, local government, voluntary organisations, trade unions, youth groups and the public. The Executive Committee includes representatives of the CBI SME Unit, the TUC, Local Government International Bureau, National Council for Voluntary Organisations, European Movement, Chadiam House, Green Alliance and the office staff. A wide range of speakers from across Europe have been invited. The organisers are seeking to ensure a variety of viewpoints and backgrounds are represented, as well as to ensure geographical balance. They have sought contributions to the event from a wide range of organisations and the main UK political parties, which are represented on the Conference's Advisory Committee.

  Convention Against Torture
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent signing by Bahrain of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. [37716]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We welcome the news of any country ratifying the core human rights instruments. The recent ratification of the Convention Against Torture by the State of Bahrain is to be welcomed. We look forward to continued improvements in human rights in Bahrain. We have indicated to the Government of Bahrain that we will assist them, in whatever way possible, to achieve this objective.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the General Affairs Council held on 30 and 31 March in Brussels. [37717]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The A Points and EP Resolutions were approved.

  The morning of 30 March was devoted to the launch of the Accession Process with the 11 candidates. The meeting demonstrated the all-inclusive nature of enlargement.

  In parallel, EU trade ministers discussed preparations for the meeting in Geneva of WTO ministers.

  On Agenda 2000, President Santer presented the draft regulations published on 18 March. The Foreign Secretary outlined UK Presidency plans for handling the Agenda 2000 package before Cardiff. The 27 April General Affairs Council will consider the proposals in more detail.

  The Council discussed the Middle East Peace Process and endorsed the approach which the President of the Council adopted during his visit to the region. Ministers looked forward to the visit of the Prime Minister in April. The Council agreed to the publication of the Executive Summary of the Settlements Watch for the period September to December 1997, drawn up by EU Missions in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The Council reiterated its concern at the continued deadlock in the Peace Process and reaffirmed the EU's determination to play a full part in any constructive new initiative: it hoped the US would soon come forward with proposals as a basis for renewed negotiations.

  The Council had a further discussion on the enhancement of political contacts with Iran and agreed that the EU should renew dialogue with Iran on the basis of the 23 February General Affairs Council Conclusions, that is to say a comprehensive dialogue covering both areas of mutual interest and of concern. The Council invited the Presidency to liaise with the Iranian government over the arrangements for the first meeting.

  The Council reviewed implementation of the Action plan dealing with migrants from Iraq and the neighbouring region. Ministers agreed that this was proceeding satisfactorily.

  There was support from within the EU for the contact group stance on Kosovo. Partners are clear that the key is for Belgrade to open an effective dialogue on the status
  632
  of Kosovo with the Albanian community. The Council also reaffirmed its view that Croatia must do more to comply with its international obligations.

  The Council considered a Presidency report on the progress made in preparing a draft mandate for negotiations of a successor to the Lome Convention. Discussion focused on the trade issues. It was agreed that the ultimate objective should be the progressive integration of ACP states into the world economy and their full participation in a liberalised trading system. Further work was needed on the new trade arrangements, which should at least maintain current market access for the ACP and be WTO-compatible. The trade regime for Least Developed Countries should be improved in accordance with Council Conclusions of 2 June 1997.

  The Commission reported on the state of negotiations with South Africa on a Trade and Co-operation Agreement. The Council noted the progress made at the last negotiating round in March and expressed the wish to complete negotiations soon. The Council invited the Commission to report back after the next negotiating round this month.

  The Council took note of a presentation by Sir Leon Brittan of the Commission's Communication on the New Transatlantic Marketplace. COREPER will examine the Communication and report to a future meeting of the General Affairs Council.

  The Presidency reported on the state of preparations for the second Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM 2) to be held in London on 3–4 April. The Presidency also informed partners of preparations for the first EU/China Summit which will be held on 2 April.

  The General Affairs Council agreed, based on a UK Presidency paper, that the new CFSP Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit should concentrate on forward planning, including crisis prediction and policy planning aspects of conflict prevention and produce policy options for decision by Member States in the Council. Provision has been made for a staff of up to 20, most of whom will be secondees from Member State Foreign Ministries. There will also be one Commission and one WEU secondee. HMG is thus delivering on our Presidency objective of taking forward implementation of the new CFSP structures agreed at Amsterdam.

  The Council agreed that Ministers representing Troika should visit the Great Lakes region to assess the current situation and discuss with regional leaders the contribution the EU can make. The Council agreed a new common position on Rwanda setting out the criteria on which the EU will base the major contribution it makes to international support for reconstruction and reconciliation in Rwanda. The Council reiterated EU support for efforts by regional states neighbouring Burundi to promote political dialogue. Such a dialogue is the only basis for achieving a durable solution to Burundi's problems.

  There was a discussion of recent developments in Russia.

  On the morning of 31 March the UK chaired six individual Inter Governmental Conferences to open accession negotiations with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia.

  European Council
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for April and list the major European Union events for the next six months. [37718]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following Councils are scheduled:

  Monthly forecast of business for April 1998

  Date

  Location

  Council

  April 7

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  April 20–21

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  April 21

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  April 23

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  April 24–26

  Chester

  Environment & Transport (Informal)

  April 27–28

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  April 30

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  April 7: Social Affairs Council

  National Employment Action Plans (taken with ELMC 1998 Work Programme): Political debate.

  European Community Statute: Political debate.

  Protection of workers from asbestos: Adoption of Council Conclusions.

  Fundamental Review of Regulation 1408/71 (Social Security): Political debate.

  Action Plan against Racism and Xenophobia: Presentation.

  Working time: Excluded Sectors: Presentation.

  Report of the High-level Group on Industrial Restructuring: Presentation.

  Protection of workers from Carcinogens: Presentation.

  Directive on protection of workers from Chemical Agents: Possible A point.

  Modifications to Regulation 1408/71 (Social Security)— miscellaneous amendments: Possible A point.

  April 20–21: Agriculture Council

  Agenda not yet available.

  April 21: ECOFIN Council

  EIB lending to Bosnia.

  Access to Capital.

  Preparation of Stage 3 of EMU.

  Package of measures for SMEs.

  April 23: Consumer Affairs Council

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees: Common position.

  Effective application and enforcement of the Community consumer legislation: Debate.

  European Home and Leisure Accidents Surveillance System (EHLASS): Exchange of views on the state of work.

  Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers: Presentation by the Commission and (possible) exchange of views.

  634

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the distance selling of financial services: Presentation by the Commission.

  (possible) Evaluation report by the Commission on priorities for consumer policy: Presentation by the Commission.

  Commission Action Plan on the extrajudicial settlement of consumer disputes: Presentation by the Commission of the state of work.

  April 24–26: Environment & Transport (informal)

  No formal agenda.

  April 27–28: General Affairs Council

  Agenda 2000 (possible item).

  Lomè.

  Transatlantic Relations—Preparation of EU/US Summit and EU/Canada Summit.

  ASEM II: Report.

  Switzerland.

  South Africa Agreement.

  Turkey (possible item).

  Euromed (possible item).

  Egypt (possible item).

  Middle East Peace Process.

  Western Balkans.

  Ukraine (possible item).

  World Trade Organisation: Ministerial meeting in Geneva (possible item).

  Russia.

  April 30: Health Council

  Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council adopting a programme of Community action 1999–2003 on rare diseases within the framework for action in the field of public health: Common position.

  Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council adopting a programme of Community action from 1999 to 2003 on injury prevention in the context of action in the field of public health: Political debate.

  Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council adopting a programme of Community action from 1999 to 2003 on pollution-related diseases in the context of action in the field of public health: Common position.

  Proposal for a Council Recommendation on suitability of blood and plasma donors and the screening of donated blood in the European Community: Adoption.

  Integration of health protection requirements in Community policies: Report by the Commission, (possible) Council conclusions.

  (possible) State of health in the European Union: Report by the Commission on migrant health.

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies based on Commission Services Working Paper and Commission communication following receipt of EP report on BSE: (possible) Council conclusions.

  (possible) Political debate and conclusion on future health challenges to be taken into account in the development of a framework for Community action in the field of public health in the first part of the 21st century: (possible) Presidency conclusions.

  Proposal for a Council Recommendation on non-ionising radiation: Presentation by the Commission.

  635
  The following calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  European Calendar: April-September 1998

  Date

  Location

  Event

  April

  1–3

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  2–4

  London

  ASEM II

  3–5

  Leeds Castle

  G8 Environment Ministerial

  6–7

  London

  DTI Enterprising Europe Conference

  6–8

  Birmingham

  Audiovisual Conference

  6–8

  Birmingham

  Culture Committee

  7

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  7

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  16

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  20–21

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  21

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  23

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  24–26

  Chester

  Environment & Transport (informal)

  27–28

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  European Parliament

  30

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  May

  1–3

  Brussels

  ECOFIN & Special EMU Council

  5

  Brussels

  Political Committee (t.b.c.)

  5–6

  Belfast

  EU Ministers Women's Forum (informal)

  7

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  8–9

  London

  G8 Foreign & Finance Ministerial

  10–12

  Newcastle

  Agriculture (informal)

  11

  Brussels

  Energy Council (t.b.c.)

  11

  Brussels

  Euro-Med Energy Ministerial

  11–15

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  12

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  14

  London

  EU/Canada Summit

  14–15

  London

  Innovative Partnerships for Competitiveness Conference

  14–16

  London

  Conference on Culture and Employment

  15–17

  Birmingham

  G8 Summit

  18

  London

  EU/US Summit

  18

  Brussels

  Development Council

  18

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  18–20

  Northern Ireland

  Regional Affairs Committee

  19

  Brussels

  Telecoms Council

  19

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  20

  London

  EU Public Administration Ministers meeting

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  28

  Brussels

  Culture and Audiovisual Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  June

  2

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  4

  Luxembourg

  Education & Social Affairs Council

  5

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  8–9

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (t.b.c.)

  8–9

  Glasgow

  Regional Policy/SpatialPlanning Ministers' informal

  15–16

  Cardiff

  European Council

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  636

  European Calendar: April-September 1998

  Date

  Location

  Event

  17

  Luxembourg

  Joint Environment & Transport Council

  18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  19

  Glasgow

  Energy & Environment Conference

  22

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Brussels

  Presidency Biotechnology Round Table

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (t.b.c.)

  July

  1–2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  6

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  6–7

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  8–10

  Innsbruck

  Employment/SocialAffairs/Women (informal)

  13

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  13–14

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  17–19

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council (informal)

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  27

  Luxembourg

  Budget Council

  August

  There are no Councils scheduled for this month.

  September

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  5–6

  Salzburg

  Foreign Ministers (informal)

  7–8

  Brussels

  Special Committee on Agriculture

  11

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Special Committee on Agriculture

  19–22

  St. Wolfgang, Austria

  Agriculture Council (informal)

  24

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs

  24

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  28

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  28–29

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on changes in the membership of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee. [37894]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Mr. Arden Bhattacharya has been appointed as the new chair to the Complaints Audit Committee to succeed Miss Diana Rookledge who retired at the end of March. Mrs. Janet Whitaker has been appointed as a member to succeed Mr. Karamjit Singh who left the Committee to take up another appointment. They join Mr. Blair Greaves whose appointment runs until the end of this year.

  Prime Minister (Security)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the alleged breach of the Prime Minister's security reported in The Sunday Times on 29 March. [37896]
  637
  Mr. Straw
  The planning application regarding my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's home contained details which should not have been made public for security reasons. When we were alerted to the situation, I acted immediately to ensure that such details were no longer accessible.

  The security arrangements at my right hon. Friend's home have been very thoroughly tested and are fully effective.

  When major changes to the homes of public figures are planned on security grounds, it is important that local residents who may be inconvenienced by building work are properly consulted so that their concerns can be taken into account. However, a balance needs to be struck between ensuring that local people have their say about major changes to any property and ensuring that the security of public figures is not compromised.

  The Home Office, the Security Facilities Executive (SAFE) and Sedgefield Borough Council acted in good faith but the security implications of the planning documents were not fully identified and acted upon. The Home Office and SAFE have introduced new procedures to ensure that this cannot happen in any future case. In addition, other planning authorities which have similar residences have been contacted to ensure that any such risks to security may be avoided.

  Campsfield House Detention Centre
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract specification for the running of Campsfield House Immigration Detention Centre. [37450]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The contract specification for the running of Campsfield House Detention Centre is Commercial in Confidence. I regret that it cannot be disclosed.

  Vivisection
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the breeding of cats at Hillgrove Farm, Witney, Oxfordshire, for the vivisection industry. [37254]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 383 and to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 3 March 1998, Official Report, column 518.

  I have nothing to add to those replies at this time.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of seizures of amphetamines involved amounts of(a) 200 mg or under, (b) 200 to 500 mg, (c) 500 mg to 1 gram, (d) 1 to 5 grams, (e) 5 to 10 grams, (f) 10 to 50 grams, (g) 50 to 300 grams, (h) 300 grams to 1 kg, (i) 1 kg to 10 kg, and (j) 10 kg and over, in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what was the total quantity seized in each category; [36519]
  638
  (2) what proportion of seizures of (a) heroin and (b) cocaine involved amounts of (a) 50 mg or under, (b) 50 to 100 mg, (c) 100 mg to 200 mg, (d) 200 to 500 mg, (e) 500 mg to 1 gram, (f) 1 to 5 grams, (g) 5 to 10 grams, (h) 10 to 50 grams, (i) 50 to 300 grams, (j) 300 grams to 1 kg, (k) 1 kg to 10 kg, and (l) 10 kg and over, in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what was the total quantity seized in each category; [36520]

  (3) what proportion of seizures of cannabis involved amounts of (a) 1 gram or under, (b) 1 to 5 grams, (c) 5 to 10 grams, (d) 10 to 50 grams, (e) 50 to 300 grams,(f) 300 grams to 1 kg, (g) 1 kg to 10 kg, (h) 10 kg to 100 kg, (i) 100 kg to 1 tonne, and (j) over 1 tonne, in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what was the total quantity seized in each category. [36521]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the number of seizures of amphetamines, cannabis, cocaine and heroin by various amount bands is routinely published in the annual Home Office bulletin "Statistics of Drug Seizures and Offenders Dealt With, United Kingdom", and supplementary tables volume. Copies are available in the Library.

  The amount bands given in the tables provide much of the information requested in terms of weight categories, and further breakdowns could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Football World Cup
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, columns 885–86, if he raised the question of the 1998 FIFA World Cup knife at the seminar in Blackburn earlier this year, on policing the World Cup. [37350]

  Mr. Straw
  A range of issues was discussed at the European Union Presidency Seminar in Blackburn at the end of February. It was an enormously successful event and illustrated the high level of liaison and co-operation we have established with our European partners in the fight against football hooliganism.

  We first raised the issue of these knives with the French authorities well in advance of the Blackburn seminar. They can be in no doubt about our concern.

  I am pleased to inform the right hon. Member that, following my Oral Answer to the House on 30 March, FIFA announced that afternoon that they intended to withdraw the knives carrying the France 1998 logo from sale in France.

  I have also written to my French counterpart registering our concern that these knives should have ever been endorsed by France 1998. I have sought his assistance in ensuring that they are withdrawn from sale and that any other officially endorsed memorabilia do not constitute a risk to the safety and security of others.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many third world nationals have come to the United Kingdom from EU nations seeking admission or asylum over the past two years; how
  639
  many such persons have been admitted to the United Kingdom; and what arrangements have been made for those not accepted. [37353]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will specify the section of the Dublin Convention which prevents Her Majesty's Government from returning to EU nations illegal immigrants who have come to the United Kingdom from such countries; and if he will make a statement. [37352]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Dublin Convention provides a set of criteria for determining which member state should be responsible for considering an asylum application made in the European Union. Where it can be shown in accordance with these criteria that a member state other than the one where the application was made is responsible for considering the application, the applicant may duly be returned to that member state. In all other circumstances, Article 8 of the Convention provides that the first member state with which the application for asylum is lodged shall be responsible for considering it.

  The Dublin Convention has made the return of asylum seekers to European Union member states a more complex and time-consuming process. In particular, it is often difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to show that another member state is responsible for an application according to the criteria in the Convention. As Presidency of the European Union, we are taking forward a range of measures designed to improve the operation of the Convention.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has introduced to prevent illegal entry to the United Kingdom of persons travelling on Eurostar. [36998]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Foreign nationals travelling on Eurostar services are subject to examination by United Kingdom Immigration Officers. We liaise with French and Belgian authorities to ensure that this control is effective, and are currently examining with Eurostar and both French and Belgian authorities ways of ensuring that document checks in both Paris and Brussels are carried out as effectively as possible.

  Firearms (South Yorkshire)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had with the South Yorkshire Police about the suspension of officers of the Firearms Branch of the force over recent weeks; [36478]

  (2) how many and what percentage of firearms compensation claims are outstanding in the South Yorkshire area. [36477]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office is in regular contact with the South Yorkshire Police about the progress of their investigation into potential fraud involving compensation claims. Decisions on suspension are a matter for the Chief Constable but the latest information is that a further two 640
  police officers in the Firearms department were suspended on 13 March, bringing the total number of staff suspended to six. Around 240 claimants in the South Yorkshire area have not yet received payment under Options A and B of the compensation scheme, around 38 per cent of the total. Payments on claims returned by the police after checking are expected to resume this week.

  The investigation has resulted in some delays in payments but every effort is being made to keep delays to a minimum, as I explained in my letter to my hon. Friend and the other South Yorkshire Members on 20 February immediately after the problem had been drawn to my attention. As a result of the inquiries, the South Yorkshire police have returned about 100 claims to the Firearms Compensation Section (FCS) after checking them against the surrendered goods. About half of these have not yet been paid. There are a number of queries arising on the claims and the FCS is considering these against our normal checking criteria. Where it is not possible to clear all items in a claim, a part payment will be considered. Payments on those items which are satisfactory began this week. A second batch of 100 claims is expected shortly under the arrangements agreed with the police for returning claims on a regular basis after they have been examined.

  Firefighters
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average retirement age for a firefighter; [37087]

  (2) what has been the average cost of invalidity pensions paid to firefighters in the last three financial years. [37085]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clarke) on 31 March 1998,Official Report, columns 466–67 about proposals to modernise the police and fire service pension schemes. The consultation document on the review of the fire service pension scheme, which has been placed in the Library, provides information on pension costs and average ages of retirement. This shows, on the basis of the data currently available, that the average age of firefighters retiring with a full pension after 30 years' service is 53.3 years. The average age of retirement on ill-health grounds is 44.8 years and with an injury on duty award is 44.3 years.

  The firefighters' pension scheme is administered locally by fire authorities and information about the average cost of invalidity pensions is not held centrally.

  Police Officers
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average retirement age for a police officer; [37086]

  (2) what is the average age at which police officers retire on invalidity pensions. [37284]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on the age at which police officers retire is not collected routinely. The average retirement ages in the table are based on a study carried
  641
  out in 1992 of police officers in forces in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who retired from the service with an immediate pension in 1991.

  Retirement age of police officers who retired in 1991, United Kingdom

  All retirements

  Ordinary retirements

  Ill-health retireents

  Average retirement age (to nearest year)

  47

  53

  43

  Prisoners
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners per 1,000 population there were in England during each of the years 1968 to 1995. [37013]

  Ms Quin
  The available information is for England and Wales and is given in the table.

  Average prison population per 1,000 population in England and Wales, 1968–1995

  Year

  Prisoners per 1,000 population1

  1968

  0.67

  1969

  0.71

  1970

  0.8

  1971

  0.81

  1972

  0.78

  1973

  0.74

  1974

  0.75

  1975

  0.8

  1976

  0.84

  1977

  0.84

  1978

  0.85

  1979

  0.85

  1980

  0.87

  1981

  0.88

  1982

  0.88

  1983

  0.88

  1984

  0.87

  1985

  0.93

  1986

  0.94

  1987

  0.98

  1988

  0.99

  1989

  0.96

  1990

  0.90

  1991

  0.90

  1992

  0.90

  1993

  0.87

  1994

  0.95

  1995

  0.99

  1Includes prisoners held in police cells

  Muzzle-loading Firearms
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has obtained as to the misuse of muzzle-loading firearms. [37091]

  Mr. Michael
  Criminal statistics record the principal types of weapon used in the commission of crime but do not differentiate between muzzle-loading firearms and other types of gun.

  The Government are not aware of any incidents over the past ten years involving the serious misuse of muzzle-loading firearms, though the Forensic Science Service have identified the occasional use of guns of this kind in serious crime in previous decades.
  642
  At present, the Government have no plans to introduce any further legislation on firearms controls but will keep under close scrutiny the way in which muzzle-loading weapons are used.

HEALTH

  Stephen Daggett
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Stephen Daggett will be moved to a medium secure unit. [31089]

  Mr. Boateng
  I shall write to my hon. Friend on this matter.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the cost to his Department of(a) consultants and (b) contractors engaged to address millennium computer compliance problems; and he if will list the consultants and contractors. [32310]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: For budgetary purposes, the Department does not differentiate between consultants and contractors. The core Department, excluding its agencies, has spent £0.8 million (excluding VAT) to date and anticipates a further £2.2 million (excluding Value Added Tax) expenditure on consultants/contractors employed to address millennium compliance. The main organisations used to provide consultant/contractor services are Parity Solutions Ltd, Computer People and Alexander Consulting for business systems and ICL-CFM for the information technology infrastructure.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and which NHS organisations failed to present their plans and budgets for year 2000 computer compliance by 5 pm on 31 March. [37488]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested will be made available when those returns received by the due date have been checked for completeness.

  Cosmetic Surgery Clinics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that intimate examinations undertaken in cosmetic surgery clinics are carried out only by medically qualified staff. [33927]

  Mr. Boateng
  Any such requirement would exclude nursing staff and other health care professionals from examining patients. Staff who carry out any examination, in any setting, need to be able to demonstrate appropriate clinical expertise, or they may be exposing themselves to the risk of civil, and possibly criminal, liability, and/or to professional proceedings for misconduct.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information persons employed in cosmetic surgery clinics are obliged to give potential clients concerning the qualifications and experience of all staff engaged in the medical and psychological assessment and examination of clients and those who carry out surgical procedures. [33928]
  643
  Mr. Boateng
  There is no specific requirement for staff to give information about their qualifications or experience. However, anyone who attempted to carry out a procedure or an examination that they were not competent to do could expose themselves to the risk of civil, and possibly criminal, liability, and/or to professional proceedings for misconduct.

  Consultants
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of the use of public relations consultants to his Department since May 1997. [36630]

  Ms Jowell
  The functions which are identified as public relations are normally carried out within the Department by its press and publicity division. The division has not incurred costs from external consultants on public relations work since May 1997.

  Investing in Dentistry
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the applications received for funding from Investing in Dentistry have been successful; and what has been the amount of each grant awarded. [37157]

  Mr. Milburn
  Since the investing in dentistry initiative was announced in September last year, 110 funding requests had been approved by the end of March this year. The table gives details of successful bids by region and the amounts awarded.

  £

  Region

  Amount approved

  Anglia & Oxford

  10,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  15,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  15,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  50,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  12,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  20,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  75,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  25,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  10,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  15,000

  Anglia & Oxford

  26,000

  North Thames

  40,000

  North Thames

  19,000

  North Thames

  18,400

  North Thames

  40,000

  North West

  25,000

  North West

  50,000

  North West

  25,409

  North West

  30,287

  North West

  40,000

  North West

  35,000

  North West

  21,341

  North West

  40,000

  North West

  32,176

  North West

  20,000

  Northern & Yorkshire

  82,200

  Northern & Yorkshire

  2,790

  Northern & Yorkshire

  20,000

  Northern & Yorkshire

  24,200

  Northern & Yorkshire

  20,000

  Northern & Yorkshire

  25,000

  Northern & Yorkshire

  50,000

  Northern & Yorkshire

  47,000

  Northern & Yorkshire

  30,000

  Northern & Yorkshire

  25,000

  Northern & Yorkshire

  50,000

  South & West

  20,000

  South & West

  2,500

  644

  £

  Region

  Amount approved

  South & West

  30,000

  South & West

  50,000

  South & West

  20,000

  South & West

  38,000

  South & West

  50,000

  South & West

  50,000

  South & West

  6,000

  South & West

  25,000

  South & West

  1,000

  South & West

  36,011

  South & West

  15,000

  South & West

  25,000

  South & West

  20,000

  South & West

  50,000

  South & West

  2,500

  South & West

  10,000

  South & West

  35,000

  South & West

  35,000

  South & West

  13,000

  South & West

  40,000

  South & West

  27,000

  South & West

  15,000

  South & West

  15,000

  South & West

  20,000

  South & West

  32,693

  South & West

  9,500

  South & West

  26,000

  South & West

  24,750

  South & West

  40,000

  South & West

  30,000

  South & West

  15,000

  South & West

  15,000

  South & West

  8,150

  South & West

  40,000

  South & West

  15,000

  South & West

  55,000

  South & West

  13,265

  South & West

  40,260

  South & West

  50,000

  South & West

  25,000

  South & West

  9,654

  South & West

  59,796

  South & West

  16,000

  South & West

  23,500

  South & West

  30,000

  South Thames

  40,000

  South Thames

  50,000

  South Thames

  40,000

  South Thames

  8,500

  South Thames

  10,000

  South Thames

  5,000

  South Thames

  40,000

  South Thames

  28,725

  South Thames

  37,125

  Trent

  12,600

  Trent

  12,000

  Trent

  60,400

  West Midlands

  40,000

  West Midlands

  42,000

  West Midlands

  16,000

  West Midlands

  16,800

  West Midlands

  48,000

  West Midlands

  45,000

  West Midlands

  57,000

  West Midlands

  32,000

  West Midlands

  16,000

  West Midlands

  24,000

  West Midlands

  11,500

  West Midlands

  3,250

  West Midlands

  40,000

  West Midlands

  25,000

  West Midlands

  30,000

  645
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the funding made available for Investing in Dentistry for 1997–98 has been allocated. [37158]

  Mr. Milburn
  £3,106,282 of the £9 million investing in dentistry funding in the financial year 1997–98, had been allocated by 31 March 1998. This excludes the cost of treatment fees arising from the investing in dentistry projects.

  Physiotherapy Services (Schools)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding is available from his Department for physiotherapy services for schools; [37218]

  (2) what guidance he has given to health authorities on the provision of physiotherapy services in schools. [37216]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department has not given specific guidance to health authorities on the provision of physiotherapy services in schools. The detailed provision and funding of such services is a matter for health commissioners in light of the health needs of their local populations. The Department recognises the essential contribution therapists make to the assessment, development, education and treatment of children with health needs and disabilities. Officials from the Department and the Department of Education and Employment are currently examining ways to facilitate collaboration between the National Health Service and local education authorities, following the response to the Green Paper, Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned and evaluated on the numbers of children in schools requiring physiotherapy and occupational therapy to assist with physical problems. [37217]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department's policy research programme and the central National Health Service research and development programmes are not currently supporting any research on the numbers of children in schools requiring physiotherapy and occupational therapy to assist with physical problems, due to pressure of other priorities.

  Diazepam
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions are placed on the prescribing of diazepam. [37156]

  Ms Jowell
  Diazepam is classified as a prescription-only medicine under the Medicines Act 1968.

  The British National Formulary (BNF), which is funded by the Department and is provided free to doctors twice a year, provides guidance on the prescribing of diazepam. It also sets out specific advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  The BNF also includes general advice on prescribing drugs which are likely to cause dependence, suggesting that the prescriber should prescribe small amounts initially and take care to ensure that doses are not gradually increased to the point where dependence becomes more likely.
  646
  Advice on the management of anxiety and insomnia by doctors is given in Medicines Resource Centre and Drug and Therapeutics Bulletins, which are supplied free of charge to all doctors.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria will need to be satisfied by proposals for primary care groups which span health and local authority boundaries. [37105]

  Mr. Milburn
  Guidance will be issued shortly on the configuration and establishment of primary care groups. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Management Consultations
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money NHS trusts spent on management consultations in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97. [37464]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on management and other consultants is not separately collected but is included in information on external contract staffing and consultancy costs. The amounts spent by National Health Service trusts on external contract staffing and consultancy were £68,326,031 in 1994–95; £89,369,228 in 1995–96 and £107,151,978 in 1996–97.

  NHS Administrators (Termination of Contract)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many administrators in the National Health Service have had their contracts terminated since May 1997; what resources have been released by those terminations; and if he will make a statement. [37220]

  Mr. Milburn
  In May 1997, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a programme of measures to reduce management costs by £84 million in England in 1997/98. There will be a further reduction of £80 million in 1998/99.

  The information on individual staff is not held centrally.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, columns 46–49, on readmission rates, when the figures for the final quarter of 1997–98 will be available. [37349]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information will be available after it has been tabled at the National Health Service Executive board meeting on 5 June 1998.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral answer of 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 690, how many of the 170 places in local authority secure accommodation proposed by the previous administration are now in use; and on what date those places not now in use are expected to be in use. [37550]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 12 February 1998,Official Report, columns 351–52.

  Mesothelioma
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds the Government are currently spending on medical research for the management, treatment and cure of mesothelioma; and if he will make a statement. [36742]

  Mr. Boateng
  The main agency through which the Government support bio-medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC does not currently support any research specifically on the management, treatment or cure of mesothelioma. However, the MRC does provide support for more basic research in related areas which may provide insights into the aetiology of mesothelioma and have an impact on treatment in the future. For example, the MRC Toxicology Unit at Leicester has been working on projects to better understand the cellular mechanisms by which the lung responds to certain toxic materials. These include many toxins that circulate throughout the body and yet cause selective injury to particular types of lung cell as well as inhaled mineral fibres such as asbestos and zeolites.

  In addition, the MRC's Committee on Toxic Hazards in the Environment and Workplace produced a report in 1995 (ISBN 1 899110 03 8) entitled "Natural and man-made mineral fibres: UK research priorities"—this was based on workshops organised by the Institute for Environmental Health. This report considers, inter alia, mesothelioma. It is obtainable from the Institute of Environment and Health, University of Leicester, PO Box 138, Lancaster Road, Leicester LEI 9HN (Phone 0116 252 5530 or Fax 0116 252 5146).

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost of treating those suffering from(a) mesothelioma, (b) lung cancer and (c) asbestosis- related illnesses in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [36743]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information about the costs of treatment classified by disease is not routinely collected locally, hence there is no collation of such data centrally. Mesothelioma is incurable with a prognosis of 12–18 months. The 5-year survival rate for lung cancer is only 5.5 per cent.; surgery and/or radiotherapy offers the best chance of cure.

  People with asbestos-related conditions may live some years, dependent on the type of condition which they have. Patients will require a number of investigations and symptomatic treatment to reduce the symptoms from this irreversible condition. Palliative care is the most significant part of treating both mesothelioma and lung cancer.

  NHS Trusts (Vacancies)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum amount of time vacancies for NHS trust boards can remain unfilled. [37401]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no statutory time limit on how long vacancies on trust boards may remain unfilled. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would expect posts to remain vacant for no longer than is necessary.

  NHS Trusts (Mergers)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if NHS trust boards have to endorse proposals to merge NHS trusts; and what powers they have to block these proposals. [37400]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is for Ministers, not National Health Service trusts, to decide whether or not trusts should merge. Full public consultation will be held on any such proposals.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to hospital trusts on their obligation to inform hon. Members of the(a) amalgamation and (b) closer integration on NHS trusts. [37397]

  Mr. Milburn
  Any proposals for mergers between National Health Service trusts or for substantial changes to services are subject to full public consultation which as a matter of course will include those hon. Members whose constituents are affected by the changes.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the procedures for the reappointment of NHS trust board members when mergers between trusts occur. [37398]

  Mr. Milburn
  Serving non-executive directors of merging National Health Service trusts may be considered for appointment to the merged body alongside other candidates. All appointments are made on merit and in accordance with the Department's published procedures, copies of which are in the Library.

  Preston NHS Trust
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the vacancies on Preston NHS Trust will be filled. [37402]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Preston acute hospitals trust currently has two vacancies for non-executive directors. Arrangements are now in hand to identify suitable candidates from amongst those recently nominated by hon. Members and local authorities and those who responded to the recent national advertisement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive recommendations from the regional chairman for filling these vacancies towards the end of April.

  NHS Trust Boards
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers he has to ensure that all geographical regions in an area are represented on NHS trust boards. [37399]

  Mr. Milburn
  The published criteria for the appointment of non-executive directors to the boards of trusts and health authorities make clear that those appointed should be able to demonstrate a commitment to the needs of the local community and should live in the area served by the body involved.

  Drugs (Clinical Effectiveness)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness will assess the effectiveness of existing drugs where there is controversy over clinical effectiveness. [37469]
  649
  Ms Jowell
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will need to consider the clinical and cost-effectiveness of existing drags when developing clinical guidelines. All licensed medicines should be efficacious under the conditions of use covered by their licensing. We will be consulting about the work of National Institute for Clinical Excellence shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  Rupert Murdoch
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 378, for what reasons it is not his policy to specify who initiated the telephone conversation between him and the Italian Premier, Mr. Prodi. [37471]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 1 April 1998,Official Report, column 1250.

  Press Secretary
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he approved the memoranda from his Press Secretary to the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Minister of State for Social Security and Welfare Reform of (i) 1 January admonishing those Ministers for their actions in relation to the media and (ii) 26 February requiring an explanation of why their interviews had not been cleared through his office; [37393]

  (2) what powers he has given to his Press Secretary to control the responses by Ministers to inquiries from the media; and if he will make a statement; [37394]

  (3) if Ministers are required to clear statements to the media, including the timing of such statements, through the office of his Press Secretary before their issue; [37395]

  (4) pursuant to his oral answer of 1 April 1998, Official Report, column 1252, if he will make a statement on the responsibility of his Press Secretary for party political activities. [37989]

  The Prime Minister
  My Chief Press Secretary operates in accordance with the framework on the presentation of Government policy as set out in the Ministerial Code, and within the terms of the Special Adviser contract.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list those newspaper(a) proprietors and (b) editors who have received official hospitality at 10 Downing Street; [37473]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998, Official Report, column 378, if he will provide such information relating to hospitality to newspaper proprietors as can be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. [37472]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave in the House to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on 1 April 1998,Official Report, column 1253.

  Nuclear Deterrence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that nuclear deterrence is an essential guarantee of peace and security. [35661]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 March 1998]: Yes, in the present strategic circumstances. But we are also working towards multilateral disarmament world wide.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list grammar schools in England in order of performance at(a) GCSE and (b) A level for each year since 1987. [35613]

  Mr. Byers
  Information from the 1992 to 1997 secondary school performance tables has been placed in the Library. Comparable information prior to 1992 is not centrally available.

  Dry Stone Walling
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to encourage the development of dry stone walling skills. [36052]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are recognising a range of National Training Organisations (NTOs) to review and address skill needs in their sectors and occupations.

  Through LANTRA NTO Ltd., the proposed NTO covering dry stone walling interests, the industry will be able to ensure a developing skills and training base for the future.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much and what percentage of the total public expenditure on education in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 was or is expected to be distributed by Central Government after a competitive bidding process by local authorities or other bodies. [36221]

  Dr. Howells
  A significant proportion of the Department's expenditure on education is allocated on the basis of competitive bidding by local authorities and other bodies. Some of the principal examples are:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  New Deal for Schools

  83.5

  185.4

  Standards Fund1

  21.3

  109.9

  FE Collaboration Fund2

  10.5

  25.5

  HE recurrent funding and research

  220

  190

  1Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) in 1997–98. 1998–99 figure includes £50m for the National Grid for Learning, funded from the New Deal for Schools.

  2 FE Competitiveness and Development Fund 1997–98.

  651
  Expenditure for 1999–2000 has yet to be announced. The bulk of funding for schools is channelled through local education authorities, and is unhypothecated.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact on the number of personnel his Department employs of the measures contained in the School Standards and Framework Bill. [37063]

  Mr. Byers
  We have assessed the impact of the School Standards and Framework Bill on Departmental staffing, and expect a reduction of approximately 50 posts over time as a result of the introduction of local decision making on school organisation issues. But there may need to be some additional support for the new Adjudicators on school organisation and admissions. The precise numbers of staff required will depend upon the volume of cases referred to the Adjudicator.

  Learning Cards
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Learning Cards have been printed; and what was the cost to public funds of printing and distributing them. [37064]

  Dr. Howells
  700,000 cards have been produced to ensure that all young people in England who are in their final year of compulsory education receive their Learning Card, explaining their entitlement to learning options after age 16 and the careers guidance and information available to support their choice. The cost of printing and distributing the Learning Card and its accompanying leaflet amounts to around £67,000.

  New Deal (Long-term Unemployed)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to enable long-term unemployed adults over the age of 25 years to benefit from the New Deal. [37139]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for adults who have been unemployed for two years or more will start in June this year and will offer the opportunity to take up a subsidised job or to study towards a work-related qualification whilst remaining on benefit. In addition, we are making available an extra £100 million to pilot an extension to the type of approach used in the New Deal for the young unemployed; up to 70,000 unemployed people of 25 and over from November this year will be eligible. These pilots will provide individually tailored help and support for adults in the pilot areas who have been unemployed for 18 months or more and, in some areas, for 12 months or more.

  School Sixth Forms>
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local authorities involved in the pilot projects to base the financing of school sixth forms on the Further Education Funding Council funding methodology; and if he will make a statement on the way in which the project will proceed. [37140]
  652
  Dr. Howells
  A group of local authorities, shown in the list, is looking at alternative approaches to the funding of school sixth forms, based on principles similar to those used in further education (funding for recruitment, programme delivery and achievement). Ministers expect to receive a progress report in June, which will help to inform them on how they wish to proceed.

  The local authorities involved are:

  Barnet

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Croydon

  Devon

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  East Sussex

  Dudley

  Gloucestershire

  Haringey

  Kent

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Lewisham

  Liverpool

  North Somerset

  North Yorkshire

  Sefton

  Somerset

  St. Helens

  Tower Hamlets

  Wandsworth

  Warwickshire

  City of York.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which projects, not related to the year 2000 compliance problem, are being(a) restricted and (b) terminated in order to free information technology resources. [37480]

  Dr. Howells
  In laying its plans for IT projects during 1998–99 and 1999–2000, the Department took account of the amount of work which it would need to do in order to make its existing systems Year 2000 compliant. As a consequence, none of the Department's projects have been restricted or terminated in order to free information technology resources.

  Within the Employment Service a small number of less important developments, such as changes to management information systems, have been postponed in order to assure compliance of major systems.

  IT Staff
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the current shortfall in established information technology staff, consultant and contractor support posts within his Department; and if he will list the posts by grade indicating for each post how long it has been vacant and when it is expected to be filled. [37481]
  653
  Dr. Howells
  There is no shortfall in information technology staff, consultant or contractor support posts within the Department.

  Employment Service (Targets)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets he has set the Employment Service for 1998–99. [37768]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am today announcing the Employment Service Annual Performance Agreement (APA), which sets out a new Aim and Objectives for the Employment Service (ES) and the targets which I expect the ES to achieve in 1998–99. The ES is a key player in our Welfare to Work strategy and has lead responsibility for the effective delivery of the New Deal. The new Aim of the ES reflects its mission of contributing to individuals leading rewarding working lives, by helping people without a job to find work and employers to fill their vacancies. Special attention is focused on helping those at a disadvantage in the labour market move from welfare into work.

  The new APA, and the new ES Aim and Objectives, are the result of an extensive consultation. The APA includes eight targets which will focus ES efforts on three key priorities: helping people into work, ensuring claimants are committed to active job search, and achieving high standards of customer service delivery.

  Copies of the ES APA have today been placed in the Library. Further details are contained in the ES Operational Plan which will be placed in the Library by the end of April.

  Employment Schemes
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what schemes are available in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland, to help people to return to work, who are aged between (i) 50 and 55, (ii) 55 and 60, and (iii) 60 and 65 years; and how many people in each group he estimates have gained employment (1) directly and (2) indirectly through these schemes in each year between 1994 and 1997. [36306]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The schemes available throughout England and Wales and Scotland, to people aged 50 or more between 1994 and 1997 are as follows:

  1–2-1

  Jobclub

  Jobfinder

  Jobfinder's Grant

  Jobplan

  Job Interview Guarantee

  Job Review Workshop

  Job Search Seminar

  Job Search Plus

  Restart Courses

  Travel to Interview Scheme

  Work Trials.

  654
  Statistics on outcomes from the above ES programmes are not collected by age and have not been estimated by the Department.

  Statistics on Training for Work for England and Wales are shown in table 1. Similar statistics are available for Business Start-up and Learning for Work, for England and Wales, but for 1994 only. These are shown in table 2. Statistics for Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Table Training for Work

  Age

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1. Number of Training for Work starts in England and Wales are as follows:

  305,500

  227,200

  229,100

  197,200

  2. The proportion of Training for Work starts in England and Wales by age are as follows:

  50–54

  5.7%

  6.1%

  6.5%

  7.0%

  55–.59

  3.0%

  3.2%

  3.5%

  3.6%

  60–64

  0.3%

  0.4%

  0.4%

  0.3%

  3. The proportion of Training for Work leavers in England and Wales in employment1 by age are as follows:

  50–54

  37%

  38%

  41%

  242%

  55–59

  33%

  31%

  36%

  238%

  60–64

  36%

  37%

  41%

  245%

  1 In employment = in full-time, part-time or self-employment 6 months after leaving TfW. Because of the nature of the information collected, it is not possible to say whether employment was directly or indirectly as a result of the training received.

  2 January—June

  Sources:

  1 TEC Management Information returns and the Welsh Office

  2. TfW Trainee Database

  3 TfW Follow-up survey

  Table 2: Business Start-up and Learning for Work 1994

  Age

  Business Start-up

  Learning for Work

  1. Number of starts in England and Wales are as follows:

  27,500

  2,000

  2. The proportion of starts in England and Wales by age are as follows:

  50–54

  9.2%

  6.9%

  55–59

  5.7%

  3.6%

  60–64

  1.6%

  0.1%

  3. The proportion of leavers in England and Wales in employment by age are as follows:

  50–54

  183%

  220%

  55–59

  183%

  222%

  60–64

  181%

  220%

  1The proportion of businesses still operational at the end of the period of support.

  2In full-time, part-time or self-employment 6 months after leaving Learning for Work. Because of the nature of the information collected, it is not possible to say whether employment was directly or indirectly as a result of the training received.

  Sources:

  1.Business Start-up and Learning for Work participant databases

  2.Business Start-up and Learning for Work participant databases

  3.Business Start-up participant database and Learning for Work follow-up survey

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote organic farming; and if he will make a statement. [37892]

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote organic fanning; and if he will make a statement. [34256]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I am keen to encourage organic farming as a sustainable farming system that can contribute to environmental objectives and can, in particular, deliver real benefits to biodiversity, while producing a product that the consumer wants and is prepared to pay a premium for. To this end, I commissioned a review of the rates and structure of aid to farmers converting to organic farming. Copies of that review have been placed in the Library of the House. Decisions on the recommendations will be taken in the context of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review but, in the meantime, I am introducing a number of measures to help organic farming.

  Firstly, I do not want farmers to be discouraged from early conversion by the prospect of a revised scheme. Subject to approval by the European Commission, farmers whose agreements are approved on or after today's date will be allowed, but not required, to switch to any revised scheme introduced as a result of this review. The total length of the agreement will remain unchanged and any switch will take place on the anniversary of the agreement. Thus, for instance, a participant might receive the year 1 payment due under the existing scheme and the year 2 to 5 payments due under a revised scheme.

  Secondly, I wish to help the cash flow of those in the Organic Aid Scheme. I intend that the full annual payment will be made at the end of the first quarter of each year of the agreement. This is an improvement on the current system where the majority of payments are made quarterly in arrears. I shall be laying a Statutory Instrument before Parliament that will allow greater flexibility in the timing of payments and, subject to their approval, I hope it will be possible to introduce this change from 1 August 1998.

  If organic farming in this country is to expand, it needs a sound research base. I wish to strengthen our programme of organic R&D. I have asked the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) to provide advice on priorities and we will be reviewing our R&D programme in May. In the interim, we are increasing our spend by about 30 per cent. to nearly £1.5 million for 1998–99. In preparation for future work we will be commissioning additional work to: review animal husbandry techniques for maintaining animal health within organic farming; assess the causes of different profitability on organic farms; and identify the implications for organic farmers of cross contamination with pollen from genetically modified crops.
  656
  I also consider it important that organic farmers should be encouraged to maximise the environmental benefits on their farms and to participate in relevant agri-environment schemes. I intend that, when considering applications for Countryside Stewardship, land registered as organic or in conversion will normally be given extra points, and hence priority over comparable conventional land. This will be introduced for the main Countryside Stewardship Scheme in 1998 (closing date 31 May 1998) and for Arable Stewardship in 1999 (closing date 31 March 1999).

  If organic farming is to expand, farmers will need advice on conversion relevant to their own circumstances. A telephone help-line and free farm visits are already available through the Organic Conversion Information Service (OCIS). For 1998–99 I intend to increase the resources available to OCIS to meet an anticipated increase in demand.

  If organic production expands, there will be a need for increased funding for the sector bodies who are involved in implementing and checking the Organic Aid Scheme. We will be discussing with the sector bodies the resources needed to compensate them for their roles in the scheme and expect to provide additional help in 1998–99 to enable them to prepare themselves for increased demand.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library an economic impact study of the effects on each sector of UK agriculture of the EU Commission's latest CAP reform proposals under Agenda 2000. [35632]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Government are currently assessing the detailed implications of the Commission's proposals and will comment on them as necessary.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources his Department has(a) paid and (b) intends to pay directly to the Central Science Laboratory in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99 in respect of the Microbiology Group, without going through the research tender and appraisal system. [36038]

  Mr. Rooker
  The resources committed for work on food microbiology at the Central Science Laboratory, without going through the research tender and appraisal system are provided in the table.

  £

  Research resoures

  Non-research resources

  1997–98

  York laboratory

  0

  150,000

  Norwich Laboratory

  0

  80,000

  1998–99

  York laboratory

  170,000

  150,000

  Norwich Laboratory

  0

  80,000

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department collates statistics on the numbers of meetings(a) requested and (b) held with (i) Labour and (ii) Conservative Members. [36471]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  My Department does not collate these statistics.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 728, how many meetings were requested with Ministers by (a) Labour and (b) Conservative hon. Members in February; and how many were granted. [36472]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 728.

  Stickler Cow Payments
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons 1996 has been used as the basis for the 1998 suckler cow payments. [37092]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are required by EU rules to make payments of agrimonetary compensation on the basis of past production. Since the first of the revaluations concerned here took place in January 1997, compensation

  UK exports of flour, meals and pellets, of meat or meat offal (inc. tankage) unfit for human consumption

  units: tones

  Country

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  EC Countries

  Netherlands

  1,826

  6,099

  7,380

  1,089

  814

  156

  1,223

  3,445

  2,006

  1,777

  France

  7,222

  15,674

  1,148

  20

  94

  —

  156

  802

  455

  142

  Irish Republic

  2,555

  900

  234

  485

  232

  279

  356

  400

  1,745

  3,824

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  274

  1,605

  1,131

  740

  13

  1

  42

  24

  47

  747

  Italy

  38

  89

  130

  128

  139

  1,785

  456

  883

  566

  0

  Germany

  559

  578

  14

  5

  5

  5

  0

  23

  0

  423

  Denmark

  —

  60

  34

  248

  180

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  —

  10

  36

  202

  22

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  101

  148

  —

  —

  Portugal

  80

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  10

  EC Total

  12,553

  25,005

  10,072

  2,720

  1,494

  2,226

  2,343

  5,761

  5,065

  6,945

  Non-EC

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  —

  1,620

  13,847

  20,061

  10,947

  6,961

  806

  1,609

  Israel

  92

  2,718

  3,677

  9,816

  7,265

  4,008

  1,486

  945

  447

  1,503

  India

  —

  —

  —

  400

  200

  278

  3,625

  1,547

  6,098

  13,226

  Thailand

  —

  —

  1,574

  6,239

  4,408

  2,157

  1,688

  1,184

  1,309

  1,746

  Taiwan

  —

  200

  1,143

  2,023

  280

  87

  —

  42

  823

  214

  Philippines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  145

  105

  733

  482

  553

  2,144

  Russia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  453

  2,646

  885

  Saudi Arabia

  5

  3,462

  357

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80

  —

  —

  Sri Lanka

  121

  20

  —

  693

  1,242

  1,417

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Iceland

  —

  —

  —

  48

  133

  246

  30

  498

  367

  1,725

  Singapore

  —

  —

  —

  801

  —

  —

  —

  —

  687

  321

  South Korea

  —

  —

  1

  220

  1,010

  103

  —

  20

  —

  —

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  218

  0

  1,054

  Malta

  299

  220

  267

  182

  119

  58

  40

  43

  23

  —

  Morocco

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  525

  645

  Kenya

  —

  342

  100

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  381

  181

  Sweden

  76

  —

  652

  6

  —

  64

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Egypt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  781

  Br Ind Oc Ten-

  —

  —

  —

  —

  105

  —

  645

  —

  —

  —

  China

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108

  237

  364

  Jordan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  231

  212

  107

  —

  —

  Romania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  466

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  60

  80

  —

  —

  175

  99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  658
  relates to the 1996 Suckler Cow Premium year. This applies only to agrimonetary compensation payments, not to the normal 1998 suckler cow payments, which will be made as usual on the basis of 1997 claims.

  Meat and Bonemeal
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of meat and bonemeal has been exported in each of the past 10 years; and to which countries. [36689]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: UK Overseas Trade Statistics are not separately available for the export of meat and bonemeal. These products are included under the heading of "Flours, meals and pellets, of meat or offal, unfit for human consumption; greaves". Exports in each of the last 10 years of materials which fall under this heading are as follows. These figures are taken from the Official Overseas Trade Statistics.

  The data will be subject to a degree of statistical error. The overall level of errors will be low but these errors will have a much greater proportional effect on countries with small values or volumes of trade.

  The hon. Member will be aware that since the adoption of Commission Decision 96/239/EC on 27 March 1996, it has been illegal to export from the UK meat meal, bonemeal and meat and bonemeal derived from mammals. Exports after 27 March 1996 may, however, have included non-mammalian meat and bonemeal.
  659

  UK exports of flour, meals and pellets, of meat or meat offal (inc. tankage) unfit for human consumption

  units: tones

  Country

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  280

  129

  2

  —

  —

  Turkey

  —

  —

  —

  380

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Japan

  —

  —

  132

  62

  43

  31

  64

  0

  1

  —

  Cyprus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  230

  0

  6

  —

  87

  Faroe Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  162

  118

  Hong Kong

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  237

  3

  —

  —

  Norway

  —

  —

  —

  11

  37

  144

  5

  3

  7

  18

  Poland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  122

  —

  —

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  22

  31

  42

  10

  Haiti

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Cayman Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  86

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  10

  29

  —

  —

  —

  USA

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  37

  South Africa

  5

  50

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  —

  —

  Papua New Guinea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  US Oceania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  —

  —

  —

  Iran

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  21

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  19

  —

  —

  —

  20

  0

  —

  —

  Ghana

  16

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  —

  —

  Colombia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Malawi

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brunei

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  Burma

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Mayotte

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Canary Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Togo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gibraltar

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liberia

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Namibia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Czech Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Tajikistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Abu Dhabi

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Falkland Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Curacao

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Australia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Brazil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Tanzania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Non-EC Total

  674

  7,215

  7,926

  22,539

  29,121

  29,779

  20,044

  13,418

  15,201

  26,737

  Grand Total

  13,228

  32,220

  17,998

  25,259

  30,615

  32,005

  22,387

  19,179

  20,266

  33,682

  Notes:

  0 = small values which round down to zero

  1996 and 1997 data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Cereal Feed
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the use of British cereal feed in the UK. [37101]

  Mr. Rooker
  The use of UK grown cereals in animal feed rations is a matter for commercial decision by farmers and animal feed manufacturers.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what percentage of imports of cereal feed comes from the USA; and if he will make a statement; [37103]

  (2) how many tonnes of British cereal feed were consumed in the UK in each of the last five years. [37100]

  Mr. Rooker
  Only a small proportion of cereals used as animal feed in the UK are imported—on average
  660
  around 5 per cent. Imports from the USA of cereals for feed use are not differentiated from imports of other cereals, but the quantities used for feed are thought to be small.

  Cereal usage for animal feed is calculated on a crop year basis. Crop years run from the beginning of July to the end of June. In the last five crop years, the tonnage of cereals used for animal feed, which were produced and used in the UK, was:

  Thousand tones

  1992–93

  7,776

  1993–94

  8,233

  1994–95

  8,662

  1995–96

  8,607

  1996–97

  9,031

  Potatoes
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of(a) early potatoes and (b) maincrop potatoes were grown in the UK in (i) 1997, (ii) 1987 and (iii) 1977; what was the average yield for each type in each year; and how many tonnes of each were (1) imported and (2) exported in each year. [37301]

  Mr. Rooker
  Figures for the area, yield and production of UK early and maincrop potatoes are given in the following tables.

  Calendar year

  1977

  1987

  1997

  Early potatoes

  Area (000 hectares)

  22.4

  16.6

  16.2

  Yield (tonnes per hectare)

  18.0

  23.5

  23.8

  Production (000 tonnes)

  402.1

  390.6

  385.9

  Maincrop (including seed) potatoes

  Area (000 hectares)

  210.1

  161.0

  149.4

  Yield (tonnes per hectare)

  29.5

  39.2

  45.1

  Production (000 tonnes)

  6,194.6

  6,313.4

  6,739.3

  The following table, based on information provided by the British Potato Council, provides details of imports and exports of raw and processed potatoes, splitting, where reliable information is available, between early and maincrop.

  Overseas trade in raw and processed potatoes

  (000 tonnes)

  Calendar year

  1977

  1987

  11997

  Supplies from Channel Islands (early)

  39

  44

  61

  Total imports

  839

  1,001

  937

  of which:

  Early

  359

  210

  132

  Maincrop

  217

  364

  96

  Processed2

  252

  397

  693

  Seed

  11

  30

  16

  Total exports

  102

  274

  350

  of which:

  Raw (mostly maincrop)

  10

  110

  161

  Processed2

  18

  59

  114

  Seed

  74

  105

  75

  1 Provisional.

  2 Raw equivalent. Mostly maincrop.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the average annual per capita consumption of(a) whole potatoes, (b) chips, (c) other processed potatoes and (d) crisps, for (i) 1997, (ii) 1987 and (iii) 1977. [37302]

  Mr. Rooker
  Per capita consumption of fresh potatoes, chips, crisps and other processed potatoes in Great Britain 662
  as measured by purchases for consumption at home is given in the following table.

  Grams per person per week1

  Purchases of:

  1977

  1987

  1997

  Fresh potatoes

  1,155

  1,071

  745

  Chips2

  35

  97

  133

  Crisps and potato snacks

  13

  33

  49

  Other processed potatoes3

  8

  7

  14

  1 Product weight

  2 Includes fresh and frozen chips and other frozen potato products

  3 Excludes potato included as an ingredient in other foods

  Data on the consumption of potato products outside the home is available from 1994 onwards. Per capita consumption of potato products outside the home in Great Britain for the last two years is given in the following table.

  Grams per person per week1

  Purchases of:

  1996

  1997

  Chips

  69

  68

  Crisps and potato snacks

  9

  8

  Boiled, mashed, roast and other potato products2

  45

  51

  1 Product weight

  2 Excludes potato included as an ingredient in other foods. Includes a small element of other foods e.g. fillings in jacket potatoes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications Industry
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much revenue will be raised from the telecommunications industry as a result of the Wireless Telegraphy Act; and when she plans to bring the legislation into effect. [35974]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Wireless Telegraphy Act received Royal Assent on 18 March and is aimed at improving management of the radio spectrum. The first of a series of fee regulations under the Act is planned to come into effect in July. The income generated under the new powers will depend on the result of ongoing discussions and consultations.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the impact of the current level of interest rates on British industry. [35986]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England is responsible for setting interest rates at the level necessary to meet the Government's inflation target. British industry needs economic stability based on low inflation in order to allow firms to plan and invest with confidence.

  EU Structural Funds
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about her Department's priorities for the reform of EU structural funds. [35992]
  663
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the reform of EU structural funds. [36008]

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the proposed reform of EU regional aid. [36010]

  Mrs. Roche
  We welcome publication of the draft regulations for Structural and Cohesion Funds—which are part of the wider Agenda 2000 reform package. The regulations must now be agreed by all fifteen Member States and approved by the European Parliament.

  Our overriding concern in the long negotiations ahead is to ensure that these draft regulations are affordable, durable and fair overall, particularly to the UK.

  The UK, like other Member States, would like to see fair and effective criteria which address local needs. This is the starting point of the negotiations. We will be working hard, with other Member States and the Commission, to improve these draft regulations and to reach a fair and affordable outcome.

  Manufacturing (East Midlands)
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the effect of the current value of the pound on manufacturing exporters in the East Midlands. [35993]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government appreciate the difficulties that the level of the pound is causing exporters in the East Midlands and elsewhere in the country. But exporters will not benefit from a return to the boom and bust policies of the past. Industry wants, and this Government are delivering, a stable macroeconomic environment.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she proposes to promote United Kingdom multimedia expertise in export markets. [35994]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department is aware of the economic contribution at home and abroad of the United Kingdom' s dynamic, creative sectors including those based on multimedia expertise. By greater attention to sector needs in exports, including the setting up of a Creative Industries Export Group and a new approach to support for small companies, a boost will be given to promotion of the exports of these industries.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further action is being taken to tackle pyramid selling. [35995]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Since 1 May 1997, the DTI has successfully petitioned for the winding up of 11 companies involved in schemes which have abused the public. In addition, last month I issued a warning to people to think carefully before paying money to participate in schemes that offer easy money for little work.

  Engineering
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to address the difficulties experienced by companies suffering from skilled labour shortages in the engineering sector. [35996]

  Mr. Battle
  The recently completed, but not yet published, comprehensive Labour market survey by the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, covering over 22,000 companies from whom over 4,500 replies were received will report that the engineering sector is not suffering from a general shortage of engineering skills.

  However, shortages are emerging in particular sectors and to particularly high skilled and multi-skilled areas of work. The Government are participating in initiatives to address the shortages, such as a manufacturing skills task force for the automotive sector in the West Midlands, the radio frequency engineers' scheme and a skills analysis in the heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and commercial refrigeration sector. The Department is also supporting research into availability of skills in the chemicals and shipbuilding sectors.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assurances she has sought from Indonesia that it will not default on ECGD payments. [35997]

  Mrs. Beckett
  None. I would expect the Indonesian authorities to meet their obligations in respect of any payments due to or guaranteed by ECGD as they have done up to now.

  Exports
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations she has received on the prospects for British exports. [35998]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I regularly receive representations from British industry on a wide range of issues, including the prospects for exporting.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to support the programmes of the European Space Agency. [35999]

  Mr. Battle
  Conducting space research through ESA lies at the centre of UK space policy. On 16 March, I was very pleased to announce new commitments to ESA programmes totalling £21 million. These programmes will develop Earth observation (EO) and communication technologies. I will be discussing the Government's priorities in ESA and in space policy more generally with the UK space sector at a seminar in Leeds tomorrow.

  Minimum Wage
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she last met the Chairman of the Low Pay Commission to discuss the minimum wage. [36000]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last met Professor George Bain, Chairman of the Low Pay Commission, on 11 February 1998 and expressed her admiration for the
  665
  progress the Commission has made in undertaking the consultation exercise. And she was informed they are on course to produce their findings by the end of May.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she last met the chairman of the Low Pay Commission to discuss progress on the implementation of the national minimum wage. [36002]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last met Professor George Bain, Chairman of the Low Pay Commission, on 11 February 1998 and she was informed that the Commission are on course to produce their findings by the end of May.

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made toward the formulation of the national minimum wage. [36005]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We are on target to fulfil our commitment to introduce minimum wage legislation within the first session of this Parliament. The National Minimum Wage Bill completed its passage through the House on 9 March and Second Reading in another place took place on Monday 23 March. The Low Pay Commission has completed the information gathering stage of its consultation exercise and will produce its recommendations on the level at which the minimum wage might be set by the end of May.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the work of the Low Pay Commission. [36007]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Low Pay Commission has completed the consultation state of its work. I have nothing but admiration for the stamina displayed by Professor George Bain, the chairman, and his colleagues on the Commission, who have visited all parts of the United Kingdom to discuss the national minimum wage and take oral evidence from a broad cross-section of employers, employees, their representatives, and other interested parties. In addition, they have received over 500 written submissions. I now look forward to reading their recommendations which are due to be produced by the end of May.

  Trade Union Recognition
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received recently concerning trade union recognition rights; and if she will make a statement. [36001]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Since the TUC and CBI published their joint statement on union recognition in December last year, the Government have received many representations from trade unions, employer organisations and other interested parties. The Government will announce their proposals on union recognition in the forthcoming White Paper on fairness at work.

  Small and Medium Companies
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures her Department has taken to encourage small and medium companies to expand their export business. [36003]
  666
  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill).

  Fraud
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to tighten regulations to combat business fraud. [36004]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are strongly committed to tackling business fraud. Last year, the UK played a leading role in bringing the negotiations on the OECD Convention on combating bribery in international business transactions to a successful conclusion. The UK is also playing an active role in negotiations on anti-corruption measures within the European Union and at the Council of Europe. Domestically, a new hotline has been set up to catch disqualified directors and undischarged bankrupts who flagrantly flout the law and, when Parliamentary time allows, my Department intends to introduce legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedure for disqualifying unfit company directors. My Department is also working closely with HM Treasury and the Financial Services Authority in their reform of Financial Services regulation, and a working party is reviewing the current state of regulation in the insolvency profession.

  "Competitiveness UK" Initiative
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the progress of her Department's Competitiveness UK Initiative. [36006]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Competitiveness UK lies at the heart of my Department' s drive to help companies improve their performance. Under this initiative, a wide range of business people have been working directly with my Ministerial team in developing practical proposals to enhance UK competitiveness. This new partnership between Government and business will lead to policies for sustainable wealth creation, based on a high skill, high investment, innovative, modern economy.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations she has received from the British steel industry. [36009]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government have a continuing dialogue with the British steel industry. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have had numerous meetings with representatives of the industry and MPs who have a constituency interest in the industry. I have also been to see steel manufacturing processes first-hand and to meet some of those working in the industry. My officials have frequent and wide-ranging contacts at all levels.

  Unfair Contract Terms
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases the Director General of Fair Trading has taken action against companies for breaches of the unfair contract terms regulations, in each of the last three years. [36011]
  667
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand that, between 1 July 1995 and 31 December 1997, the Director General of Fair Trading took action in 1,659 cases, as follows:

  2nd Half 1995: 252

  1996: 637

  1997: 770.

  Petroleum Act 1987
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many abandonment programmes have been approved under the terms of Part 1 of the Petroleum Act 1987, in each of the last eight years. [36012]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to Appendix 12 of the Energy Report 1997 Volume II. A copy of the Report is available in the Library of the House.

  Since publication of the Energy Report 1997, the President has approved an abandonment programme in respect of the Donan floating production installation and its associated pipe-lines.

  Shell have submitted a draft revised abandonment programme for the Brent Spar offshore storage and loading buoy.

  Iran
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the level of current United Kingdom trade with Iran. [35982]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1997, total trade in goods between the United Kingdom and Iran was worth £432 million.

  Innovation
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in promoting innovation in British industry. [35981]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) earlier today.

  Research and Development
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards encouraging research and development in British companies. [35976]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) earlier today.

  European Structural Funds
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to ensure that Merseyside will retain Objective 1 status with funding levels comparable with other Objective 1 regions of Europe. [36490]

  Mrs. Roche
  On the basis of the Commission's proposals and the latest Eurostat statistics, it appears likely that Merseyside will be eligible for Objective 1 from 2000. The Commission has not made proposals on funding levels for individual regions. When they do, we will want them to be fair and affordable.

  Home Shopping
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on regulation of the home shopping market. [36316]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I have received no representations on regulation of the home shopping market as such. I have, however, received a number of inquiries from businesses about how the European Union Distance Selling Directive will be implemented.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage by(a) tonnage and (b) value of ships completed by UK shipbuilding yards have had as their prime competition an EU shipbuilding yard over the last five years. [37116]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]: The information requested is not available. UK Shipyards are not required to identify the European competition when applying for Shipbuilding Intervention Fund support and do not always know against whom they are competing.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the cost per job of the SIF subsidies for UK shipbuilding over the last two years. [37118]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]: Assessments undertaken by my Department indicate that the cost per direct shipyard job of Shipbuilding Intervention Fund grants over the last two years ranged between £3,000 and £4,000. Exact figures depend upon assumptions made on the length of the build-cycle for individual orders and the exact numbers of employees in each yard over that time. The increasing use by yards of external sub-contractors (who are not considered recorded as employees) for many tasks would also reduce this cost, as would the inclusion of employment in the suppliers to the yards.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of(a) official tonnage figures and (b) official figures for the value of sales of completed ships in the UK are attributable to oil-rig construction over the last two years. [37119]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]: This information is not available. Although the Office for National Statistics collects information on the value of completions of "floating or submersible drilling or production platforms", which would include rigs, as part of the PRODCOM (Products of the European Community) inquiry, the figures cannot be released because they would identify particulars of an individual undertaking, which are confidential under Section 9 of the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. Tonnage figures are not collected for these products.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the effect on UK shipbuilders of a cessation of all shipbuilding aids in the EU(a) in the absence of ratification by the USA of the OECD shipbuilding agreement and (b) in the presence of such ratification. [37117]
  669
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]: The UK shipbuilding industry has been telling the Department for many years that the best way to improve its competitiveness is to remove the market distortions caused by subsidies. We agree with this assessment and our policy has been to achieve this, particularly through ending contract aid, as quickly as possible. Our preference is to work through the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement but, failing that, we believe that the Commission's contingency measures will provide a good basis for developing a more viable shipbuilding sector as they will eliminate contract aid and provide similar support on measures for improving the competitiveness as other sectors enjoy. Both the OECD Agreement and the EU proposals improve the market framework but this is only one of many factors affecting the industry, whose success ultimately depends on its ability to win orders.

  Nuisance Telephone Calls
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received in relation to nuisance calls, originating from telephone-sales organisations in possession of equipment that allows them to make multiple calls; and if she will make a statement. [37114]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]: Ministers in this Department have received one representation concerning nuisance calls from telephone-sales organisations in possession of equipment that allows them to make multiple calls since taking office last May. Under the Telecommunications Act 1984, companies using automatic calling equipment are subject to a class licence which contains measures aimed at limiting the nuisance which can be caused by unsolicited calls. Anyone using automatic calling equipment for sending multiple calls must do so only to those who have given their consent in writing, or face possible enforcement action by Oftel, including the removal of their right to operate a telecoms system.

  Jersey
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she has been consulted by(a) the States and (b) the Government of Jersey about the Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Insolvent Partnerships) (Jersey) Regulations and its repercussions for British accountancy firms. [37531]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have received no such approach.

  Internet
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to stop unsolicited e-mail being sent out across the Internet. [37052]

  Mrs. Roche
  The EU Telecommunications Data Protection Directive, which must be implemented by October this year, provides protection from unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes. The Government will be consulting on the implementation of the Directive.

  The Data Protection Registrar has been working on a proposal to prevent people receiving unsolicited e-mails through the insertion of suppression markers in their Internet addresses and the Direct Marketing Association are working on ideas for an e-mail preference scheme.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the likely increase in domestic energy consumption resulting from the introduction of digital television. [35725]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend for Blanenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 20 March 1998,Official Report, column 763.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate is produced by her Department's Policy Simulation Model of the number of people in each income decile who are currently building up second tier pension entitlements by means of(a) occupational pension schemes, (b) other private second tier pensions and (c) SERPS; how many of each group are paying income tax at the (i) 40 per cent., (ii) 23 per cent., (iii) 20 per cent. and (iv) 0 per cent. rate; and what is the mean and median contribution in each case for each type of second tier provision. [36484]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department's Policy Simulation Model is not suitable for answering this question as it is based on data from the Family Resources Survey which does not contain reliable information on pensions. Such information as is available from the 1996 General Household Survey is set out in the table.

  Estimated numbers of people in Great Britain in 1996 aged between 16 and State pension age in each income decile who (a)were members of their current employer's occupational pension scheme and (b) had a personal pension to which contributions were being made at the time of interview

  millions

  Income decile

  Occupational pension

  Personal pension

  1

  0.1

  0.1

  2

  0.1

  0.1

  3

  0.3

  0.1

  4

  0.4

  0.2

  5

  0.7

  0.3

  6

  1.0

  0.4

  7

  1.6

  0.6

  8

  1.8

  0.8

  9

  2.2

  0.7

  10

  2.2

  1.0

  Notes:

  1. All estimates are given to the nearest 0.1 million.

  2. Income decile 1 is comprised of the 10 per cent. of the Great Britain population aged between 16 and State pension age who had the lowest incomes with income levels in each decile rising until decile ten, which is comprised of those 10 per cent. who had the highest incomes.

  3. The income distribution is based on gross unequivalized income.

  4. Estimates have been calculated using proportions reporting pension scheme membership in the 1996 General Household Survey, and population projections from the Government Actuary's Department.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps her Department plans to take to uprate disability living allowance to take account of road fuel tax increases; and if she will make a statement. [36854]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no plans to uprate Disability Living Allowance to take account of road fuel tax increases. Disability Living Allowance is not intended to meet specific costs associated with disability, nor is it, of course, aimed solely at people who are dependent on their car.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what analysis her Department has made of the medical basis for claims for disability living allowance; and what advice she has received based on that analysis. [36766]

  Mr. Denham
  Two reports were published recently which include information on the assessment of claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA): "A Study of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance Awards" published by the Department's Analytical Services Division; and "The Future of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance—A Discussion Paper" published by the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board (DLAAB), an independent statutory body.

  These reports provide a valuable insight into the workings of DLA and AA. They highlight some problems with the current adjudication process, in particular, the evidence used to support a claim and the DLAAB have suggested that more use should be made of medical evidence.

  Both reports were discussed with organisations representing disabled people at a seminar hosted by my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Hollis of Heigham on 27 March. We have not drawn any conclusions from the reports at this stage. The Green Paper, "New ambitions for our country: a new contract for welfare reform", makes it clear that there will be full consultation on any proposals for changes to DLA and AA.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the amount of state benefits paid out to injured claimants, which was recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit from legally aided defendants during each of the last three years. [37012]

  Mr. Denham
  No such assessment has been made since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant in injury compensation cases, where State benefits are recovered, are required to notify the Department if they have been granted legal aid.

  IT Staff
  Mrs. Giltan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the current shortfall in established information technology staff, consultant and contractor support posts within her Department; and if she will list the posts by grade indicating for each post how long it has been vacant and when it is expected to be filled. [37487]
  672
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department has to fill 64 vacancies to achieve the 1998/99 Information Technology requirements. This represents 2 per cent. of the current workforce in the Department's Information Technology Services Agency which will be filled by ongoing and planned resourcing activity over the next three months. The vacancies are 7 staff at grade C5 (SEO), 34 staff at grade C6 (HEO) and 23 staff at grade D7 (EO).

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which projects, not related to the year 2000 compliance problem, are being(a) restricted and (b) terminated in order to free information technology resources. [37486]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department's arrangements for Year 2000 compliance were planned well in advance and it has not been necessary to "restrict" or "terminate" any planned work because of the Year 2000 date change problem.

  Prime Minister's Press Secretary
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she is required to clear statements to the media, including the timing of such statements, through the office of the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister before their issue. [37392]

  Mr. Field
  This Department, like all other Departments, complies with the Ministerial Code published by the Cabinet Office last July entitled "A Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedures for Ministers", a copy of which is in the Library. Paragraph 88 refers.

  Departmental Employees (Scotland)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are employed in Scotland by her Department, or executive agencies responsible to her Department; and where those staff are located. [36208]

  Mr. Field
  The number of staff located in Scotland who work for the Department, and its Executive Agencies, are given in the tables. ITSA have no staff working in Scotland.

  Location and numbers of staff in the Department of Social Security and its executive agencies

  Location

  Number of staff

  Headquarters

  Edinburgh

  6

  Glasgow

  3

  Contributions Agency

  Aberdeen

  35

  Ayr

  5

  Dundee

  15

  Edinburgh1

  72

  Falkirk

  11

  Fort William

  1

  Galashiels

  2

  Glasgow

  102

  Hamilton

  11

  Inverness

  7

  Kirkcaldy

  5

  Oban

  1

  Wick

  6

  673

  Location and numbers of staff in the Department of Social Security and its executive agencies

  Location

  Number of staff

  War Pensions Agency

  Glasgow

  10

  Edinburgh

  6

  Dundee

  2

  Aberdeen

  2

  Child Support Agency

  Aberdeen

  12

  Campbeltown

  1

  Clydebank

  4

  Cowdenbeath

  8

  Dumfries

  5

  Dundee

  12

  Edinburgh

  40

  Elgin

  4

  Falkirk

  949

  Galashiels

  4

  Glasgow

  77

  Greenock

  14

  Hamilton

  18

  Inverness

  3

  Irvine

  17

  Kirkcaldy

  1

  Leven

  5

  Lothian West

  9

  Oban

  1

  Perth

  16

  Peterhead

  6

  Renfrew

  4

  Stirling

  9

  Stranraer

  1

  Wick

  12

  Benefits Agency

  Aberdeen

  5

  Ayr

  208

  Bathgate

  277

  Clyde Valley

  378

  Coatbridge

  177

  Cumbernauld

  120

  Cumnock

  6

  Dunfermline

  100

  Dumfries

  105

  Dundee

  274

  Edinburgh

  1,169

  Falkirk

  170

  Fife

  305

  Forth Valley

  139

  Glasgow

  3,163

  Grampian and Shetland

  386

  Greenock

  209

  Highlands and Islands

  392

  Irvine and Kilmarnock

  276

  Lomond and Argyll

  233

  Lothian West

  31

  Paisley

  311

  Tayside

  113

  1 Includes 11 staff working in the Civil Recovery section.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total value of benefits, allowances and other payments made to those suffering from asbestosis-related diseases in each of the past three years; and if she will make a statement. [36741]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information is available only in respect of certain diseases for which Industrial Injuries 674
  Disablement Benefit can be paid. These diseases are Diffuse Mesothelioma (prescribed disease D3), Carcinoma of the lung (prescribed disease D8) and Diffuse Pleural Thickening (prescribed disease D9).

  The expenditure of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit for the three asbestos-related diseases above is estimated at £3.826 million for 1994/95; £5.593 million for 1995/96 and £5.991 million for 1996/97.

  Notes:

  1. These figures have been based on a 10 per cent. sample of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit assessments in Great Britain, including an adjustment for assessments recorded in the following year.

  2. Sufferers from asbestosis may get benefit in respect of prescribed disease DI (Pneumoconiosis), but information is not collected separately for the different conditions covered by the term pneumoconiosis.

  3. No information is available on people who are receiving other benefits and who suffer from asbestos related diseases.

  Executive Agencies (Performance Targets)
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance targets she has set the Department's agencies for 1998–99; and if she will make a statement. [37890]

  Ms Harman
  The targets we have set the Department's Executive Agencies for 1998/99 are given.

  Social Security customers have a right to expect good quality, responsive services. The eighth principle set out in the Welfare Reform Green Paper states that the system of delivering modern welfare should be flexible, efficient and easy for people to use. In line with this, we have set targets that focus effort on building an active modern service, which helps as many people as possible fulfil their potential and achieve independence.

  Further information on the Agencies' plans for 1998/99 is contained in their individual business plans which have been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The targets for 1998/99 are:

  BENEFITS AGENCY

  Active Services

  By October 1998 the Benefits Agency (BA) will have worked with the Employment Service to implement nationally the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  From April 1998 BA will provide ongoing support by means of advising Employment Service colleagues of changes in legislation and procedures, by help with customer queries and by handling fast path claims to Family Credit.

  Customer focused services

  During April to September 1998 the Agency will undertake trials to test methods for encouraging pensioners to take advantage of the benefits to which they are entitled. The Agency will provide information on the outcome of these trials in October 1998 to enable Ministers to decide the way forward.

  From April 1998 the Agency will provide a more integrated BA and Child Support Agency service to lone parents when BA visiting staff will discuss child support issues at their New Claim Visit, and assist with completion of the Maintenance Application Form, where appropriate.
  675
  By March 1999 the Agency will have worked towards supporting future implementation of the Social Security Bill, currently scheduled for Autumn 1999, including arrangements to produce new guidance and develop new monitoring arrangements to measure the standard of decision making.

  Transforming services

  By March 1999 the Agency will have worked with local authorities, following evaluation of pilots, to implement improvements in the way information is shared using automated links. This will include, as and when practicable, the use of Remote Access Terminals which will allow local authorities access to BA information.

  Integrity, through secure and accurate services

  By 31 August 1998 all mainframe computer systems used by BA will be ready to cope with the Year 2000 issue, with the exception of the Jobseeker's Allowance Payment System, which will comply by 30 November 1998. All other BA systems, including desk top devices, will be made Year 2000 compliant by 31 March 1999.

  In order to protect public expenditure, the Agency is committed to reducing the number of payments made on fraudulent claims. In addition to this, the Agency will recover benefits which have been overpaid. In 1998/99 the Agency aims to save £2.3 billion in weekly benefit savings terms from activity against fraudulent claims and to recover £135 million from claims where benefit has been overpaid.

  Accurate payment of benefit is of key importance to Ministers. The targets for 1998/99 are to achieve the following levels of payment accuracy:

  87 per cent. of Income Support claims

  87 per cent. of Jobseeker's Allowance claims (in partnership with Employment Service)

  91 per cent. of Family Credit claims

  94 per cent. of Incapacity Benefit claims

  96 per cent. of Disability Living Allowance claims

  Our aim is to continue to improve the accuracy of benefit payments year on year.

  Valuing and developing staff

  The Agency will achieve Investors in People status for the BA as a whole by April 1999.

  The Agency will continue to make the BA a more family friendly organisation by setting up, by March 1999, a further 10 holiday playschemes. A further 40 playschemes will be in place by March 2001.

  Efficient services

  The Agency will, during 1998, develop proposals for improving the measurement of Agency performance these will be introduced from April 1999.

  CONTRIBUTIONS AGENCY

  Note: The level of accuracy for all targets is 98 per cent.

  1 Records Maintenance

  To set up and maintain accurate National Insurance (NI) accounts by delivering:

  New accounts properly registered for:

  95 per cent. of juveniles in advance of their 16th birthday.

  90 per cent. of adults without NI accounts within 8 days of receipt of correctly completed application forms.

  Unsolicited customer generated changes to personal details properly recorded, completing 92 per cent. of cases within 15 days.
  676
  NI contributions properly recorded for:

  98 per cent. of appropriate notifications from employers in respect of Class 1 contributors by 31 December 1998, or within 30 days if not completed by 31 December or received after this date.

  90 per cent. of Class 2/3 contributors following investigation within 5 days of receipt of payment.

  NI details properly recorded following investigation for:

  90 per cent. of cases by 31 March 1999, where there are inaccurate submissions by employers.

  85 per cent. of cases in 90 days, where contributors/others identify an inaccuracy.

  The speedy investigation and resolution of 25,000 cases involving discrepancies, and arising out of data integrity process exercises, by 31 March 1999.

  2 Information Provision

  To provide NI related information to Agency customers by replying fully and accurately to:

  95 per cent. of requests from Government Agencies and Departments within:

  3 days where there is no clerical involvement.

  10 days where there is clerical involvement.

  45 days with detailed investigation.

  92 per cent. of requests from pension providers and scheme administrators within 25 days.

  95 per cent. of customer inquiries and complaints within 20 days.

  3 Conformance

  To ensure conformance with NI related legislation to secure timeous collection of contributions to the NI Fund by delivering:

  £3.581 billion collected for the NI Fund.

  £176 million of arrears identified and reference made to the Inland Revenue for collection.

  To deliver the system of contracting-out of State Earnings Related Pensions Scheme ensuring conformance with legislation, to ensure proper use of contracting-out rebates.

  National Insurance rebates accurately paid to Pension Providers, with 98 per cent. of cases completed within one calendar month after the recording of an accurate End of Year return.

  Contracting-out certificates properly issued, clearing 99 per cent. within 5 days.

  Variation and surrender action properly completed, clearing 96 per cent. within 10 days.

  Initiative investigation action within 5 days, where schemes are in breach of contracting-out conditions.

  4 Milestones

  Customer satisfaction

  To improve its service to complainants the Agency will:

  (i) introduce the first management check of complaints by the end of July 1998 (covering the first quarter of 1998/99)

  (ii) reduce "upheld" cases by the Adjudicator's office to 50 per cent by April 1999 (currently 80 per cent-1997 report). Measure to be the Adjudicator's Report 1999.

  New National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2)

  To complete the replacement of the NIRS1 IT system and decommission it. To plan, monitor and support implementation of the replacement NIRS2 system in a way which gives customers and staff confidence, minimises impact on DSS and external

  677
  stakeholders, and maintains the business and contractual relationship with the PH supplier. To plan and prepare for Releases 2 and 3 by April 1999, with a pre-implementation review of readiness completed by January 1999.

  Joint Working

  To work closely with the Department's policy and Inland Revenue colleagues in order to implement successfully changes announced in the Budget and the smooth transfer of the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue in April 1999.

  Employer's Helpline

  To improve the service provided by the Employer's Helpline by March 1999 ensuring that 80 per cent. of callers are connected and answered at the first attempt (currently 73 per cent.).

  To complete a review by October 1998 into the Employer's Helpline service with the aim of establishing the percentage of UK employers who are assisted annually by the Helpline and to make recommendations for extending the scope of this service.

  Carrying out business by electronic means

  The Agency will continue to participate in the Cabinet Office led public and private sector partnership which is investigating the potential of the Internet as a means of doing business with customers. Our eventual aim is that we meet the Prime Minister's target that 25 per cent. of our business will be capable of being transacted through electronic means by the year 2002. We will extend the electronic form "CWF1" pilot in June 1998 to include Barclay's Bank SMART card holders and will also identify additional suitable candidates for this pilot that month.

  The Agency will complete a review of its Internet web site by July 1998 with the aim of extending the information services it provides and developing the means of accepting information direct from customers.

  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

  Child maintenance collected and arranged

  £750 million of child maintenance to be collected or arranged for direct payment from the absent parent to the parent with care.

  Maintenance assessments

  65 per cent. of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 22 weeks and on 31 March 1999 there are to be no applications over 52 weeks old.

  Reviews

  Where a client is dissatisfied with a Child Support Officer's decision and requests a review; or a change of circumstances requires a review; 80 per cent. to be cleared within 13 weeks.

  Payments

  97 per cent. of payments made to the parent with care to be made within 10 working days of receipt from the absent parent.

  Accuracy

  The cash value of all assessments checked in the year to be correct in at least 75 per cent. of cases.

  Milestone targets

  Review the first six months of closer working with the Benefits Agency, taking into account the views of stakeholders and produce a report by 31 December 1998.

  By 30 June 1998 formalise national and local consultation arrangements with stakeholders with a view to improving customer service.
  678
  WAR PENSIONS AGENCY

  Assessment and payment of war pensions

  To clear 75 per cent. of war disablement claims in 145 days.

  To clear 90 per cent. of war widows' claims within 65 days.

  As at 31 March 1999, to have no more than 23 per cent. of outstanding appeals more than 260 days old.

  To clear 6,000 appeals during 1998/99.

  For 90 per cent. of all claims to meet the quality criteria.

  By 28 February 1999, to introduce an independent element to the complaints procedure.

  Provision of welfare support to war disablement pensioners and war widows through the War Pensioners' Welfare Service

  To visit recently bereaved widows within 15 days of a request being made.

  Management of the Ilford Park Polish Home

  To achieve an average occupancy rate of 95 per cent. during the year.

  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AGENCY

  Delivering Active Modern Service

  (i) Take a leading role in the development and support of the key Information System/Information Technology (IT) products and services necessary to achieve the implementation of Active Modern Services including:

  delivery of the agreed IT work programme to support Modern Service Programme projects in prototyping more efficient customer focused service delivery approaches.

  the progression of the ACCORD project meeting agreed milestones relating to budget, timescales and quality.

  co-ordination of the Department's contribution to electronic government with the Central IT Unit (CITU) and other government departments.

  (ii) Deliver agreed IT work programme for support of existing systems to budget, time and quality to the satisfaction of customers, including progression of the programme for Customer Accounting Payments Strategy, and meeting agreed milestones on the implementation of major releases of Jobseeker's Allowance Release 5 and Social Fund Release 9.

  (iii) Lead the Year 2000 Programme within the Department to ensure that all business critical DSS products, services and estates are Year 2000 compliant to agreed timetable.

  Customer Service Targets

  (iv) Measure Customer Satisfaction using the Business Excellence Model (BEM), an industry wide standard, and achieve a 10 per cent. improvement on the 1997/98 ITSA BEM score for customer satisfaction.

  (v) Support and enable the timely and accurate delivery of Social Security administration by delivering 95 per cent. of IT services to the level of service agreed with our Departmental and external customers.

  Financial Targets

  (vi) Manage the Agency's income and expenditure (derived from normal trading activities), as presented on audited accruals accounts, so that the Agency recovers its full economic costs through receipts from customers within a tolerance of plus or minus 2 per cent.

  (vii) Manage the ITS Gross Vote so that the Agency's expenditure outturn is in line with allocations and estimates.

  (viii) Reduce unit costs and prices to deliver an overall business efficiency improvement of 5 per cent.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Languages: A-level Courses
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathasked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the A-level examination boards concerning the removal of A-level examinations in Arabic, Bengali. Hindi, Ukrainian and modern Hebrew.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government believe that GCE A-level qualifications should continue to be available in a wide range of subjects. In the light of recent proposals to withdraw a number of minority language syllabuses, we asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to agree with the GCE awarding bodies new arrangements for safeguarding the provision of small entry subjects at A-level. I am pleased to say that an agreement was reached on 23rd March which will ensure that qualifications presently available will continue to be offered without interruption.
Arabic, Bengali and modern Hebrew are covered by the agreement. Negotiations about Hindi continue. Ukrainian is not currently offered as a GCE A-level, although the Institute of Linguists offers a course which I understand is regarded as broadly equivalent to A-level.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her welcome Answer, particularly for the announcement that the examination boards have been forced to reverse their quite extraordinary decision. Does she agree with me that in the interests of supporting ethnic diversity in this country and in our role as a trading nation, far from restricting the number of A-level languages taught, we actually ought to be increasing them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I very much accept that we must take into account the ethnic diversity of this country when looking at the range of languages available for young people both at GCSE and at A-level.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the Departmnt for Education and Employmént discuss with the Department of Trade the languages that are taught and examined at school so as to make certain that our exporters are armed with people who speak the necessary languages spoken round the world?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my department and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which has
376
a good deal of responsibility for advising the Government on the curriculum, would always be interested in any advice that the DTI wanted to give on those languages which it regards as particularly important from the point of view of exporting round the world.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is easy enough to buy goods in English but it is much more difficult to sell them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend has a great deal of experience in this matter. I do not, but I am sure he is right on that.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, does the Minister know how long Hindi has been available as an A-level subject? I took my Hindi A-level in 1952. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind and do whatever she can to retain Hindi as an A-level subject. I took Hindi A-level "pre-ethnic diversity". I am sure she is aware that many more people now want to take these languages.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I understand that the awarding body that offers A-level Hindi, Edexcel, is still in discussion with the QCA about its future provision. But since it is a subject that is currently offered, I fully expect to see its future safeguarded under the terms of the new agreement.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is there any case for the inclusion of double Dutch as an aid in the interpretation of administrative orders?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is this a reserved matter for the Welsh assembly?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not know whether the issue of the teaching of foreign languages at A-level will be a reserved matter for the Welsh assembly. But I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, speaking as the chair of an official statutory body promoting minority language Welsh, which is an official language in the United Kingdom, may I endorse the Government's policy and say how important it is to maintain and develop linguistic diversity in these islands, notwithstanding any political comments from the Official Opposition?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord has said.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in view of the earlier questions and responses in the area of trade and exports, will the noble Baroness confirm something she has said

377
on previous occasions, which is that every possible encouragement will be given to the teaching of Spanish and Portuguese as major world languages?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree that Spanish and Portuguese are very important world languages. I think it is the case that increasing numbers of young people are now learning Spanish in our schools. The issue of Portuguese is somewhat more difficult. There are far fewer teachers available in the UK to provide language teaching in Portuguese at the school level, although I know that many university departments are now offering what I think are called Iberian Studies, where Portuguese can be learnt along with Spanish.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will my noble friend take the opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister on speaking in perfect French before the French Assembly? Is this not an excellent example to some of our other politicians to show their abilities in this direction? Is she aware that German is taught on these premises between one o'clock and two o'clock on a Thursday, and may I encourage any Members of the House who would wish to extend their knowledge in that language to make themselves available?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I will certainly pass on my noble friend's congratulations to the Prime Minister. I may perhaps suggest that he might like to join the German class between one o'clock and two o'clock on Thursdays in this House. I think that all Ministers should brush up their foreign languages a little. I could certainly do with it.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister consider arranging some English classes for the Deputy Prime Minister?

Iraq: Military Policy
3.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there was or will be any threat to use nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom or the United States in the dispute with Iraq.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the United Kingdom would only ever use nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances and in self-defence. There are sufficient conventional forces available to us for a proportionate response to any situation that might arise in the Gulf. US military policy with regard to Iraq is a matter for them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer, in so far as it refers to this country, is entirely satisfactory and I thank him for it? But is it the case that the decision to utilise, if necessary, what my noble and charming friend Lady Symons
378
described in reply to my Question for Written Answer as "severest consequences" does not include nuclear weapons?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the phrase "severest consequences" arises from the Security Council resolution which followed the agreement between the Iraqi Government and the Secretary-General. That makes absolutely clear that if Iraq were to breach that agreement it could be faced with very severe consequences indeed. In those circumstances a military assessment would need to be made. The position of the United Kingdom Government would remain as I explained in my earlier Answer.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, may I express the hope to the Minister that contingency plans were made for any eventuality in the recent Iraq crisis covering any form of reaction that might have been required to anything done by the Iraqis? Does the Minister agree that that would include anything nuclear?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the House has accepted the position enunciated by my noble friend Lady Symons that it would not be sensible in this House to discuss which options were considered and which were not. As I say, the general position as regards the use of nuclear weapons remains as stated.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, is it not the case that the principle behind all this is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent? Bearing in mind that it has been decided that the threat from Saddam Hussein could affect the whole of the Middle East and indeed the world, should we not look at the way in which we deal with him and in that context should not the potential use of all weapons be considered?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have nothing to add to my previous answers as regards options. In pursuit of the agreement between the Secretary-General and Saddam Hussein, clearly a lot depends on the reports from the UNSCOM inspectorate. Some progress has been made and decisions will have to be made in the light of its final report.

Sir Walter Raleigh: Statue
3.11 p.m.
Lord Annanasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in finding a more suitable site for the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh, at present standing in front of the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under the Public Statues (Metropolis) Act 1854, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport must approve the erection and relocation of statues in London. The Act says that, because of that role, he cannot involve himself in the development of such proposals. As I indicated in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on

379
15th December, the then Secretary of State for National Heritage approved in principle Madam Speaker's proposal to move the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh to St. Margaret's churchyard. We know that in May last year Westminster City Council refused planning permission for the specific site proposed, but I understand that discussions are continuing about an alternative location in the vicinity of the church.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that fascinating reply. Does he recollect the story of Sir Walter Raleigh at a banquet? His son was on his left-hand side and gave vent to an ill-bred remark, whereupon Sir Walter fetched him an enormous box on the ear. His son, not wishing to strike his father, turned to the person on his left-hand side and boxed his ear, saying, "Box about and it will come to my father anon". I wonder whether that is what is happening in Whitehall, where there is a well-established principle of passing the buck in which, of course, the Department for Culture's file goes to the Ministry of Defence, which then passes it to the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office then passes it back to the Ministry of Defence with comments and then it comes back to the Department for Culture. It may go from there to many of the other departments for which the noble Lord speaks so eloquently and remarkably well in this House. Can he say whether there has been any progress on this matter at all? By "progress" I mean putting another proposal to Westminster City Council to see whether its planning committee will turn that one down as well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to have a completely new story from the noble Lord in place of the feeble jokes about smoking which we had on the last occasion when this matter was discussed. There has been no passing the buck between departments. As regards central government, the issue is only for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Other participants are, of course, the City of Westminster, the Dean of Westminster and Madam Speaker. If no solution is found to the problem which Madam Speaker and the Dean of Westminster are addressing, we would be open to other suggestions.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most suitable resting place for this fine statue of the great statesman, Sir Walter Raleigh, is Old Palace Yard, where he was executed on 29th October 1618? As your Lordships will know, Old Palace Yard is the area near the Jewel Tower, and between it and Millbank. Failing that suggestion receiving permission, perhaps the noble Lord, with his great desire to see London give its treasures out to the regions, will consider Budleigh Salterton as a better place, because that is where Sir Walter Raleigh was born? Finally, will the noble Lord see placed on the statue the final words of Sir Walter Raleigh,
"So the heart he right, it is no matter which way the head lies"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the choice of St. Margaret's is based on the fact that Sir Walter Raleigh is buried there, which seems rather kinder than choosing the site of his execution.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one last question. The statue could be placed at the back of the Foreign Office between the statues of Lord Clive and Lord Mountbatten, but it would be overshadowed by neither. Does the Minister agree that that would be quite a suitable place, in that Sir Walter Raleigh gave the Foreign Office, or its equivalent in those times, a great deal of trouble, so the Foreign Office could now look down on him?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. It is the case that the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh was planned in the first instance to be erected outside the National Gallery where the statue of King James is at the moment. The problem was that Westminster City Council refused planning permission some 40 years ago. All possible locations will be considered.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as the spokesman for the Department for Culture in this House, can the noble Lord tell us what a "buck" is in this context? Is it an angulate mammal; a well-dressed young man of the early 19th century, or is it an American dollar?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I understand it, in Whitehall the "buck" is usually black and white and on paper.

Cross-Media Ownership
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 to give the Monopolies and Mergers Commission powers to order divestment when cross-media ownership concentrates an undesirable number of outlets in one set of hands.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, under our competition legislation, as set out in the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's role is investigatory. It is not an order-making body as seems to be implied in the Question of the noble Baroness. The Government have no plans to provide it with such powers.
The particular restrictions on cross-media ownership to protect plurality and diversity are contained in the Broadcasting Act 1990, as revised by the Broadcasting Act 1996. As these amended provisions have been in force for only 16 months the Government have no plans to revise them at present.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that in the 25 years since the Act was passed there has been a huge increase in the dissemination of news and views through terrestrial and satellite television, independent radio and the computer? Does he appreciate that Mr. Rupert Murdoch's media empire not only continues to control five national newspapers, but that he has substantially

381
expanded the commercial power of his international television interests, particularly in sport, and that through cross-subsidies from television to print he is able to indulge in predatory pricing for The Times? In view of Mr. Murdoch's phenomenal power, will the Minister confirm that if there were any suspicion at all of prime ministerial patronage being sought in return for past, present or future editorial support, that would be a proper matter to be examined by the Neill Committee?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that simple question! We are aware of the huge increase in media activity. The Broadcasting Act was designed to take care of that. We are also aware of the cross-shareholdings. I seem to remember that the Director General of Fair Trading has had them investigated three times in the past 10 years. Regarding Mr. Murdoch and his relationship with the Prime Minister, I can assure noble Lords that there has been no improper action by the Prime Minister. It is certainly not a matter for the Neill Committee if the Prime Minister takes action in supporting a British company.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, bearing in mind the evident failure of News International to comply with the undertakings to respect editorial freedom and independence which were given in 1981 when The Times was purchased, and the Minister's response which indicated that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission may recommend divestment only if a reference is made to it, will my noble friend ask Her Majesty's Government to refer this matter to the MMC so that we shall know whether or not there was true compliance with what was said in 1981?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, under his current powers, the Director General of Fair Trading has written to the Guardian, Independent and Daily Telegraph newspapers seeking further information in support of their complaints of predatory pricing by The Times. He has asked for a reply by 8th April. On my noble friend's point about the independence of The Times, that is a matter for the independent directors of The Times. Judging from our debate on the Competition Bill, many of them seem to be Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend think that aggressive price-cutting with the purpose of killing an opponent constitutes fair competition? If he does not think that it constitutes fair competition, what is he going to do about it?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, predatory pricing is a matter for legal and economic tests. Pricing is either predatory or it is not. The questions are the same in any market. It is a matter of fact, not a question of weighing the public interest, as the noble Lord seemed to imply. We do not need a special regime for newspapers in the
382
Competition Bill to decide whether a dominant company is abusing its position by predatory pricing because predatory pricing should be stopped wherever it occurs.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when are Ministers going to accept that casuistry in their answers—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McNally:—that legalism in their answers is no response to genuine public and cross-party concern about the concentration of media power? Would it not be far better if Ministers left our Competition Bill unamended in another place—I hope that there may be an indication that this time we shall have the support of the Opposition Front Bench—or will the Government give time to Mr. Clive Soley to bring forward the Bill that he has proposed to deal with this matter, or will the Government pass the matter over to one of their many review committees? In any event, will the Government realise that the concentration of media power is of real public concern and that chirping "no, no, no" from Mr. Rupert Murdoch's top pocket is no ministerial response?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are certainly aware of the public concern about media ownership. Regarding the amendment to the Competition Bill, the Government will advise the other place of the content of that Bill when it is debated there. However, the Government have made it clear that in their view the amendment is not only unnecessary but, what is more, it is unworkable.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, in his Answer the noble Lord suggested that as only 16 months have elapsed since the passage of the last Broadcasting Act, there has been insufficient time to review the provisions, but the Government have now been in power for 11 months, so is the House to understand that the Government's present policy is that they are entirely satisfied with the current proportions of ownership?
Lord Haskel: No, my Lords. As I explained in answer to an earlier question, the Director General of Fair Trading is in correspondence with other newspapers, and there is currently a review of broadcasting and the cross-ownership of the broadcasting media. When that review is completed and when the DGFT has received a response from the other broadsheet newspapers, the Government will be able to make a more informed decision.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the independent directors of The Times. Does he by any chance have to hand a list of those independent directors and, if so, could be read it out to the House?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that to hand, but I shall certainly write to my noble friend on that point.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, when the spokesman for the Official Opposition referred to prime

383
ministerial interference, was that a reference to the occasion when The Times was sold to Mr. Murdoch, because that seemed to me to be the time when there was improper interference? When the Government talk about pursuing British interests, will they bear in mind the two occasions on which the BBC's worldwide television service has been dropped from Mr. Murdoch's satellite simply because it has the inconvenient habit of portraying programmes of documentary fact?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the sale of The Times to News International took place in 1981 when the matter of editorial independence was addressed by changing the company's articles of association. Consent to the transfer of The Times was given by the Secretary of State on that condition. His consent was dependent on the articles of association being amended to incorporate provisions to protect editorial independence. The amendment to the articles makes it clear that, in the event of any dispute between the editor and the directors of Times Newspapers, the matter has to be referred to the independent national directors whose decision shall be final and binding.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will the noble Lord assist in this matter simply with a stroke of the pen by changing what he has described as a "review" into a "full-blooded inquiry", as is merited by the amount not only of public concern, but also of public suspicion? There should be no further delays in instituting such a change.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, that is not within my power, but I am sure that the inquiries by the Director General of Fair Trading will reveal exactly what the level of predatory pricing is.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if this House decides in due course to insist on their amendment, the Competition Bill will be at risk of delay for a year? Is he prepared to contemplate that or would the Government then be prepared to accept the amendment passed by this House?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not aware that the Competition Bill would be at risk of being delayed for a year.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I totally accept what the noble Lord said about there being nothing improper about any telephone conversation regarding British business which the Prime Minister may make, but does the noble Lord nevertheless agree that having received a negative answer from the Italian Prime Minister to the effect that the company would not be interested in being sold to Mr. Rupert Murdoch, that
384
has undoubtedly saved Mr. Murdoch a fortune given the amount of money that might have been required if he were to make a formal bid?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, any conversation which the Prime Minister may have had with the Italian Prime Minister is a private matter. Therefore, it is a matter of which I am unaware.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, reference has been made to British business and British companies. I was under the impression that Mr. Murdoch was an American citizen. Is that correct?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I was referring to the ownership and location of Times International and BSkyB.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Dubs will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the report of the Narey Inquiry on security at the Maze Prison. I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

Regional Development Agencies Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the House has already discussed the specific clauses of this Bill. I shall not go into the specific details of the Bill. However, before this House passes the Bill, I believe that it is important to set out again why it is necessary. This is an emergency Bill. The powers contained in it have proved to be long lived in a succession of measures but they have never been, and should not be, accepted as a permanent part of our arrangements—hence the need for regular renewal of the powers as provided for in the Bill.
It is to be hoped that the talks process will produce an agreement that takes a big step in resolving the conflict. The news overnight from the talks appears to

385
be discouraging but is not necessarily disheartening. We realised that the crunch points would be left to last and that cross-border bodies and their precise definition, together with the offensive and illegal claims to sovereignty in the constitution of the Irish Republic, were the crunch points. We shall see whether the process of the end-game, which we appear to be approaching—brink management in the face of an artificial deadline—produces a result. This process has been refined in recent years in the European Union and is much beloved there. Sometimes it produces a result.
Whatever the results of the talks, it is certain that some terrorists of both extremes will continue their deadly operations. I have long thought, and said when I was a Minister in the Province some years ago, that the momentum behind the terrorism is both political and financial. The financial rackets, based essentially on the ability to place people in genuine fear for their lives, provide some of the momentum for terrorism these days. That part of the momentum will survive any political settlement. But political agreement between the two governments and the various parties will not entirely remove the political momentum behind terrorism; it will only weaken it. That will be particularly so if the results of the agreement build in uncertainty. I refer to the plan for regular future referendums which was suggested a few days ago.
A lasting agreement, if it can be obtained, endorsed by the people will help immensely in the fight against terrorism but it will not switch it off like a tap. I believe that incidents that have occurred in the past few days underline that point. The cold-blooded murder of a retired policeman reminds us once again of the exceptional service and daily bravery of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of all the security forces. The interception of a big car bomb at Dún Laoghaire emphasises the very good work that has been carried out by the Garda in this respect as well as the dangers to Great Britain and the Province. These outrages, taking place as they do during an official ceasefire, are an attempt to throw the talks into difficulty. They also cast a shadow forward.
The powers in this Bill will, I believe, remain necessary in order to defend democracy. It is important to be clear about this, particularly as it appears that some people even within the United Nations do not really accept this. These powers are not anti-democratic; on the contrary, they are essential for the defence of democracy. The purpose of terrorism is to distort democracy by terrorising people. This Bill is not against the rule of law but is to protect the rule of law. The Diplock courts exist because of the terrorisation of juries and witnesses. Mr. Cumaraswamy of the United Nations needs to understand this, if newspaper reports of his recent comments are correct. He is reported to have recommended the reinstatement of jury trials in the Province. That is not realistic at present and that is likely to remain the position for the immediate future.
The future of Northern Ireland is a matter for the decision of the people of Northern Ireland. They should be allowed to make a free decision. This Bill is part of the background which entitles people to make a free
386
decision. To permit this, all who support democracy should support the fight against terrorism of which this Bill is an important part. I support the Bill.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the House has rehearsed the arguments about these provisions at earlier stages of the Bill. I content myself by saying that in general we on these Benches accept the sad fact that legislation of this kind is still necessary in Northern Ireland. Given the determination of some malevolent minorities to try to undermine civilised life, let alone the peace process, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that this Bill should pass.
One event very germane to emergency provisions has occurred since we last discussed this measure. I refer to the publication by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, the independent commissioner for the holding centres, of his annual report submitted to the Secretary of State on 23rd March. As this is very relevant to emergency provisions, I take this opportunity to put two questions to the Minister. In light of the criticisms of the United Nations to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has referred, it is good to read the conclusion of Sir Louis that there is still not the slightest cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in police custody by uniformed officers at the holding centres. Given the authorship of that report, I believe that we can all have confidence in that conclusion.
At the same time, Sir Louis poses two fundamental questions. As I do not know when noble Lords will have a chance to raise them with the Minister, perhaps I may deal with them now. First, Sir Louis asks whether, with the advent of recording of interviews with suspects and the end of unsupervised questioning by detectives, there is any longer a sound basis for distinguishing between the regimes for terrorist suspects on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. He asks, rightly in my view, whether arrests under Section 14 of the PTA, wherever they occur, should be PACE-regulated; in other words, whether they should be treated as they are on the mainland and whether the holding centres should again become police stations. That is his first question. We should take it seriously.
The second is one of which those noble Lords who live in Northern Ireland will be well aware. It is a longstanding question. Why has the Castlereagh holding centre not been replaced? That is a matter to which the previous Northern Ireland Secretary, whom I am delighted to see in his place, referred. He hoped that it would be replaced, but it is not even a priority in the current RUC building programme. Much of the international criticism of our human rights regime in Northern Ireland—much of it misplaced—is based on the much, and rightly, criticised Castlereagh holding centre. The chief constable wants it closed. Everyone wants it closed. What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, at an earlier stage I did not question the Government's judgment that there will, unfortunately, be a continuing need for emergency legislation. I support the two noble Lords who have spoken and the continuance of the present

387
legislation until the Home Secretary produces more comprehensive permanent legislation to cover all forms of terrorism, national and international.
The benefit of that would be that it would prevent individual government departments from attempting to placate terrorists to an extent which sometimes brings the entire Government into disrepute. I shall not dwell again on the unwise concessions contained in the Bill—concessions which come at a most critical time in the so-called peace process—but in recent months I have cautioned against that stock phrase which is designed to apply pressure to politicians. It runs, "Please get around the table to find a solution to end the violence". "Please get around the table to end the violence", is misleading because the last four words, "to end the violence", constitute a form of subtle blackmail and are downright misleading.
Whatever hope there may be of finding a solution or an agreement, that can have no effect whatsoever on eradicating terrorism—the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, made that point adequately—because no political arrangement can possibly deliver what the terrorists demand unless—I underline "unless"—Her Majesty's Government are prepared to ignore the ballot box and the principle of consent of the greater number of people of Northern Ireland—Protestant, Catholic, other faiths, no faiths at all—who just want to co-operate and live in peace with one another, and, broadly speaking, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, live within the UK, the larger unit.
In that context, I caution Her Majesty's Government against a repetition of the 1973 Sunningdale conference where the Northern Ireland delegates to that conference were starved of food and sleep until they cracked under pressure and accepted completely unreal propositions which, in the cold light of day, they could not sell to their supporters and could not deliver. At the very first test of electoral opinion—namely, the general election of February 1974—they, those Ministers, those delegates and the policies that they mistakenly approved were all swept away.
The Irish Government would appear today to be in full retreat from what was thought to be their position on certain crucial issues. It must be understood that whereas Her Majesty's present government are electorally secure for the next four years, Irish governments are always at the mercy of proportional representation elections, and, even when they are in coalition, they rest on a precarious single figure majority. I believe that the present government have no majority at all.
That being the position, they would not dare to offend even a small segment of their own supporters. So governance by what I would call the revolving door involves a perpetual risk to any North/South ministerial body with executive powers in which the policies and greed between North and South, if they were to happen, would be perpetually at risk of a general election in the Irish Republic, which seems to happen on an almost annual basis.
Regrettably, the Northern Ireland talks are falling apart because of the very same flaws that risked the Middle East process—namely, the equivalent of that
388
international circus which we saw with the two leaders of the Middle Eastern nations shaking hands on the White House lawn with the President benevolently almost conducting a marriage ceremony. The effect which that television picture had on the supporters of both of those leaders was bound to lead to deterioration and consequent failure, as has been judged by the American Secretary of State.
The relevance of this emergency legislation is that what I call the high-wire-act process in Northern Ireland has been going on for the past two years. It is only now that they seem to have stopped dancing around one another and debating high-minded political philosophy that they have got down in the final fortnight to talking about the real issues. But of course the weekly increase in terrorism over recent weeks—the car bomb on its way to London is the latest—is caused by the uncertainty, all the hype and all the tension which exists, because it is quite untrue that such terrorism is the work of groups trying to destroy what is called the peace process.
I trust that such false propaganda will now cease because the real motive is to stake out claims to territory and influence. That truth has to be faced, and courage and resolution will be required by all of us—not least all of us elected or appointed to the Parliament of the UK. No credibility must be attached to the allegation that the collapse of the present circus will create a vacuum. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware—I hope that the message will be conveyed to him that there is widespread support for his current policies of extending the reality of decentralising from Whitehall and making more efficient the governance of the various parts of the UK-that he will have that support in streamlining the governance of all parts of the kingdom.
The Prime Minister has provided, after all, what many of us in Northern Ireland and many present who held positions of responsibility in Northern Ireland regard as a working model for that which would work in Northern Ireland , because applied to Northern Ireland that would enable all the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to co-operate in providing a real service to those who elect them. That is the most reassuring message that any elected representatives can transmit to the people who elect them.
However, it will do much more than that—this is the vital matter which I am sure the Prime Minister and his Government have in mind—it would build mutual trust between those elected to an extent which would pave the way for real, solid progress towards a future where violence would be deprived of its life support.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, this is not the time to repeat the reasons why many of us cannot accept the retention of Clause 3, which relates to the removal of internment. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, commented on the notion that people getting together around a table and agreeing at talks would lead to peace. That has been put about for years as being the end to all our problems. It has been said that all we have to do is reach agreement and then we shall have peace. The noble Lord said what all of us who have been born and brought up in Northern Ireland know—that that certainly will not be the case. There are

389
too many different factions of people who for one reason or another are interested in destabilising the community. That will continue, as is obvious from the events of recent weeks. The Government have lost what could be a powerful weapon in certain circumstances. I only hope that the Minister, who has valiantly argued for the retention of Clause 3 and has listened to us for some time, has been persuaded that Clause 3 can be removed.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates at various stages of the Bill. I thank in particular those who have supported the Government on crucial issues. I do not wish to speak at length, but I say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that the talks are not falling apart. We always expected that there would be difficulties in the final stages, but we do not believe that the talks are falling apart. I do not share the noble Lord's pessimism about the outcome and I appreciate his comments in support of certain of the Prime Minister's endeavours.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked me a number of questions about the report by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper published last Friday on the holding centres. It is not normal for the Government to respond quickly. We regard such reports as important and wish to consider them. We would wish to discuss some of the proposals with the RUC and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the points that he raised.
On Question, Bill passed.

Maze Prison: Narey Report
3.52 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement on the report of the Narey Inquiry into incidents at the Maze prison.
"On 10th December, PIRA prisoner, Liam Averill, escaped from the Maze prison. On the following day, we commissioned an independent inquiry to be undertaken by Martin Narey, the Director of Regimes in the Prison Service for England and Wales. He was asked to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the escape.
"On 27th December, LVF prisoner, Billy Wright, was killed within the Maze prison. We immediately asked Martin Narey to extend the scope of his inquiry to include the circumstances surrounding the murder. In addition, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, was asked immediately to bring forward a full inspection of the Maze.
"Martin Narey's detailed and comprehensive report is now before the House. I am grateful to him and his team for completing his inquiry so promptly.
390
"Before going on to consider important aspects of the report, I would like to comment on the third serious incident that has occurred in the Maze—the brutal and savage murder of David Keys who was found dead in LVF accommodation on the morning of Sunday, 15th March.
"I very much regret any incident which leads to the loss of life within prison. I am committed to taking all viable steps to prevent a recurrence. But I must be honest and say emphatically that even with the most rigorous and severe prison regimes it is impossible to guarantee that serious incidents will not happen.
"Mr Keys' murder is of course the subject of an RUC investigation and an internal investigation by the Prison Service. However, although Martin Narey had the safety of prisoners continually in mind, the murder raises issues that go beyond the scope of Martin Narey's inquiry. I have therefore asked Sir David Ramsbotham, whose inspection of the Maze began on Monday, 23rd March, to look specifically at the way in which the regime at the Maze impacts on the safety of individual prisoners and to make recommendations.
"As a result of information received during the RUC's investigation, the governor has decided to place LVF prisoners under Prison Rule 32 for the maintenance of good order and discipline. This is not a punishment, but does mean that prisoners are kept in cell for up to 23 hours of the day and have restricted association and privileges. Even this reasonable measure resulted in a number of prisoners refusing prison food and threats to prison staff in an effort to overturn the governor's decision.
"It is important to bear in mind that Mr Keys applied to be transferred to the Maze in full knowledge of the conditions there. However, in future remand prisoners will not move immediately to the Maze but will be held for a longer period in Maghaberry for assessment. This will give the prison authorities more time to be assured about the safety of such a move.
"Martin Narey has described very fully the unique difficulties faced by staff and management at the Maze prison. To quote from his report:
'The Maze contains more than 500 paramilitary prisoners, from five different factions, some violently opposed to one another, living in segregated accommodation and enjoying the support of significant communities outside the prison. It is staffed by prison officers who live in the same communities'.
"Staff at all levels in the Prison Service and their families have been subjected to a campaign of intimidation and attack directed against them. Since the start of the troubles, 29 members of staff have been murdered by paramilitaries. In 1996–97 alone there were 122 reported threats against staff and a further 50 officers had to be given special protection. This campaign has been waged against staff in an effort by prisoners and their supporters to impose their will. The campaign continues. Last weekend there was a live bomb attempt on the home of a female prison officer in Portadown and in the early hours of Monday morning a bomb exploded under the car of a retired prison officer living in Carrickfergus.

391
"Given the small size of Northern Ireland and its small prison estate, the dispersal of paramilitary prisoners is not possible. Instead, the only prudent option is to hold them in one place. Although the concentration of prisoners has many security advantages, there is a price to be paid. It gives the prisoners the opportunity to take concerted action within prison, including against staff.
"I know of no other prison which operates under such difficult circumstances, nor where staff are under such continual threat and pressure. I share Martin Narey's admiration for those who work at the Maze. Despite the difficulties and dangers, for 14 years until December of last year they had contained a difficult population without a single escape.
"Martin Narey has also drawn attention to the support which paramilitary prisoners have outside prison. One important consequence of this has been faced by me and my predecessors. This is the danger that actions taken inside prison, for perfectly sound and defensible penological reasons, may result in disruption and unrest outside prison. Against this background, I am aware that staff and management at the Maze have created conditions of safety and humanity which compare favourably with any other prison in this country and beyond and have been entirely open to impartial observers from outside such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
"In the aftermath of the escape and the murders, I am required to make decisions about the security of prisons and prisoners. But, like all my predecessors, I must make decisions which balance the security of custody with the safety of our staff. I must also make decisions which balance the requirements of imprisonment with the wider requirements of public order and public safety.
"In fact, this Government have already taken significant steps to improve security at the Maze prison. In March 1997, a tunnel was found in H Block 7. It was the subject of an inquiry by the previous government carried out by John Steele in the Northern Ireland Office. Following the election of this Government, we have pursued the implementation of the Steele recommendations: specifically morning and evening headcounts are being taken; each day five randomly selected cells per block are being given a fabric check; full block searches are now a weekly feature, one block being searched each Thursday; material coming from stores is now exchanged on a `new for old' basis. There is now an accurate picture of the amount and nature of these supplies in the blocks; shadow-boards are now in place in each block for handicraft tools and excess tools are removed during searches; all prisoners on inter-block movement are being searched. In addition, there is a programme of physical security measures which has been included in the existing block refurbishment programme. Five blocks have been upgraded to date and work on the remainder is due for completion by mid-August.
392
"Martin Narey has drawn attention to a number of important lapses of security at the Maze. He has made 59 recommendations which he considers will represent real improvements for staff and prisoners.
"As Martin Narey indicated in his report, changes have already been made. In particular, the governor has taken the initiative to put in place regular full block searches on a random basis; regular security checks of all H-blocks fences; new arrangements for weekend coverage of staffing shortfalls on visits; new arrangements for searching prisoners on visits and for x-raying their parcels; new arrangements for counting visitors at parties.
"As to the remaining recommendations, there are others that will be taken forward immediately now that the report has been published. Other recommendations require an element of detailed consideration and the necessary project teams are being put in place; for example, to look at security of the roofs of the buildings and improved processes for dealing with visitors.
"The issues to be considered vary in their complexity. However, as an assurance of our determination to act upon the recommendations and to tighten security, I undertake to make available to Parliament in three months' time a progress report on implementation. In addition, and going beyond the recommendations, we have set up a security audit team which will begin to work immediately and which will provide the chief executive of the Prison Service with the necessary assurance that changes have been made and are working effectively.
"Finally, I would like to turn to questions about the on-going management of the Maze. Martin Narey has recorded not only a number of lapses in security but has also dealt with wider matters to do with the safe and secure running of the prison. These centre on improving the quality of general management and enhancing staff morale and confidence.
"The report suggests that the shortcomings cannot be attributed to individuals but are instead the result of a slow but long-running deterioration caused by staff fears of the consequences of managing paramilitary prisoners and by the absence of effective middle management. The shortcomings have also emerged because there is no easy way of dealing with the Maze and the difficult prisoners that it contains. The simple truth that Martin Narey acknowledges is that the Maze is different and the policies operated by successive governments—and that we have inherited—have reflected this fact.
"The options open to me are to continue with the status quo, which is unacceptable, or to turn the clock back at the Maze and to reassert the sort of regime which operated during the 1980s. However turning the clock back would be at a price within the prison and within the community that I believe no reasonable person would be prepared to pay. Certainly no previous government have taken a different view.
"We recognise the problems, but that is not an excuse for complacency. One irony is that the shortcomings noted by Martin Narey had been noted

393
by the Prison Service long before December of last year and were being acted on. They were the reason that Martin Mogg, the most senior governor available within the Northern Ireland Prison Service, together with a new management team was asked in October 1997 to take over the Maze. Martin Mogg's appointment is a temporary one, to ensure the vigorous implementation of the Steele recommendations. I am pleased to note Martin Narey's acknowledgement of the good progress which the team has been making.
"However, the fact remains, as Martin Narey has concluded, that,
'the challenge of the Maze is greater than that of any other establishment in the United Kingdom'.
I regard it as critically important, therefore, that we act quickly on the Narey Inquiry recommendations. And we will do so.
"Implementing the Narey Report in full will be a considerable task for the Northern Ireland Prison Service. However, I am confident that it can and will meet this challenge. I commend this report to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, following the very serious incidents, in the brief time that I have had to glance at the report, it seems to be extremely useful from a senior member of the Prison Service of England and Wales on the more technical aspects, as it were, of the problems. I shall be grateful if the Minister will convey the gratitude of us all to Mr. Narey and his team.
As the Statement said, we all recognise that the Maze is special. It has a special regime. There are no political prisoners in the United Kingdom. All those in the Maze are either convicted of or charged with the most serious offences that it is possible to imagine. But the regime cannot be normal because of the nature of those prisoners. Will the Minister also accept that we all recognise too the influence that the views of Maze prisoners have on opinion outside, although that was considerably built up in importance by the Secretary of State's visit?
However, this is the first of two reports. We await also the Ramsbotham Report on the later incident and death and wider aspects which he will examine. Will the Ramsbotham Report be published, so far as security considerations will allow?
I should tell the Minister that I remember very well some of the very serious threats that were made to prison officers, the deaths of prison officers and the immense courage of all the members of the Northern Ireland Prison Service in carrying out their duties and, indeed, in being prepared to take on the duties which they undertake, particularly at the Maze but throughout the service.
Finally, the report emphasises that Mr. Mogg's dual appointment both as head of operations for the whole of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and as governor of
394
the Maze is temporary. Will the Minister tell us when it is likely that a new full-time governor will be appointed at the Maze prison?
4.5 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Narey for this report and I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in that respect. His report is full of sensible recommendations. As the Minister said when he read the Statement, there are 59 recommendations. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State feels that she should report back to us in three months' time on how those recommendations are being implemented.
However, we must face the fact in Parliament that the Maze has been deteriorating over years and that was probably accelerated by the decision in 1994 to withdraw patrols from residential areas. We have a prison which has been moving out of any normal definition of control over a long period. Therefore, that succession of horrifying incidents in the last year cannot be a total surprise and to some extent should be seen as symptoms of a profoundly disordered situation at the Maze.
In the Statement the Secretary of State said that such things happen even in the most severe and rigorous prison regimes. So they do, but no one in the world would describe the Maze as having the most severe and rigorous prison regime. Essentially, it is a place where the prisoners have been determining to far too great an extent how they shall be guarded and supervised. As the Statement rightly says, that has not happened all at once. It has happened over many years.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that being a prison officer at the Maze is a terrible job. The people who do that job deserve our sympathy, as he said. I also have great admiration for their courage, given the threats which they face both inside the Maze and in their communities at home. But that admiration for the staff does not mean that the regime and system operating in the Maze is one in which we can have any confidence whatever. Therefore, I await anxiously the wisdom of Sir David Ramsbotham on what is to be done with the Maze. Will the Minister let us know when it is anticipated that Sir David will report?
Finally—and again I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope—when is it intended that a new permanent governor will be appointed? However experienced Mr. Mogg is, this cannot be a time for uncertainty in the prison. It needs its own governor on a long-time basis. I see that the report recommends advertising on the mainland. I should have thought that action more urgent than advertising is needed. What about some head hunting? There cannot be that many people in the British Isles capable of being an effective governor of the Maze. It would be nice to believe that there were some urgency in that regard.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his tribute to the staff of the Prison Service in Northern Ireland. I know that he speaks from

395
experience, having served in Northern Ireland and dealt with some of these difficulties at first hand when he was in office. I can confirm that the Ramsbotham report will be published and made available when it is completed.
Perhaps I may now refer to the Secretary of State's visit to the Maze, which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned. The Secretary of State did not go there to negotiate; she went there to give some clear facts to the prisoners in the Maze and she did so because she wanted to preserve the peace process. I do not believe that the visit in any way increased the influence of prisoners in the Maze. However, I concede as a general proposition that prisoners in the Maze do have links with their respective groupings or communities and that this is a factor which clearly has to be taken into account. We expect the Ramsbotham report to be published and made available in approximately two months' time. Sir David has moved pretty quickly in his work in Northern Ireland.
As regards what will happen eventually about a new governor for the Maze Prison, I can tell the House that arrangements are in place to recruit a governor and the post has been advertised. However, I am not yet able to give a firm date by which an appointment is likely. Nevertheless, the process has already started. I believe that I have covered all the questions put to me thus far.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is right to acknowledge that the Maze Prison presents to the authorities uniquely difficult challenges, not least because of the ruthless and unceasing attempts to intimidate prison officers that are carried out by highly dangerous and politically driven prisoners? Indeed, in her Statement, the Secretary of State alluded to that fact.
Nevertheless, does the Minister accept that it is of overriding importance that the primary purposes of this prison—namely, to keep prisoners inside, as well, of course, as alive—must be reliably secured by lawful policies, whether those are orthodox or, possibly, unorthodox? That must be the baseline from which the Government assess all policy options that are open to them, not to mention whatever representations may be made to them in the name of the political process. For myself, I never refer to the peace process.
Lord Dubs: Yes, my Lords; the Government agree very much with what the noble and learned Lord has said. The Maze is different because it houses a very large number of individuals who have been convicted of murder or other serious offences, as well as other prisoners who are held on remand for very serious offences. I also accept that there is a danger of intimidation; indeed, we have seen threats of intimidation to prison officers and, regrettably, a number of prison officers have been murdered as a result of such intimidation.
396
I also accept that it is important to ensure that the prison is secure, that prisoners are held there and, indeed, that we cut the chance of escape to an absolute minimum. When we implement all the recommendations of the Narey Report and have looked at the Ramsbotham report, I believe that we shall be able to move to a position where we shall meet some of these difficulties with more confidence than has been the case in the recent past.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement at a convenient time in our proceedings today. As the Maze Prison is situated in the constituency of Lagan Valley, which I had the honour to represent until a year ago, I know something about the problems. Indeed, I had several hundred constituents but no votes in that establishment.
However, I am a little disturbed that there has been no mention of a very serious incident some months ago—not all that long ago—when one of the two prisoners mentioned in the Statement was observed strolling on the roof of one of the H-blocks using a mobile phone for a period of about 25 minutes. The observation was reported to the authorities by a senior Crown servant outside the prison, but his warning was ignored. It would be reasonable to expect that the said prisoner was transmitting information, quite possibly instructions, to some of his murder squads outside the prison.
There appeared to be a mention in the Statement of access to the roofs of the prison, and so on. I wonder whether such an incident will he taken into account when deciding any further measures. I also wonder whether a decision in principle could be taken as regards the possession of mobile phones and the ability of prisoners to make free use of them.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have to be careful how much detail I go into because criminal charges and inquiries are under way and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment too much. However, the apparent ease of access to the roof was looked into as soon as we had reports of that incident. As for the individual on the roof, it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.
I turn now to the oft-repeated allegations that there are mobile phones within the prison and that they are used freely. I can tell the House that it is against prison rules for prisoners to have or use mobile phones. Indeed, when we seek evidence that such phones are used in the way suggested by the noble Lord we are unable to obtain it. However, there is an ordinary British Telecom telephone box for the use of prisoners, operated, I believe, by phone cards. Frankly, even if prisoners did not use mobile phones, there is the possibility that they could maintain contact. Such telephones were installed some years ago. As I said, we do not have evidence and have not been able to find evidence that mobile phones are being used in the way suggested by the noble Lord; or, indeed, that they are possessed by prisoners in the way mentioned by the noble Lord.

Social Security Bill
4.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): 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.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, there are two important issues which arise from the proceedings on the Bill in this Chamber on Monday, which I believe it is necessary to draw to the attention of the House. I understand that it is on this Motion that it would be most appropriate for me to raise them. As I said, there are two issues: one rather complex and the other extremely straightforward.
During the course of the debates last Monday (as reported in Hansard at col. 71 onwards) the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, when speaking to another amendment which had nothing to do with the Budget, said that the Government intended in the course of the Report stage of the Bill to introduce new amendments relating to issues which arise from the Budget Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the introduction into this Bill of provisions relating to national insurance contributions. Noble Lords will recall that the matter was very much a central feature of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no doubt at all that the Minister was seeking to be helpful; indeed, I fully recognise that fact. However, what is proposed seems to me to raise two important points.
I am not arguing that the amendments which are proposed are outside the Long Title of the Bill. As I understand it, that is not the case. However, I think it has long been the case that the distinction between national insurance contributions on the one hand and taxation on the other has become increasingly blurred, not least because there is virtually no relationship between the amount which is charged in contributions and the amount which is disbursed in benefits. Nonetheless, it has generally been recognised that it is important that we should maintain the so called contributory principle; that is to say, an arrangement whereby people receive benefits only if they have at least contributed something towards those benefits. That, in a sense, gives them the passport to the benefits.
Having said that, as I understand it, the Government in the Budget propose to take action which will undermine that contributory principle. There is little if any distinction now left between national insurance contributions and taxation. Moreover, the Government propose that the responsibility for national insurance contributions should be transferred from the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue. That, again, strongly suggests that this is a matter of taxation rather than of national insurance. Overall, there is a strong impression that matters which are central to the Budget are being introduced into your Lordships' House as part of this Bill. If that is so, it raises important issues, which no doubt we ought to consider, with regard to the Parliament Act 1911 and the question of Commons
398
privilege with regard to financial matters. That is the first point that we have seriously to consider because, as far as I am aware, there is no precedent for that.
The second point is very much simpler. Were this Bill at an early stage in the House of Commons it might well be convenient—indeed what is now proposed is convenient from the Government's point of view—for the Commons to debate these proposed clauses at Second Reading; to debate them in great detail in Standing Committee upstairs; and then to debate them downstairs at Report stage. The Commons would have had an opportunity to do that. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, are nodding assent. However, a central part of the Chancellor's Budget—it was very much at the centre of the matter—is being introduced into your Lordships' House not at Committee stage but at Report stage and will, if the clauses are approved, be returned to the Commons. The Commons will be able to debate those amendments. But that is vastly different from the Commons being able to discuss the matter in Committee and at Report stage before it reaches your Lordships' House.
There is a final point which I raised on Monday; namely, these are complex matters and those outside interests which are concerned about them will not have much notice at all of what is now proposed. The provisions will proceed much faster than would have been the case had they been included in the Finance Bill, or indeed if they had been included in primary legislation in the House of Commons and proceeded in the normal way. As I said, I understand it is appropriate to raise the matter at this stage, but we shall have to consider extremely carefully the appropriate way in which this matter ought to be considered. That is important as regards both the aspects I have mentioned. I hope that on reflection the Government will consider that this is not an appropriate way of proceeding.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for giving me notice that he was going to raise this issue this afternoon. Had he not given me notice, I think I might have been rather wrongfooted, given the push of his argument. The noble Lord is quite right to say that it is unusual for substantial issues to be introduced to a Bill after its Commons scrutiny. It is unusual, but of course it is not unknown or even rare. I spent many years on the Opposition Benches and I have seen that happen to Bills that I "shadowed". Governments must respond to changing circumstances during the passage of legislation. We do so in the way that seems most appropriate. Often when I sat on the Opposition Benches Bills that had passed through the Commons then had matters added as they proceeded through your Lordships' House. Those matters had not therefore previously been discussed by the Commons. Sometimes we were not slow to make the same points as the noble Lord has made today.
The issue of "privilege" in relation to the introduction of new measures on national insurance was considered before the announcement of my noble friend Lord Haskel on Monday. Our advice was clear.

399
Contributions payable into the National Insurance Fund are the subject of Commons privilege, but it is a privilege that they are able to waive. They will be invited to do so when the Bill returns there. After the changes announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget on the restructuring of national insurance contributions—which of course followed the Committee scrutiny of this Bill—we decided that the Bill was the most effective legislative vehicle to implement those changes. The national insurance changes have been broadly welcomed. We must legislate in this Session to give businesses the time they need to be ready to operate the new system from April 1999. Introducing the measures into this Bill is the best way of achieving that.
The new clause on directors' liability has also been widely welcomed. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced to the Committee in the other place on 25th November last year that this measure was to be introduced into the Bill as soon as the consultation concluded. This is what we have done. The new clause was first published on 2nd February, and reprinted with a minor amendment on 25th February. Therefore I believe that reasonable time has been made available to noble Lords to be able to consider those proposals. However, I accept that this is not the usual way, and certainly not the preferable way, of handling such matters. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern. When he raised this matter with me, I immediately offered him a meeting with officials—that invitation was extended to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who is also involved in these discussions—to enable them to pursue the kind of issues they might otherwise have wished to have pursued at Committee in a more interrogative way, as it were. I hope that that offer to discuss the substantive issues will be taken up and will prove helpful.
I believe that these are worthwhile additions to the Bill. It is regrettable when things have to be done at short notice. However, when that is the case, I have tried to write to noble Lords opposite with a full explanation of the background. We were caught out by the timing of the Budget which came between the Commons stage and the Lords stage of this Bill. It has been made clear to us that businesses need this provision to be brought in as quickly as possible to expedite their arrangements. That is why we are under time pressure on this matter. I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships that no discourtesy to this House was intended, or has occurred. I take on board the noble Lord's concerns. We are trying to address them as best we can.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not think there was any discourtesy to this House. On the contrary, the Government went to great lengths to inform us what they had in mind. The problem concerns the other House. The Minister referred to speed. Clearly this matter could be dealt with expeditiously either by primary legislation in another place or by including it in the Finance Bill. Therefore I do not think that is a sustainable argument at all.
I say with respect, in view of the care that the Minister has given to the matter, that the House may have been a little confused by her reply. An
400
announcement was made on this issue the other day during the course of discussion on an amendment concerning so-called "phoenix" directors. However, the announcement had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the amendment; it was just that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, took that opportunity to make the announcement. I suppose he could have made the announcement while speaking to this Motion. At all events the two issues are totally separate. To discuss the point about directors—which I have not mentioned—in reply to the points which I raised may have confused your Lordships.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me but we are speaking to the Motion introduced by my noble friend Lady Hollis. I believe that only one speech is allowed from each speaker.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I ask the House to allow me to comment; otherwise this matter is left totally in limbo, and it will look disgraceful from the Government's point of view. Perhaps I may ask for the leave of the House?
Noble Lords: Yes!
4.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful. As a new Member of this House, the last thing I would wish to do is to impose on the rules of the House. However, I had taken advice and understood that this was the appropriate moment to raise the matter. Clearly, one cannot leave the points raised unanswered.
We may be able to raise the points about directors at some more appropriate moment during the course of our proceedings. However, it is the combination of the two points I am making which seems to be objectionable. At a later stage, the House of Commons may well move certain Motions which will enable them to discuss the position. None of us realistically would be surprised if the Government were to carry such a Motion.
However, certain important principles are raised so far as concerns Parliament. I do not think that it is an appropriate way to deal with the matters. There is no reason why the matter should not be dealt with in the Finance Bill, or by way of other legislation, in the normal way, so that elected representatives in the House of Commons have an opportunity to debate these matters.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I sought to persuade the House to hear the second response of the noble Lord because I am aware that we are asking the House to do what is not customary or even particularly desirable. That is why I thought we should seek the indulgence of the House to pursue this a little.
Perhaps I may make two brief points. I hope that we can then put the matter aside for the time being. The noble Lord said that it was not a question of courtesy to this House but to another place. I understand that those arrangements have ensured that that position is not

401
objected to in another place. I was not a Member of the House of Commons, but, if I may say so, it is not my responsibility to ensure the courtesies to the other House. My responsibility is to ensure the courtesies to this House. I hope that we can lay that argument aside.
I was anxious to respond to the noble Lord on the substantive point. My advice is that this could not be included in the Finance Bill, despite what the noble Lord has urged, because the Finance Bill can deal only with taxation and this is a social security matter. It has to be dealt with in this way if we are to meet the requests of and obligations to business.
With that, I hope your Lordships will allow us to proceed into the Committee stage of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
Clause 13 [Appeal to appeal tribunal]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 43 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 44.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 7, leave out lines 43 and 44.
The noble Earl said: With Amendment No. 43, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54. The amendments both concern the right of appeal. First, I wish to read briefly the clauses which I seek to delete. Clause 13(2) states:
""but nothing in this subsection shall confer a right of appeal in prescribed circumstances".
As I understand it, "in prescribed circumstances" means that it may be decreed that there shall be no right of appeal. Amendment No. 54 refers to paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. That provides in slightly unexpected words that the decisions against which no appeal lies may include,
"Such other decisions as may be prescribed".
If I may say so, that is a real chemist's provision.
I wish next to draw the attention of the Committee to the verdict of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on those two provisions. It says that in the case of the provision in Clause 13(2), withdrawing the right of appeal, and the corresponding provision in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, in the committee's view even the affirmative procedure would not give the certainty required. Members of the Committee may therefore wish to consider amending the Bill to put the vital provisions in the Bill itself and to limit the powers accordingly.
That is an unusually strong recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It has here considered not only the degree of parliamentary control, but whether those provisions improperly delegate legislative power. It has asked us to consider whether the answer to that question might be yes. It does not make a firm recommendation because it is the clear procedure of that committee that it invites the House to make the final resolution; it does not make it itself. That, I think, is right and proper.
402
It is clear that the legislative power may, where it wishes, limit rights of appeal. Since the legislative power may do whatever it likes, the minor would seem to be included in the greater. But the question is whether this power may be exercised by regulation. In theory, the use of regulation counts as a legislative procedure. But since regulations cannot be amended, and since regulations in this case would be likely to include a long list of individual provisions of which it is perfectly possible that some may be acceptable to the House and some may not, and we could not put down amendments to exclude some of them, and since the regulatory power in this Chamber is subject to such a limited degree of parliamentary control, in practical terms it is probably truer to say that the regulatory power is an exercise of Executive rather than legislative power.
For the Executive to take away rights of appeal is always a questionable procedure. For the Executive to take away rights of appeal against decisions which, according to Clause 1, are made by the Secretary of State, may risk conferring a rather unfortunate appearance of seeming to be judge and party in its own courts. It is no part of my purpose to anticipate what decisions might be reached in the courts. But for a very long time the courts have had a strict regard for the provision of natural justice, among which is the provision that people may not be judge and party in their own courts.
The Government might also consider Section 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to a fair trial. The restriction of appeal might come in for scrutiny in that quarter. I do not know how the courts might view such a provision, but I draw attention to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the case of Fayed v. Home Secretary. He said that the courts would be guided by the principles of natural justice and where an Act of Parliament appeared to conflict with them Parliament may not confer a right to act unfairly unless it does so in express words. That is a fascinating form of words from the noble and learned Lord.
I do not see here any such conferring of an express power to act unfairly. It is also my view that conflicts between the Government and the courts should be minimised so far as possible. That means that it must be the responsibility of Parliament not to lead the courts into temptation. I cannot help thinking that these provisions lead the courts into temptation and I regret that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to address the concerns raised by the noble Earl in his amendments to Clause 13 and Schedule 2 by referring to the group of government Amendments Nos. 44, 129 and 130. My amendments are tabled in direct response to the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, a report which I found extremely helpful and illuminating.
I put on record my appreciation for the careful consideration that it performed. It had a formidable task. As noble Lords will be aware this Bill is long and complex (81 clauses at the last count—and that is before the Government or noble Lords add any more—and seven schedules).

403
Fifty-two of those clauses and six schedules contain powers to make delegated legislation.
In the main, the committee accepted our arguments about the need for delegated legislation to provide the detail, with the primary legislation setting in place the framework for decision-making, rights of appeal, and the new appeal arrangements.
However, the committee highlighted areas where it felt the issues were significant enough to warrant further scrutiny by Parliament through the use of affirmative, rather than negative, procedures, when these regulations are brought forward. I am pleased to be able to say that, having studied the report, we feel it would be helpful to the House to have the opportunity for further debate on some of the details that will be set out in regulations and have therefore arranged for those powers singled out by the committee to be made under the affirmative procedure. In other words, we are acquiescing to the proposals of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
It may help your Lordships if I explain the issues that will be handled in this way. First, there are three groups of regulation-making powers which are concerned with appeal tribunals. Clause 8(3) relates to the composition of appeal tribunals and the allocation of cases among differently constituted tribunals. Schedule 1, paragraph 11, provides for the delegation of certain functions of appeal tribunals to authorised officers—clerks to the tribunals. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has already discussed these issues in relation to earlier amendments. Schedule 5, paragraph 3, contains the power to provide regulations for striking out of proceedings. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will be debating these in more details when we come to Schedule 5 later today. We recognise that these are important issues, and issues where the detail that is contained in the regulations will be of interest—over and above the debate on the principles we are able to have during the passage of this Bill.
We have tried to give the House full explanations as to how we will use the powers contained in the Bill. We have stated our intentions, and they are on the official record. However, I am aware of the ongoing interest and am therefore happy to agree to the recommendation and make the regulations in all three groups affirmative.
Secondly, the new clause in Amendment No. 130 also makes affirmative the power contained in Clause 13(2) and paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. These are the power that the noble Earl's Amendments Nos. 43 and 54 seek to remove and ones in relation to which the committee, too, expressed concern about their apparent wide range.
The Government have considered carefully the committee's argument that current "outcome" decisions (which are appealable) should be listed on the face of the Bill and that that would ensure that rights of appeal in relation to these decisions could not be denied. We consider, however, that the committee's concerns are best addressed by way of an amendment to clarify the nature and limitations of the regulation-making power in Clause 13(2). That is the purpose of Amendment No. 44. Amendment No. 44 specifically prevents regulations under Clause 13(2) from prescribing any decision that
404
relates to the conditions of entitlement to a relevant benefit—in other words, from removing an appeal right from a substantive outcome decision.
The power in Clause 13(2) is an important one which we intend to use to secure the concept of "outcome" decisions. It will be important in trying to streamline decision-making. Regulations under this power will make unappealable, as now, minor administrative decisions which are subordinate to the substantive appealable outcome decision. Such minor administrative decisions will cover whether a claim has been properly made, on which day of the week payment should be made, etc., as opposed to a decision as to whether a person is entitled to a benefit.
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 provides flexibility to accommodate with a minimum of fuss and delay any future changes to social security—for example, the introduction of a new kind of benefit or new procedures for the administration of benefit, where the interests of effective administration might require certain decisions to be made unappealable; for example, where a claimant received two outcome decisions carrying appeal rights which cover only one substantive issue.
We do feel this will effectively address the concerns of the delegated powers scrutiny committee and of the noble Earl. Though I do not doubt he will tell us it does not. But we have also decided that these powers should also be under the affirmative procedure to enable further scrutiny.
Finally, the Select Committee recommended that the power contained in Clause 70—the power to make regulations to remove the lone parent rate of child benefit for new lone parents—is of such general interest to the House that there should be an opportunity for further debate under the affirmative procedure.
Noble Lords will be aware that the issues in Clause 70 will be discussed by this Committee on Monday. I shall therefore, at this point, say only that we recognise the interest in this issue that noble Lords have and, again, we are content to accept the recommendation of the scrutiny committee.
To summarise, Amendments Nos. 44, 129 and the new clause, fully meet all the concerns of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and, I believe, address the issues raised in the noble Earl's Amendments Nos. 43 and 54. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendments and I commend my amendments to the Committee.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I have shared the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as he knows, and I delivered myself of some forthright views on the subject at Second Reading. I am grateful to the noble Earl for having set down this amendment. I agree with the noble Earl—and the Council on Tribunals shares the view—that it is not desirable that rights of appeal should be created or abolished in secondary legislation. That, too, I said at Second Reading.
In a perfect world, it would not happen. However, my noble friend has listened to our concerns, and has made a generous attempt to meet them. I should like an

405
opportunity to read what she has said. However, I am minded to say—and I hope the noble Earl will forgive me—that we should settle for the rather generous settlement that we have received. As the noble Earl and my noble friend have pointed out, it was a matter upon which the scrutiny committee, of which I am privileged to be a member, expressed some serious concerns.
My noble friend wrote to the committee explaining in response what she proposed to do. Perhaps I should place it on record that she is not the first Minister to respond to an observation of the committee. But, so far as I am aware, she is the first Minister to take the trouble to write personally to the chairman explaining the action that she proposed to take. For myself, I am grateful for that, too.
Lord Higgins: It has always seemed to me completely wrong, if one receives a forthcoming response from the Government, to prolong the proceedings; therefore, I do not propose to do so for more than a moment or two. Certainly the noble Baroness has given great thought to these matters and made considerable improvements in relation to accepting the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
That said, it is also the function of the Opposition to ask for more in the role of Oliver Twist. That being so, it will still be the case that the Government will come forward with these regulations but we shall not be able to amend them. It has always seemed to me preferable, if one can, to have a matter on the face of the Bill so that it can be amended, and then subsequently, if necessary, amend it by regulation and appropriate powers to be taken in the Bill to that effect. If that is not to be the case, then can the noble Baroness give any indication whether we shall be given a preview of the regulations before going all the way through the Bill so far as the main legislation is concerned?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot help the noble Lord yet in relation to the timing; I may receive that information in a moment or two. In the past, I have argued some of the points made by the noble Lord on the grounds that it is the Opposition's job to do so.
I would make one further point, and this may also help the noble Earl. The noble Lord is quite right. These regulations, if they are affirmative, cannot be amended and the usual difficulty arises. However, it would be open to any noble Lords to put down a Motion which, so to speak, were it adopted, would have the practical effect of amending the regulations. If the Government were persuaded of the desirable nature of that Motion, I for one would seek to withdraw those regulations and re-lay them, having incorporated the additional proposals by virtue of the Motion. That is the only way the House can amend regulations. That would allow us to overcome the chicken-and-egg difficulty of tying our hands too tightly in primary legislation and then finding ourselves in difficult situations.
The advice I am given is that it is unlikely that we shall be able to produce the regulations before the Bill completes its passage. However, we shall be consulting on both the content of the regulations and the guidance with the members of an ad hoc group of representatives
406
from leading welfare and other interested organisations. The regulations will be brought before Parliament, and I give an assurance to the House that if, at the point at which they are discussed, a Motion is brought suggesting that they should be changed in any of these ways, that Motion will be taken very seriously.
Earl Russell: On this side of the House, one regularly looks gift-horses in the mouth, but to look two gift-horses in the mouth at once is a little difficult; it tends to give one a squint. The Minister has given one very substantial gift-horse in reply to my speech; she has given an even more valuable gift-horse in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. What she said about the use of the Motion to resolve and her personal undertaking—I understand that it is only personal—to take note of that were it to be carried is a concession of immense value to the orderly proceedings of the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, I was not saying that. Were a Motion to resolve to be carried, we would take it in. What I said was that, if there were a Motion, I would ask the noble Lord not to move his Motion and I, on the other side, would not seek to move the regulations. I would seek to protect the convention that we do not overturn regulations in that way. If there were a Motion which commanded support all around the House, and I felt that it was a correct Motion and not one that we should seek to defeat by a vote—in other words, that it would improve the regulations—I would indicate that to your Lordships and ask that the Motion be withdrawn, I would not move the regulations, and we would come back with subsequent regulations which we would hope embodied the spirit of the Motion.
Earl Russell: That is an extremely helpful series of remarks. In effect, the Minister is saying, as I understand her, that we should at that stage take time outside the House to discuss things quietly. That is the way we make progress. That is something that it gives me very great pleasure to hear.
I am pleased by the two concessions of affirmative procedure on Amendments Nos. 129 and 130. The Minister knows well enough why I do not think that is enough by itself, and I shall not detain the House by explaining it. Amendment No. 44, on the other hand, is an extremely imaginative and interesting concession. This attempt to distinguish between things which are major and involve conditions of entitlement and minor administrative decisions is very much in the area where I was looking for some form of progress. The Minister will appreciate that there may be argument from time to time about which is which, but that again is the kind of thing which we can easily discuss outside the Chamber. It is not, of course, absolutely everything that I wanted, but it is so near to it that to do anything other than accept the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and withdraw the amendment would be churlish and ungenerous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness bows of Heighammoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 7, line 43, leave out ("prescribed circumstances") and insert ("relation to a prescribed decision, or a prescribed determination embodied in or necessary to a decision.
( ) Regulations under subsection (2) above shall not prescribe any decision or determination that relates to the conditions of entitlement to a relevant benefit for which a claim has been validly made or for which no claim is required.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 44, I simply add that we always have to take into account in discussion of any regulations and their relationship to the face of the Bill the decision that has been made in the Commons, so that we do not in any case undermine the will of the elected House. The Committee will understand that such discussions have to take place within that context. Given that understanding around the Chamber and the attempt to meet any suggested improvements which the Government accept are proper improvements to the regulations, I move Amendment No. 44.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 16. leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 45, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 47, which is the substantive amendment in this case. Amendment No. 45 merely corrects what seems to be a rather odd defect in the clause, which says that:
"Regulations may make provision as to the manner in which, and the time within which, appeals are to be brought".
Since it is clear that there will have to be such regulations, it would surely make more sense to say "shall" rather than "may".
Amendment No. 47 is much more substantial. Its effect will be that the regulations which will govern the procedure at appeal hearings will require that there shall be an oral hearing unless the appellant specifically requests otherwise. It also gives the chairman of the appeal tribunal or, in the case of a one-member tribunal, that member, the power to order an oral hearing where he thinks that that is desirable in the interests of justice.
Since October 1996 appeals have been decided on the basis of written information provided by the appellant or coming from the respondent unless the appellant specifically asks for an oral hearing. In 1996, the success rate where an appellant appeared or was represented before the tribunal was 53 per cent. The success rate where the appellant did not attend and was not represented before the tribunal was 13 per cent. That is an average figure; in the case of some benefits the discrepancy is even more extraordinary. For example, in the case of incapacity benefit, the appeals were successful on 57 per cent. of the occasions when they were attended but on only 7 per cent. of the occasions when they were not attended. I do not say that, if all the non-attenders appeared, that their rate of success would necessarily go up to 53 per cent.; but it is impossible to imagine that, if they had appeared, the rate of success would have been as low as 13 per cent.
408
Few claimants understand these complicated regulations in any detail. Few of them are skilled in presenting their cases on paper. If they do not appear, there is no way of filling in or supplementing any gaps in the information they have provided. Many claimants will not have properly explained the grounds for appeal in their written submissions; they may have omitted essential facts. If they are present before the tribunal when the appeal is heard, the tribunal can question the claimant, find out what the real issues on the appeal are and fill in the gaps in the written presentation. In some cases, particularly with incapacity benefit, the claimant's own account of his or her disabilities is likely to be particularly helpful to the tribunal, and that may account for the staggeringly high difference between the success rates for those who attended and those who did not attend in cases of incapacity benefit.
Since the new rules came in in October 1996, the proportion of hearings attended by a claimant or the representative of a claimant has fallen from 62 per cent. to 44 per cent. Almost certainly largely as a direct result of that, the overall success rate on appeals has fallen from about 40 per cent. to just over 30 per cent. The rate of success on attended hearings has remained much the same and it is clear, therefore, that the reason for the decline in the success rate is the fact that so many more appeals are now being dealt with on paper rather than being heard orally by the tribunal.
These figures, which are quite extraordinary, show that the 1996 change in the rules has plainly worked a real injustice. It was estimated by Mr. Tony Lynes, a former adviser to the government led by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that about 10,000 people a year lose benefits to which they are entitled as a result of these changes. It is, of course, wrong to compel claimants to turn up at their appeals if they do not wish to do so, but plainly they should be strongly encouraged to do so. The best way is surely to provide that there shall be an oral hearing unless the appellant asks for it to be done otherwise. In other words, the default procedure is that there shall be an oral hearing and it is only where for some particular reason you wish to present your case on paper and do not wish to be present at the hearing that the hearing will be dealt with on paper by the tribunal.
If it were not for these figures, Amendment No. 47 could be regarded as something that is relatively minor, but the figures show—and we are talking about thousands of people a year—that the failure to encourage claimants to be present at their appeals does work a real injustice. This amendment gives priority to oral hearings before the tribunal and will, I believe, help to remedy that injustice. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for having put down this amendment and I should like to speak in strong support of it. This amendment arises out of the fact that a person whose appeal is determined at an oral hearing rather than merely on the basis of written papers has, as we have heard, a much greater chance of success. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has provided figures in support of

409
this and I believe that the right to an oral hearing is a basic and fundamental right which should not be taken away unless an applicant specifically confirms that he is happy for his case to be determined in his absence in writing.
The right to an oral hearing may appear to be less efficient to the Government and to have the disadvantage of being more time-consuming. However, applicants at an oral hearing not only have a much better chance of success but even those who fail, I think, are likely to feel that they at least have had a fair hearing and have been able to state their case in the way that they wish. In 1991, when I was chairman of the National Consumer Council, we did a study over two years of access to justice, and one point which came strongly out of that was that, if somebody had been represented and had to sit at the back of the court, they often did not feel that they had really had their say.
Following that piece of work, just last year I was able to take part in the review of the Court of Appeal in the Civil Division to look at why the Court of Appeal was being so over-burdened with work. One of the problems that we found over quite a short period of time was the number of lay litigants in person who were turning up wanting to go through the whole thing on their own, having been unhappy with the result from the court of first instance. This very often showed that they had been represented and had not had their say.
We spent time travelling through Canada and America to see how they dealt with this problem, trying to get through the amount of work that they had, yet at the same time retaining something that we treasure so much in this country: an oral tradition. I might tell your Lordships that in New York they have a system whereby it is 10 minutes for anybody. There are "traffic lights" in front of the person giving evidence orally. They start with a green light and the three judges can interrupt at any time during that 10 minutes. An amber light flashes half-way through and at the end of 10 minutes a red light comes on, a bell rings and you are out. But this does mean that you have had your moment in court; you have had your 10 minutes. Perhaps if the Government are looking for expediency they might wish to consider that method.
It is not right I think, to allow the decision over whether there should be an oral hearing to be left to the whim of the DSS or the appeal tribunal. Every person has a fundamental right to have their case heard at a full oral hearing unless they choose otherwise. As we have heard in earlier debates, many claimants are unrepresented and would find setting out their case in writing difficult. We have heard about this again from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. An oral hearing allows the appeal tribunal to elicit the facts from the claimant in a non-intimidating way and ensures that the claimant feels that he or she really has had a chance to state his or her case in their own way.
I am aware that many of these appeals may involve relatively small amounts of money. However, for the individual involved they can often be amounts of vital importance. If the assumption is not firmly in the camp that there should be an oral hearing, a system will soon
410
develop under which many applicants will not really be aware that they have a choice in the matter and they will be deterred from seeking an oral hearing in the interests of efficiency. I would therefore strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in enshrining this legal right in the Bill.
Lord Borrie: The fundamental purpose of procedural rules is to ensure that those who are not entitled to benefit are not likely to receive benefit. Similarly, the purpose must be that those who are entitled to benefit have a reasonably good chance of getting that benefit. That surely must be the objective of procedural rules. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, the undoubted fact and the statistics which indicate that the chances of winning a benefit if you are a claimant are much enhanced if you have the benefit of an oral hearing. The statistics show that when the rule was changed so that a request had to be made specifically for an oral hearing, the chances of succeeding in a claim were less.
It seems to me morally wrong that the procedures should be so skewed that the claimant has less chance of winning because the regulations currently say that an oral hearing has to be requested in order to get one. The other evening in the course of a debate on this Bill on another amendment I had the temerity—I think that, although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did not use that word, he felt that I was being rather unwise—to reject the solid advice on that amendment given by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Law Society, the Legal Action Group and, I think, the Child Poverty Action Group.
I must say on this matter that I have received a great deal of help from the briefing of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It seems to be extremely sensible because it points out that it is not just the noble Earl and noble Baroness who have been arguing how much better and more wise it is from the claimant's point of view to have an oral hearing, but it quotes the official advice from the DSS at page 8 of a detailed leaflet where it says:
"Please note that claimants who attend the hearing of their appeal usually do better than those who do not".
The Government, in other words—although I do not think it is just this Government because it has come through from the previous government—have admitted that you do better to go for an oral hearing and yet they allow the regulation to be such that you are less likely to get an oral hearing than this amendment would suggest and less likely to get a benefit that you are entitled to. That seems to me to be quite wrong.
I noticed particularly one vivid example given by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux of someone who was seeking a disability benefit and whose presence at an oral hearing enabled that claimant actually to describe the problems of daily living. Even if relatively inarticulate, if encouraged, as one should be of course by the tribunal itself, to explain one's normal life, that is surely a far more vivid way of giving evidence than the whole thing being on paper.

411
So there does not seem to be any dispute between people in this House and the DSS in its official leaflet that it is better to have an oral hearing. The only possible reason for having the regulation as it now stands is to save money and to avoid delay. The Government's reasoning for a whole number of proposals in this Bill is that there are considerable delays which arise not from the delay from claimants but through the fault, if it be a fault, of the authorities in not arranging hearings, tribunals and appearances and time and all the rest of it, rather than any fault on the part of the claimant. But surely it is wrong to damage the claimant's chances, which is what the existing regulation does, simply in order to try to remedy something which is the fault of the system. I support the amendment.
Lord Higgins: The brevity of my remarks on this amendment in no way reflects my enthusiasm for it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has made the case very strongly indeed. The statistics speak for themselves. My noble friend Lady Wilcox has made it clear from her own experience how strong the case for it is.
My own experience in seeking to get oral hearings in individual cases is that very often the bureaucracy does not work well. I can remember one case vividly—it was a child support case—when the hearing was cancelled three times, on two occasions because the chairman failed to turn up. It is very important indeed that these matters should be organised in an efficient way. If it is possible to have a oral hearing, it is more likely that the case will receive sympathetic and accurate consideration by the body concerned. I certainly think that that is a strong argument. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): First, I shall deal with the small point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as to whether the word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may". This is a drafting issue. As I understand it, using the word "may" in this clause would include the issues with which the regulations may deal. The regulations may deal with other issues, whereas if the word "shall" is used it may well restrict what the regulations might deal with.
Perhaps I may put that to one side and deal with the substantive issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, my noble friend Lord Borne and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. These amendments would require regulations made under Clause 13(6) to provide for two particular matters of detail. The first is that an appellant would be entitled to an oral hearing unless he requested otherwise. The second would be to require the chairman of a tribunal to order that there should be an oral hearing when he considers that to be desirable in the interests of justice, and that he should do that regardless of the wishes of the appellant. I propose to deal with those two issues separately.
As noble Lords will be aware—there has already been allusion to this—changes were introduced to appeal tribunal procedure regulations in October 1996. The automatic provision for an oral hearing which existed prior to that date was replaced by measures which
412
ensure that an oral hearing is arranged only for appellants who request one. The position that is being adopted in the Bill simply reflects the present position and the amendment would propose to go back to the pre-1996 position.
The changes were made in 1996 because prior to that about 30 per cent. of appellants failed to attend the hearing, which led to a waste of time and money and was inefficient. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that, because of maladministration, cases have not been heard. I accept that there are unfortunate and unacceptable situations such as the case he mentioned. I would hope that in the case to which he referred, unless the chairman on each occasion had a very good reason for not turning up, some action was taken to make sure that the chairman did not turn up at any tribunal after that.
Two wrongs do not make a right. If we re-instate the position which prevailed prior to 1996 without analysing what the effect of the post-1996 position has been—I shall come to that in a moment when I deal with the statistics which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned and which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Borrie—that would clearly be an inefficient system which was not to the benefit of the majority of appellants. Appellants are quite properly entitled to expect as early a hearing as possible. If we can take out of the system the 30 per cent. to whom I referred, others who wish a hearing will get a hearing and a decision more quickly.
Noble Lords will also be aware that every appellant in terms of this provision retains the right to an oral hearing. The only thing that he or she has to do is to confirm whether they wish one. Where they do not request an oral hearing the appeal will be heard on the papers alone. That reflects the change that was introduced in 1996 to organise hearings more quickly and effectively when the appellant does not plan to attend.
Amendment No. 47 proposes that an oral hearing should determine an appeal unless the appellant requests otherwise. Noble Lords will appreciate from what I have said that, as far as we are concerned, this would re-invent the previous inefficiency and is not the way forward. Appellants who have no intention of attending a hearing may not make the effort to ensure that an oral hearing does not take place. To take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, unless an appellant writes in and says that he or she does not want one, a hearing will be fixed. If they do not wish one, and if they do not write in saying that, we will go back to wasting tribunal time. The current provisions provide a far more effective use of the time available to tribunal sessions.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the opportunity which this amendment has given us to reassure the Committee that the existing provision for oral hearings will continue. All appellants will have access to such hearings on request.
Perhaps I may turn to the second part of the amendment. Regulation 22(1C) of the Social Security Adjudication Regulations currently enables a tribunal

413
chairman to require an oral hearing where he considers it appropriate. We intend to continue this provision under the new appeals arrangements. Again, we are not making any change to that. The chairman can still, if he or she decides that it is appropriate to have a hearing, order it.
There will be cases where, although an oral hearing has not been requested by the appellant, the tribunal may consider this to be necessary. For example, the tribunal may wish to examine the Secretary of State's representative or her expert witness. I can reassure the Committee that in those cases the tribunal will continue to be able to order an oral hearing, irrespective of the appellant's wishes but this will be done only after the claimant has been invited to attend and given the reasons why it is thought that this may allow a better opportunity to examine the case.
Perhaps I may say a few words on the statistics. Information on the effect of the change since 1996 is being collected. When enough data are available we will consider whether any further change is necessary. We do not consider that we have sufficient data at the moment to draw the conclusions referred to by the noble Lord.
As regards encouraging appellants to appear in person, as my noble friend Lord Borrie has pointed out in terms of his briefing, the department itself seeks to encourage people to attend. I draw to the attention of the Committee a leaflet NI246 entitled How to Appeal. That explains the procedure and emphasises that it is in the appellant's own interest to attend the hearing, including the fact that those who do attend do better than those who do not. That message will continue to be included in leaflets from the department, which will continue to be given out by representatives and employees of the department. In addition, welfare rights organisations, with which the noble Baroness has had a distinguished association in the past, will continue to do the invaluable job that they have always done. They will emphasise to claimants that they ought to have their day before the tribunal.
I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in any suggestion that we should import into this country any American experience of coloured lights and 10-minute deadlines, because that is not the culture that we wish to impress on people appearing before our tribunals. We wish them to have a full and proper hearing, not constrained by coloured lights or 10-minute sessions. They should have a full session where they can explain their concerns and the tribunal can listen uninhibited by such restrictions.
I hope that I have explained why these amendments are not appropriate at this stage. We shall continue to provide information to claimants. Chairmen will continue to have the right to insist on an appeal in appropriate cases. By following the route that the Government propose, there will be a more efficient and effective use of the available time which tribunals have to consider appeals. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful for the support that I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the
414
noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Higgins. The main problem arises from the fact that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, before the changes to the rules in 1996, 30 per cent. of appellants did not appear for the hearings. I can understand why that is a matter of concern. It is a waste of time and money if that happens. At the same time, I am not sufficiently familiar with the procedure to know whether or not a tribunal can proceed to make a decision in the absence of the appellant. If the present position is that it cannot do so, that might be changed. If it can, and if the appellant does not turn up, it does not mean that there has to be another hearing.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have fully taken on board the arguments which the noble Lord has advanced and they are very much present in my own mind. But in fairness, if there is an oral hearing and without announcing his absence the claimant fails to appear, usually there is at least a delay because it has to be ascertained whether something has happened to the claimant. At the very best it means that the matter is resumed a long time afterwards. If it is known that a claimant proposes not to attend, then as a matter of fact everyone knows that the hearing will be much quicker. I have seen this happen. If four claimants out of five on a morning's list do not turn up, by half-past eleven the tribunal is just sitting there and nothing is happening.
Lord Goodhart: I accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has said and I recognise the problem. That has made understandable the experiment introduced in 1996. The trouble is that the figures show that it has failed because, although that may have reduced the amount of time wasted and the expense of members of the tribunal turning up and finding they have nothing to do, it has also led to a serious decline in the quality of justice administered by the appeal tribunals.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Will the noble Lord give way? I have not sat on social security tribunals, but for years I have sat on industrial tribunals where the situation is very similar. I have listened very carefully to the debate on this amendment, although I have not taken part in the discussions on this Bill. As I listened to the noble Lord presenting his amendment, I believe that there is a total misunderstanding as to how the tribunals work. I am totally convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister on this point. If people could no longer have an oral hearing, I would have been all in favour of the amendment. But people have to go to the trouble of saying that they would like an oral hearing. That is a very good first hurdle for people to overcome because it weeds out so many claimants. I believe that of the 30 per cent. of claimants who do not turn up, there are many who know that their claim has no hope in the world, and that is why they do not appear. They have no case and they would just be wasting time.
We must not overlook the fact that if we greatly increase the number of cases by insisting that each person has an oral hearing, whether or not it is wanted—

415
the lazy ones will certainly not bother to opt out—we should be delaying the whole process to such an extent that it will be to the disadvantage of the really deserving people who need to have their cases dealt with. I take issue with the Minister on one matter about the traffic lights system in America, which has something to recommend it. I am not proposing—and I do not believe that my noble friend Lady Wilcox was either—
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness had a point to make, but I believe that in this House it is not the convention to make interventions quite as long as is acceptable in another place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I take issue with that. This is Committee stage of the Bill and we are all allowed to speak as often as we wish and at whatever length we wish. This is not Report stage, but if I am wrong I shall be grateful to be corrected.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps I may resume. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, but I believe that there are distinctions here between industrial tribunals and social security tribunals. For one thing, those who apply to industrial tribunals are much less likely to be among those who are disadvantaged in various ways. They are less likely to be functionally illiterate. Both those categories of people are likely to be rather highly represented among those who apply to a social security tribunal. For that reason, what is appropriate for an industrial tribunal is not necessarily appropriate for a social security appeal tribunal.
It is perfectly clear that the proportion of those who attend for an oral hearing has fallen from 62 per cent. to 44 per cent.—that is, out of every seven people who attended oral hearings before, two do not attend now, with obvious consequences on their chances of success. I take the view that it is, and remains, appropriate that the default procedure in cases involving social security tribunals should be the oral hearing. In those circumstances, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 47, but it may be a matter to which we shall want to return on another occasion because, on the figures, the current system seems not to have worked and to have been the cause of serious injustice.
Finally, I was much attracted by the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, about traffic-lights for speakers. It occurred to me that we might experiment with that in this House, possibly at the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I must apologise to the noble Lord. I realise now that when I intervened in his speech, I also made a point to the Minister when I should have referred only to the noble Lord. That is where I think that I was out of order. I regret that and I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful for that explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 17, at end insert (", save that the time within which an appeal shall be brought shall not be less than three months from the notification of the decision in question.
( ) Regulations made under subsection (6) above shall provide that a person may bring an appeal after the expiry of the prescribed time if a full-time chairman considers that the person has reasonable excuse for not bringing the appeal before that expiry.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the time-limit for appeals. At present the time-limit is three months and I understand that the Government intend to use the regulations, which they have power to make under Clause 13, to reduce the time-limit for appeals from three months to one month. There is little real justification for reducing the time for appeals. It is perfectly true that most people apply within one month, but those who are least likely to do so are those who are disadvantaged, and the disadvantaged often need advice and help from organisations such as citizens advice bureaux. There may well be difficulty in arranging home visits to disabled people who are unable to come to a CAB office.
A statement from Richmond CAB, which runs a disability rights advice group, is typical of comments from many CABs. Richmond CAB stated:
"We believe one month is a quite inadequate time for preparation of an appeal and will particularly work to the disadvantage of the most vulnerable who may need help to make an effective case. With the best will in the world, agencies such as CABs, who have heavy caseloads may not he able to offer a home visit to a vulnerable client in less than two to three weeks and obtaining supporting evidence within the time allowed is quite unrealistic. This assumes that the client gets in touch with us immediately the decision arrives. In many cases, it takes a while before people with disabilities who often live isolated lives find out how to contact someone who may be able to help them".
If the period is shortened, it becomes all the more essential—this is the effect of the second paragraph of the proposed amendment—to give full discretion to the tribunal to extend the period for the appeal. Since February 1996, time-limits can be extended only if the appeal has reasonable prospects of success and if it is in the interests of justice to grant leave. The reference to "interests of justice" is interpreted very narrowly and under the existing practice of the tribunals, it is considered to apply only if there are special reasons which are wholly exceptional and which relate to the history and the facts of the case, and only if the special reasons are sufficiently strong to give a reasonable excuse for the delay. The second part of that is, I think, understandable, but the first (that the special reasons must be wholly exceptional) seems to go well beyond anything that is reasonable. No official figures are available on the number of cases where late appeals are allowed, but experts believe that under current practice it is almost impossible to obtain leave.
I believe that the Government have expressed some concern about this matter. I hope that they will be willing to leave the time for appeal at a minimum of three months, but, if not, I hope that they will accept that if the limit is reduced to one month, the chairman

417
of the tribunal should be given a general jurisdiction to allow an appeal out of time whenever it is fair and reasonable to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: I believe that the Minister expressed some doubts at Second Reading about whether the restriction might be too draconian and that she said that she would give further consideration, in consultation with outside bodies, to the question of whether, if the limit were reduced, some flexible arrangement could be made so that there may be some discretion for vulnerable groups. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in her reply.
Earl Russell: I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment. We have a considerable number of cases—some, but not all, have been forwarded by Richmond CAB—which illustrate the reason why some such amendment may be necessary.
One case involves a recovering drug addict who, at the relevant time, was on a treatment programme and overlooked a housing benefit review form. In fact, it would have been quite difficult at that stage to get him to understand what it was all about. At present, it seems to be the case that no housing benefit claim can be backdated for more than one month even where there is continuous good cause. Where housing benefit is withdrawn, there may be eviction and other consequences which are liable not only to cause hardship to the claimant, but also considerable cost to public funds.
Another case which comes to mind (although it is not a case from Richmond) relates to somebody who was disentitled to benefit and who was illiterate. He had been required to attend a scheme, but his reader, who read his post for him, happened to be away, so he did not know what the letter said until too late, but he lost his benefit none the less. That is the sort of case in which there might be some cause for allowing appeals to go forward at a later date.
The Richmond cases also include the chronic schizophrenic who had a deep paranoid suspicion of other people. If one has dealt with any such cases, one understands—
Lord Williams of Elvel: We have had two interventions from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Are both spokesmen from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench speaking for the Liberal Democrat Party or are they speaking individually?
Earl Russell: We are both speaking for the party and we are amplifying the same case. I am making points entirely in support of what my noble friend said. It is a procedure which I have seen used before, and many times, by the Front Benches of all parties. I recall during the Jobseekers Bill that the noble Lord's Front Bench had three Members of your Lordships' House taking part, all amplifying each other's arguments and at much greater length than is happening now—and they did a
418
great deal of good, if I may say so. However, if the noble Lord thinks that I should not develop the case further, I shall not spend too long on it.
If one tries to approach a paranoid schizophrenic to get him to pay urgent attention to business, one is lucky if one escapes with nothing worse than a flea in one's ear. Those are the sort of cases where the one-month limit is liable to do gross injustice. I hope that the Minister will think seriously about it.
Lord Borrie: Perhaps I may first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for calling him the noble Earl in the course of our discussion on the previous amendment—
Lord Goodhart: If the noble Lord will excuse me, perhaps he should be apologising to my noble friend.
Lord Borne: I apologise to both, on the same Front Bench. If the Government accept a point that I sought to make on the previous amendment (that those who are legally entitled to benefit should have a reasonable opportunity to claim and to appeal in order to obtain that benefit), surely they will agree that unreasonable hurdles should not be put in their way.
One is entitled to ask whether imposing a time limit of normally one month is an unreasonable hurdle. We have heard examples—I can cap them with similar instances—of the great difficulty faced by claimants in obtaining the advice that they very much need, especially because of the kind of people they are and the technicality and detail of social security regulations. It is not a matter of being able to obtain an appointment with an adviser tomorrow or even next week. Before one knows it the month has gone.
I believe that there is a case for saying that a one-month limit is an unreasonable hurdle. The Government may say that most people manage, as they do, to make an application, claim and appeal within one month, but surely that should be not used as an argument for saying that one month should be the imposed upper limit. That is quite a different matter. One can ask the Government why, if most people manage to appeal within a month, they worry that some will require a rather longer period. If they accept, as they must, that there are cases, admittedly a minority, in which people find it difficult to get suitable advice within a period of four weeks, surely the Government would be willing to extend the present time limit.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I echo the point that has just been made by my noble friend. In the light of my experience in the other place, I recognise the value of the services provided by citizens advice bureaux and other organisations of that kind. Members of another place are frequently involved in such cases. I held surgeries every two weeks. If a person felt it appropriate to see me, in some cases a fortnight might have elapsed before that could be arranged. The individual might ask whether I thought it worth while to appeal or whether I could assist in that appeal. If a Member of the other place received individuals of that kind, the case might be quite complicated. He might require a few days to

419
look into the matter, in which case the best part of a month would have gone by. That would not leave the constituent with very much time in which to pursue his appeal. I believe that the case that has been advanced by my noble friend deserves consideration; indeed, such a case might have been echoed in the other place a little while ago.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hardie: I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this amendment. I make special mention of my namesake my noble friend Lord Hardy. I am reluctant to disagree with my namesake, but I regret that on this occasion I may have to do so. This amendment seeks to ensure that the time limit for appealing which will be set in regulations is not less than three months. The amendment also provides that the chairman is the person who decides whether there is a reasonable excuse for not bringing the appeal before the expiry of the time limit.
The Government intend to make regulations setting a time limit of one month in which an appeal can be made, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has indicated. The Government believe that that strikes a reasonable balance between giving an appellant sufficient time in which to consider the appeal and ensuring that there are no undue delays. I accept that there are disadvantaged people who, by virtue of their situation, may well require a longer period than the more fortunate among us. However, what has been overlooked inadvertently in this amendment is that a dispute period is to be introduced.
To take the first example that has been cited relating to Richmond citizens advice bureau—the person who was housebound and required a home visit—as I understand it, the bureau said that it might be two or three weeks before it could arrange such a visit. That assumed that the recipient of the letter got in touch immediately. With the one-month dispute period, if the recipient got in touch before the end of that period, advantage could be taken of that time to enable a question to be raised as to the correctness of the decision. The appeal period would run from that point. The one-month period taking into account the dispute period will reduce what is now effectively a three-month period to a two-month period.
If the time limit for appeal was longer than two months, the Government believe that it would reduce the incentive for claimants to act quickly in order to have mistakes put right. The shorter time limit will ensure that decisions are revisited while the facts are still fresh. We believe that one month strikes the right balance. That is illustrated by the fact that, as has been observed, at present most claimants appeal within one month. I accept the point raised by my noble friend Lord Borne that that is not a complete answer to the amendment, but it is an indication that the majority of people manage to mark an appeal within a month, and if a dispute period is introduced claimants will have a two-month period in which to raise issues. Moreover, it is in line with child support appeals. The current limit for appeals in respect of child support is 28 days. Our proposals will make the provision for appeals relating to
420
benefits and child support more similar to each other and easier for appellants to understand. We believe that if there are different time limits for different benefits there is a greater risk of confusion.
This amendment would require the regulations to give discretion for a legally qualified chairman to accept a late appeal where he considered that the person had reasonable excuse for not bringing the appeal within the time limit. Current legislation makes provision in regulations which allows late appeals to be brought where there are special circumstances, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has observed. I hope that the Committee is reassured if I say that there will be similar arrangements in future. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading that while most claimants appealed within a month, the Government wanted to ensure that they got the provision for late appeals right. It is important that if one has a system people have access to it and have a proper opportunity.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. I listen to what he says with great interest. If he provides for a series of grounds for late appeal, will he consider the case for including one ground for unforeseen circumstances? One cannot foresee all the reasonable exceptions in advance.
Lord Hardie: I accept the noble Earl's comment. I go on to say that for the future we will discuss the details of the new arrangements with interested parties, including representatives of claimants and welfare rights organisations, through the ad hoc group that we have set up to consider draft regulations and new procedures. I am sure that that very point will be one that such organisations will draw to the attention of the Minister who deals with the regulations, if that does not already feature in them. However, we do not believe it necessary in every case for the chairman to make the decision on whether to allow a late appeal. That is unnecessarily restrictive and will be an obstacle to our efforts to establish an efficient service for appellants which makes optimum use of the expertise of panel members.
There will be occasions when such decisions can be taken by a clerk. Allowing clerks to deal with straightforward cases means that panel members could focus upon those cases which require their expertise; for example, in current regulations there is an absolute time limit of six years for making a late appeal. Any appeal after that period cannot be disposed of by a clerk under the current system. There is no prospect of such an appeal being competent, and that would be the type of thing which a clerk should be able to do in future. I hope that with the explanations I have given the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I listened with attention to what the noble and learned Lord said. The main problem with which I am left is the limited discretion which at present is given to extend the time for appealing. If it is to be reduced to one month or, if one takes into account the

421
dispute period, two months, that increases the importance of giving a general discretion whenever there is a reasonable excuse.
We do not want to see similar arrangements, because they are unduly restrictive as they have been interpreted. The present rules make it extraordinarily difficult to get leave to appeal out of time. We want something considerably less restrictive than are the present rules.
I accept that the person giving the leave should not necessarily be the chairman of the tribunal, though it should probably be a member of the panel. I doubt whether it should be a matter for the clerk, as the clerk, if refusing leave to appeal in a case where there is some element of discretion, is effectively debarring the appellant from access to the next stage in the system of justice. That is not a decision that it is proper for the clerk to take.
I shall take this matter away and read what the noble and learned Lord has said. I shall be interested to hear any further comments that the voluntary organisations may wish to make on what the noble and learned Lord has said today. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.47 not moved.]
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 8, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In deciding an appeal under this section, an appeal tribunal shall consider any issue relating to the benefit in question which is raised by the evidence before it, irrespective of whether the person bringing the appeal has himself raised it.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 48 is grouped with Amendment No. 49. They are very much of a pair, although in Amendment No. 49 the lead name to the amendment is that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. It is one that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I have also signed.
The present position under Clause 13(7) is:
"In deciding an appeal under this section, an appeal tribunal—

(a) need not consider any issue that is not raised by the appeal; and

(b) shall not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made".

Amendment No. 49 deletes that and restores the status quo.
Amendment No. 48 replaces subsection (7)(a) by a subsection which provides:
"In deciding an appeal under this section, an appeal tribunal shall consider any issue relating to the benefit in question which is raised by the evidence before it, irrespective of whether the person bringing the appeal has himself raised it".
It is arguable that Amendment No. 48 is not strictly necessary, because the effect of the deletion under Amendment No. 49 would be to maintain the status quo which Clause 13(7)(a) seeks to alter.
Tribunals are of course currently supposed to be inquisitorial and to inquire into all issues arising out of the evidence, not merely to confine themselves to those issues which have been raised or argued by the parties.
422
It is not necessary, and should not be necessary, for a tribunal to trawl through the case for issues that are unlikely to arise, but where it has reason to believe that an issue may arise, surely the tribunal should look into it. It is, after all, usually dealing with claimants in person who are not familiar with regulations and who are often unable to analyse their own technical problems. Tribunals will have power to look at the issues raised on appeal, but Clause 13(7) appears to be intended to dissuade them from doing so by relieving them of that necessity and giving an indication that they are not supposed to go outside the parameters of the arguments that have been presented to them.
However, in fact the position is that tribunals should be under a duty to look at all the issues raised on the evidence, whether raised by the appellant or not. Clause 13(7)(b) raises a different point which is, as I have said, whether the tribunal can look not only at issues not raised by the appeal but take into account a change of circumstances. That is not raised by Amendment No. 48. It might therefore be more appropriate if it were dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sandwell, because it is covered by Amendment No. 49 in his name. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 49 is somewhat more radical than his moderate Amendment No. 48. Amendment No. 48 would mitigate the effects of this subsection; my amendment would abolish it.
The subsection, as the noble Lord said, makes two separate provisions. First, it absolves the tribunal from considering any issue:
"not raised by the appeal".
I am not wholly clear what that means. Does it mean not raised in the letter of appeal; does it mean not raised by the appellant or on his behalf at the hearing; or does it mean not required to be determined in order to ensure a just outcome of the appeal? Merely as a matter of drafting, that needs to be clarified or, I venture to prophesy, it may give rise to endless problems in adjudicating, and ultimately to long and costly litigation. I do not normally spend a great deal of time trying to prevent the legal profession from making an honest living, but on this occasion it would be better if it were looked at again.
Let us assume in broad terms that the provision means, "If you want the tribunal to consider a question, however relevant to entitlement or the calculation of benefit, you must research and raise it yourself". I shall return to that provision in a moment.
Secondly, and separately, the subsection at present provides that the tribunal is concerned to review the original decision only in the circumstances then obtaining. If there is a change of circumstances, the claimant must go back and make a new claim, and the process has to begin all over again. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, those provisions are independent one of the other. Ideally, they might have been debated together, but I fear that I have precluded the Committee from taking that course by the form of my amendment.

423
Perhaps I may follow some of the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in relation to the first provision. It has been well stated by the Child Poverty Action Group that the present function of the tribunal is, in a sense, inquisitorial as opposed to the adversarial approach which is normal in most of our traditional courts and tribunals. It is under a duty to satisfy itself what is a just and lawful outcome of the appeal and it is not confined to the arguments of the parties.
That is important because many—probably most—of the claimants who appear before the tribunals are not expert in the relevant regulations and, for whatever reasons, frequently do not take expert advice. They depend on the expertise of the tribunal. I agree with the noble Lord that everyone must use common sense. The tribunal cannot spend hours exploring every point which might have been overlooked. Conversely, whatever the provision in the statute, if the tribunal discovers a possible issue which has been overlooked, no doubt it will endeavour to address it. I believe that the provision as drafted sends an unfortunate signal. I should he grateful if my noble and learned friend could look at it and I await with interest his explanation why it was thought necessary to include it.
The second provision is more specific and it will change what has become a practice in the independent tribunal service. Without any statutory provision, but by decisions of the social security commissioners, tribunals have acquired the power to look at all the circumstances prevailing at the time when the appeal is heard. Therefore, a tribunal could make a fresh decision and it would not be restricted to pursuing an issue which may by then have become outdated.
A problem arose with the introduction of incapacity benefit. That benefit depends on what an applicant can or cannot do at the time when the doctor applies the test based simply on a list of function descriptors. Sometimes a person's capacity or incapacity to perform a particular physical function may change from day to day. All of us, with aches and pains which accumulate as we grow older, have our good days and bad days. But the functioning of those who have a serious clinical handicap may change from day to day. Sometimes the tribunal members will say to an appellant, "The test does not refer to trouble with walking, but you were limping when you came in. May we ask you a few questions about that?". There may be no reference to any mental disability, but at the hearing it may become clear that there is some mental disturbance.
The tribunal members may not have the necessary medical qualifications to administer the all-work test. Tribunals were reluctant to adjudicate on circumstances which have arisen since the test was applied. That practice was considered last year by a tribunal of commissioners. It ruled that tribunals should consider the circumstances at the date of hearing. Admittedly, that led to difficulties because tribunals frequently found themselves adjourning cases for further medical evidence. It may be that the provision in Clause 13(7)(b) is intended to deal with the difficulty relating to incapacity benefit. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to address the issue.
424
Judge Bassingthwaighte, in his memorandum, comments that he supports the provision in relation to incapacity benefit for the reasons that I have endeavoured to indicate, but he sees no necessity for it in relation to the other range of benefits. In particular, the child support appeal tribunals, which operate less as a procedure for adjudication but more as what Professor Whiteley recently described as "being in the business of dispute processing", frequently hear appeals precisely because there has been a change of circumstance.
The Child Poverty Action Group, which has great experience in this area, believes that it would be quicker and more economical to permit tribunals to dispose of the whole case and it would subject claimants to fewer delays and hardships. I will listen to what my noble and learned friend says in explanation; but my initial reaction is that that provision attracts all the disadvantages and none of the advantages. In due course, I propose to move it.
Lord Higgins: I am not sure whether we are having another intervention from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in the light of the intervention from the Labour Back-Benches. The noble Lord is no longer in his place. In the light of our discussions last night on Gilbert and Sullivan, I was reminded of the traditional performance of "The Gondoliers".
I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to which I have added my name, is preferable. Two points arise in relation to Clause 13(7). As regards paragraph (a), I cannot help believing that the draftsman was having a bad day. I believe that no harm would he done by leaving it out and that the draftsman was merely thinking of something to say. As regards paragraph (b), the noble and learned Lord appeals to his great experience of these issues and it appears to be positively objectionable. Since the objective of all Members of the Committee is to improve the Bill, it would be, from the point of view of those affected by the legislation, if not a great matter an advantage not to have the restriction in the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, looking at the matter practically, the restriction that it would impose is objectionable. I hope that the Minister, whatever his brief may say, will have listened to the debates and decided to leave out Clause 13(7)(a) and (b) so that we can make rapid progress.
Lord Hardie: I am always keen to make rapid progress and I assure Members of the Committee that I always listen to the debates. I hope that that was illustrated on Monday. Clause 13(7) requires tribunals to concentrate on a decision which has been appealed against and enables them to focus their attention on the issue or issues which are in dispute or the issues which are irrelevant. I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer that the interpretation of paragraph (a) is the third option. I will explain that in a few minutes.
The group of amendments seeks to nullify the focus which we are seeking to direct. I wish to explain to the Committee why we believe that the focus is essential. As regards Amendment No. 48, the purpose of the

425
provision in Clause 13(7)(a) is to clarify the proper role of the appeal tribunal which has become obscured by contradictory case law. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the commissioners' decisions. During the years, some commissioners have ruled that the tribunal must reconsider every aspect of the appeal decision, even those aspects which are not in dispute. Other commissioners have taken a different view.
The provision in Clause 13(7)(a) seeks to address that problem by making it clear that the tribunal's function is to focus its attention on the issues in dispute. That will avoid the uncertainty which currently exists and enable the preparation of papers for tribunals and hearings to be dealt with more speedily. We believe that claimants want a fair, quick and accessible service and that our proposals achieve that.
Amendment No. 48 places an obligation on the tribunal to reopen the whole decision before it. However, it is important for the tribunal to make a judgment on whether issues are relevant to the appeal decision, otherwise it may become bogged down in hearing aspects of the case which are not in dispute. That runs completely contrary to our aim.
Of course, we fully recognise—and this is the point which I made at the beginning to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer—that there will be times when, in the conduct of a hearing, the tribunal becomes aware of issues which are relevant and which should be considered, even though they did not form the basis of the appeal. I wish to assure Members of the Committee that that clause as it stands does not prevent the tribunal looking at any other issue. Rather, it gives the tribunal a discretion to do so when it considers it to be appropriate.
Amendment No. 49 seeks to delete subsection (7). I had intended to deal with that in more detail when we reached Amendment No. 50 in the name of the noble Earl. However, it may be appropriate to say something at this stage and perhaps refer back later to what I said.
It is important for the tribunal to focus on the circumstances which pertain at the time at which the decision being appealed against was taken—not on changes which have happened during the intervening period and which should be dealt with by the first tier of decision-makers; namely, the agency. In the new system, the Secretary of State will make all first-instance decisions and the function of the tribunal will be to decide appeals on those decisions. Focusing the tribunal on the claimant's concerns—that is, on the issues in dispute—will enable the tribunal to determine the issue which was before the Secretary of State. It will ensure that rights of appeal are not lost.
For a number of reasons we do not believe that the tribunal should undertake the function of the first-instance decision-maker. First, in taking a first-instance decision, there may be a complex sequence of events and facts which cannot properly be exposed at a tribunal hearing.
Well intentioned though it is that tribunals should consider events which have occurred since the decision, I cannot support such a proposal. It is the function of tribunals to look afresh at a disputed decision, not to
426
take over the role of an initial decision-maker. If the claimant's circumstances change while he is waiting for the appeal to be heard, he should notify the relevant agency; he could put in a new claim for benefit or ask for the existing award to be changed. That would be quicker for the claimant; would achieve a result much more quickly than waiting for the tribunal to determine the issue; and it would be more cost-effective if the agency dealt with those changes, and may well take some appeals out of the system.
In addition, by allowing tribunals to make initial decisions in respect of a change of circumstance that has occurred between the decision and the hearing, the amendment would have the effect of limiting the claimant's rights. I appreciate that that is quite contrary to what Members of the Committee wish to achieve. That is because where claimants may appeal to a tribunal about decisions of the agency on facts and law, appeals against decisions by the tribunal would have to go to commissioners and the only ground of appeal then is on law. Therefore, if the tribunal gets the facts wrong, there is no appeal on that matter whereas by going back to the agency, if the agency gets the facts wrong, the tribunal can readdress those facts and correct any error of fact.
For those reasons, I respectfully submit that this group of amendments would delay the handling of appeals. Members of the Committee would be aware that the current backlog of appeals exceeds six months and is increasing. The amendments would also make the service less accessible to claimants. The overall effect would be to load tribunals with inappropriate and unnecessary burdens so that fewer appeals are cleared at each session; backlogs and delays are likely to increase; and costs will rise. That would work against our aim to create an efficient and effective appeals system. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: It may be for the convenience of the Committee, if, before the noble Lord concludes the debate and withdraws the amendment, I say a few words about my amendment and then the Committee will not be troubled with it at a later stage.
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for his very careful reply. In relation to the first provision in subsection (7)(a), I was rather surprised when he said that of the three possible constructions which I put forward, it was the third which is really meant. First, it is not obvious from the words which are used and it may be that the draftsman will wish to consider that. But if that is what is intended, I cannot understand why it is necessary to say it. What tribunal in its right mind will consider an issue which is not necessary to the proper and just determination of the appeal which it is considering? My noble and learned friend may wish to reflect further on that.
As regards the provision in subsection (7)(b), I say this not at all by way of criticism because I know that there must be discussions on the Front Bench as the Committee stage proceeds, but I gained the impression

427
that my noble and learned friend did not have his attention on what I was saying throughout the whole of the time that I was saying it.
Some of the things which he said, I should reflect upon. I shall do a deal with my noble and learned friend. I shall read carefully what he said if he will read carefully what I said.
Lord Goodhart: I rise to speak finally to Amendment No. 48. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that one of the purposes of Clause 13(7)(a) was to clarify the situation because of existing conflicting decisions. I make two remarks about that. First, I believe that it has been clarified the wrong way by moving away from the current jurisprudence which indicates that the tribunal should adopt an inquisitorial role. Secondly, the situation has not been clarified at all because the Bill provides that the tribunal need not consider any issue which is not raised by the appeal. That means that it will have a discretion whether or not to consider such an issue. That discretion must be exercised judicially. There will no doubt have to be litigation to decide whether or not the tribunal has exercised its discretion judicially. Therefore, we have gone round in a circle and ended up back where we started. The tribunals do not have guidance from this clause about what they can and cannot do.
However, I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment if only because, like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, is preferable to the one which I moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 50:
Page 8, line 19, leave out from ("appeal") to end of line 21 and insert—
("(8) In deciding an appeal under this section, an appeal tribunal shall also consider whether the person concerned was entitled to the benefit in question during any part of the period between the decision against which the appeal has been brought and the determination of the appeal.").
The noble Earl said: This is another fall-back in case the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, should not prevail at a later stage. I agree entirely with what my noble friend said about that amendment.
I have come to think of this amendment as the Sierra Leone amendment, and I shall attempt to explain why. The purport of Amendment No. 50 is that it provides that a tribunal shall consider whether the person was entitled to the benefit in question during part of the period between the decision and the appeal. It therefore overrides the ban in Clause 13(7)(b) on taking into account
"any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made".
Let us assume that an asylum seeker from Sierra Leone says that he attempted to apply for benefit at the port of entry but was unable to make himself understood and was sent on his way out of the airport. They say
428
that he made no attempt to apply. The tribunal spends a great deal of time trying to disentangle the story and suspects, although it is not certain, that the problem was essentially a failure in communication. However, since that asylum seeker arrived in this country, the Home Secretary has declared Sierra Leone to be a country in a state of upheaval. Therefore, he has been entitled to benefit from the time of his arrival whether or not he claimed that right at the port of entry. Nevertheless, by the time the case comes to be heard, Sierra Leone has ceased to be a country in a state of upheaval and the previous entitlement has disappeared.
Under my amendment, the tribunal would he able to find in such a case that the claimant was entitled to benefit during the period when Sierra Leone was in a state of upheaval, regardless of how the original issue was settled. If the Government's view of the matter prevails, it seems to me that three consequences would follow. First, a person with a genuine entitlement to benefit would not get it; that is one undesirable effect. Secondly, the tribunal would have to give a decision which it knows to be unjust; that I regard as a second undesirable effect. Thirdly, yet another appeal would be generated; that I regard as a third undesirable effect.
I listened with care to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. In effect, he said that the procedure that we are proposing and recommending offends against the canons of administrative tidiness. So it does; that is precisely why we are recommending it. I can understand why bureaucrats in any century may wish to take refuge behind the fortresses of bureaucratic procedure against the rising tide of untidiness in the world outside. Indeed, they have always done so.
However, social security is an essentially untidy subject. We are dealing all the time with a collection of the world's misfits. The world's misfits, often in very fascinating and sympathetic ways, are thoroughly individual and totally unpredictable. They simply do not fit into categories. So if one spends all one's time trying to force social security into a mould of total administrative tidiness, one will end up very unhappy and disappointed. It would be much better to recognise the reality of the situation and take a decision which, even if it were a little untidy procedurally, would nevertheless be just; would enable justice to be done; and, just for an uncovenanted bonus, would save public funds. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: I dealt with this amendment when speaking to the two previous amendments on the Marshalled List. I trust that the noble Earl will not think me discourteous if I do not repeat what I said. Under the explanation that I gave previously, the answer to the Sierra Leone problem would be for the immigrant to go back to the agency in between the first application and the date of the appeal. At that time, the agency would reassess his circumstances and, if entitled, would grant him benefit.
The other point that I should make is that the agency and its staff will be instructed to reconsider cases when they are at appeal. If it is obvious from the papers that there has been a change in circumstances—as there would be in the Sierra Leone case—it would be for the

429
agency to draw the fact to the attention of the claimant and encourage him to submit a fresh claim to enable him to receive benefit at the earliest opportunity. I appreciate that that will involve a continuing training programme for the agency staff. That should ensure that they take the initiative and encourage claimants to reapply when it appears that they ought to do so. With that explanation, together with the one I gave previously, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Of course, I entirely understand why he did not repeat all that he said before, and I did not expect him to do so. I was interested in the noble and learned Lord's remarks about the Sierra Leone case. However, I see two disadvantages in that response. First, he is creating a need to make a second claim where before it could perhaps have been disposed of all in one case. Indeed, that may multiply work. Secondly, it is not necessarily a valid assumption that every asylum seeker from Sierra Leone knows that it has been declared a country of upheaval. That fact was not widely publicised in press reports and not every asylum seeker without benefit is able to buy and read newspapers on a regular basis; indeed, not all of them have the ability to do so.
In social security law, the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse really does not have very much place because many of these people are not in a position to have a proper understanding. I quite understand that the noble and learned Lord is concerned for the tidiness of the claiming procedure. But if the material simply does not fit into the categories that he has designed for it, the result will end up looking rather like my desk. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) The reference in subsection (1) above to a decision under section 11 above is a reference to a decision superseding any such decision as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of that section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In bringing forward this technical amendment we are seeking to clarify which applications made under Clause 11 will attract a right of appeal under Clause 13. As noble Lords will be aware, under our new proposals decisions of the Secretary of State will either be revised or superseded depending generally upon the timing of the application. Where an application is made to revise the Secretary of State's decision within one month after that decision is made, it will be revised under Clause 10. Once that period has ended, cases will be superseded under Clause 11 only where the application is made for specified reasons—such as ignorance of or a mistake as to a material fact, an error of law on the original decision or where there has been a relevant change of circumstances.
Where an application for supersession has no prospect of success—that is, where it is clear that there has been no relevant change in the claimant's circumstances—the
430
Secretary of State will not act on the application. The decision not to act will not be a decision under Clause 11. Therefore, it will not fall within Clause 13(1) and will not attract appeal rights. Of course, if the Secretary of State gets it wrong in refusing to entertain the application, there would be a remedy by way of judicial review.
That approach should be seen in the context of creating a modernised social security system which will allow customers to exercise their rights more effectively. If the Secretary of State has to deal formally with nugatory applications this must affect her ability to operate processes effectively. Moreover, if we were to offer appeal rights on applications which could not succeed, then more nugatory work would be created for the new appeal service, causing delays to claimants who had a justifiable case.
I have explained when appeal rights will not be offered. I will now briefly explain when they will be offered under Clause 11. Appeal rights will be granted where the Secretary of State acts on an application. This will include those circumstances when the amount of the award is not changed; in other words, by acting, the Secretary of State decides that there should be no change. It may seem odd to describe a decision as superseded where there is no change. However, that will be the case. A decision will be superseded every time that the Secretary of State issues a benefit decision in response to an application. That will be a new outcome decision which will attract appeal rights and a period of one month in which to appeal.
While our intention with the new dispute process is to encourage claimants to take responsibility for exercising their rights promptly, we also want them to do so in a meaningful way. The amendment ensures that the legislation supports that intent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Decisions against which no appeal lies]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hardiehad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 53A:
Page 56, line 34, at end insert—
("Reduction in accordance with reduced benefit direction
A decision to reduce the amount of a person's benefit in accordance with a reduced benefit direction (within the meaning of section 46 of the Child Support Act).").
The noble and learned Lord said: This group of amendments comprises Amendments Nos. 53A, 141A. 142A, 146A, 146B, 147B, 147D, 147F, 147H, 147L and 156A. This group commences with Amendment No. 53A which is a late amendment. In view of representations made to me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about this late amendment and concerns that he has about it, it would not be appropriate for me to move it or this group at this stage. Having said that, it is my intention to address the issues raised by these

431
amendments at Report stage after further discussion with noble Lords opposite. Therefore I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 53A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Decisions against which an appeal lies]:
Lord Haskelmoved Amendment No. 55:
Page 58, line 31, at end insert—
("Liability of directors etc. for company's contributions
Subject to the provisions of section 121 D of the Administration Act, a decision as to the issue and content of a notice under section 121C(2) of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment on Monday. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: I intervene at this point with some trepidation because I realise the matter has already been debated, although the situation remains somewhat confused after the response which we have had to a number of points which were raised. I intervene because I am anxious that the Bill should be improved. The objectives which the Government set out at an earlier stage are ones which we entirely support. However, we have grave doubts about the method of doing it.
There is a problem because we have already passed what one might call a paving amendment. If we also accept this amendment it may still be possible, in the light of the substance of the issue, to improve the matter by amendment at later stages. However, Amendment No. 100 runs to some three pages and embodies a method of dealing with this problem which seems to me to have wide repercussions, for example, for the Department of Trade and Industry. I fear that if we accept that amendment it would be difficult to claw back the situation. Indeed we may have to rely on another place to do that.
I think we can probably get away with accepting this amendment—if I may use that expression—but between now and reaching Amendment No. 100 we need to consider whether we want to include the other amendment in the Bill or whether it would be more appropriate to return to it at Report and not accept that amendment at this Committee stage. That still rather leaves the earlier one hanging in the air, but not wholly because to some extent it deals with the main substance of the Bill rather than the issue we are discussing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With the best will in the world, I do not see how we can meet the noble Lord's request. When my noble friend moved Amendment No. 11—I believe that was the number of the amendment—he made it clear that that amendment, together with Amendment No. 55, was, so to speak, a semi-paving amendment on the substantive amendment, which is Amendment No. 100. In other words, they were consequentially linked, not just grouped together. If the noble Lord intended to air those concerns, he ought to have aired them when we discussed Amendment No. 11. At that point it was clear that we were discussing the
432
substantive issue. We were led to believe that the Official Opposition understood, accepted and went with—if I may put it that way—the substantive amendment. We would now experience some difficulty, therefore, in following the path suggested by the noble Lord, which is to retain the paving amendments but not to accept the substantive amendment.
I am willing to discuss this matter outside the Chamber, but my advice to the noble Lord—unless any other way forward is proposed—is that he should accept this amendment and also Amendment No. 100 but return to the matter on Report. There is also Third Reading. There are two further stages at which we can return to this matter. If the noble Lord then feels there is a preferable way forward, which commands the assent of the Chamber at Report stage, it would still be open to us to strike out Amendment No. 100 at Third Reading. That may be the better way of doing it. I do not think we can leave paving amendments floating without the substantive amendment, given that we have already debated the substantive issue.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wish to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has said. We are not asking for this provision to be dropped. We are merely asking for it not to be moved at this stage so that it can be brought back at Report. There are serious problems here. Amendment No. 100 causes grave problems as regards the procedure which is proposed for what we agree is a perfectly legitimate aim. Amendment No. 100 can be dealt with by means of an amendment to that amendment. However, there are great difficulties as regards the amendment we are discussing; in fact there are rather more serious problems with this amendment. If Amendment No. 100 is to be put into proper shape, I believe it is essential to place the system of appeals altogether outside the system of social security appeals, which is what Schedule 3 is concerned with. That would mean that Amendment No. 55 would simply not be amendable because it would have to disappear. There would be no other way of dealing with it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is making this matter unnecessarily complicated. Amendment No. 100 has already been debated as part of the debate on Amendment No. 11. That was the Committee's choice and that was what we did. Therefore I do not believe that we can defer the other two amendments to some later stage, keeping the paving amendments floating in the Bill; that is, make a break between the two stages. The right way to deal with this is to accept the judgment of the Committee on Amendment No. 11 and the subsequent amendments and, if the Chamber so desires, return to the matter at Report stage. That is the appropriate way of proceeding. As I said, we still have Third Reading if we need to do any subsequent tidying up, should the Chamber change the substantive amendment.
As regards the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned, we shall be happy to discuss this with him outside the Chamber, as we shall do with

433
the national insurance issues. My understanding is that the DTI was consulted on the matter and raised no objections to it. The policy reasons for the noble Lord wishing to defer this matter may be groundless. That would be good news if it were the case. I suggest that the Committee accepts that this matter has already been debated. In that sense it has already been accepted and will be included in the Bill. However, if the Chamber is unhappy about that, noble Lords can return to the matter on Report and table an amendment to what will then be the revised Bill.
Lord Higgins: I certainly accept that the matter has been debated. It will be quite clear from that debate that neither this side of the Chamber nor those on the Liberal Benches were happy about it. I intervened at this stage because it seems to me that when we reach Amendment No. 100 we shall run into problems. However, given what the noble Baroness has said, let that be the case. We shall have to try to sort out the mess later.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Child support: appeals to appeal tribunals]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 27, line 5, at end insert ("against the refusal").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 57 to 61 and Amendment No. 141.
Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 tighten the drafting of Clause 42 and clarify which child support decisions are appealable.
As presently drafted, Clause 42 gives the circumstances under which a right of appeal relating to child support exists. However, the clause does not state explicitly which decisions can be appealed. These amendments address this issue.
The decisions which can be appealed under the amended clause will be the same as at present; namely, a refusal to make a maintenance assessment; the amount and effective date of a maintenance assessment; the cancellation of a maintenance assessment; and the refusal to cancel a maintenance assessment. This amendment does not remove any appeal rights currently held by child support clients. It merely clarifies which decisions can be appealed against.
Amendment No. 59A removes a restriction on what a tribunal can do when it allows an appeal. In contrast to existing child support appeal rules, we want tribunals to be able to determine the outcome of an appeal—where appropriate—when they allow an appeal. This amendment achieves this by removing a limitation in the Bill as drafted.
Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 61 and 141 make minor drafting changes in respect of child support appeals. If Members of the Committee wish clarification of the amendments, I can explain them in more detail. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 57 to 61:
Page 27, line 12, at end insert ("against the amount of the assessment or the date from which the assessment takes effect").
Page 27, line 22, at end insert ("against the cancellation or refusal").
Page 27, line 24, leave out from ("of") to ("as") in line 25 and insert ("that right and, in the case of a right conferred by subsection (1) or (3), such notice of the decision").
Page 27, leave out lines 26 to 30.
Page 27, line 32, at end insert ("and
(b) such provision with respect to proceedings before appeal tribunals as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
( ) The regulations may in particular make any provision of a kind mentioned in Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1998.").
Page 27, line 38, after ("decision") insert ("or assessment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Redetermination etc. of appeals by tribunal]:
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 8, line 33, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: Since I put down this simple and limited amendment, I have considered Clause 14 rather more closely, as perhaps I should have done earlier. It seems to me—I hope that the Committee will excuse my raising this point—that the real issue is whether Clause 14 should be in the Bill.
I am distinctly puzzled by the clause. Clause 14(1) states:
"This section applies where an application is made to a person under section 15(10)(a) below for leave to appeal from a decision of an appeal tribunal".
That links with Clause 15(10)(a) which states:
"No appeal lies under this section without the leave of the person who constituted, or was the chairman of, the tribunal when the decision was given or, in a prescribed case, the leave of such other person as may be prescribed".
Clause 15(10) provides for the usual perfectly straightforward and acceptable requirement for leave to appeal in certain circumstances. Clause 14, in effect, is requiring in certain circumstances the person who is asked to give leave to remit it for determination by a different tribunal rather than giving leave. That will produce some very peculiar circumstances.
The person from whom leave is sought will normally be the tribunal chairman. The regulations may provide for someone else to do that no doubt if the chairman is not available. That person could be another member of the tribunal or perhaps someone else on the panel. Clause 14(2) will have a peculiar and awkward effect, if the person hearing the request for leave thinks that the appeal was wrongly decided. That may arise in two different cases. First, the person from whom leave was sought was a member of the tribunal that heard the case but was outvoted. Where a tribunal is divided on a question of law, there is a strong case for sending it up to the next level to be decided by the commissioner. But in this case, that cannot happen. If the person who is asked to give leave was in the minority, of course he will consider that the decision was erroneous. That goes

435
by definition. If he were in the minority, he must consider the decision erroneous. He is therefore not only entitled but hound under Clause 14 to send the matter back for redetermination.
Clause 14(2) states:
"If the person considers that the decision was erroneous in point of law, he shall set aside the decision and refer the case either for redetermination by the tribunal or for determination by a differently constituted tribunal".
Let us say the chairman of the tribunal was outvoted. He wants to say, "It is an important and difficult case. I was in the minority. But I think the appropriate thing to do is to send it up for decision at the next level by the social security commissioner". He then has to say to the appellant, "But I cannot do that. I should like to; but because I consider the decision was erroneous, I have to send it back for redetermination".
Secondly, the person from whom leave is sought is what I might call an outsider—someone who was not a member of the tribunal that heard the case from which an appeal is sought. Occasionally it will be obvious that the tribunal made a mistake in law, perhaps by overlooking a specific regulation. That may happen more often if we have non-legally qualified chairmen, as we discussed the other day. But more commonly it will not be an obvious mistake, and the person from whom leave is sought will have to consider not only whether there is a point of law of sufficient difficulty and importance to justify the appeal, he will also have to say to himself, "Do I think that the tribunal got it wrong? If I do, I then have to send it back for redetermination and I cannot give leave to appeal".
That seems to lead to the suggestion that if at first sight he thinks that the tribunal got it wrong, he may even have to hear as full argument as may be available so that he can make up his own mind. Surely, if a person thinks that there is a point of law of difficulty and importance, he should be able to send it to the commissioner even if his own personal view is that the tribunal, or the majority of the tribunal, were wrong.
Clause 14(3) makes provision where the person from whom leave is sought thinks that the decision was right, but both the parties consider that the decision was wrong in law. If they think the decision was wrong in law and they agree on the reasons why it was wrong, there is a case for sending the case back. But, frankly, I believe that will happen rather rarely. More often, the parties will have different reasons for thinking that the decision was wrong. In those cases, surely again the person hearing the application for leave to appeal should be able to send the case to the commissioner and not back for another rehearing. What happens then if a new tribunal reaches the same view as the first? Does the case have to shuttle backwards and forwards between the tribunals?
I do not think that Clause 14 raises a point of principle. It simply introduces an ill thought-out form of procedure which is likely to stop cases going to the commissioner that should go, or require a second tribunal to examine matters again before they do go to the commissioner.
436
I would ask the Minister whether this matter might he reconsidered; there is a problem here. The Government might re-examine the drafting to try to see whether what is thought to be achieved by Clause 14 is in fact needed, and perhaps return to the matter on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: I accept that this clause introduces an entirely new provision and a new concept. The intention, again, is to speed up the process where an appeal tribunal has made an error in law by allowing the issue to be re-determined, either by the same tribunal or by a differently constituted tribunal.
At present, there is a right of appeal to social security commissioners or child support commissioners. This provision would not do away with that right of appeal, but it may dispense with the need to go to the commissioners in certain circumstances.
Perhaps I may deal first with Clause 14(3). Where it is clear to all the principal parties that the tribunal has made an error in law, the only way currently to correct that is to go to the commissioners. There are very limited exceptions to that rule. Many of the mistakes are procedural; for example, the failure by a tribunal to record properly the reasons for the decision.
Social security commissioners are overwhelmed with hundreds of cases which could be quickly and easily dealt with by a tribunal hearing. In that situation, what the commissioners do is refer the matter back to a differently constituted tribunal, or to the same tribunal to give reasons. But obtaining a commissioner's decision can take up to a year after the tribunal hearing. The outcome of that, as I said, is often simply to return the matter to another tribunal for a re-hearing. As noble Lords will see, there is a huge waste of time and resources involved in putting matters right, particularly when everyone agrees that there has been an error. We feel that claimants and appellants would be better served if the effort were spent on consideration of cases which raised issues of legal substance and dealing with them more quickly.
When a person seeks leave to appeal against the decision of an appeal tribunal, two procedures are provided for in this clause. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, observed, if the person considering the application agrees that the tribunal erred in law, then he or she will set aside the decision. That will be done by the chairman of the tribunal or the single person. If the chairman is not available, regulations will provide for another panel member to consider the application. The case may be referred for a re-hearing to the same tribunal or to a differently constituted one.
I accept the point that we perhaps ought to look at the drafting of subsection (2) because of the concerns raised by the noble Lord. But apart from that issue, I respectfully suggest that this clause is an improvement and is of benefit to claimants. In indicating that I will examine the drafting of subsection (2), it may be that, having reflected, I shall return with the same wording. However, I certainly undertake to look more closely at the wording of that subsection.
Regarding the other points, I hope that noble Lords will accept that there is some force in the thinking behind this position—particularly where everyone agrees that there

437
has been an error, and especially a procedural one—that there ought to be a much quicker remedy to appellants than having to wait for a year for the case to come before the commissioners.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I wholly approve of lateral thinking. This, as my noble and learned friend said, is a novel provision. I am not aware of any other jurisdiction anywhere where it has been introduced. It may be none the worse for that. It may be a pioneering proposal. However, the part which troubles me is my noble and learned friend's suggestion that, if everyone thinks there has been a mistake, then it should not be necessary to go to the commissioner.
That is not what subsection (3) says. The subsection says that if the parties think that there has been a mistake, then it does not matter what the chairman or the person acting as chairman believes about it. All that is being proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is that there should be some input from the chairman or whoever is acting judicially in the matter. As he says, it may be that the parties think that there has been a mistake for quite different reasons. If two parties, for different reasons, think there has been a mistake, then the chairman will have no discretion, but will have to send the matter back. That is the point which troubles me. I am not sure that that is what principally troubles the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart: There is no point of principle here. It is simply a point of workability. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, perhaps has a chance to examine my remarks in more detail, he will appreciate that, if the obligation to send a case back for redetermination in subsections (2) and (3) is mandatory in certain circumstances, it could lead to results that are totally absurd.
I suspect that the problem might well be cleared up in both subsections simply by making it optional on the person hearing the application to send it back for redetermination rather than by making the matter mandatory. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will re-examine the matter and return with what may well be simply a minor amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Procedure]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 12. line 21, after ("that") insert—
("(a) an application for leave under section 15(10)(b) above; or
(b)")
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments relate to the handling of applications for leave to appeal to the social security commissioners. The amendments provide that, where he considers it appropriate to do so, the chief commissioner may direct that such applications be considered by a tribunal of commissioners.
438
Subsection (7) of Clause 17 provides that the chief commissioner may direct that an appeal which involves a question of law of special difficulty may be dealt with by a tribunal of commissioners. That approach, which reflects current law, already works well. Other commissioners will normally follow the tribunal of commissioners' decision when subsequent appeals raise similar points of law. That assists in the orderly development of caselaw and speeds the handling of appeals generally.
The chief commissioner, Judge Machin, has identified that not only appeals but also certain applications for leave to appeal would benefit from that approach. In recent years there have been instances where an application for leave to appeal and its determination were of crucial importance to a substantial number of other applications. Here, too, determination by a tribunal of commissioners would help ensure clarity and consistency.
Although such a power is likely to be exercised infrequently by the chief commissioner, it offers clear benefits for the development of social security law. I therefore commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
Page 12, line 22, after ("the") insert ("application or").
Page 12, line 26, at end insert ("; and the presiding Commissioner shall have a casting vote if the votes are equally divided").
Page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Where a direction is given under subsection (7)(a) above, section 15(10)(b) above shall have effect as if the reference to a Commissioner were a reference to such a tribunal as is mentioned in subsection (7) above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
7 p.m.
Schedule 5 [Regulations as to procedure]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 60, leave out lines 36 to 38.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 67, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. These are purely drafting amendments to simplify the wording in Schedule 5.
Amendment No. 67 removes the definition of a "competent tribunal" from the schedule as the other two amendments make the definition unnecessary. Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 remove references to "a competent tribunal" and insert clearer references to "an appeal tribunal or a Commissioner" and to "the Secretary of State, an appeal tribunal or a Commissioner". These amendments do not have any effect other than to simplify the wording in Schedule 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:
Page 60. line 41, leave out ("or a competent tribunal") and insert (", an appeal tribunal or a Commissioner").
Page 60, line 44, leave out ("him or such a tribunal") and insert ("the Secretary of State, an appeal tribunal or a Commissioner").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 61. line I, after ("out") insert ("or reinstatement").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this amendment in order to put on the face of the Bill, the provision for appeals that have been struck out to be reinstated.
In the other place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security explained how the powers to strike out are to be used and also how appeals that have been struck out can be reinstated. He told that Committee that appellants would be informed in writing about why their appeal had been struck out; and, if they did not agree, they could go back to the agency and make the case for it to be reinstated. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment is a helpful clarification. It puts on the face of the Bill the assurances given by my honourable friend that struck-out appeals can be reinstated when it is appropriate to do so.
Earlier today my noble friend the Minister informed your Lordships that the Government intended to meet the concerns raised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. She recommended that the strike-out regulations should be subject to affirmative procedures. It is the Government's intention to ensure that strike-out procedures are fair and that there is a proper balance between the provision of a framework for a faster appeals service and preserving individual rights. This amendment confirms appellants' rights to have their struck-out appeals reinstated where appropriate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 61. line I, at end insert—
("3A. Where regulations are made under paragraph 3 (striking out of proceedings) above they shall provide that:

(a) an order for the striking out of an appeal may only be made by a member of one of the relevant panels who has a five year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1991;

(b) no such order shall be made unless the person bringing the appeal has been given an opportunity of showing cause, within such period as is prescribed, why the appeal should not be struck out;

(c) such a person shall have the right to apply for an appeal which is struck out to be reinstated on any ground within such period as may be prescribed.").

The noble Lord said: At present an appeal can only be struck out for want of prosecution. Under paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Bill there is a power to prescribe the grounds for striking out by regulation. This will, as was said in Committee stage in another place, enable appeals to be struck out on wider grounds than simply want of prosecution. They can, for instance, be struck out if there is no prospect of success or if they are
440
frivolous or vexatious. That in itself is not, we believe, objectionable. We accept that the existing power is too narrow and we do not object to prescribing further grounds by regulations, provided they are subject to the affirmative procedure. We therefore welcome Amendment No. 130, which requires the affirmative procedure for prescribing the grounds for striking out.
However, it is essential, in our view, that the power to strike out should be exercised by a panel member and not by a clerk. A clerk is someone who is appointed by the Secretary of State under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1. There must, in our view, be some point at which the claimant has guaranteed access to someone who is not an employee of the Secretary of State.
The first-year decision would be taken by someone who is an employee of the Secretary of State. We are alarmed by the prospect of an appeal against the decision of one employee of the Secretary of State being struck out by another employee and the appellant or claimant therefore never being able to get outside the loop. We believe that that would be contrary to natural justice.
The Government stated in Committee in the other place that decisions to strike out under the regulations would be taken by panel members and not by clerks, and we welcome that. However, we believe this is something which is not just desirable but is essential to ensure natural justice and it is a matter of sufficient importance that it should be in the statute.
We also believe that it is preferable that the power to strike out should be vested in not just any member of the tribunal but in a legally qualified member, and that is what our amendment states. The essential element of the amendment is that the power to strike out should be vested in someone who is at least a member of the panel.
Some strike-outs may not need legal knowledge because of a missing time limit. But if, for example, an appeal is being struck out on the grounds that it is frivolous or vexatious, whoever decides on the application to strike out would need to have an idea of what that concept means. The concept of an appeal being frivolous or vexatious is familiar to lawyers, but I venture to suggest that it is not likely to be familiar to lay members.
I assume that it is contemplated that the striking-out will effectively be ex parte—that is, that the member considering it will look at the papers and decide without hearing the views of the appellant. If so, it is obviously essential that the would-be appellant should have a chance to come back and explain why the appeal should not be struck out. We welcome the fact that there will be a possibility of reinstatement, as was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but here again we should like to see enshrined in the statute itself a right for the appellant whose appeal has been struck out to come back before the person who struck it out and show cause.
While entirely accepting the principle of widening the grounds of striking out, we feel that this widening brings with it an obligation to ensure in statute, not just in regulations, that any application to strike out must be heard by a member of the panel, and, if possible, a

441
legally qualified member of the panel, in order to avoid the risk that the claimant will never in any circumstances be able to have his case looked at by someone who is not an employee of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: I am very conscious of being sandwiched between two lawyers. In view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about laymen not understanding the concept of frivolous and vexatious, I feel that I should perhaps have consulted my wife. It seems to me that the argument put forward by the noble Lord was very convincing and I hope that we might have a reasonable response from the Minister.
Lord Hardie: I always endeavour to give a reasonable response. I start by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that not only will the regulations give appellants the opportunity to make representations as to why their appeal should not be struck out; they will also enable appellants to apply for their appeal to be reinstated. The regulations will deal with how that is to be done. Whether or not that will be by making representations to the person concerned. I can certainly say that there will be provision for that.
I can give the noble Lord further reassurance. As I understand it, his concern is that any decision to strike out should be at the instance of a member of the panel, although he goes on to say that that should preferably be a legally qualified member. I can give the assurance that it will be by a member of a panel and not by a clerk or other employee of the Secretary of State. That again will be covered in the regulations.
The only issue between us is whether this member of the panel has to be legally qualified. I can assure your Lordships that persons who sit on tribunals will receive adequate and appropriate training before doing so and, in consultation with the Secretary of State and chief medical officers, the president will arrange for the training of all panel members. The training will cover areas such as relevant legislation, the powers of appeal tribunals and how those powers are to be used, together with the procedural rules relating to tribunals and commissioners. Panel members will also receive training in the conduct of hearings so that the facts can be established and decisions reached by applying the law to those facts. The president of the tribunals will be closely involved in the designing of the training programme itself, so that all panel members will be given appropriate training. It will be ultimately for the president to decide which panel members are qualified to take decisions such as striking out. If there are some who are not, then he would decide that and he presumably will have a list of people who are qualified to do that.
This amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill the detail of procedural arrangements for striking out appeals. In our view it is more appropriate for such matters to be addressed in secondary legislation. To do otherwise would clog up the Bill with unnecessary detail. We have already indicated that in terms of the Minister's Statement today, we have accepted the
442
recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation about the nature of these regulations. With those assurances, I would hope that the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I think the real issue between us is whether this particular provision should go into the statute or into regulations. I very much welcome what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said about the content of the regulations. On the whole, I do not think there is anything there that causes me particular concern but it was my feeling that ensuring that the actual striking out would only be carried out by someone who was a member of a panel was a matter of sufficient importance to justify that going into the statute, even if all the rest of the matters could be dealt with properly by regulations. However, I do not propose to take this matter further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 22 [Suspension in prescribed circumstances]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 14, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 72, I should like to speak, with the leave of your Lordships, to Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75. The Government are putting forward these amendments for two reasons: first, to reflect concerns expressed at Second Reading; and, secondly, to deal with a technical drafting point. As regards the first of these, in response to concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, at Second Reading, the amendments clarify the circumstances where entitlement to benefit may be terminated following the suspension of payment of benefit. It had been the intention to explain this in regulations; but we accept the strength of the noble Earl's argument and we have decided to make this matter clearer on the face of the Bill.
The intention has always been that entitlement will terminate only where someone fails to comply with an information requirement that the Secretary of State imposes after she has suspended payment of benefit. The suspension will be lifted when the required information is supplied. If the claimant fails without good reason to do so within a specified period, then benefit will terminate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that creating new grounds for this entitlement is on the level of creating new criminal offences: they are equally serious to those at the receiving end. I would certainly agree that terminating any award of benefit is a serious matter. However, while that action is a serious one, it is also one which is justified. It is one which does not infringe the rights of the claimant.
It may be helpful if I explain in more detail how this power will be exercised. Once a suspension has been imposed, steps will be taken to resolve the doubt or gather the information to decide whether the reward

443
ought to be revised. This will generally involve asking the claimant to give that information. In the vast majority of cases the matter will be resolved in a few days and the suspension lifted. However, there are cases where there is no response and under current provision there is no power to close the claim. Instead, the suspension simply continues indefinitely. On the face of it, this may seem harmless because there is no loss to the Exchequer. However, because the cases remain in the system, they can distort the statistics and the performance information; but, more significantly, they are vulnerable to fraudulent activity. It was because of this uncertainty that we added a termination provision at Report stage in another place.
If I understand the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he is more concerned about how we reach that point and so I will turn now to the procedure by which termination will take place. The regulations we intend to make under the subsection will impose a time limit within which the claimant must respond to a request for information. It will be their failure to respond which will trigger the new power. We intend to set out in the regulations that claimants will have one month in which to respond to requests for information. We believe this to be a reasonable period. It mirrors the period to be allowed in Clause 23, a separate suspension provision. It also brings clarity of the provision to claimants and administrators alike.
I would stress that while one month will be the standard period, the regulations will allow for the period to be extended if there are good reasons for doing so. I can assure your Lordships that officials will act reasonably at all times, taking into account the nature of the information to be provided and the individual circumstances. It will be at the end of the month of the extended period that entitlement will be terminated.
Finally, if entitlement is terminated, the claimant will be given a new outcome decision which, as with any decision, can be disputed via revision or appeal.I apologise to your Lordships for having spoken at some length, but I am conscious of the concerns that have been expressed about this new power and I wanted to take this opportunity to provide your Lordships with reassurances.
I prefaced the above explanation by saying that there were two reasons for bringing these amendments. I turn now briefly to the second, technical reason. Clauses 22 and 23 are separate suspension and termination provisions. Clause 23 already explicitly states that termination will follow a failure to provide information. Initially we thought we would simply add a similar provision to Clause 22. However, that would have meant either adding a reference to Clause 23, the new information requirement provision, or cross-referencing to this provision in Clause 23. Either way, this would have made the legislation more difficult to follow. Instead, to ensure that the drafting is clear, it is proposed to add a separate clause covering both examples of termination. I am pleased to have been able to explain how the new power in Clause 22 will be used. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been reassured
444
that the department will discharge its duties objectively and to the satisfaction of all parties. I commend these amendments to the Committee, and beg to move.
Earl Russell: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord very warmly for what he has done. It has not abolished the gap between us but it has narrowed it very substantially, and I am very grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Suspension and termination for failure to furnish information etc.]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 14, line 43, leave out subsection (3).
Page 15, line I, after ("section") insert ("and section (Termination in cases of failure to furnish information) below").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move these two amendments formally. I have already spoken to them.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
TERMINATION IN CASES OF FAILURE TO FURNISH INFORMATION
(". Regulations may provide that, except in prescribed cases or circumstances, a person—

(a) whose benefit has been suspended in accordance with regulations under section 22 above and who subsequently fails to comply with an information requirement; or

(b) whose benefit has been suspended in accordance with regulations under section 23 above for failing to comply with such a requirement,

shall cease to be entitled to the benefit from a date not earlier than the date on which payments were suspended.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 75. I have already spoken to this.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Clause 24 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I apologise for interrupting the smooth flow which we had achieved. I understand the problem which Clauses 25 and 26 are intended to address.
Noble Lords: Clause 35.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am sorry. I misheard.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 76:
Transpose Clause 59 to after Clause 72.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a wholly technical amendment to relocate Clause 59 into the part of the Bill dealing with benefits. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

445
Clause 25 [Decisions involving issues that arise on appeal in other cases]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: All things come to those who wait. I apologise for having twice interrupted the smooth flow of our business. As I was saying, I appreciate the problem which Clauses 25 and 26 are intended to address. Although I appreciate that there cannot be a grouping in this case, it may be in the interests of expedition if I may be permitted to mention in speaking to Clause 25 some of the matters which it has in common with Clause 26.
Sometimes a question of principle arises for discussion on a specific case and upon that decision there may depend the decision in numerous other cases. They may be first instance decisions—the subject matter of Clause 25—or they may be decisions on appeal—the subject matter of Clause 26. In either situation it clearly would be inviting chaos and be extremely profligate of time and expense to say that all the depending cases should proceed to an individual decision and that each dissatisfied claimant should then pursue such further remedy as may be open; and if they are awarded a benefit which transpired not to be payable, that should be paid and, if necessary, subsequently recovered. Clearly, of course, it would be more sensible to await a decision on the question of principle which can then be applied to all the cases. I at least would not seek to dispute that.
However, that leads to some further questions. First, who is to decide whether the outcome of a specific case really does depend on the decision in the lead case? In other words, who is to decide whether it really is a lookalike case? The Bill's answer in both situation is: the Secretary of State. But in relation to the first instance decisions, falling within Clause 25, that confers on the Secretary of State a discretion whether to put the whole process on ice, with no powers for the claimant to proceed to appeal. In relation to appeal cases, within Clause 26, the proposal is even more startling. The Secretary of State is a party to the proceedings. Should we really leave a party to the proceedings to decide whether the proceedings should be stayed and whether they really do require to await a decision in the lead case.
That has been described by Deputy Commissioner Edward Jacobs as the constitutional difficulty. It raises the question: should the tribunal not have at least a discretion as to whether the proceedings should be stayed; and if it should, then no legislation is necessary. It is open now to a tribunal chairman to direct that a particular case shall not be listed until some other event; for example, until the law has been clarified.
The problem is dealt with in the presidents' circular 9. One of the prospects floated in circular 9 is the possibility of class actions. As I understand it, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is already considering whether class actions should be generally introduced into our system. It is not a simple question
446
because one would have to ensure that all those involved had an opportunity to make representations as to whether they should be part of a class action; whether, for example, they do have a lookalike case. There are possible ways of organising this. NACAB or some other non-governmental organisation may attempt to take under its wing all the claimants concerned to see whether it is possible to organise between them how the matter should be conducted.
That brings us to the second question: is the applicant to have no opportunity of arguing whether his case really is a lookalike? He or his representative may wish to say, "But the issue in my case does not depend on a decision in the lead case. It is distinguishable for these reasons"; and someone should have an opportunity of hearing that submission and considering it.
In circular 9 it is assumed that the president would give a directive, because at the time that was drafted this proposal had not come forward. The Bill makes no corresponding provision for addressing arguments to the Secretary of State. What the Bill provides is that a decision on the question whether a claimant is entitled to some or all of the benefit claimed shall be suspended at the discretion of the Secretary of State. That would be tolerable if some of the issues addressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on Monday were taken into consideration. It may be sensible not to pay the whole of the benefit until the issue is resolved. But, meanwhile, the claimant may be getting deeper into debt; losing his or her house; having no longer a meal in the larder or a pair of shoes which do not let in the rain.
My noble and learned friend was kind enough to write to me on this subject and I really am grateful to him for that. He pointed out that the Government have put down an amendment to ensure that arrears are paid back to the date of the claim. That clearly is a welcome concession. But for the claimant it is not really a solution to be assured that after you have starved your estate will be duly paid.
Administrators like to see administration conducted neatly and economically. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made that point earlier today. They are none the worse for wanting to see things conducted tidily. However, some of us are also concerned that they should be conducted fairly. Those of us who have seen for themselves the daily lives of some of the underprivileged may be anxious to see that they are also conducted with a measure of compassion.
I agree that there are no easy, painless answers, but I hope that my noble and learned friend will, if he cannot satisfy us today, take back Clauses 25 and 26 and consider whether there may not be a fairer and more compassionate solution.
Earl Russell: I agree entirely with everything the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has said. We have here a quite remarkable example of what appears to me to be unaccountable power. I take the point that the Secretary of State is taking a decision in which she may appear to be an interested party; and, of course, like any other human being, she is capable of error. I do not understand how such error can be

447
controlled. I hope I may be forgiven for taking a leaf out of the noble and learned Lord's book and mentioning one or two points which may concern Clause 26 as well.
Normally one would rely on judicial review to control the mistaken exercise of this power. However, when I look at Clause 26. I find in subsection (7)(b)(i) that the powers which can be controlled include,
"an application for, or for leave to apply for, judicial review of the decision under section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981".
I am not aware, though I am an amateur in these matters, of any case where Parliament has previously taken power to forbid the use of the power of judicial review.
Indeed, having followed some of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and others, I am extremely interested in the relationship between the powers of Parliament and the strength of the principles of natural justice. I believe that here Parliament is attempting to venture into constitutional territory where, so far as I am aware, it has never ventured before. It is attempting to use the power of statute to override the principles of natural justice. Whether Parliament can do that, so far as I am aware has never yet been determined. There are some types of legal case which it is much better and in all our interests not to have determined at all because victory either for one side or the other creates a tilt in the balance of power within our constitution which can be very disturbing.
As someone concerned with the principles of judicial independence, I am considerably concerned about the powers in Clause 26(2) where the,
"Secretary of State … may serve notice requiring the tribunal or Commissioner"
to do something. That the Executive can require the courts to do this, that or the other is not my understanding of how things have usually worked here. In fact, it is a possibility, the extension of which has quite alarming implications. Meanwhile, as the noble and learned Lord said, the claimant is left without benefit.
I am reminded, sorrowfully, of the story of the Englishman, Irishman and the Scotsman. The Englishman's hat blew off and fell down a well. They could not reach it, but they decided that if the Irishman held on to the top of the well and the Scotsman held onto the Irishman and the Englishmen held onto the Scotsman, he could just reach the hat. Just as the Englishman was reaching down to pick up the hat, the Irishman at the top said, "Hold on hard while I spit on me hands". The claimant, like the Irishman, may hold on, but it will not do him much good.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I do not wish to detain the Committee for very long. I have much sympathy with the view which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has expressed with his vast experience in these matters. There would seem to be a very serious problem here inasmuch as the Secretary of State would seem to be an interested party. While, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell said, anyone can make errors, it is obviously rather more suspicious if one is made by an interested party.
448
Between now and Report stage we need to give further thought to the extent to which these matters can be resolved. I particularly take the point about people awaiting benefit, but who do not get it while this no doubt sometimes very lengthy legal process takes place.
The other point, which is a cause of particular concern, is to what extent the arrears are paid. On the assumption that meanwhile the person has not become totally destitute or homeless, one must at least hope that the arrears are back-dated to a reasonable date.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In fairness, my noble and learned friend has tabled an amendment to ensure that that at least happens and was kind enough to write to me accordingly.
Lord Higgins: If I recall correctly, that refers to Clause 27. The only point I sought to make in that context was how far the arrears go back. If the case is not regarded as being in the same category as the case which arose originally, which is the lead case, do the arrears go back beyond the date when the lead case was first put forward? It may be that I have misunderstood the situation and that that is not possible. All these cases are decided centrally and it may be that they are not so interrelated in time as one would wish.
Lord Hardie: I am grateful to noble Lords for raising issues on Clauses 25 and 26. The background to this matter is that under the current arrangements adjudication officers are obliged to decide all cases put to them. Until last year the adjudication officer would decide the case, but in the vast majority of cases of the kind in question, the Secretary of State would step in and suspend the payment of benefit until such time as the lead case was decided.
Following a decision of the High Court in November 1996, the power to suspend payments of an award of benefit in look-alike cases has not existed. That has serious consequences where the lead case is decided in the Secretary of State's favour. First, it has serious consequences for the claimant whose benefit must be reduced to the correct amount, but he or she may have taken on extra financial commitments on the basis of the original incorrect award. Secondly, it has serious consequences for the taxpayer who must foot the bill for the overpaid benefit before the lead case is decided. Reference was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer to the question of recovery. I believe that he accepted that it is difficult to recover benefit in many cases when it has been overpaid.
Clause 25 is intended to provide a simple solution which is seen as being fair to both the claimant and the taxpayer. In future, the Secretary of State will make the substantive benefit decision and there will be no need to decide entitlement and then suspend payments. Instead, the Secretary of State can defer making a decision; in other words, she can stay a case where she considers that the outcome of a lead case would mean that there was no entitlement to benefit.

449
I can understand the constitutional concerns that have been raised. But in that regard it has to be borne in mind that we are protecting both the claimant and the taxpayer by this procedure. Customarily, claimants will not have increased benefit until the law has been settled. That is a better arrangement than the current one. As soon as the lead case is settled, any increase in benefit due can be paid immediately rather than the claimant having to wait for it to be determined by a tribunal or the commissioner.
In addition, where some benefit will still be due whatever the outcome, regulations will allow the Secretary of State to decide a case on the basis that the decision in the lead case would be unfavourable to the claimant. The benefit entitlement not affected by the decision in the lead case can then be paid. I understand, appreciate, and sympathise with the unfortunate situation that people find themselves in when benefit is suspended. We are not aiming to suspend the totality of the benefit—only the element of it in dispute in that situation affected by the lead case decision.
What amounts to a look-alike case will be drawn up by the department in conjunction with lawyers, and guidance will be issued to staff on the identification of such cases. When it has been decided that it is a look-alike case, that decision will be intimated to the claimant so that he or she is aware of the decision. In addition, an explanation will be given as to why the Secretary of State believes that it is a look-alike case and why the claimant will have to await the outcome of the lead case for either the entire benefit or, more likely, a particular part of his or her benefit.
The notification letter will also make it clear to the recipient that if he or she considers that the circumstances are different from the lead case; or if circumstances have changed or do change, or if he or she suffers undue hardship, that person should contact the agency without delay. Any response from the customer on any of those issues would involve agency staff taking a further look at the circumstances. Thereafter, a further letter would be issued explaining the outcome of that further determination. I would expect that in hardship cases relief would be given, assuming that the claimant was entitled to benefit under the hardship rules.
That is the scheme that is envisaged and it is our view that it is a prudent new provision which will reduce the level of confusion which currently surrounds the issue. It will avoid those cases, sometimes quite large numbers of cases, which require unnecessary double handling as a result of awards being made and then suspended. It will allow decisions to be deferred or payment to be made in part and revised if necessary. Any benefit due which is not affected will be paid. It would not be right to make payments when the legal position is unclear and entitlement to benefit is in doubt. Those arrangements will reduce the opportunity for over-payment, to the benefit of the claimant and the taxpayer, while affording claimants the opportunity to bring to the attention of agency staff particular hardship problems peculiar to them, which will then be addressed.
450
I turn now to Clause 26 and to a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with regard to subsection (7)(b). As I understand it, the noble Earl suggested that we were excluding judicial review. If I have misunderstood, I apologise, but if that was the suggestion, perhaps I should point out that it is not our intention to exclude judicial review. If the complainant is aggrieved by a decision to suspend, there will still be an opportunity of judicial review. The reference to "judicial review" in subsection (7) refers back to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (6) so that, under subsection (6), an appeal against a decision is pending, and is treated as such, if there is an application for judicial review. It is not the Government's intention to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts in England and Wales or in Scotland. I hope that noble Lords opposite and my noble and learned friend will be satisfied with that explanation.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I appreciate that my noble and learned friend has tried hard to address the problem, and I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I am not wholly satisfied. There are three reasons for that. First, my noble and learned friend pointed out that a person can always go back to the agency to make representations and it is hoped that officials in the agency will consider any such representations. However, we are speaking of a judicial process and it is normal in a judicial process to write in the right to make representations and to have them considered. The idea that the agency will probably, if it has the time, look at the letter that one has written and that it may do something about it is not enough in a judicial process.
Secondly, there still remains the constitutional problem that, as the noble Earl said, a member of the Executive, such as the Secretary of State, is sending a direction to a tribunal. Even presentationally, there must be better ways of presenting it than that. We really must reconsider this matter.
Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the gist of this is the effect on the unhappy claimant. I thought that my noble and learned friend took perhaps a little too much pleasure from saying, "If only part of the benefit is in dispute, we will pay the other part", rather as though that were a generous gesture. If my noble and learned friend told me that I owed him £5 and I said that I owed him only £3 and then tendered only £3, that would be an act of justice, not of generosity. This matter requires to be addressed further. However, as I appreciate that these are difficult questions, for this evening I shall not seek to oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 43 agreed to.
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Lindisfarne Gospels
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durhamrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would support the relocation of the Lindisfarne Gospels from the British Museum to the north east of England.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to move the Unstarred Question which stands in my name and to turn your Lordships from legislation to inspiration. I could not help but be delighted to see just now a noble Lord reading the Gospels during parts of the legislative process.
I seek the mind of the Government on an issue which is causing considerable public interest in the north east of England. But the questions surrounding the location of the Lindisfarne Gospels are far from being of interest to only one region of the country. The issue touches on matters religious, cultural, social and commercial which help to shape the whole nation. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not interpret my question as a piece of special pleading from the north east but will seek to understand the wider implications of the principles at stake.
Your Lordships will need a little reminder of the unique place which the Lindisfarne Gospels has in the history of the country. The Roman mission in the north, spearheaded by Paulinus, after initial success ultimately failed and the region relapsed into paganism. Paulinus retreated to the safety of Rochester, a movement I have been glad to reverse. In the seventh century, Irish monks from Iona established missionary-minded religious communities at Lindisfarne, Jarrow and Wearmouth. From this base not only did the faith flourish and expand, but the monasteries became great centres of piety, learning and art.
The Lindisfarne Gospels has emerged as the most significant of a group of manuscripts produced at those monasteries in the seventh and eighth centuries. It is one of the world's masterpieces of book painting and one of the nation's greatest treasures. It was crafted in honour of St. Cuthbert and arrived in Durham with his body nearly 300 years after his death. The bodies of Cuthbert and Bede have remained in Durham to this day, together with many documents and artefacts. That is why Durham has remained a focus of pilgrimage for the pious, the curious and the scholar. The gospels remained until the dissolution of the Durham monastery, when it was brought to London and eventually found its way into the private collection of Sir Robert Cotton. In the 18th century it was made over to the nation and incorporated into the British Museum as part of its foundation collection—hence the involvement of today's Government. A bland government statement today to the effect that this is really a question to the British Library will disappoint many people in the north east. Your Lordships will note from that brief résumé that for well over half of the 1300 years of its history the Lindisfarne Gospels has been located in the north east and for only 250 years has been in the British Museum and is now housed in the British Library.
452
The Lindisfarne Gospels remains of huge religious significance. It was never simply a book from which to read but a powerful symbol of the revelation of God. As such, the gospels has been the focus of worship and veneration. But part of its significance is its association with the monastery and the remains of Cuthbert. Of course, the gospels is of great value to scholars—historians, artists, calligraphers and many others—but I am sure that they do not dismiss the contemporary religious significance as mere sentimentality. I understand that a digitalised copy will soon be available. I venture to suggest that this is ideal for scholars closely to examine the pages in a library or museum context in London.
The concept of pilgrimage is undergoing a contemporary revival. Cathedrals and other religious sites are often the focus of such pilgrimage. Durham Cathedral alone has almost half a million visitors per year. The juxtaposition of St. Cuthbert's tomb and the gospels, which was created in his memory so shortly after his death, would be a powerful and magnetic attraction for modern pilgrims who seek to recapture the holiness and values which Cuthbert made central to his life and legacy.
Closely associated with its religious significance, the Lindisfarne Gospels represents an important cultural focus. Your Lordships may be aware that the north east is one of the most clearly identifiable regions in the country. Part of this identity arises from its history and place in the Industrial Revolution. The beginning of the railway, coal-mining, steel making and shipbuilding industries can be seen in the north east. The people of the region have suffered greatly from the economic and technological revolutions of recent times. But great pride is still focused on the contribution which the region made to the wealth of the nation over the past 200 years.
Perhaps of even more lasting significance is the history of the area which defines the north east as a centre of religion, culture and artistic activity, particularly in the 7th to 10th centuries. It was this strength which enabled the region to be a fortress against invasions from the north and from the east across the sea. Many of the civic authorities look back to their foundation in this period. The interweaving of faith, scholarship, skills and creativity are still the foundations of much of the identity of the north east. The presence of the Lindisfarne Gospels would fit perfectly into this setting and enhance the sense of local cultural pride which has sustained the character of the region over many centuries and through much change of fortune.
Unless you know the north east it is perhaps difficult to grasp the social significance of its history. In the Durham dales as well as in the great conurbations people are still proud to say, "This is where St. Cuthbert walked", or, "This is where Bede wrote his great history", and they are drawn to the tombs in Durham Cathedral, which remain an icon of their identity. The grandeur of the cathedral's setting should not conceal that it is very much a people's cathedral where schoolchildren flock in their thousands and ex-miners

453
still bring their banners. The presence of the Lindisfarne Gospels in the north east would greatly enhance this sense of history and identity.
Of course, I must declare an interest in all this, especially as I deal now with the commercial aspect of this possible move. It is worth noting that tourism is a fast-growing industry in the north east. While prudent planning has attracted much inward investment and new industry, both urban and rural areas are finding new employment opportunities in the tourist industry. The region is developing as a centre for the arts, and many historical sites are interlinked as attractions to visitors. A great deal of lottery money has recently found its way to the north east, and for that we are very grateful. There are new arts centres on the south bank of the Tyne and major new projects north of the Tyne in Northumbria. Four universities—one of the greatest, dare I say, being Durham itself—attract scholars from around the world and many who go to those universities are medieval history students. It has been said to me that the gospels must stay in London for the sake of accessibility to scholars worldwide, yet these days access to the north east is easier than to central London from many parts of the world.
I recognise that to move such an important and irreplaceable treasure could take place only after a great deal of consideration and planning. I do not ask that the gospels be moved without proper provision for its security and preservation; nor do I raise questions of ownership. I simply ask the Government and the British Library to consider three steps of a long-term plan: first, let the north east display a digitalised copy as a token of good will and earnest expectation; secondly, allow the Lindisfarne Gospels itself to visit the north east, with due care and preparation, at the time of the millennium; thirdly, when the first two stages have given all concerned the opportunity to reflect on their success, openly and publicly to consider the gospels' permanent placement in what I believe is its rightful home. I look forward to other contributions on this matter and to the Government's response.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that all noble lords are grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for raising this important subject. I have listened carefully to his speech. I realise that some people in the north east hold deep feelings on this matter, which is understandable. I have always been drawn to this period. When I was much younger I made a special study of the art and manuscripts of the early Saxon period with particular reference to the age of Bede.
The manuscript known as the Lindisfarne Gospels is one of the most important national treasures in the country. Although I note what the right reverend Prelate has said, it is essential that the gospels be kept in the nation's capital in the National Library. I believe that is important for several reasons. The manuscript on vellum dating from about 700 AD must be kept with other national treasures in controlled environmental conditions in cabinets with special lighting. It should be
454
kept in London where it can be compared with other items of Anglo-Saxon art, such as the treasures from the Sutton Hoo ship burial now in the British Museum and other manuscripts in the British Library from the early Anglo-Saxon period.
The gospels should also be displayed where it can be seen by the maximum number of people. I understand that 1 million visitors a year are expected in the new public gallery of the British Library which is to open on 21st April. That has been made possible by the generous gift of —1 million by Mr. John Ritblat. The Lindisfarne Gospels has been one of the most important treasures in the British Museum for the past 250 years when this manuscript was bequeathed to the nation—the whole nation—by Sir John Cotton, the grandson of Sir Robert Cotton, the great 17th century antiquary and collector of early medieval manuscripts.
A permanent transfer to Durham would, I suggest, create a dangerous precedent. How many other claims would follow? At all events, any transfer would require primary legislation by Parliament. I believe that the worst solution of all would be for the gospels to be shuttled backwards and forwards between London and the north east, with possible adverse effects through being subjected to varying climatic conditions and the danger of damage in transit. I do not suggest that vellum should be compared with marble, but the fate of Canova's Three Graces, which has suffered a crack through constant journeying between London and Edinburgh, should be a warning.
I strongly believe that the Lindisfarne Gospels should remain in the British Library, which is one of the world's great libraries, a centre for international scholarship and serving a huge range of people both here and throughout the world.
8 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. The Lindisfarne Gospels is a masterpiece and an outstanding historical, artistic and religious artefact. I thank him for initiating this debate so eloquently. I disagree though with the practical implications drawn from the judgment by those who campaign for the gospels to be relocated to the north east of England. Like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, we firmly believe that the gospels should remain in the British Library in whose care it has been for the past 25 years.
In 1972, the British Library Act amalgamated a number of institutions, including the library of the British Museum, to where the gospels were moved in 1753. We do not object to the relocation on the grounds that security and environmental control arrangements may be insufficient in the proposed locations, whether it is Durham Cathedral or the Laing Gallery in Newcastle. They can be upgraded, even if some campaigners greatly underestimate the cost of so doing. Nor do we object to the relocation on legal grounds. As noble Lords will be aware, the terms of the British Library Act forbid the library to dispose of any articles that have been transferred to it from the British Museum.

455
The Museums and Galleries Act 1992 relaxes that provision by allowing transfers between certain institutions, but those are, by and large, only national museums, galleries and libraries. A permanent transfer would therefore require legislation. If there were a sufficiently strong case to relocate the gospels, the law could obviously be changed. As the very division within the campaign suggests, arguments which back the case for relocation are weak.
It is argued that the gospels is a sacred text and should be kept in a sacred place in the historical and natural context of where it was made; keeping it in the British Library secularises it and tears it away from its roots. I am surprised by that interpretation of the meaning of "sacred" and "context". My understanding is that the core of the Christian message is to extend the domain of the sacred from the narrow confines of the temple and the law to the whole of life. Furthermore, the message of salvation is not just for one people but is universal. Accordingly, there is no necessity for sacred texts to be kept within a sacred precinct. Indeed, they should be made accessible to as many people as possible:
"to the many., not the few"—
dare I quote the Secretary of State?
Furthermore, normally when we speak of studying something in its context, we mean in its cultural context, not in its physical context. If the argument that a work of art should be studied within its physical context were to be taken to its logical conclusion, most of our collections would explode and be scattered to the four winds.
I acknowledge however the importance of the gospels to regional identity, but it would be wrong for it to be politicised and used to strengthen the case for regional government. We oppose the introduction of regional government. It would take away powers from local authorities and add yet another tier of bureaucracy.
Our view is that the gospels should stay in the British Library. The British Museum, that great centre of excellence, has firmly taken a similar line. It has refused the permanent return of the Lewis Chessmen to Stornoway and the Lindow Man found in Cheshire to Manchester. Both the library and the museum have international standing and enormous scholarship and ensure free access seven days a week to a vast public from all over the world. The British Library expects, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, 1 million visitors a year to its new exhibition galleries at St. Pancras, provided by the generous donation of Mr. Ritblat. Access to the gospels will be further widened by means of the turning-the-pages computer animation system. In comparison, the Laing Gallery in Newcastle, where the gospels was exhibited in 1996, attracted only 72,000 visitors over three months.
The library houses also the greatest collection of medieval illuminated manuscripts in the world. It allows the gospels to be studied alongside them and other great national treasures. It can also provide the expert care it requires in optimum storage and display conditions. We urge the Minister to continue to back the British Library's position: that the public interest is best served by the library remaining the prime home of the gospels.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I must first declare an interest because I am the chairman of the National Sound Archive. There is no connection between the NSA and the Lindisfarne Gospels, but it is part of the British Library and so I may be thought to be parti pris in the matter.
I am pleased that the right reverend Prelate welcomed the electronic turning-the-pages device because it is imaginative and has an enormous future. Turning the pages electronically is very much better than turning them manually when, as I understand it, the curator is occasionally allowed to turn the pages but not unless he has a technical expert at his side. That device is a welcome idea not just for the north east but for London and many other places.
I can see the idea being extended. Illuminated manuscripts and books of all sorts are ideally suited to such a technique. I can imagine applying it to the four gospels published by the Golden Cockerel Press in the earlier years of this century, and magnificently illustrated by Eric Gill. At least I would have suggested that had not the British Library suffered such swingeing cuts in its income.
Although I admire the eloquent advocacy in this matter of the right reverend Prelate, I, too, am of the opinion that the permanent home of the Lindisfarne Gospels should remain in London. The right reverend Prelate spoke of pilgrims. Pilgrims come to the British Library. They may not be wholly or partially religious pilgrims; they may easily be scholarly pilgrims. They come because the collection of illuminated manuscripts in the British Library is second to none. It may be second to the Vatican, but I am not sure. There may be an argument between the two libraries about that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, it is in the context of other treasures that many scholars want to see the Lindisfarne Gospels and not just for their own sake. There is beginning to be, not just in this country but around the world, a fashion for reclaiming works of art and objects of historical interest. The reductio ad absurdum of that movement would be that every nation had only its own national treasures; that all the Patinirs, the Breughels, Rembrandts and Van Goghs in the world would only be in Holland. The Italians would groan under the weight of their renaissance treasures. There would not be a Benin bronze except in Benin.
That is obviously a reduction ad absurdum, but the reallocation of things around the world would cause chaos in the world of museums and libraries and do very little good. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for finding objects that one would not expect in a national or local collection. The mixture of the world's treasures is only to be welcomed. Property obtained as a result of looting during wars should be returned. Here we are dealing with the Lindisfarne Gospels. It must be over four centuries since Sir Robert Cotton first acquired them, and nearly three centuries since his grandson gave them to the nation. So in this case, as in many others, we should resist this interchange of art around the world, and keep things much as they are.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is always fun to follow the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. He mentioned looting. In my opinion, the Lindisfarne Gospels, where they lie at present, are stolen property. His late Majesty of happy memory, King Henry VIII, removed them from the custody of the Prior of Durham in 1537. They were bought by Sir Robert Cotton, into whose family my family married, and then they became part of the collection of the British Museum. They should be returned to the place from which they were stolen—that is Durham Cathedral—or Chester le Street. They were stolen because of their sumptuous gold binding. It was removed but a new binding was made in the 19th century.
It is a privilege to be a Member of this House, to take part in this debate and to follow the 93rd Lord Bishop of Durham. The right reverend Prelate, who is one of the busiest men in Europe, has corresponded with me and I am grateful for his advice, wisdom and guidance. He urged me to make a vigorous contribution. I shall do so in the same way as his forebears urged my predecessors in the north of England to make a vigorous contribution at the Battle of the Standard in 1138, at Neville's Cross in 1346 and at Flodden in 1514. Then we faced an enemy from the north; today the opponent is in the south in London.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the cultural, spiritual, social, economic and commercial issues. I put them into one group, which is regeneration. I declare an interest. For four years I lived in Durham, in Easington village. During that time I fought three elections; in the old English kingdom of Bernicia, in Northumbria and in Durham. I was well aware of what happened in the 1080s when of the map of Britain and the Domesday Book, the Conqueror said hie est vasta; this is waste.
Lord Stockton referred to the descendants of the men who beat the Kaiser. The north needs to go through a regeneration; a spiritual, economic, social and cultural regeneration. What better way of starting and continuing that regeneration by returning the Lindisfarne Gospels to Durham?
I was most disappointed by the handout from the British Library. The Secretary of State states that the Gospels can have only one permanent home. I assume that he means the British Library. If he had said that they should have one permanent home which is Durham Cathedral, I would be happy. The British Library is allowing the north to have what I would call a print out with rotating pages. That is unsatisfactory and most disappointing.
The Museum and Galleries Act 1992 provides that certain objects can be transferred between institutions. If primary legislation is required, I hope that the Government will allow time for a Bill to be presented in another place by the Member of Parliament for Houghton and Washington East, Mr. Fraser Kemp. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether time will be given for such a Bill and whether the Government will support it. Already an Early Day Motion has been tabled which has attracted 60 signatures, some of whom are Members on the
458
Government side. Secondly, will the Minister tell the House how many days a year the British Library will make available the Gospels for public viewing? We cannot yet see the Lindisfarne Gospels until 23rd April.
There are precedents. I hope that the Dean and Chapter of Durham, who I am sure will receive the support of everyone in the north east in asking for the gospels to be returned, will cite as examples the Stone of Scone, which has been returned to Edinburgh; the Bayeaux Tapestry, which is extremely well presented in Bayeaux; at the way in which the Canterbury Gospels are displayed in Canterbury; and at the Book of Kells in Trinity, Dublin.
I lived for one year in Braunschweig near Wolfenbiittel. The Herzog August Library and the Getty Museum generously allowed the William the Lion Psalter to be displayed in the Wolfenbiittel library. That is a magnificent display. I should like to see the Lindisfarne Gospels in Durham Cathedral not only alongside the tomb of Bede and the Shrine of Cuthbert but also alongside their companions, the Durham Gospels. I salute the Lord Bishop.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, the origins of the Lindisfarne Gospels are closely connected with the great Northumbrian Saint and Bishop, St. Cuthbert. Indeed, the book containing the gospels was written and illuminated in his monastery on the island of Lindisfarne around 698 AD by the monk Eadfrith, 11 years after the death of St. Cuthbert. A tailpiece or colophon inserted in the book some 250 years later makes it clear that the book was dedicated specifically "For God and St. Cuthbert".
The book itself is a remarkable example of a fusion of Roman, Celtic and Anglo Saxon styles and it is, in this context, one of the greatest works of art ever produced in this country. Written in the Latin of St. Jerome's Vulgate, it was later interlined with a translation into Anglo Saxon in the 10th century by the monk Aldred. This is not the time or place to attempt to describe in detail this amazing work depicting the Four Evangelists, the elaborate carpet pages, the comparative or canon tables on the four gospels and the list of liturgical readings and related matters. A finely illustrated book by Janet Backhouse in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Library has provided a definitive masterpiece on the subject.
All I wish to do is to underline the fact that the Book of the Gospels remained close to the body of St. Cuthbert for the next 841 years until Henry VIII's commissioners arrived at Durham; and also to describe briefly something of its earlier history.
In 875 AD, the monks of Lindisfarne and their followers had fled in the face of Viking raids on the Northumbrian coast, taking with them St. Cuthbert's body, the Gospel Book and other treasures. They wandered the north of England and south-west Scotland for seven and a half years before coming to rest at a monastery at Chester le Street in what is now County Durham.

459
In crossing the Solway Firth on their way to Scotland, with the ultimate intent of reaching Ireland, they lost the book overboard in a storm. Miraculously, it was found unharmed on the northern shore at low tide the following day. Over the years, historians have attempted to trace the route of these wanderings by reference to the list of the more ancient churches dedicated to St. Cuthbert.
After 113 years at Chester le Street, further raids on the north-east coast caused the little community of monks to move temporarily to Ripon. It was on their way back that the well-known legend occurred. The horse-drawn cart carrying St. Cuthbert's bier and the book broke down and became immovable at a place called Dun Holme. This was taken as a sign that the saint wished this to be his final resting place; so a little church was built for him at Durham.
However, the monks had to flee again; this time back to Lindisfarne. The date was 1069 and the threat was Duke William of Normandy, who had embarked upon a punitive expedition against his new and unruly subjects in the north. William retired south, having laid waste to Northumbria, and the monks returned to Durham. In 1093, work began on the great cathedral church to be raised in St. Cuthbert's honour.
St. Cuthbert's shrine in Durham remained undisturbed until 1539 when the commissioners of Henry VIII desecrated it and removed all its treasure to the Jewel House in the Tower of London. The Lindisfarne Gospels must have been included because later they came to light, despoiled of their jewelled and gilded covers, in the possession of one Bowyer, the Keeper of the Records in the Tower.
From Bowyer, the book passed into the ownership of Sir Robert Bruce Cotton, a distinguished antiquary who was MP for Huntingdon in 1604. His magnificent library ultimately was given to the nation by his heirs and it became one of the foundation collections of the British Museum in 1753.
Durham Cathedral's Treasury is fortunate in possessing the fragments of the innermost coffin of the saint, together with his pectoral cross, his portable altar, his ritual comb and vestments placed later in the coffin by King Athelstan in 934AD.
The British Library has the St. Cuthbert Gospel of St. John—known as the Stonyhurst Gospel—of the 7th century, found in the coffin of St. Cuthbert when his body was placed in the cathedral shrine in 1104. And, of course, the library holds the Book of the Lindisfarne Gospels itself.
Both those books are historically of the first importance to this nation. They are national treasures and they should remain together in the British Library where indeed the Gospels of Lindisfarne have now been for close on 250 years.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I would not have ventured to speak on this subject had I not had the benefit of lengthy discussion with my friend, Professor Eric Stanley of Oxford. His learned observations so enriched my own views as to dispel my diffidence.
460
But first I should declare an interest—in fact, two interests. I confess a loyalty not only as one honoured with a Durham doctorate but as one who worked there as a professor in the 1950s. Already then there was much talk about repatriating the gospels, talk no doubt given fresh impetus by contemporary arguments for the transfer from Copenhagen to Reykjavik of precious saga manuscripts collected 300 years earlier by Arni Magnusson.
So I have sympathy with those who would move the Lindisfarne manuscript back to Durham, if not indeed to Northumberland where, as we have just heard, it spent its first 100 years, or to Chester-le-Street which was its home for the next 200.
But I declare also my loyalty to the British Library, having just completed a stint of 13 years as advisory committee chairman. If it had not been for the scholar, Sir Robert Cotton, this beautiful manuscript would very probably have vanished. Instead, it has been on display in Great Russell Street to many generations of admiring visitors, and from the 21st of this very month it will be on even grander display in the new British Library at St. Pancras. And there, in my view, it should stay. Care has always been lavished on the book with all the scholarly and technological expertise so richly available in this national library. As has already been mentioned, the latest achievement is an electronic viewing system providing high quality digitised images shortly to be enjoyed in the north east through an agreement with the Northumberland County Council.
History has played some very odd tricks with medieval manuscripts. What is the unique Gothic bible, the Codex Argenteus, doing in Uppsala rather than somewhere in Germany, perhaps Aachen? What is a unique codex of Anglo-Saxon poetry doing in Vercelli, halfway between Turin and Milan? Well, provided such treasures are properly cared for—as these are—they contribute to the charm of museum visits and to the wider dissemination of unfamiliar cultures. So I shall not be pressing the Prime Minister as president of the European Union to seek repatriation of the Vercelli book, any more than I would want to see the Book of Kells moved from Trinity College, Dublin, back to Ceanannas Mor where it was created over a millennium ago.
In any case, if Durham seeks repatriations, why start with the Lindisfarne Gospels? Why not the manuscript of St. John that was once actually in St. Cuthbert's coffin but which is now in the library of Stonyhurst College in Lancashire? Or what about the Codex Amiatinus, the grandest of all Vulgate bibles, written in Bede's Northumbria but now where? Not in the Vatican, where it was presumably headed, but in the Medici Library in Florence where it is virtually inaccessible to anyone wanting to see it. I give a further example. For nearly 200 years, major work by the Venerable Bede in another early Northumbrian manuscript has reposed in what was the Imperial Library, now the Public Library, in St. Petersburg.
I would not myself campaign for any of these manuscripts to be moved, but since the Lindisfarne Gospels are a national British treasure long since cared

461
for in the national British Library, I respectfully put it to our friends in the north east that there may be more appropriate targets.
Perhaps I may end by venturing another word of advice. Once moves begin, where will they end? The right reverend Prelate will know that among the precious manuscripts in Durham's Chapter Library, one used to be in Hexham, another in Somerset's Witham Friary, another in York, another in Coventry. My Lords, need I say more?
8.25 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I find myself in a difficult position this late in the debate. The eloquent and elegant advocacy of the right reverend Prelate carried me along completely. I can see the force of his feelings and his arguments when he represents obviously deeply held feelings in the north east in wishing that priceless manuscripts of this kind should find their way to their original location. At least as a result of his speech, I shall find my way to Durham very shortly, which I have not visited since I was a recruit at Catterick Camp when I was doing my national service. I have passed it many times and felt like taking a detour on my way further north. This year, I shall certainly do that.
The arguments are interesting on both sides. They lead on to other issues which may possibly engage us in your Lordships' House at a later stage. For example, there is a need for a balanced strategy between the conservation of our heritage and our culture against the imperatives of tourism. A debate on that subject would not go amiss in your Lordships' House.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and other noble Lords have pointed out to us, it is ironic that we should rather illogically now be so keen—not only us British but other countries—to gather together into one place works of art or pieces of culture which are perceived to belong rightfully in those areas when in fact nowadays, with all the benefits of travel and communication, as noble Lords have said, there is no real reason why we should worry too much that, for example, all Turner or Constable paintings should be collected together in one place. In a way, it is a pleasant surprise to visit a gallery in another country and find British paintings or to go to a German gallery and find Italian paintings or sculpture.
Therefore, I am extremely sympathetic to the views of the right reverend Prelate, backed up by the passionate, as usual, advocacy of my noble friend Lord Carlisle. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for giving me some very interesting reading material which, together with the interesting speech of the right reverend Prelate and by delvings into Encyclopedia Britannica, I at least go out of this debate a better-educated person.
However, the arguments for keeping such valuable manuscripts in the British Museum are, on balance, compelling. After all, the cost of keeping such pictures, sculptures and manuscripts in the condition in which they should be kept is extremely expensive. For example, a manuscript needs to be inspected every day.
462
It needs to be seen that there is no deterioration and it must be kept in the right atmosphere and the right light. I ask rhetorically, how would we know—and perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us; indeed, he may even sing to us—how it will be financed if these manuscripts are taken back as suggested by the right reverend Prelate?
How can we be sure that there will be the necessary income to maintain the manuscripts in the way that they are being maintained now in the British Museum if funding is uneven and if, for example, through pilgrimage or tourism, the income cannot be created to maintain that level of care? Many people will read the report of our debate tonight and they will also be interested to know the answers to these questions. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us some of them.
8.31 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what does the noble Viscount want, a Gregorian chant? The whole House will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising the matter and permitting what has been a brief but remarkably well-informed debate. I am selfishly especially grateful to him because, when he tabled the Question, I took the opportunity to go to see the Lindisfarne Gospels and they were shown to me personally. I must say that that was a revelation and a wonderful experience. I had already visited Lindisfarne Holy Island and Durham Cathedral, so I view the matter objectively, I hope, both from the point of view of where the gospels are now and where it is proposed that they should be returned to.
I suggest to your Lordships that there are three basic issues that we have to consider for the Lindisfarne Gospels and for all comparable treasures. First, there is the issue of availability for scholarly research; secondly, there is the issue of public access; and, thirdly, there is the issue of conservation.
As for scholarly access, the gospels are peculiarly important for scholars because they contain not only a good version of the Vulgate Latin but also the first known translation into Old English of the gospels. Therefore, scholars of Old English, as well as Biblical scholars, need especially to be able to see them. The right reverend Prelate suggested that it would be possible for scholars to look at the computer images on the electronic viewing system, of turning-the-pages. I have to tell him that I believe he is wrong; indeed, scholars need to see the original. For example, they need to be able to see erasures and the pricking of the vellum which laid out the lines and the images rather than see a computer image. As is well known, scholars do come to the British Museum to see the gospels and the other treasures in the department of manuscripts. They come especially from elsewhere in London, from Ireland and also from the United States. Therefore, from that point of view, I suggest that their location in London is the more appropriate.
I turn now to the issue of public access. This is not simply a matter of numbers. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi referred to the number of visitors when the

463
manuscript went to the Laing Gallery in Newcastle in 1996. At present 6 million people visit the British Museum each year. As my noble friend said, it is expected that there will be 1 million visitors to the new John Ritblat Gallery in the British Library after it opens on 21st April. I should tell the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that the intention is that the gallery will be open on all normal opening days; in other words, there will be no restriction on its access.
It is indeed the John Ritblat Gallery which provides a very powerful argument for the retention of the gospels in the British Library. First, there will be free admission, as is the case with the British Museum and the British Library at present. Secondly, it will be quite a remarkable new gallery for which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, £1 million has been given most generously. It will be for manuscripts and will include some of the greatest manuscripts in Christian history—for example, the Tyndale New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, Gutenberg's Bible, the Sforza Hours and other manuscripts less related to the Christian religion such as Shakespeare's first folio and the manuscript of Handel's "Messiah". Therefore, in itself, it will be an astonishing place of display.
Moreover, as other noble Lords have recognised, the gallery will also have the enormous benefit of the turning-the-pages viewing system, which uses computer animation and digitised images, together with touch-screen technology, to provide access not only to the one page which can be opened on any one day but to all of the 15 illustrated pages and, if necessary, to a sample of the remaining 240 text pages of the gospels. It will possible for every visitor to see all of the gospels, especially the illustrated parts. By using touch-screen technology, it will be possible to zoom in on the wonderful details of birds, cats and individuals and the images of the saints themselves. Noble Lords must believe me when I say it is astonishing stuff. It will be seen much more clearly through turning-the-pages than it ever could be by looking at it in a glass case.
Indeed, the whole thing reminds me of the programmes that my wife, as a senior commissioning editor on education for Channel 4, commissioned in her educational series. I have in mind in particular programmes on the stained glass windows high up in the cathedral at Chartres or on Elizabethan miniatures. That sort of technology provides for better access than could ever be achieved in any other way; indeed, better access than could ever be achieved by seeing it oneself in the place of origin. Noble Lords may remember staring up at the high windows at Chartres and recall how frustrating it is not to be able to see such noble images in detail. That is a powerful argument for the work of the British Museum. If any noble Lord doubts me, he should look at the Magna Carta, which is already on the British Library website.
The third issue is that of conservation. In physical terms the John Ritblat Gallery will have the environmental controls that are necessary: it will have controlled temperature, controlled humidity and controlled lighting. It is essential for a manuscript of
464
this kind to have such controls and to have optic lighting. But there is more to it than that. Conservation requires the availability of trained conservation staff who will be able to examine the gospels at regular intervals to make sure there is no change in their condition.
At the end of his speech the right reverend Prelate proposed a three-stage process, as he called it. First, he asked that the turning-the-pages technology should be available in the north east. On 17th March the British Library agreed with Northumberland County Council that turning-the-pages technology would be available in the north east. I can tell the right reverend Prelate without hesitation that the first of his requests has already been granted. Secondly, he asked that there should be generous loan facilities. I can answer that in the affirmative too. Discussions are taking place between the British Library and the North of England Assembly. At a cordial meeting on 20th March it was agreed that the North of England Assembly should propose that the gospels should be loaned to the north east at about the time of the millennium.
Thirdly, the right reverend Prelate requested that we should consider the gospels' permanent location. I think this evening we have considered the gospels' permanent location. I think the majority of your Lordships have concluded that it would be right for them to stay where they are. We are not relying on legislation for that. Of course the British Library Act could be changed if necessary. We are not being legalistic about it. However, the fundamental point is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, in a devastating speech; namely, that to return works of art to their original homes would be—if that were allowed to commence and continue—a wholly self-defeating exercise. It would not just break up collections—of course, it would do that—but it would deny the vast majority of people all over the world the opportunity to see at first hand the whole range of the artistic treasures of the world.
Occasionally if I have some free time after leaving the Department for Culture, I visit one room in the Sainsbury Wing of the National Gallery. In that room, which contains works of art up to 1510, I see medieval altar paintings stolen from Italian churches. They are not just paintings which could be hung anywhere but entire altar paintings. Is it suggested that they should be returned to churches, some of which are now demolished? I do not think so. I hope it will be agreed that an effective case has been made for the retention of the gospels in their present location as the most generous and imaginative way of making them available to the people of the north east of England.
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for three minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.43 to 8.46 p.m.]

Social Security Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 27 [Restrictions on entitlement to benefit in certain cases of error]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 17, line 28, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1 A) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 76A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 81, 85, 85A, 87, 91 to 97 inclusive, 132, 147E to H inclusive, 147J and 147M.
Amendments Nos. 87, 97 and 132 relate to entitlement to arrears where claimants have obtained a revision of the Secretary of State's decision. The other amendments will ensure that the provisions of Clauses 27 and 44 and paragraph 47 of Schedule 6 comply with European Community law requirements to provide an effective remedy. They will also ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which requires a proper determination of civil rights.
During the Bill's Second Reading in this Chamber the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised concerns regarding Clause 27 and its compliance with European legislation. I am grateful to him for that. I shall explain the purpose of our amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who also raised concerns about Clause 27. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Earl's concerns.
It may assist the Committee if I briefly explain the purpose of Clause 27 before I explain why the amendments have been proposed. Clause 27 deals with restrictions on entitlement to arrears of benefit following a decision by a commissioner or a court which overturns the previous view of the law. The clause replaces and clarifies existing provisions in Sections 68 and 69 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. These provisions are complicated and have been subject to legal challenge.
The clause applies where a commissioner or a court makes a decision in a case which reinterprets the law in a particular area. But the clause as originally drafted provides that only the person involved in that case will have any increase in his benefit entitlement paid from the date of the original decision. All others affected by the new interpretation of the law would have had any increase paid from a common date set in regulations. That approach was intended to safeguard public funds.
However, in the light of what was said at Second Reading, we have looked again at the construction of the clause and have concluded that to ensure compliance with European law—and to satisfy, at least as far as possible, the concerns of noble Lords opposite—amendments are required.
Amendments Nos. 76A and 85A will ensure that when the outcome of an appeal overturns an understanding of the law, arrears will be payable in look-alike cases where the Secretary of State withheld making a decision as a decision in a lead case was pending; required an appeal tribunal or a commissioner to refer a case to her so that she could withhold making
466
a decision until after the lead case was decided; and where the Secretary of State supersedes the decision of a tribunal or a commissioner as a consequence of the decision in a lead case. I hope that that will answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, when we discussed Clauses 25 and 26.
Amendments Nos. 91 and 96 provide similar provisions for child support in Clause 44 as do Amendments Nos. 147E and 147M, which relate to paragraph 47 of Schedule 6.
Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 81 and 85 will ensure that people who have lodged an appeal against a decision before the date of the commissioner's or court's determination in the lead case will have any arrears of benefit paid from the date they become entitled to the relevant benefit. This will ensure that where claimants have done all that they could to correct an error by appealing, they will not be disadvantaged when the point of law in a lead case is decided favourably to them.
Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 94, 95, 147F, 147G, 147H and 147K will ensure that similar provisions will apply where a person has appealed against a child support decision before the date of the commissioner's or the court's determination in the lead case.
The restrictions on payment of arrears will still apply to claimants who did not appeal against the Secretary of State's decision and are nevertheless affected by the re-interpretation of the law. Amendments Nos. 87, 97 and 132 will clarify in the Bill and in the Social Security Administration Act 1992 that this includes claimants who obtained a decision from the Secretary of State, or a revision or supersession of that decision but did not subsequently appeal. Claimants in this position will have any change to benefit or maintenance applied from a common start date—the date of the "determination" of the commissioner or the court in the lead case.
The department always seeks to act within the law. However, there are occasions when a long-standing interpretation of the law is overturned by the courts. Without a power to restrict arrears, the new interpretation could mean that increased benefit would be payable to large numbers of people from the date of their original benefit decision. Allowing windfall payments of arrears of benefit for past periods following a reinterpretation of the law would not be an effective use of limited resources.
The department spends £100 billion of public money each year. We want to make sure that expenditure is focused where need is greatest. This clause, as amended, will mean that the department can fulfil the requirements of European Community law and the European Convention on Human Rights while at the same time exercising proper stewardship of the public purse. It makes sure that changes in interpretation of the law do not result in large unforeseen public expenditure consequences to people who have not made the necessary application. What is more, trawling through thousands of cases to find the ones affected would cost time and money—money better spent on improving services for all claimants.

467
I hope that I have assured the Committee that the amendment will ensure that the Bill's provisions restricting benefit entitlement in these circumstances comply with the requirements of European Community law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Perhaps I may again acknowledge the constructive contributions made at Second Reading on this clause. I trust that the amendments will reassure the Committee on the concerns voiced during that debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: First, I confirm that the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord satisfies the points previously made by my noble friend Lord Higgins with regard to arrears.
I have to take issue—that may be too strong a word—on a few points. I am somewhat bemused by the explanation given by the Minister. Had it come from Members of our Benches when we sat on the other side of the Chamber, it might have raised more than just one eyebrow of those who belong to the Minister's party. I am pleased to hear the Government taking such great care of the national purse. However, I question the use of the word "windfall" in this context. I am aware that there are occasions when a policy intention is frustrated unexpectedly. What one had thought was the law is not the law because of the way it has been determined in another place. That can happen, and people can find themselves eligible to receive benefits to which they did not appreciate that they were entitled but hoped that they were. I would not call that a windfall. I would have said that that was the money to which they were entitled. Whether those people consider it a bonus is another matter. I believe that they would simply consider it as benefit to which they were entitled and upon which their case had been proved.
I welcome the fact that the Government have approached the problem of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Bill. Perhaps I may be somewhat cheeky and venture to suggest that this is the first Bill going through your Lordships' House where the Government have managed to address the problems of both the incorporation of the ECHR and the consequences of devolution in one Bill. I hope that this is a good sign for activity by the Government on those bases in future Bills.
Lord Goodhart: I do not wish to say much on this occasion. I fear that I may trespass on what my noble friend Lord Russell may say on the next group of amendments. I know that he will wish to expand somewhat on the effect of the amendments in the current group.
However, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. This has moved a substantial way in the direction we sought at Second Reading. I am particularly grateful that the Government have taken on board the points that I and others raised on the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore so far as the amendments go we welcome them.
Lord Hardie: I would not suggest for a moment that the noble Baroness could ever be cheeky either in this House or elsewhere.
468
Perhaps I should clarify the use of the word "windfall". I had in mind people who had not claimed benefit. The provisions which we shall bring into effect, subject to the amendment being accepted, will be to the benefit of the people who thought they were entitled to benefit, and claimed. They would obtain the benefit. But in respect of those who had not so claimed, involving trawling through records, I think that it would be seen in the nature of a windfall if they were to receive a cheque for a substantial sum of money in respect of payment over a number of years. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 77:
Page 17, line 33, after ("decision") insert ("on another case").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, it might be convenient if I were to take with it the question that Clause 27 stand part. It is in the next group. One reason is that I would have to say at least three quarters of the same thing which does not seem a good idea. Another reason is that it will take me some time to work out exactly how many amendments in the group might be made redundant by the amendment just put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. My impression is that it would make a number of them redundant, but probably not all of them. Since the issues involved are all quite technical, and since they are all interrelated, it might be as well to take them all together.
All of these issues relate to what is known colloquially as the anti-test case rule. The effect of that rule is: if there is a test case which establishes a principle in consequence of which it becomes clear that many other people have an entitlement to benefit, the entitlement to benefit goes back only to the time the case was decided, not to when they originally acquired what is now seen as the entitlement.
That rule is not new. It has been the subject of a good deal of litigation and parliamentary proceedings. It led to some drama in this Chamber during debate on the Social Security Bill in 1990, when, I regret to say, I disgraced myself by having the House count it out—which, I assure your Lordships, was not my intention.
I was quite relieved when that provision came before the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Millett said that the Secretary of State's interpretation of the clause to which I had objected was "so unreasonable that Parliament could not possibly have intended it". The provision with which we were dealing in 1990, which tried to prevent the courts from upsetting the anti-test case rule, directed the courts to treat past judgments as if they had not been made. Lord Justice Millett said that that was an attempt, not so much to change the law, as to rewrite history.
So the question which is behind all this argument about the anti-test case rule is how we understand the concept of entitlement—whether, in fact, we accept the principle of Lord Justice Scarman that all social security law rests on the concept of entitlement, in which case the entitlement was there from the

469
beginning; or whether we treat it as more a matter of grace and favour. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, touched very expertly on that issue.
I am, I must admit, on the entitlement side of this argument. I regard it as akin to the concept of a peerage in abeyance. It may be in abeyance—in one or two recent cases possibly as far back as the reign of Henry VII—but once the matter is resolved, it is clear that all the intervening generations were in fact Peers, even though that was not perceived by the Committee of Privileges of this House. Similarly, it might be argued that an entitlement is an entitlement, whether or not the courts have yet perceived it. The alternative interpretation has the effect, as it were, of suspending claimants from a sky-hook with no visible means of support. But since we dealt with that argument in relation to Clause 25, I do not need to enter into it again.
This Bill does not invent the anti-test case rule. What it does is to extend it from claims and reviews to appeal tribunals, social security commissioners and the courts. It extends that sort of control over the operation of the courts into a much higher area of the law, and therefore makes the possibility of collisions between the legislature and the courts rather more acute than before.
This string of amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 77, restricts the operation of Clause 27 so that it shall apply only to cases where, in consequence of a decision in the lead case, a person makes a new claim for benefit or applies for his case to be revised. I shall read Hansard carefully to see exactly how that fits with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. It is a question that I cannot resolve on the sudden, but I am very interested in comparing the two matters together. It disapplies the anti-test case rule where a claim has been postponed under Clause 25 or the Secretary of State has revised or superseded a decision, exercising her powers under Clause 26. There again, I shall look with great care at the amendments the Minister has put forward. Again, it is not a decision I should want to make on the sudden. Or, it disapplies the anti-test case rule where the initial decisions on a lookalike case were made in accordance with the case law that was then binding. It disapplies them—that I did not hear in the noble and learned Lord's amendment—where the test case was made under regulations subsequently found to be ultra vires. If that were allowed, the Secretary of State would in effect be benefiting from her own poor decision-making, which would be, to say the least, undesirable.
On the other hand, clause stand part—which I confess I regard as the preferable option—would altogether stop these extensions of the anti-test case rule into the higher areas of jurisdiction. One of the amendments prevents the extension of the anti-test case rule to the European Court of Justice.
I listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord had to say about European law. I do not think I heard him say that he was stopping the extension of the anti-test case rule to the European Court of Justice. If I am mistaken, I apologise to him, but I did not hear it.
470
It is doubtful whether Parliament has the power to bind the European Court of Justice. Indeed, it is more than doubtful; it seems to me in the very highest degree improbable that it has. The pillars of the European Court of Justice arise under the treaties; they do not arise from any Act of this Parliament. There is, I think, a very strong case for arguing that that is something which cannot actually be done. It raises the whole question on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, touched in his resolution of Bate's case, to which I referred earlier; whether the whole of this principle of the anti-test case rule is in fact compatible with European law at all. That is a question which has not yet been the subject of any judicial proceedings, and on which many doubts have been expressed—in this House, in the Court of Appeal and in the Appellate Committee of this House. It is one good reason why the anti-test case rule should be dropped altogether.
The noble and learned Lord will say that that will have a consequence for public funds. Indeed it will, and it is a matter that should be taken seriously. But one has to set two possible wrongs in balance against each other. Wherever any proceedings are pending, something has to be done pending their resolution. That something will be to the detriment of either one party or the other; there is no way that that can be avoided. I would have thought that there was a case for arguing that these things ought to be resolved in the interim period in the interests of the claimant, who is less able to bear the loss, rather than in the interests of the taxpayer, who is collectively rather better able to resolve the loss, and that the underlying principle which reconciles the two of them is that justice should not be unduly delayed, a principle of which I know the Government are perfectly well aware, as we all are. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: These amendments, as the noble Earl observed, overlap considerably some of the amendments that we have just dealt with. I am pleased to say that the Government support the general thrust of the amendments that the noble Earl has brought forward, but we think and hope that we have addressed those concerns in the amendments to which I spoke a few moments ago.
Amendment No. 77 seeks to clarify that the provisions of the clause do not apply to the lead case. I can assure your Lordships that it was never the intention that the restrictions on arrears provided for in this clause should apply to that case. The provisions of the clause will apply to other cases to which the new interpretation of the law applies. Full arrears will be payable in the lead case. Accordingly, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 80 seeks to ensure that the restrictions on arrears of benefit do not apply to decisions made in lookalike cases by an appeal tribunal, a commissioner or a court. The Government have been concerned that claimants should be entitled to an effective right of appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State, an appeal tribunal or a commissioner. As a result, we tabled Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 81 and 85 which will ensure that the provisions of the clause will apply only to decisions made by the Secretary of

471
State. The government amendments will also ensure that the clause complies with obligations arising in EC law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Claimants will have an effective remedy against decisions.
Amendments Nos. 82 and 84 would allow unlimited arrears for people who happened to have applied for a revised decision or applied for a decision on their entitlement to be superseded before the date of the commissioner's or court's determination in the lead case. Claimants who did not apply for a revision or supersession before the relevant determination would have any award of, or increase in, benefit limited. This would lead to inconsistent and unfair treatment between claimants.
The proposed amendments would also have other implications. A significant period of time may have elapsed before a commissioner or a court reinterprets the law. Potential arrears of benefit may be considerable. For reasons I have already explained, it would not be appropriate to pay those arrears in cases where there was no outstanding claim prior to the decision in the lead case.
Amendment No. 83 proposes that a decision of the Secretary of State to revise a claimant's entitlement to benefit should be made in accordance with an earlier decision of a commissioner or court. However, the clause is drafted in such a way that the relevant determination must have been made in order for the Secretary of State to revise a decision. Therefore the amendment would appear to be unnecessary.
Amendment No. 86 seeks to remove paragraph 4 of the clause. Paragraph 4 puts beyond doubt that restrictions on arrears will also apply where the commissioner or court determines that regulations are invalid for the period before the relevant determination. As your Lordships will know, the Secretary of State makes regulations based on her understanding of the powers laid down by Parliament. If that power is misunderstood, there are well-established procedures for handling these cases, and the restrictions of Clause 27 will apply.
Amendment No. 88 seeks to exclude decisions of the European Court of Justice from the restriction of the clause. The Bill makes it clear that decisions of the European Court of Justice are determinations by a "court", so restrictions on arrears apply. It is not a new provision. The words are on the face of the Bill to clarify existing legislation. The amendment seeks to exempt these judgments and would result in potential unlimited backdating of arrears. It would be unfair to exempt the decisions of the European Court of Justice while maintaining that the restrictions apply to decisions of other courts.
Amendment No. 89 would remove the subsections of the clause which allow regulations to be made to prescribe how the date of the relevant determination shall be determined. The amendment would specify that only the first decision on an issue, made in the claimant's favour, will be a relevant determination. We intend to prescribe how the determination of a higher court is to be treated as if it had been made on the date of a determination of a lower court. For example, a commissioner may decide a case in one way, the Court of Appeal take an opposite
472
view, and this House, sitting as the Judicial Committee, decide that the commissioner's interpretation is correct. The regulations would clarify that the date of the relevant determination would be that made by the commissioners. These regulations will apply equally when cases are determined in the Secretary of State's or the claimant's favour. The first decision made by a commissioner of the court which is subsequently confirmed by a higher authority will be the relevant determination subject to any further appeal. Therefore this amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 90 proposes to insert a new subsection in the clause which will ensure that decisions made by the Secretary of State under Sections 25(4) and 26(3) or (5) are not subject to the restrictions of the clause. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be reassured to know that the Government have tabled amendments which we have already dealt with and which have addressed many, if not most, of his concerns in this area. I have already explained the amendments in full to the Committee and do not think it is necessary to repeat what I have said. In those circumstances I would invite the noble Earl to withdraw these amendments at this stage. He has of course indicated that he would wish to read specifically about the government amendments. In the light of that I would invite him to withdraw his amendments.
As far as clause stand part is concerned, I think I have effectively dealt with the thinking behind Clause 27 in part-outlining the Government's amendments when I spoke earlier. I would again invite the noble Earl to withdraw his opposition to that.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble and learned Lord most warmly for that reply. I am sorry to have put him to the trouble of going through some of these things twice, but this is by way of being the Schleswig-Holstein of social security law, and at times I feel rather like its Lord Palmerston.
I think the noble and learned Lord has gone a very long way towards meeting what I was worried about in the amendments. I think it would be extremely unwise of me to reach any final decision tonight on whether he has met all or only part of my concerns. Certainly he has met a large part of them.
I was considerably reassured by a number of things that he said, although I am still, I must confess, a little concerned about the European Court of Justice. Clearly I shall not be pressing these amendments tonight but I shall be reading the answers carefully and deciding what to bring back.
On the basic thinking of Clause 27 itself, there is still a great deal that divides us, but granted that the noble and learned Lord still adheres to the basic framework of the clause, he may well have gone as far to meet me within that assumption as he could. I am in any case extremely grateful to him and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 17, line 34, after ("made") insert ("by the Secretary of State").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 78 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 79, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 80.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 17, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 79 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 81:
Page 17, line 38, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 81 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 85 and 85A:
Page 17, line 41, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
Page 17, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) This section does not apply where the decision of the Secretary of State mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above—

(a) is one which, but for section 25(2) or (3)(a) above, would have been made before the date of the relevant determination; or

(b) is one made in pursuance of section 26(3) or (5) above.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc formally.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 87:
Page 18, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1) above—

(a) where such a decision as is mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) falls to be made, whether the claim was made before or after the date of the relevant determination;

(b) where such a decision as is mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) falls to be made on an application under section 10 or (as the case may be) 11 above, whether the application was made before or after that date.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 87 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Child support: cases of error]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 91 to 97:
474
Page 30, line 23, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").
Page 30, line 30, after ("made") insert ("by the Secretary of State").
Page 30, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("with") in line 35.
Page 30, line 38, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
Page 30, line 42, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
Page 30, line 45, at end insert—
("(IA) This section does not apply where the decision of the Secretary of State mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above—

(a) is one which, but for section 28ZA(2)(a), would have been made before the date of the relevant determination; or

(b) is one made in pursuance of section 28ZB(3) or (5)."). Page 31, line 11, at end insert—

("( ) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1) above—

(a) where such a decision as is mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) falls to be made; or

(b) where such a decision as is mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) falls to be made on an application under section 16 or (as the case may be) section 17,

whether the application was made before or after the date of the relevant determination.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 91 to 97 en bloc formally.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 34, 36, 37 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Vaccine damage payments: decisions superseding earlier decisions]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 98:
Page 32, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) Such notice as may be prescribed by regulations shall be given of a decision under this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 98, I wish to speak also, with the leave of the Committee, to Amendments Nos. 99 and 138.
We now come to a group of amendments of a technical nature relating to the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme. As such, I hope noble Lords will allow me to present them as a set rather than take each one individually.
Amendment No. 98 is a minor, technical amendment to Clause 45. Clause 45 inserts a new Section 3A into the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. In effect, it replaces the current section—Section 5—which deals with reconsideration of the Secretary of State's decision on a claim for a vaccine damage payment and provides for claimants to be notified of decisions. New Section 3A as currently drafted does not contain provision for notifications. This amendment provides a regulation-making provision to deal with the notification of decisions.
Amendment No. 99 is a technical amendment to Clause 46. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on the procedures to be followed by appeal tribunals that hear appeals against vaccine damage payments decisions. Clause 46 replaces Section 4 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act. That section includes provision for regulations to be made for the procedure

475
to be followed when determining matters referred to tribunals. The power needs to be carried forward and this amendment does no more than that.
The final .amendment is Amendment No. 138. The principle of finality is fundamental to the system of decision-making. A vaccine damage payments decision, once made, should be binding both on the department and on the claimant until it is reversed or changed on appeal. This amendment to Schedule 6 ensures that decisions made by the Secretary of State will be final until reversed under Clause 45 or changed on appeal under Clause 46. This ensures consistency across the parts of the Bill relating to social security benefits, child support and vaccine damage payments. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Vaccine damage payments: appeals to appeal tribunals]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 99:
Page 32, line 38, at end insert ("and
(b) such provision with respect to proceedings before appeal tribunals as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
( ) The regulations may in particular make any provision of a kind mentioned in Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1998.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 58 and 60 to 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Recovery of contributions etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 63 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Goodhart: Just by way of comment, I wish to raise the point that distress is an extremely archaic remedy. I think it is time that we restricted it where it does exist or perhaps abolished it altogether rather than extended it. I am sorry to see it in the Bill as an additional remedy for the recovery of the contributions.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
(". After section 121B of the Administration Act there shall be inserted the following sections—
Liability of directors etc. for company's contributions.
121C.—(1) This section applies to contributions which a body corporate is liable to pay, where—

(a) the body corporate has failed to pay the contributions at or within the time prescribed for the purpose; and

(b) the failure appears to the Secretary of State to be attributable to fraud or neglect on the part of one or more individuals who, at the time of the fraud or neglect, were officers of the body corporate ("culpable officers").

(2) The Secretary of State may issue and serve on any culpable officer a notice (a "personal liability notice")—

(a) specifying the amount of the contributions to which this section applies ("the specified amount"); and

(b) requiring the officer to pay to the Secretary of State—

476

(i) a specified sum in respect of that amount; and

(ii) specified interest on that sum.

(3) The sum specified in the personal liability notice under subsection (2)(b)(i) above shall be—

(a) in a case where there is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, no other culpable officer, the whole of the specified amount; and

(b) in any other case, such proportion of the specified amount as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the officer's culpability for the failure to pay that amount bears to that of all the culpable officers taken together.

(4) In assessing an officer's culpability for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) above, the Secretary of State may have regard both to the gravity of the officer's fraud or neglect and to the consequences of it.
(5) The interest specified in the personal liability notice under subsection (2)(b)(ii) above shall be at the prescribed rate and shall run from the date on which the notice is issued.
(6) An officer who is served with a personal liability notice shall be liable to pay to the Secretary of State the sum and the interest specified in the notice under subsection (2)(b) above.
(7) Where, after the issue of one or more personal liability notices, the amount of contributions to which this section applies is reduced by a payment made by the body corporate—

(a) the amount that each officer who has been served with such a notice is liable to pay under this section shall be reduced accordingly;

(b) the Secretary of State shall serve on each such officer a notice to that effect; and

(c) where the reduced liability of any such officer is less than the amount that he has already paid under this section, the difference shall be repaid to him together with interest on it at the prescribed rate.

(8) Any amount paid under a personal liability notice shall he deducted from the liability of the body corporate in respect of the specified amount.
(9) In this section—
"contributions" includes any interest or penalty in respect of contributions;
"officer", in relation to a body corporate, means—

(a) any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act as such; and

(b) in a case where the affairs of the body corporate are managed by its members, any member of the body corporate exercising functions of management with respect to it or purporting to do so;

"the prescribed rate" means the rate from time to time prescribed by regulations under section 178 of the Finance Act 1989 for the purposes of the corresponding provision of Schedule I to the Contributions and Benefits Act, that is to say—

(a) in relation to subsection (5) above, paragraph 6(2)(a);

(b) in relation to subsection (7) above, paragraph 6(2)(b).

Appeals in relation to personal liability notices.
121D.—(1) No appeal shall lie in relation to a personal liability notice except as provided by this section.
(2) An individual who is served with a personal liability notice may appeal to an appeal tribunal against the Secretary of State's decision as to the issue and content of the notice on the ground that—

477

(a) the failure to pay the amount specified under subsection (2)(a) of section 121C above was not attributable to any fraud or neglect on the part of the individual in question;

(b) the individual was not an officer of the body corporate at the time of the alleged fraud or neglect; or

(c) the opinion formed by the Secretary of State under subsection (3)(a) or (b) of that section was unreasonable.

(3) The Secretary of State shall give a copy of any notice of an appeal under this section, within 28 days of the giving of the notice, to each other individual who has been served with a personal liability notice.
(4) Where an appeal under this section—

(a) is brought on the basis of evidence not considered by the Secretary of State, or on the ground mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above; and

(b) is not allowed on some other basis or ground,

the appeal tribunal shall either dismiss the appeal or remit the case to the Secretary of State, with any recommendations it sees fit to make, for him to consider whether to revise his decision as to the issue and content of the personal liability notice.
(5) In this section—
"appeal tribunal" means an appeal tribunal constituted under Chapter I of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998;
"officer", in relation to a body corporate, has the same meaning as in section 121C above;
"personal liability notice" has the meaning given by subsection (2) of that section;
"revise" means revise under section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998."").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Rates of short-term incapacity benefit]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 101:
Page 46, line 4, leave out ("£62.45") and insert ("£64.70").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 change references to rates of benefit in Clause 67 in line with the increased rates of benefit provided by the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 1998. These are simply uplifting arrangements and I am prepared to stop at that point and simply say that I commend the amendments to the House. Obviously, I am very happy to give a very full explanation if the Committee is so minded. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 102:
Page 46, line 7, leave out ("£59.90") and insert ("£62.05").
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 103:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
VALIDATION OF CERTAIN HOUSING BENEFIT DETERMINATIONS
(" .—(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, in so far as a housing benefit determination made before 18th August 1997 purported to determine that housing benefit was payable in respect of—

(a) charges for medical care, nursing care or personal care; or

(b) charges for general counselling or any other support services,

it shall be deemed to have been validly made if, on the assumption mentioned in subsection (2) below, it would have been so made.
(2) The assumption is that, at all material times, such charges as are mentioned in subsection (1) above were eligible to be met by housing benefit where the claimant's right to occupy the dwelling was conditional on his payment of the charges.
(3) Where the effect of a review carried out on or after 18th August 1997 was to revise the amount of housing benefit payable in respect of any validated charges—

(a) the revision shall be deemed not to have been validly made in so far as it had the effect of increasing that amount; and

(b) housing benefit shall cease to be payable in respect of those charges as from the beginning of the period for which the benefit was paid on the first pay day after the review.

(4) Housing benefit shall not be payable in respect of any validated charges for any period falling after—

(a) 5th April 1998 where the rent is payable at intervals of a whole number of weeks; and

(b) 31st March 1998 in any other case.

(5) In this section—
"the dwelling", in relation to a housing benefit determination, means the dwelling in respect of which the determination was made;
"housing benefit determination- means a determination under section 130 of the Contributions and Benefits Act or the corresponding provisions of the Social Security Act 1986, or a decision on a review of such a determination;
"medical care" includes treatment or counselling related to mental disorder, mental handicap, physical disablement or past or present alcohol or drug dependence;
"pay day" means a day on which housing benefit is paid;
"personal care" includes assistance at meal-times or with personal appearance or hygiene;
"validated charges" means charges in respect of which housing benefit is payable only by virtue of subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: We now move on to another subject.
These Amendments Nos. 103 and 161 propose to legitimise, from the date of Royal Assent, most payments of housing benefit where this has incorrectly met charges for general counselling and support or personal care. This will prevent local authorities from having to reassess past housing benefit claims and will ensure that local authorities are not required to refund to the department subsidy for benefit previously incorrectly paid for these services.
This has a long history. Housing benefit is a means-tested benefit that helps people on low incomes pay their rent. It is designed so that it also helps with their accommodation-related service charges. In supported accommodation the rent and service charges often contain an element to cover charges for personal general counselling and support. These can be covered by housing

479
benefit, but only where the so-called 50 per cent. rule is satisfied—that is to say, where the majority of the time spent in providing services is spent in providing other, accommodation-related services which housing benefit is able to meet. For the most part we are talking about warden-supported accommodation.
We understand that the majority of local authorities may have been adopting a wider interpretation of the provision of adequate accommodation than is permitted by case law. They may therefore have been meeting a wider range of charges for general counselling and support than intended. Of these a small minority of local authorities may also have been meeting charges for personal care; for example, counselling for drug-alcohol addiction, or supervising the taking of medication. Housing benefit was never intended to meet such charges. This is why charges for personal care are outside the scope even of the housing benefit primary legislation.
A Divisional Court judgment on 24th July 1997 upheld the department's view and earlier case law, that only those service charges for general counselling and support which relate to the fabric of the building satisfy the basic housing benefit eligibility criteria in that they relate to the provision of adequate accommodation; for example, arranging for adaptations to cope with a disability, or undertaking minor repairs such as unblocking sinks.
Outside commentators have estimated that some 500,000 vulnerable tenants on housing benefit, such as the elderly, people with learning disabilities and those with mental health problems, may have received benefit for a wider range of service charges than permitted under the court ruling. We are conducting a major research project to quantify the extent to which supported housing is dependent on housing benefit. But it is clear that many tenants were getting benefit for charges which were not permitted by the regulations.
The court ruling meant that as of July 1997 there was the danger of a potential crisis in community care. The Secretary of State immediately announced a broadly cost-neutral package of measures to prevent this. As a result, first, interim regulations were introduced on 18th August 1997 to allow housing benefit to meet all reasonable charges for general counselling and support in existing supported accommodation, payable as a condition of occupying the dwelling.
Secondly, a compensation scheme was introduced at the end of December last year to enable local authorities to compensate landlords of such accommodation who had lost income because housing benefit was no longer meeting charges for personal care.
Thirdly, we have actively moved forward consideration of the future funding of supported accommodation, which is subject to an ongoing inter-departmental review, by publishing, and seeking views on, the Government's long-term objectives. Over 200 responses have been received from a wide variety of stakeholders and are helping to inform the debate. We intend to implement a sustainable funding system as soon as possible. But this is an extremely complex area with possible repercussions across the supported housing sector. We want a stable, rational funding regime which protects and maintains this extremely important component of community care.
480
In the mean while, we have acted quickly to introduce a package of measures to provide stability for tenants and landlords in existing supported accommodation. This new clause now seeks to provide stability for those local authorities which have previously met a wider range of support charges from housing benefit than intended.
The bulk of local authorities' expenditure on housing benefit is subsidised by the department. Lower rates of subsidy are paid for incentive areas where authorities have most scope to control spending; for example, overpayments caused by local authority error attract no subsidy. Outside commentators have further estimated that housing benefit claims assessed on a wider interpretation of the law than intended may have cost up to £500 million a year. The majority of any incorrect expenditure would have been subsidised by, and therefore would otherwise be refundable to, the department. However, those payments have helped to meet support charges which have enabled many thousands of vulnerable people to live independently in the community. We believe therefore that the right course is to legitimise those payments as properly made.
The new clause will, therefore, first, remove from authorities the administrative—and costly—burden of calculating overpayments which may, in some cases, go back to the start of the present housing benefit scheme in April 1988. Secondly, it will ensure that authorities are not required to refund to the department the subsidy previously paid in respect of support charges for either general counselling and support or personal care. Thirdly, it will prevent vulnerable claimants from having to repay benefit overpaid in respect of these support charges where this would otherwise be considered appropriate.
I am sure that the Committee will regard the amendments as entirely benign. I commend them to the Committee and I beg to move Amendment No. 103.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I fear that, over time, my Treasury halo may have become somewhat tarnished; nonetheless, I find this an extraordinary proposition. The Minister was kind enough to write to me about it. However, for reasons for which I am sure were not her fault, I received the letter only this evening. I do not know the reason for that, but it matters not. The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me and I had an opportunity during the dinner hour to look at her letter. I have also listened to what she has had to say.
At this stage, I should like merely to ask some questions. In her earlier remarks, the Minister uttered a throw-away line about the provision being "cost neutral". I am not at all sure about how it is cost neutral other than the fact that the money has been spent and we are now proposing to validate it. Perhaps that is what the noble Baroness has in mind. At all events, that is my first question.
Secondly, given the court case—apparently there is no question of reversing it or of appealing against it; indeed, it seems difficult to appeal against the decision given, that in all the circumstances now described, it seems a most sensible decision—I am not clear about what the basis of any payment has been since July 1997. Perhaps we could be told something about that.

481
Other complex questions also arise. First—I admit my inexperience here—when the Committee stage begins in another place financial resolutions are provided to the Committee. My understanding is that we do not normally have those resolutions before us; but I am not clear about the financial resolutions which support this proposal. Why was it not raised—the Government knew about it in July 1997—during Committee stage in another place? Given the financial responsibilities of the other place, it would have been much more appropriate for it to have been raised there rather than here. Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee what financial resolutions there are to support the clauses now before the Committee?
Secondly, is it appropriate that the central exchequer should pay? While I admit my ignorance in this matter, presumably this forms part of the grant from the central exchequer to local authorities for housing benefit. Clearly, this money has not been spent on the intended purpose. If so, why is it now proposed to let the burden fall wholly on the Treasury rather than in part on local authorities? I would have thought that to some extent the cost should fall on the council tax payer. I may be quite wrong about that and I am quite prepared to be corrected. But it appears that the distribution of money between one local authority and another has been rather arbitrary, in as much as it depends not on the particular social service needs on which the money has been spent but the allocation of housing benefit between the same local authorities. Therefore, the allocation is somewhat difficult to understand. Is it to come out of the contingency fund? If not, from where is it to come? Given the commitment of the Government to stick to the former government's public expenditure plans, is this in addition to those plans? If so, are there to be savings elsewhere? Perhaps that is what is meant by "cost neutral". If so, I am sure that the Committee would like to know where the savings are to be made. It may well be that one should spend it on something other than the particular items that have been covered.
The noble Baroness has said—I understand why—that these are all highly desirable objectives, such as dealing with the problems of mental handicap, medical care and alcohol and drug dependence, but if Parliament had intended that it should be spent on these matters it would have allocated the money accordingly. It is extraordinary that just because a mistake has been made it is suddenly decided to reallocate expenditure from housing benefit, for which it is intended, to these other admittedly highly desirable matters but not matters on which Parliament has intended the money should be spent. It is now proposed that by these nice, quick amendments to the Social Security Bill £500 million should be reallocated to other quite different purposes.I am not unsympathetic to the need to provide such facilities but, with great respect, this is not the way in which we should be allocating resources between one competing use and another. The case has not been made out. As I understand it, it is an entirely accidental allocation of resources.
482
In that context, since the decision has apparently been made by local authorities, in the absence of these amendments are the local councillors liable to be surcharged? The noble Baroness has said that a minority of authorities has been meeting charges for other personal care which are specifically precluded from being met by housing benefits. If local councils have been doing this at least someone should question, without nodding this matter through at a late hour, the other place not having considered it, whether it is appropriate that local councillors should effectively be indemnified in this way.
The wording of the amendment is also somewhat curious. It provides that the:
"charges for general counselling or any other support services"—
that is wide wording—
"shall be deemed to have been validly made if, on the assumption mentioned in subsection (2) below, it would have been so made".
It continues:
"The assumption is that, at all material times, such charges",
and so on.
So it is deemed on the one hand on the basis of an assumption. We are apparently being asked to validate that assumption. That, I am afraid, was rather off the top of my head, in the sense that I had not turned my mind to that matter previously. It may well be—I shall well understand it—that the Minister may not be able to answer all those questions this evening. If that is so, we might need to return to the matter on Report.
Let me stress that with my remarks about Treasury halos, I am not in any way saying that that money has not gone on entirely admirable causes. As far as one can see, it has. It seems equally clear that it is not some expenditure which the other place intended it to be spent on.
Finally, if we agree to this clause, and it goes into law, does that mean that the NAO and the PAC will feel that they have no right to inquire into why that happened in the first place? I am not making a partisan point. It has clearly happened, as the Minister said, since 1988. So we can go back to the old Labour government to see what happened then. Perhaps the Minister will give us such information on these points as she can, and we might return to it on Report.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for this amendment and for the great clarity with which she expounded it. I shall offer it at least one and a half cheers, but I still have one or two questions to ask. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, spoke off the top of his head, perhaps I might make some attempt to respond to him off the top of mine. First, the matter of the financial resolution: we in this place neither have, nor can have, any financial resolutions. We have no authority to do any such thing. Any decisions made in this place which have relevance to expenditure are, in effect, merely recommendations

483
to another place which may act on them or not as it sees fit. So should there be any financial resolution, it would be for another place to make it when it arrives.
Lord Higgins: I entirely take the point that the noble Earl, with his great experience, makes. I fully understand. I am merely asking whether they exist.
Earl Russell: As I understand it, and again speaking off the top of my head, they cannot exist until another place has possession of the Bill, because it cannot make a resolution for a Bill that it does not have. As for why it has not been done earlier, this is a purely speculative point, and I shall be interested to know whether it is correct, but the timing of the appearance of the amendment suggests that it may have something to do with authority derived from the Budget, which, I am sure we all agree, we are not supposed to anticipate. I do not know whether that is the answer, but it is obviously a possibility.
As for the money which has been spent, that has been spent, as was then understood by many people—I have heard the matter discussed in exchanges at Question Time in this place before now—under what were believed to be valid vires. As far as I can understand, Parliament believed that the vires were sufficient to justify the spending of the money as it was being spent. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, shakes his head. He may wish to respond, and I shall certainly give way to him if he does.
Lord Higgins: As I understand it, that is true of a great deal of the expenditure, but some of it was specifically precluded from being met by housing benefit; that is to say, I assume legislation said, "You must not spend money for housing benefit on these things".
Earl Russell: I am not aware of there being any such legislation. The point is that it was understood to be being spent in the support of housing. But as the Minister explained so lucidly, where one is dealing with supported housing of any sort, inevitably there is an overlap in which one cannot make a precise division between what is spent on the support services and what is spent on the housing. That applies just as much, say, to children's services in a women's refuge as it does to facilities for dealing with disabilities in a retirement home for the aged. That is inevitably the case. As I understand it—I have heard the Minister speaking of it previously—it was believed that Parliament had provided sufficient authority. As to why the matter should not be left to local authorities, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, hits his own nail on the head: they would be liable to surcharge while we, mercifully, would not.
We have a curious mirror image of the debates we had earlier on the anti-test-case rule. The Government have responded in a way similar to that which I recommended not so long ago. I can and must welcome that with considerable warmth. The action that has been taken in respect of arrears was the easiest way of dealing with what could have been a severe practical problem. I am glad that the Government have done that.
484
I also understand about the long-term review. I welcome the review in principle, without prejudice to any comments I may make on its findings. But what I do not understand is where the costs are falling now. The costs must fall somewhere and I would like to know whether a study has been made of the effects of the amendment on the financing of women's refuges. There is always a considerable overlap between the housing charges and the support service charges. If the costs do not fall on housing benefit, they do not just disappear or the whole nature of the housing is destroyed and it probably has to close down.
If the costs do not fall on housing benefit, where do they fall? If between now and the review they are supposed to be falling on the local authorities, they are capped and subject to standard spending assessment. The local authorities may well discover that they are in danger of having to find the money by defaulting on some other statutory obligation. That could create even further legal trouble. If the costs are not falling on housing benefit, where are they falling, or is the provision falling instead? Those are questions to which I should be grateful to have some answers.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that the Box notes will arrive in time for me to answer in particular some of the later issues raised by the noble Earl. I was much taken aback by the mild ferocity of Treasury assault on what I thought was a benign resolution. I console myself with the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has forgotten more than I will ever learn about Treasury finance. But, equally, he is talking to someone who has chaired a local authority finance committee for many years and knows how such finance operates.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is missing a substantive point. Much of the argument has been addressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I repeat what he so elegantly explained. Since the early 1970s, local authorities have been bringing people out of what would otherwise have been long-stay residential care, or avoiding the need for them to go into long-stay residential care, by offering supported housing. I refer primarily to housing for the elderly, in the public and private sectors, and halfway housing for those coming out of refuges for battered women. With increasing generosity, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, local authorities offered accommodation for people with severe learning disabilities. In my city there is such a sheltered housing scheme for people with severe learning difficulties.
Let us examine such a situation. You are a district council, which means that social services are run by a county council of a different political persuasion not necessarily sharing your philosophy of trying to support people in the community. You are a district council and you want to build a sheltered housing scheme for a number of people with severe learning difficulties. They and their families wish them to remain in the community. That means that the housing you build must have, for example, double sound insulation because

485
people with severe learning difficulties can sometimes make a great deal of noise by head-banging or in using their equipment. There is also a need for extra warmth. That is clearly part of the cost of the property, the accommodation, reflected in subsidy and reflected, perhaps, in rent charges and housing benefit that people receive. That is not a problem.
But secondly, one must ensure that the caretaker, warden, good neighbours, on the site also check that the gas taps are turned off regularly every night. Is that an accommodation issue or a care, support, counselling issue? It can probably be argued that it is an accommodation issue but that is beginning to get into the grey area. It is covered by housing benefit.
But thirdly, some of the tenants need to be rounded up, if I may express the matter in that way, to get to the bus for the day centre. Is that covered by housing benefit or not? It is probably not now but until July 1997 it was widely believed that that was a legitimate extension of the sort of housing provision which needed to be made for a group of clients clearly identified as needing those services in order to remain in the community.
The problem was compounded when the social services department was run by one authority and housing services by another. If the housing authority did not provide the services, then the housing could not be provided, because the other authority would not fund the counselling and support services which were needed. Therefore, we were persuaded that that was the right, generous, decent and cost-effective way forward. We took that step and we took it with good grace. Up until July 1997, we all believed that we were operating within the law, although we accepted that, under housing powers, we were running services which were overlapping and could be shared with social services.
In July 1997, the courts ring-fenced very much more tightly and precisely what could be covered by housing benefit. That meant that local authorities which were providing such services needed to have the arrangements put on an interim footing. The matter became ultra vires only after the court had ruled. But, once the court had ruled, there had to be some immediate help available so that councils did not find themselves in the very situation which the noble Lord described of knowingly making payments for which they had no authorisation by law and therefore betraying their fiduciary duty to the ratepayers.
However, it would take time for that to get through to primary legislation. No legislation was coming forward. Therefore, in August 1997, the Government introduced their first tranche of interim measures to legitimise continued payment for those services. However, there was still an area of services left uncovered by those interim regulations which we are addressing this evening; that is, payment for counselling services which local authorities have continued to expend.
We all accept that this is not a permanent basis for funding but it is a holding operation until more permanent and satisfactory arrangements can be made. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins asked me whether or not
486
that £500 million had been misspent. He asked me whether it had been legally misspent, however desirable the spending may have been.
It is not so much a matter of public funds having been misspent. It is more a case that money has come from the wrong pot. It has come via housing benefit moneys into district councils' housing services instead of coming via DoH and DETR funds into the revenue support grant for social services to fund those counselling services to add on to the housing support services offered by district councils. That is what the problem has been. I have no reason to believe that the total money spent would be £1 more or £1 less had it come by different routes. But in future it is clear that it would have to come by different routes to be legal. As that is a much more frail vessel, it is right to legitimise the arrangements that have been made and to seek to make permanent funding arrangements.
Therefore, the amount of money has not been overspent. It has been spent by one public body, thus saving money for another public body—the Department of Health and, through that, the DETR. Therefore, there has been no additional expenditure. It is merely that it has come through the wrong pipeline. We have been seeking to legitimise that and I am sure that that is right. The regulations of 18th August 1997 validated the making of such payments as part of housing benefit. With this measure, we are now introducing the principle into the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about financial provisions. The financial provisions in Clause 76(2) cover that, as do the money resolutions for this Bill. The money resolution has already been taken in the other place. The wording is similar to that of Clause 76. I believe that we are covered in that respect.
I hope the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will allow me to write to him on the specific issue of refuges to see whether the problem that he fears exists. I have no reason to believe that it does, but perhaps I might double check on the situation.
I hope that I have assured the noble Lord that, first, no one was behaving irregularly or improperly before July 1997. It was only then that the law was clarified to limit what local authorities could properly do. Secondly, the powers taken in August 1997 were an immediate and speedy response to legitimise the position of local authorities so that they did not find themselves in ultra vires situations. Today, we are taking that on to the primary face of the Bill and legitimising it in that way. But obviously we need to have a permanent source of authorised funding to allow this to happen. There is no reason to believe that anyone has behaved improperly; indeed, they have not. There is no reason to believe there has been any over-expenditure; there has not been. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that it does not have the full support of the other place. I believe that those were the questions which were addressed to me by the noble Lord.
Lord Higgins: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I am mindful of the point which the noble Earl made with regard to financial resolutions and so on.

487
However, it seems to me that the noble Baroness has merely described what happened. Nonetheless, it would seem that money which was allocated by Parliament for one purpose was not used for it and that money which was not allocated, for example to the question of alcohol abuse or whatever, was actually used for such purposes. Indeed, the noble Baroness's letter refers to the fact that certain money—and this was a point that I made in my intervention to the noble Earl—was specifically precluded from being used on housing benefit. I presume that that was in the legislation. Otherwise, I am not clear why the noble Baroness's letter makes that particular point.
Once one says that all this is highly desirable and, "We would have spent the money on it if we had thought to get it authorised, but we have used some other money for that purpose", the whole system of financial control comes unstuck. I ask the Minister: is this something that the NAO or the PAC have looked at, or is it something that they will be precluded from looking at if we pass this amendment tonight? I still have not received an answer to the point about cost neutral, which I did not understand.
In answer to what happens now—the point made by the noble Earl—if I understand the amendment correctly, it says that we can go on spending the money in this way until 5th April 1998 or in other cases 31st March 1998. However, I am not clear what happens afterwards. On the one hand, this seems to be retrospective legislation but, on the other hand, it stops dead at this moment—or, at least more accurately, on 5th April or 31st March. As I said, I am not clear what will happen now. Where will the money come from in the future?
As to the Money Resolution, if indeed the other place did pass it, why was this matter not tabled as an amendment either in Committee or on Report in the Commons? Clearly the other place is better qualified to deal with such matters than we are, given the restraints under which we operate?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall take, first, the money point because I do not wish to mislead the noble Lord in any sense. On the noble Lord's primary point about being cost neutral, I can tell him that of course it is cost neutral. Indeed, if it had not come through this route, it would have come through another. That is absolutely correct. This sort of expenditure is proper local authority expenditure reimbursed by central government. The only dispute is which bit of central government it should have come from. That is what we have been discussing.
Lord Higgins: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She knows infinitely more about local government than I do. However, it is not the case that if it did not come from this route then it would have come through another. If it did not come from this route, Parliament would have needed to authorise it coming from another route.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. I do not know what the philosopher's term is for sort of "counter factual" or whatever. But, given that Parliament wished local authorities to provide this kind of housing, it was clear that local authorities had to be reimbursed for the
488
additional costs of providing not just the bricks and mortar, but the service element to enable such people to remain in the community, and to pay for that through their housing benefit costs.
When a local authority produces housing benefit for, say, a private home, 95 per cent. of that money is reimbursed by central government—that is, for private sector housing benefit. If that had not been the way of funding these additional service costs up to July 1997, it would instead have been funded by—as it was in some unitary authorities—the DoH through the revenue support grant being paid by DETR to local authorities through the personal social service element in the revenue support grant, which would then have gone into this form of expenditure. Either way it would have come through that route. However, it went through the housing route rather than through the social services route. The August 1997 decision legitimised as an interim arrangement the expenditure on those support services for local authority services which are covered by housing benefit. This amendment legitimises those local authorities which currently fund those personal counselling services—about 40 local authorities are doing so—in the private sector. That way we ensure that we do not see the unintended collapse of care in the community for the most vulnerable people because a legal judgment in July 1997 has subverted all of our understanding as to the basis on which the housing benefit writ may run.
On the point about housing refuges, I am advised that if the refuges were in existence at the time we are discussing—I refer to the interim arrangements which were introduced in August 1997—housing benefit would continue to meet all reasonable charges for general counselling and support in line with our commitment to maintain the supported housing sector pending implementation of long-term sustainable funding mechanisms. I believe therefore that the point that concerned the noble Lord has been fully addressed.
I am not sure that I can take this much further as we have such fundamentally different perceptions of the nature of public expenditure. I believe that what we are attempting here is a kind of technical adjustment to correct a legal decision to ensure that community sheltered housing does not collapse. It is broadly cost neutral because the money would come from public funds one way or the other. The court ruling has made irregular the funding by one route; in the longer term it will probably have to follow a different route. In the meantime we are trying to keep in place arrangements to legitimise the payments that have been made since July 1997, which otherwise would have been ultra vires. As I said, I am not sure that I can go much beyond that. However, if there are further questions relating to the Treasury aspects I should be happy to try to provide a fuller answer in writing to the noble Lord if he cares to write to me.
10 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. I shall consider carefully the point which the noble Baroness has made about local government finance.

489
Why was this not discussed in the Commons at the appropriate moment? Will the NAO and the PAC be able to consider this?
Earl Russell: Perhaps I can assist the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on that point. When the Bill returns to another place it will have already approved the Bill. The only things the other place will have power to address will be our amendments. Those are the only things that will properly be before the Commons. If we have no amendment that bears on this subject, the Commons will have nothing to address. Unless we pass this amendment, we shall not give another place the vires to address the issue at all.
Lord Higgins: With respect, that was not the point I made. I asked why the provision was not debated in the Commons at an earlier stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether I should share the joke that my noble friend has just conveyed to me. As I understand it, the provision was not discussed in the Commons because at the time it was not realised that it had to be discussed in the Commons. It was not realised that that was necessary. The Committee will appreciate that I am rather grateful that the hour is late and that the Chamber is as empty as it is before I confess to the failure of all sides in this matter. I include the Opposition's failure to hold us to account and our failure to realise that we had a problem to resolve. At least, I have included us all in the problem.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris of Manchesterhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 104:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE: PROTECTION OF AWARDS FOR LIFE
(" . After section 76 of the Contributions and Benefits Act, there shall be inserted the following section—
"A wards for life: protection.
76A. No provision of this Act shall be so interpreted as to give the Secretary of State power, by regulation or otherwise, to end the entitlement to disability living allowance, or a component thereof, of any living person to whom that benefit has been awarded for life, except where the Secretary of State can show that the benefit was originally awarded in error."").
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend Lord Morris is unwell. That is the reason he has asked me to say that he is not in a position to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.:]
Clause 68 [Discretionary payments out of social fund]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 105:
Page 46, leave out lines 18 to 34 and insert—("(b) payments of prescribed amounts to meet other needs, in accordance with directions given or guidance issued by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, it might be convenient if, in addressing Amendment No. 105, I speak also to Clause 69 stand part. The issues overlap considerably, and I do not wish to make the same speech twice.
490
The Social Fund is divided into a series of different categories. We are particularly concerned with budgeting loans which are repayable, and community care grants which may not be. In the past the situation has been that if an application to the Social Fund was not perfectly fitted to the category for which it was designed, it was possible to consider whether there was an eligibility for another category. I have a copy of a Written Answer in another place on 2nd March. The number of applications for which this was done in the financial year 1996–97 was 13,837. In the current year to the end of January, it was 11,173.
The power to do that, as I understand it, is being limited by the Bill, save for a series of conditions which may be laid down in regulation. It seems to me that this can be a mistake. There are many cases where this ability may meet a very real need. There are cases every year where people are found to be too poor to be eligible for a loan under the Social Fund. There is something rather curious about the idea of being too poor to get help out of the social security system. Therefore the ability to convert from one heading to another where that seems appropriate, in order, and according to conditions and terms of relevance, should be left in place. It should not be controlled and limited to a series of regulations laying down specific exceptions.
The point continues to apply that in drafting regulations we cannot foresee all possible suitable cases. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 105 would effectively mean that the current wording of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, as it refers to the Social Fund, would be retained.
In order to explain why we do not support the amendment, it might be helpful to describe the purpose of Clause 68, and thus conjoin, as the noble Earl has done, both the clause stand part discussion and debate on the amendment.
Clause 68 defines in primary legislation for the first time the three separate elements of the discretionary Social Fund: namely, budgeting loans, community care grants and crisis loans. This is a fundamental change from the current legislation, which does not distinguish between the three different types of discretionary payments which the Social Fund provides.
Our purpose in doing this is to enable the Social Fund to be more straightforward for applicants, and for those who deal with their applications. I am sure that many Members of the Committee and the noble Earl will be aware of the difficulties experienced at present by claimants and Benefits Agency staff in relation to the Social Fund.
Under current legislation, each application has to be treated as if it were a request for assistance from any one of the three parts of the discretionary Social Fund. This means that each applicant has to complete a lengthy application form and provide enough information for staff to consider all three types of payment. Yet much of the information would be irrelevant. As a result, applicants find the Social Fund scheme confusing, unclear and time-consuming.

491
We believe that Clause 68 will improve the Social Fund. By defining it into three separate, parallel funds, we make it possible for people to apply for, and give only the information relevant to, the particular type of payment they are seeking. We shall be able to introduce simple and specific application forms. We will make improved information freely available through forms and leaflets on each type of discretionary payment. Those arrangements will enable people to identify and apply first time for the specific payment which best fits their particular need and circumstances.
The noble Earl has raised questions as to whether people will know which to apply for—particularly, I suspect, people who may have difficulty in understanding or coping with applications as such. Perhaps I may give an example. A single person with literacy or learning difficulties wishes to apply to the Social Fund for replacement bedding but is not sure how to go about it and has difficulty in completing forms. If he or she, or someone on their behalf, contacts the local benefits office, they will be able to obtain advice about the Social Fund from Social Fund staff, either by telephone or by calling at the office. They will also be able to receive help with completion of the appropriate application form. In the event that a person is unable to attend the office due to a medical condition, it will be possible for a visiting officer to attend the applicant's home.
I have myself pressed this point. I understand the fear that has been expressed that claimants will be forced down the route of budgeting loan applications rather than being encouraged to apply for grants where those may be more appropriate; and that they will no longer be able to have loans converted to grants following the review.
These issues also arose during the course of the consultation exercise that we conducted. For example, they were raised by CPAG. We have considered them very carefully. Of course we are concerned to ensure that, where someone's circumstances warrant the award of a grant, they should receive one. But we think the way to improve arrangements is to make more explicit the circumstances for which grants or loans could be paid, and that is exactly what our simpler forms and improved information will do. We shall be consulting welfare rights groups, such as CPAG, NACAB and other interested organisations, on the content and design of the new forms and leaflets.
Another concern expressed was whether people would need to submit all three applications at once, just to be on the safe side. No, that will not be the case. Anyone in doubt can apply to Benefits Agency staff to find out which type of application seems most appropriate. I assure your Lordships that the advice will be genuine and objective, and that there will be no question of staff being instructed to press people towards loans rather than grants. If a grant appears appropriate, that is the advice that will be given. Indeed, where staff are dealing with a budgeting loan application, but know from their previous knowledge of the applicant that a grant may be more appropriate, they will be able to invite a grant application.
To reinforce the noble Earl's point, we will be expanding guidance to Social Fund staff to emphasise the importance of taking into account a particular situation —
492
for instance, someone may apply for a budgeting loan but be refused it because he or she is too poor to pay it back, and that may therefore be a contributory factor in putting the family under exceptional pressure and thereby qualifying them for a community care grant. Thus I hope that, by expanding the guidance to staff, we will also ensure that they, too, have a responsibility to ensure that they seek to help claimants in that way.
Let me briefly give an example of when a loan or grant is appropriate. Let us take a lone parent with two young children who applies for help with bed and bedding for the elder child. The applicant states that the child started wetting the bed several months ago; that bed and bedding are now ruined; that the child is currently having to share the applicant's bed. The applicant also states that the child has developed behavioural problems due to bullying at school and the relevant authorities are involved in trying to resolve the issue. In such circumstances, a community care grant is likely to be appropriate due to it being accepted that the particular circumstances have placed the family under exceptional pressure. However, if the problems relating to the child did not exist and it was merely a case of replacing the bed and bedding due to routine wear, a budgeting loan would be appropriate, as it gives an interest-free source of funding to the parent.
I could give other examples, but it is late and I do not wish to delay the Committee. This clause is crucial to the introduction of the faster method of decision-making for budgeting loans contained in Clause 69. This clause will allow us to improve consistency of treatment, clarity of decision and efficiency in the administration of budgeting loan applications. It reflects our aim of modernising the benefit system through better use of technology.
It will mean that, when it comes to determining the budgeting loan, the considerations that will apply will be the length of time someone has been on benefit and the size of their family. This will allow lone parents in particular who have been on benefit for a long time and therefore have problems of dealing with the wear and tear that affects their goods to be able to get the budgeting loan without any of the questioning and cross-questioning that currently occurs and which may delay or defer their claim.
Our purpose in bringing forward Clause 68 is to enable the discretionary Social Fund application and decision procedure to be simplified for claimants, staff and taxpayers alike. I hope that in that context the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I now turn to the government amendments with which this amendment has been brigaded. The purpose of Clause 73 of the Bill is to allow discretionary Social Fund payments to be covered by the existing overpayments and adjustments of benefit legislation contained in Section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. This is the legislation that gives the Secretary of State the power to recover overpayments of benefit where it has been determined that they were obtained by misrepresentation or the failure to disclose material facts. The method and terms of recovery will be the same as those for recovering overpayments of benefit.
Amendments Nos. 105B, 105C and 105E to Clause 38 have been brought forward to make explicit the procedure for dealing with discretionary Social Fund overpayments.

493
As amended, Clause 38 will allow "appropriate officers" in the Benefits Agency to review a discretionary Social Fund determination on the grounds that the person who applied for the payment misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact. This will enable the officer to determine whether an overpayment has occurred as a result of the customer's misrepresentation or failure to disclose information and, if so, the amount overpaid. The Secretary of State can then recover the amount overpaid, under provisions introduced in Clause 73.
When reviews of Social Fund determinations under Part VIII of the Contributions and Benefits Act are carried out, the current procedure is that the whole of the award is looked at again. However, overpayment reviews are a special case. The "appropriate officer" needs only to consider questions arising as to whether a person obtained a discretionary Social Fund payment by misrepresentation or failure to disclose information. Amendment No. 105C ensures that the "appropriate officer" need only consider circumstances which relate to an overpayment determination. Amendment No. 105E requires the "appropriate officer" to act in accordance with any general directions and guidance issued by the Secretary of State when dealing with overpayments. The amendments also apply to reviews on these grounds by Social Fund inspectors.
There are other, related amendments which I fear I have to explain to the House in order that, given Pepper v. Hart, the understanding outside is complete.
Amendments Nos. 105D, 105F and 105G are consequential technical changes. They ensure that "appropriate officers" and Social Fund inspectors only follow the limited review procedures when reviewing determinations on the grounds that the applicant misrepresented or failed to disclose information. I should like to assure the Committee that nothing in these amendments affects applicants' rights to apply for a review, either of the original determination in their case or of the determination that there has been an overpayment. They have a right of review, first, to a second "appropriate officer" in the Benefits Agency and then, if they wish, a further review to a Social Fund inspector at the Independent Review Service. These are technical but important amendments which enable the powers in Clause 73 to be exercised effectively.
I turn penultimately to Amendments Nos. 105H and 105J. Amendment No. 105H will limit the effect of Clause 73 to overpayments relating to payments made on or after the day on which the clause is commenced. This will make clear the date from which the provisions in Clause 73 will apply. It will ensure that Clause 73 does not apply to all discretionary Social Fund overpayments since 1988, when payments from the fund began. Such retrospection would be administratively difficult and almost impossible to undertake.
Amendment No. 105J is a technical amendment which tidies up the legislation. It removes subsection (2) of Clause 73, as this provision is now included in the schedule before Schedule 6, which contains other transitory provisions.
494
The Committee may wish to cross-question me on these amendments. Many of them are technical. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I should like to thank the Minister warmly for the great lucidity with which she replied to the amendment and introduced her own amendments. It seems that, as she gets more tired, she becomes more lucid. However, I will promise not to drive her too far down that road. I have no objection to any of the government amendments. I welcome several of the things the Minister said in reply to my own. I welcome the point about guidance, drawing attention to the possibility of grants for those who are too poor to get loans. That I welcome very warmly. I also welcome what she said about the length of time people are on benefit. That is a point which could be worth further exploration because it is an extremely interesting one. I am afraid overall though that her answer did not convince me that the Bill as at present drafted has got it right.
I hear a bell—we have alarms and excursions! But I hope we have no need for an excursion, not for a few minutes anyway.
I was reminded many times while I was listening to the Minister just now of what I had said about the excessive pursuit of tidiness. It seems to me that the Bill, with its attempts to classify applications to the Social Fund under three heads, is an attempt to run an orderly filing system. An orderly filing system and an orderly real world do not always go together.
There are two general areas of objection that I have to the Bill as it stands, and one is that it tends to assume a great deal of knowledge in the applicants. A great many people do not even know that it is possible to obtain grants under the Social Fund.
Secondly, it has too much faith in the ability of claimants to get clear answers by ringing up or going to the office and asking. The Minister had faith in the possibility of telephoning, which would have been better justified had the free line not been closed down last summer. Telephoning benefit offices is getting a little difficult. I think there would have been a better case for this ability to rely on the clerks if we had not had in place the change programme, which I understand is now known by the curious euphemism of the "modern services programme". That illustrates the derogatory possibilities in the word "modern". That, as I understand it, is doing far more damage to the administration of benefit offices than most of us are yet aware of. It is something of which we are going to hear a great deal more.
For these among other reasons, I am still not satisfied. I hope to return to this at a later stage of the Bill, but for the time being and before the Minister becomes any more lucid, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past ten o'clock.

  Baltic States and Russia: Aid
  Baltic States and Russia: Aid
  European Council: Forthcoming Business for April
  European Council: Forthcoming Business for April
  General Affairs Council, 30 and 31 March
  General Affairs Council, 30 and 31 March
  Bahrain: Ratification of Convention against Torture
  Bahrain: Ratification of Convention against Torture
  Bahrain: Children's Rights
  Bahrain: Children's Rights
  Bahrain: Committee for Popular Petition
  Bahrain: Committee for Popular Petition
  Bahrain: Independence of Lawyers and Judiciary
  Bahrain: Independence of Lawyers and Judiciary
  Bahrain: Opposition Detainees
  Bahrain: Opposition Detainees
  Bahrain: Military Equipment
  Bahrain: Military Equipment
  Rent Restriction: Impact of Changes
  Rent Restriction: Impact of Changes
  Engineering Steels: Unfair Trading
  Engineering Steels: Unfair Trading
  Tamil Tigers and Drug Trafficking in UK
  Tamil Tigers and Drug Trafficking in UK
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Firearms Compensation Payments
  Firearms Compensation Payments
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee
  European Union: Educational Material
  European Union: Educational Material
  Class Size Pledge for 5–7 year-olds
  Class Size Pledge for 5–7 year-olds
  Family Law Act 1996: Part II Implementation
  Family Law Act 1996: Part II Implementation
  Cigarette Prices: Deterrent Effect
  Cigarette Prices: Deterrent Effect
  Children at Nursery School: LEA Information Gathering
  Children at Nursery School: LEA Information Gathering
  Disabled Civil Servants
  Disabled Civil Servants
  Special Waste Regulations 1996
  Special Waste Regulations 1996
  Policy Appraisal and the Environment Guidance
  Policy Appraisal and the Environment Guidance
  Planning Inspectorate Agency: Performance Targets
  Planning Inspectorate Agency: Performance Targets
  Severn Rail Tunnel: Emergency Train
  Severn Rail Tunnel: Emergency Train
  Falkland Islands and South Atlantic: British Naval Presence
  Falkland Islands and South Atlantic: British Naval Presence